Why it's impossible to take Salon's Camille Paglia seriously
November 13, 2008 2:21 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
There are lots of reasons, actually. But just to pick the most egregious in the light on the right-leaning feminist writer's latest (where she gets bogged down in paragraph after paragraph of Bill Ayers speculation), it's the part where she condemns Democrats for their "sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy."
She continued:
A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology -- contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.
Basically, Paglia was shocked by the hate and certainly suggested it was fueled by the fact that Palin's a woman.
Of course, it's possible that the 2008 campaign produced writers who uncorked more irrational, gender-bashing hatred of Hillary Clinton than Paglia did, but it would be a pretty short list.
As Jessica at Jezebel notes today:
Paglia decries what she describes as "A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage," Democrats displayed when dealing with Sarah Palin. If she wants to see a shocking level of irrational emotionalism, I suggest she look in the friggin' mirror.
It's that 'hold-on-a-sec-lemmme-rummage around-for-a-metaphor' writing that infuriates me when I agree with the writer, but in the context of right-wing apologia makes me want to hit her with The Elements of Style tied to a brick.
Paglia gets wet in the panties whenever she contemplates Palin. This makes thinking or writing about her rationally impossible. The most awful part was when she compared Palin's fractured, non-sensical and grotesque speaking style to be-bop jazz. I expect Charlie Parker to rise from the grave and throttle her for that.
Paglia has devolved into a self promoting insult to intellectuals everywhere. Salon publishes her for some reason (nostalgia?) to its discredit and the general outrage of its readers.
The most awful part was when she compared Palin's fractured, non-sensical and grotesque speaking style to be-bop jazz.
No one who ever commented upon Palin's speeches ever noted that they were all canned-- they were written by someone else, and usually on Teleprompters wherever she went. I guess that doesn't mean anything.