« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Camille Paglia nails one

A lefty even a conservative can like

Camille Paglia claims the kind of personal beliefs that I find quite objectionable – Obama-supporting, pro-choice, atheist, drug legalization, etc. But it seems like every time I read her stuff, I find myself intrigued by her points. And her article today is no exception. She displays stunning insight about the DNC and GOP conventions, the Palin nomination, and her credentials as a “brand new style of muscular American feminis(t)”.

First, Paglia points out the horrendous mess that the Obama campaign is in: “Is the Obama campaign shooting out to sea like a paper boat? ” She correctly identifies Barry’s Saddleback butt-whupping as the beginning of the downslide:

I must admit that McCain is currently eating Obama’s lunch. McCain’s weirdly disconnected persona (beady glowers flashing to frozen grins and back again) has started to look more testosterone-rich than Obama’s easy, lanky, reflective candor. What in the world possessed the Obama campaign to let their guy wander like a dazed lamb into a snake pit of religious inquisition like Rick Warren’s public forum last month at his Saddleback Church in California? That shambles of a performance — where a surprisingly unprepared Obama met the inevitable question about abortion with shockingly curt glibness — began his alarming slide.

Paglia then points out an item that I thought maybe I was the only one who noticed – Barry’s newly found accent:

As I said in my last column, I have become increasingly uneasy about Obama’s efforts to sound folksy and approachable by reflexively using inner-city African-American tones and locutions, which as a native of Hawaii he acquired relatively late in his development and which are painfully wrong for the target audience of rural working-class whites that he has been trying to reach. Obama on the road and even in major interviews has been droppin’ his g’s like there’s no tomorrow

She then goes on to point out how The One’s Nuremburg Denver stadium event completely disappeared off the radar screen when McCain pulled off the most perfectly timed VP announcement in political history. I’m a bit surprised that she missed the negative impact of Barry’s Excellent Adventure in Europe, but that probably would have been like piling on – she didn’t want to pull a Lieberman.

Paglia then proceeds to describe how Palin has made the biggest strides in feminism “since Madonna” (I’m not sure I agree with Madonna being one who has advanced the cause of women, but Paglia is a lefty…). She also acknowledges the stupidity of the attacks on Palin:

Over the Labor Day weekend, with most of the big enchiladas of the major media on vacation, the vacuum was filled with a hallucinatory hurricane in the leftist blogosphere, which unleashed a grotesquely lurid series of allegations, fantasies, half-truths and outright lies about Palin. What a tacky low in American politics — which has already caused a backlash that could damage Obama’s campaign. When liberals come off as childish, raving loonies, the right wing gains. I am still waiting for substantive evidence that Sarah Palin is a dangerous extremist. I am perfectly willing to be convinced, but right now, she seems to be merely an optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan, someone who pays lip service to religious piety without being in the least wedded to it. I don’t see her arrival as portending the end of civil liberties or life as we know it.

(Bold is mine)

And she also points to the idiocy displayed in the Left’s attacks on the faith of the GOP/conservative side:

The witch-trial hysteria of the past two incendiary weeks unfortunately reveals a disturbing trend in the Democratic Party, which has worsened over the past decade. Democrats are quick to attack the religiosity of Republicans, but Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion. Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? Conservatives are demonized, with the universe polarized into a Manichaean battle of us versus them, good versus evil. Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes. The party is in peril if it cannot observe and listen and adapt to changing social circumstances.

It is fascinating how Paglia has identified so many key points where the Loony Left is failing. Her final killer point is on the subject of abortion. Even as a “pro-choicer”, Paglia realizes that abortion is murder and that the Left’s connection between abortion rights and feminism is a false dichotomy.

It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism — one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.

This is one of the best articles I’ve ever seen from a liberal. She gored so many of the Left’s oxen in this article that it’ll take weeks to clean up all the blood. Great article, well worth a full reading.

COMMENTS

  • NightTwister

    This is front page stuff, bs.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    I went to a big Lefty school, UMass Amherst. It was all liberal, all the time. But there were a couple who I enjoyed, who made me think a little. She was one.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    I went to a big Lefty school, UMass Amherst. It was all liberal, all the time. But there were a couple who I enjoyed, who made me think a little. She was one.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    I went to a big Lefty school, UMass Amherst. It was all liberal, all the time. But there were a couple who I enjoyed, who made me think a little. She was one.

  • cordpt

    A victim of bad ideology; truly independent spirit and inquisitive mind. I disagree with her often, but I’ve never ceased to admire her intellectual honesty, even when she’s wrong. It’s unfortunate that an honest liberal is so rare… but yeah, she’s one. That’s why many of them despise her, I guess.

    Great article to e-mail to moderate and liberal-leaning friends, especially some parts of it. And I agree with NightTwister: “This is front page stuff”.

  • bk

    I disagree with her on most issues, but she refuses to toe the line of cliched liberal feminism and has terrific insight. I don’t care much about when she gets into artsy stuff, but I love reading her political comments. If more liberals were like her, I suspect the parties could deal with each other in good faith.

    The Democrats are 100x worse with litmus tests than anyone in the GOP. Witness Joe Lieberman – Harry Reid would be Minority Leader were it not for Joe, but you wouldn’t know it from the way he keeps getting stabbed in the back by his own party.

  • Moe_Lane

    …we wouldn’t actually agree on all that much, and a lot of the disagreements would have been serious. But if I was going to the local bar and either wanted to come along, I’d not only let them; I’d buy the first couple of rounds.

  • Oz

    She says “abortion is murder” but she is okay with it because she considers it within a woman’s body and therefore her right.

    If we could get her to speak at more colleges, we’d probably end up with more pro-lifers in the long run. At least she would tear down the false wall of “tissue” that many pro-aborts hide behind.

  • Maggie_in_Indiana

    if she is as renowned as you all say then we have struck a nerve across the board. Times they are a changin and we can ride this through till Nov. if we don’t push and let the Obama camp self destruct.

  • TheMadScientist

    I read her article in Slate yesterday, and I thought her paragraph on abortion was pretty much the ballsiest thing I’ve ever read from her. And as an athiest libertarian (with fiscal conservative leanings, else why would I post here) I couldn’t have put it better myself.

    And don’t skewer me, I’m just asking a question to further my own understanding: I agree that the life of a unique individual begins at conception. So is that when the soul is thought to enter the person? Is the soul created de novo at the moment of fertilization? Or is there a pre-made soul that gets put there? As a former Southern Baptist, this was one of the theological imponderables that I never came to terms with and ultimately led me to, well…it’s still hard for me to admit I don’t believe.

  • Crowe

    Christianity understands that ensoulment takes place at the moment a new human is constituted — i.e., at the moment of conception. And each individual person has a new, unique soul, created ex nihilo by God at the moment of new life, the moment of conception (it’s the only instance where man compels God to create). The new, unique soul for each person follows since each person is a new, unique combination of chromosomes and familial/historical circumstances. It also follows from the Christian understanding of personal salvation and eschatology, but no need to go deep into that here.

    One bit of evidence for this is in the Incarnation itself — the Archangel Gabriel didn’t say “The Spirit will overshadow you in a few weeks and the child you will soon conceive through natural means will, once it hits a certain point of gestation, be the Son of the Most High.” Conception of the Son of God in Mary’s womb included both His physical and spiritual conception. Further, since He is both fully human and fully man, He has both a human and divine nature, His human nature would not be complete without a human soul.

  • TheMadScientist

    Let me be clearer: If I reprogrammed one of my skin cells into a zygote and allowed it to develop into an embryo, implanted it into a surrogate, and then grew him up to be an identical copy of myself, would my clone have a soul? If so, when would the moment of ensoulment take place, given there was no moment of conception?

    And what about identical (monzygotic) twins? Does a single soul enter the single zygote, and then split in two, or do two souls enter the zygote and then take up residence in the separate embryos that result from the fission event?

    Again, not trying to be difficult, but if you’re not going to take the easy way out and lose your faith (like Paglia and yours truly did) these questions need answers.

  • Vegas_Rick

    Only God could answer your idiotic hypotheticals.

  • BrianH

    Just as identical twins have souls of their own (they are natural clones).

    I don’t “know” the point at which the soul enters the body, but I believe this is at the point when the person starts to grow as a separate individual.

  • nephewmiltie

    nt

  • BrianH

    They are clones (naturally occurring). And as far as I can tell, each twin has their own soul.

  • Crowe

    And the answer is yes, every new human life has a soul. A clone, even if it has the same chromosomes (like identical twins) still is a unique human being.

  • Crowe

    At the moment of separate human life, God ensouls the new human. Clones have souls when they become separate human beings.

    Frankly, I find it easier to retain my faith and trust that the answer is beyond what I can know right now and trust that the answer is there than to choose away from my faith when a couple (rather pedantic) questions cause a little ripple.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    From a “sola Scriptura” Christian perspective, the following presuppositions are essential in considering any such question (and sadly must bear repeating in a generation hostile to both doctrinal exposition in general and the docrine of the sovereignty of God in particular):

    Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

    God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.

    From the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 5 “Of Providence”, paragraphs 2,3

    So in the normal course of events, God creates a new human being via the means of a man and a woman, in the process, at the moment of conception creating a soul*. Once, however, He created a new human being without the means of a man, in the process, at the moment of conception creating a soul. Your hypothetical calls for the creation of a new human being without the means of either one of a man or a woman.

    Those who forget the above statements about Providence will be forced to resort to a non-Scriptural Greek/scholastic approach which can only extrapolate from the observed, and thus arrive at a false dichotomy in which God ultimately doesn’t handle this new situation.

    Those who remember Providence, however, have no trouble saying that while there is not at present enough data–either natural or revealed–to give inquiring minds a definitive answer, God Himself will not only have foreknown the event, but foreordained it as well, and thus accomplish, as always, all His sovereign pleasure in the event, and either create a soul at the moment He deems best, or not.

    And along the way, sola Scriptura gives a solid rationale for not wanting to force the question; but if is forced, God will certainly not be caught off guard, and therefore His people need not be either!

    * The debate about Traducianism–in which pre-created souls are implanted like USB cords into new bodies–has been going on a long time. I think the Creationists (in the non-Traducianist sense) have the upper hand for reasons related again to Providence, but I don’t think that’s at the heart of your question.

  • TheMadScientist

    The Paglia article just got me thinking, and this post just reinforced it. Plus, I’m a cancer research (todays experiments have a lot of waiting/incubation steps, so I have some time to post) and in raising funds through the Komen foundation and the Am Cancer Society, I get these types of questions, and since I haven’t had any belief in a deity since I was about 8 or 9, I just wanted some opinions.

  • Moe_Lane

    People can get edgy over that.

  • David_Hinz

    I was married to an identical twin…not entirely sure she had a soul…

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    The world would be a better place if the final asterisked paragraph above had never seen the light of day. Please ignore all but the last clause and stamp out ignorance at its source.

  • Flagstaff

    and find her intriguing is that she is an intelligent and rational person. She isn’t a left-wing lemming, but a smart woman who happens to agree with some (or many) leftish ideas.

    She sets herself apart by discarding their off-center tactics and methods and their irrational positions. We’d do well to follow her example in that respect.

    The current flap about lipstick and pigs is just silly. To attack Obama about this is counter-productive for us. It’s impossible to know if he meant to slur Sarah, but it’s pointless to insist that he did. Better to point out the tacky response of his audience and the carelessness of saying something that could be construed as a tasteless insult, and then drop it. If we keep harping on it, we look like the irrational ones to the non-partisan voter.

  • bs

    that’s exactly what I was thinking – she actually uses logic to come to her conclusions, rather than just blathering Democryte dogma.

    The pigstick flap will be gone now. Now that the ABC interview is out there, the Left has that to start whinnying about. It was a 1-2 day story, max, anyway. The beautiful thing about it is that the Dems are on defense right now, and they don’t do well on defense. (see my diary about the Willie Brown blog for more)

  • redneck_hippie

    was a little silly, I guess. I figured it was a campaign stunt to keep The One off message.

    If so, it worked. One day is, after all, worth several million dollars in this game. Also, maybe it was a bit of the old tit for tat. I, and most of the free world, for that matter, am fed up with those stoopid “they’re gonna say I’m black” and “they’re gonna try to scare you” crap. So maybe Mac decided to give a little back to them. Why not?

  • Crowe

    Your lack of active, intentional belief in a deity…

    I appreciate your interest and curiosity. You are asking legit, important questions. But I think you’re splitting too fine a hair. The soul is not a part of the physical person. It isn’t subject to the same analysis and breakdown and rules of propagation as the corpus.

    Bottom line: God creates a new, unique soul for every human life, just as every human life is itself completely unique.

    Consider: even if one is a perfect genetic clone or an identical twin, the two individuals have different personalities, different life experiences, different preferences, and many other differences that cannot be accounted for by mere biology. They share the same genetic code, but are different people. Their different life experiences and especially their separate souls are a primary driver of this. From the moment of new, unique, individual human life there is a new soul created ex nihilo by the Almighty.

  • Crowe

    One more comment before I go to bed…

    Consider what a soul is… It’s the vivifying principle of a living creature. Animals have souls. Trees have souls. But only man has a rational soul and only man has been created in the Image and Likeness of God with reason and free will. Every created thing has been created for a purpose, but man alone was created with the ability — indeed the calling — to love and be loved and especially to have this reciprocal loving relationship with God. But to love and accept another’s love is a free choice — coerced love is not love at all but servitude. God creates each soul with the faculty to choose to love or to choose not to love. God creates each soul with the capacity to know Him and to choose to love Him and to choose to accept His love, or to choose to reject both. That fundamental choice happens not in any physical component of the human person — though the choice to love or not to love is affected by and affects the circumstances and activities of that body — but it happens in the human soul. The human person is a body-soul composite. No human person can be complete when the body and soul are separated. (This points to another long post concerning the meaning and implications of the separation of the body and soul at death, but I’ll not go there in this already-too-long comment). This is a very short and only partial exposition of why we hold every human life so sacred and precious from the moment of conception — because God does.

  • jarrod21

    I disagree more often than not, but it always challenges me to think.

    It’s just nice to read rational leftist thought that isn’t variants of Bush = Hitler, McSame = old (see what I did there? two at once!), and Palin = fundie whore.

  • blackhedd

    The objectionable thing about Paglia is that she starts and ends with authenticity. She?s what you get when you start with relativism and don?t stop. Everything from ideas to sexy girls has value to her in proportion to the degree that they make her excited.

    The attractive thing about her (apart from being a cute, pint-sized lesbian with no distinctive sexuality, that you could put in your pocket and pull out whenever you need to laugh at some first-rate sass-mouth) is that she?s intellectually rigorous.

    She says in so many words that the left-wing position on abortion is rooted in expedience. She admits that this makes her head explode because the right-wing position is rooted in ethics instead. To her credit, she acknowledges how painful it is to be committed to a straightforwardly anti-ethical position. She goes from there to recognizing that this conflict is what makes left-wingers so wild-eyed and incoherent, because humans hate being anti-ethical.

    Then she gets pathetic. She walks right past this huge, steaming pile of excrement in the middle of the floor, and goes on to say that Democrats have to put their cognitive dissonance out of their minds, LEST THEY LOSE THE POLITICAL DEBATE.

    If elected, John McCain will be a caretaker Presidency, a step on the road toward a Palin Presidency. When this happens, Paglia will become a Republican. She is one already, intellectually, but can?t commit to the R party because we haven?t put up any hunky, sexy leaders. Until Palin.