Camille Paglia Gets Deep Under the Skin of Liberals

Tracy Clark-Floury, staff writer for Salon Magazine, by her own admission “did not always agree with Paglia, but I enjoyed her as a challenging provocateur.” Floury’s use of the past tense is somewhat puzzling. Ms. Paglia is not dead. She is, in fact, the lively subject of the interview published in Salon on Wednesday.

Ms. Paglia is the quasi-notorious subject of liberal adoration. She is literate, intelligent and honest. But why is Ms. Paglia considered quasi-notorious? Because she is a life-long Democrat, a liberal icon who also happens to be an outspoken critic of liberal false piety. Ms. Paglia is, for example, friendly with Rush Limbaugh. She has hosted Rush Limbaugh’s radio program and defended him while he was in rehab. She speaks out against issues which are sacrosanct to liberal theology. Most liberals can’t get away that. Ms. Paglia can and does. Here are some of her most famous quips.

Salon Magazine is, frankly, birdcage liner. Their articles are always difficult to digest. The beginning of this article is no exception. It took Floury over 250 words to establish her own, uber-Progressive worthiness (not counting links to such “subversive” Paglia opinions as “Chaz Bono mutilated his [sic] body” and “Birthers get a new, credible supporter – Camille Paglia”) while bashing Ms. Paglia with such presumptuous, self-congratulatory benedictions as “she is still compelling and occasionally brilliant…” before, finally, getting to the interview:

About the 2016 elections and Hillary Clinton:

“It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton … is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband?”

About Benghazi:

“I for one think it was a very big deal that our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi … as secretary of state, Hillary should have resigned immediately… The impression has been amply given that Benghazi was treated as a public relations matter … rather than as the major and outrageous attack on the U.S. that it was … ambassadors have always been symbolic incarnations of the sovereignty of their nations and the dignity of their leaders… As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself for the presidency in that fist-pounding moment at a congressional hearing when she said, “What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator?” Democrats have got to shake off the Clinton albatross and find new blood.”

About Feminism:

“Oh, feminism is still alive? … It sure is invisible, except for the random whine from some maleducated product of the elite schools who’s found a plush berth in glossy magazines… In the late ‘80s, the media would routinely turn to Gloria Steinem or the head of NOW for “the women’s view” on every issue — when of course it was just the Manhattan/D.C. insider’s take, with a Democratic activist spin. Their shameless partisanship eventually doomed those Stalinist feminists…”

About the end of masculinity:

Simply put, she thinks it is disgraceful bunk.

Ms. Paglia can be compared, in some ways, to one who came before her, the worthiest of worthies, the great Florence King. Like her, she is intelligent and she can (to a lesser degree) write. Like Florence King, she is honest, no-nonsense and completely unapologetic about her opinions. Like Ms. King, Paglia is an author. Like King, Paglia is an impenitent lesbian. Unfortunately, comparisons end there.

Florence King was, literally, a pistol-packing Conservative. Her column appeared weekly in The National Review. She was logical to a fault. Unlike Ms. King, however, Ms. Paglia proceeds from A to B to C and so on, right down the alphabet, until she reaches, perhaps, P. But then her trolley jumps the tracks. Her conclusions don’t advance, logically, to x. Instead, they wind up at an unfathomable 3,529,457. How can anyone as intelligent as Ms. Paglia keep missing the broad side of the barn right in front of her? How can she have conservative insights yet still support the insupportable?

The answer lies within an old saying “Never discuss religion or politics” in polite company. Being a Democrat is a religion. And, unfortunately, Ms. Paglia is an acolyte.