printCamille Paglia is the scrappy Democrat adored by conservatives. On politics, she conceals heavy-duty statism behind the fig leaf of libertarianism. In the realm of art and culture, she substitutes symbolism for substantive assessment. Remember her clapped out claptrap about the significance of drag-queen iconography? What she knows about music is positively dangerous; she has conceptualized of Madonna—who is unable to sing or compose a warble worth hearing—as “an authentic, creative artist”? The Paglia prattle about the mismanaged sexuality of well-worn, ugly monsters like Britney Spears, here, was as worn and uninteresting as anything Gloria Steinem has ever mustered.
This month’s canned performance, “Obama’s healthcare horror,” can be followed from the conservative, Drudge newssite. (The “edgy” stuff about nude depictions is supposed to give this bit of banality a cutting-edge feel. Please! How original do you have to be to admit that Sharon Stone takes a good picture?)
Here’s a quick précis of the essay that instantiates Paglia’s hallmark statism and proclivity for the stylistic over the substantive:
• She voted for Obama so that he could repair the country’s IMAGE overseas. She’s pleased with that choice.
• She has complaints as far as his domestic policy, but they concern strategy rather than philosophy.
• A case in point: “healthcare reform,” which she thinks is the most important thing confronting dying America. It, of course, has been merely mishandled.
• The once beloved House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is no longer in Camille’s good books.
• Congress is “chaotic, rapacious, and solipsistic”; Obama is usually “sober and deliberative.”
• It is the State’s responsibility to see to it that an individual in “a major crisis,” or “earning at or below a median income,” has healthcare.
• More tired odes to the 1960s and the Democratic Party as a relic of that great era.
• Poor Camille is disillusioned. She never saw it coming: “I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic Party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.”
• Camille beats on breast because her “party is drifting toward a soulless collectivism.” Pray tell, Ms. Paglia, what would a soulful collectivism look like?
• Obamby failed to engender an “in-depth analysis, buttressed by documentary evidence, of waste, fraud and profiteering in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries.” Another one of Ms. Paglia’s contradictory spasms; big pharma/business bad; big Obama good.
• On the Gates Case; she has nothing new to say that has not already been said by Pat Buchanan and this column.
• “The basic rule in comprehensive legislation should be: First, do no harm.” That was said by your host first.
(The same goes for Paglia’s eventual evaluation of the blogosphere; it came well after mine and only echoed what I had said in “The Importance of Boundaries.”)
THERE ARE A FEW paragraphs that are poignant. For instance: “The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.”
Overall, you’re better off watching the pictures linked, instead.
I waited breathlessly for Cammy’s latest column to read about Michael Jackson, but not a stitch. You have made some good points (confusing the abstract with the real). It’s a tough call for me this month; usually she’s great. This time may be a misfire. [Actually the case—and older links provided—made against her is that she’s not so great, and is more hype than anything meaningful.]
That said, I am more concerned that Obama is stuck in quicksand – that he is out of his element. Without the Kennedy clan (no pun intended) behind him, his Kennedy-esque luster is in jeopardy. Michelle?
OK – fine, she has a minor point which makes sense – if you actually get INSURANCE – it makes no sense to be dropped as soon as you get sick. But that could be handled by competition by insurance companies and maybe some issue about clearly written policies, etc. But should she really be SURPRISED that the Democrats want some 1000 page plus “healthcare bureaucracy” – what the heck did she expect? Or was she just some Obama groupie that had no concept.
The good news is that this socialistic soup is a harder sell than the Democrats anticipated (as it was in 1993) – but all that means is that the socialism will come slightly more gradually than the single payer goons would prefer.
Comparing Mercer to Paglia is like comparing Bach to Britney Spears. However, I do appreciate the fact Paglia stopped slobbering over Obama enough to utter a few criticisms. That does put her ahead of the rest of the pack.
[That’s the sweetest thing—I love Bach.]
Myron, she doesn’t have any points to make – minor or not. She doesn’t understand economics, or insurance.
The reason why most insurance companies drop people who are extremely sick or ill is because it is no longer profitable for them to continue insuring them – there doesn’t need to be any policy making in washington over this, if that is what you are suggesting.
Health care insurance is not supposed to make us healthy – only the individual can do that. Americans are seeing insurance as actually a system whereby you can do whatever you want and then have a second party – your insurance company – foot the majority of the bill for your fatness, bad dental hygiene, smoking, etc.
This is completely not what insurance is or supposed to be; a safeguard in case something bad happens to the individual, not a system whereby I can live recklessly and then pay a small sum while someone else pays the rest.
Now, to the extent that this happens in a free market (which we don’t have), then it is profitable for an insurance company to co-pay in this fashion. But in our regulated, bastardized, socialistic mess, it is more likely caused by legal enforcement rather than contractual agreement.
Hopefully you are not advocating policies regarding regulating insurance in these instances Myron. I kind of like you too much to consider something like that…
~Alex
And… *what*?! Paglia the Pug was gushing over that stupid witch Nancy Pelosi?! Holy cow – forget this girl Ilana. Anyone dumb enough to think that Pelosi is anything other than an idiot doesn’t deserve any consideration for his or her views.
~Alex
She’s a feminazi that wants to have her cake and eat it too. Think of her as one of those “broken clock” commentators, who is occasionally dead-on if seemingly by accident.
Alex:
It would be completely stupid for anyone to even sign up for insurance if the insurance could drop someone at the one time that one needs to use the insurance. If the insurance company wanted an eventual escape-out or a benefits cap and this was mutually agreed to by the insured and the insurer, that would seem to be fine. The issue, however, may be a canard (like the 47 million “uninsured” canard) promoted by the statists – but it certainly makes little sense to pay for an insurance that pays nothing if I am healthy and nothing if I am sick!Other than a recourse against fraud, there should be no government interference with a free market in insurance.
If there is an issue with the chronically ill (whether the person is suffering from bad luck or bad habits), that should be covered by VOLUNTARY altruism since any alternative is theft and statist slavery.
[Actually Myron, other than from BO, I have never heard of insurance that drops you if you get sick. I hope you are not listening to that ass. I had catastrophic insurance. What would happen is your premiums would go up if your ris status changed. That would make sense.]