Pow! Right in the kisser!

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Wednesday, September 9. 2009

Pow! Right in the kisser!

From Camille Paglia:

Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.

How has "liberty" become the inspirational code word of conservatives rather than liberals? (A prominent example is radio host Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto," which was No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list for nearly three months without receiving major reviews, including in the Times.) I always thought that the Democratic Party is the freedom party -- but I must be living in the nostalgic past. Remember Bob Dylan's 1964 song "Chimes of Freedom," made famous by the Byrds? And here's Richie Havens electrifying the audience at Woodstock with "Freedom! Freedom!" Even Linda Ronstadt, in the 1967 song "A Different Drum," with the Stone Ponys, provided a soaring motto for that decade: "All I'm saying is I'm not ready/ For any person, place or thing/ To try and pull the reins in on me."

But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why?

Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 12:47 | Comments (12) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

Thursday morning links
Toon above via Theo Powerline: This was not, to put it kindly, a speech that was directed at thinking people. Percent of crimes solved. Movement Conservatives vs. The Pragmatists: The Battle is Joined Thomas Friedman goes over the edge. Thus is the

Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Sep 10, 06:20

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Why? Check out Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism for the answer, Ms. Paglia. The left has been pro-statist for a long, long time. As long as they're in power, they are happy to decide how YOU should live (or die).

#1 Sissy Willis (Link) on 2009-09-09 15:06 (Reply)

The Democrat Party has been that way since FDR. Paglia is just growing up (a tiny little bit). She still cannot face why she was ever a Democrat/Liberal in the first place. Hint: it was not about your love for your fellow man, Camille, it was about your self-importance.

When have they been on the side of Liberty? Maybe before they became the party of Slave owners, Like say prior to Andrew Jackson?

They have been a curse on this nation for over 150 years.

#2 Mongoose on 2009-09-09 15:38 (Reply)

I try to tell my friends that I'm "liberal."

They think I'm a "conservative."

I let them know that I'm for the rights of the individual against an oppressive state. That I'm for the freedom to say whatever you like to whomever you wish, especially speaking "truth to power." I tell them that I'm for a watchdog press who keeps a critical and skeptical eye on whomever is in power. I tell them that I believe that each person should be treated as an equal regardless of color or creed. That I believe that giant corporations need to be carefully monitored lest they gobble up the little guy, but, most importantly, because when they get too big they tend to bed down with the government and that road leads to fascism.

Pretty much what I've believed since the 70's.

It's pretty much called "conservative" nowadays.

How times change...

#3 Huey on 2009-09-09 16:33 (Reply)

I've always felt irritated at the phrase "speaking truth to power" when it refers to American free speech, which is already protected by the Constitution. It's a phrase popular with the Left, because they want to feel good about themselves. What do they think is going to happen to them if they speak out? If they're the Dixie Chicks, maybe fewer people will buy their recordings. But the Brownshirts won't come to their houses and haul them off to prison. Maybe some of the more grown-up among us will think they're being foolish, but with us grown-ups, we think they're being foolish most of the time.

But it is nice that Camille Paglia is showing signs of reaching toward maturity in her political thought. I like her description of affluent Democrats being "complacently servile" toward authority. Sort of "apres moi, le deluge" isn't it? And that train is heading right toward us.

Marianne

P.S. By the way, Huey. We haven't had a "watchdog press" since the 1950s. More's the pity.

#4 Marianne Matthews on 2009-09-09 16:55 (Reply)

I agree that we haven't had a "watchdog press," but, I would simply say that we haven't EVERY had one.

There was, for a time, an ILLUSION of one with a few individual reporters who actually attempted to be objective and get to the "truth" no matter who (or which party) it hurt.

#5 Huey on 2009-09-09 17:10 (Reply)

Where are today's Woodward and Bernstein?

#6 scottJ on 2009-09-09 22:45 (Reply)

scottJ ... They all think they're Woodward and Bernstein, honey. That's the problem.

Marianne

#7 Marianne Matthews on 2009-09-09 23:05 (Reply)

Correct, Marianne, and therein lies the kernel of the answer to Camille's question: They all march lemming-like toward the precipice of democrat-led fascism because they see reflections of themselves in the leaders they bow to.

And they, as they reflect upon the face in the mirror, know that they would never have anything but the best intentions; ergo, the best results, for America.

JG

#7.1 Jacksonian Grouch on 2009-09-11 08:02 (Reply)

Camille Paglia is my favorite liberal/libertarian lesbian (bisexual?) literary critical theorist. Admittedly, the competition is not exactly stiff. Um, per se.

I do in fact like her; she is a free thinker, unbound by any particular doctrine. Althouse points out that Paglia gets pegged by the left as a rightist because she's a dissenter from the dogma and a common sense person - this puts her far to the right of the left, even though she's not what most of us would consider conservative. The main thing I read her for is not political spin but her seeming inability to get spun. She just says what she thinks, and right or wrong, well thought out or spontaneous, I find that refreshing.

#8 Jim on 2009-09-09 23:13 (Reply)

" But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why?"

Here is a guess based upon very old observations. I don't endure affluent GOP or Democrat circles any longer and prefer to leave the room when either side is explaining the universe.

(I will explain that to myself if I need to know. And can get the security clearance.)

Camille it works like this: There was a summer movie titled "He's just not that into you."

Well, the Republicans are just not that into politics. Unless for party professionals the GOP is somewhat like a country club. You belong, sometimes you attend the affairs, sometimes you don't. You contribute campaign funds and tend to agree with what the party does. But you have no obligation whatever to agree with all of the party line.

In contrast the equivalent Democrats have no off position on their politics switch. Politics is too important to ever shut off. They know the approved party positions and their duty to agree with them.

They also know they must be concerned about the poor and disadvantaged and all sorts of bad stuff that may happen. For concern is what counts. Concern is even more important than actions or examining the facts or whether you try the wrong solutions and do more harm than good.

The Democrat affluent are usually a social duo. Both the man and wife will be politically active.

GOP men are more likely to talk politics separately. The wives are doing something else. And ditto for the women in their discussions.

The social consequences of ditching the Democrats can be devastating. You may well be dead, worse than dead, to your old Democrat friends or associates. You are certain to lose some. People in your office may express outrage, even people you never met before.

And may God help you if you work at a university.

Leaving the GOP disturbs little. You might sense some disgruntlement here and there. If you don't keep bringing the topic up you will hear nothing about it.

#9 K on 2009-09-10 00:38 (Reply)

"But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why?"

Couple of reasons. First, democracy and the Democratic Party have been on opposite tacks for a whole generation, ever since the passing of such decent men as Henry Jackson and party takeover by the likes of Jesse Jackson. Second, the servile and obedient ones are a classical product of the "authentic 1960s leftism," which talked freedom and opposition to authority but in fact acted out love for totalitarianism by propounding ridiculous social theories, supporting tyrants everywhere and steadfastly denying any and all wrongdoings by their chosen darlings (Chavez, Castro, Pol Pot etc.). How many "authentic 1960s lefties" have honestly admitted their denial of, and complicity in, the Cambodian Holocaust, even now, more than 30 years after the fact? Damned few. The real authenticity of 1960s leftism lay in its totalitarian actions, not its honeyed words. The confluence of 1960s leftism and the Democratic Party of today therefore seems natural and inevitable.

#10 Michael J Kubat on 2009-09-10 07:48 (Reply)

Seems that Ms. Paglia mistakenly thought the anti authority rebellion of the 60's and 70's lead by the left was a libertarian movement when it was simply an attempt to overthrow civilization and replace it with fascist/leftist control. Ms. Paglia is bright, but politically naive.

#11 phil g on 2009-09-10 09:48 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, September 9. 2009

Pow! Right in the kisser!