Camille Paglia on Sarah Palin

Even though I don’t agree with Camille Paglia on very much (if anything) politically, I admire her greatly for her honesty, the clarity of her perception, and the true independence of her mind, and also for her great gifts as a writer. Her latest column in Salon shows her at the top of her form, particularly in this telling observation about Barack Obama:

As I’ve watched Obama gracefully step up to podiums or move through crowds, I’ve been reminded not of basketball, with its feints and pivots, but of surfing, that art form of his native Hawaii. . . Obama’s ability to stay on his feet and outrun the most menacing waves that threaten to engulf him seems to embody the breezy, sunny spirit of the American surfer.

It also shows her refusal to close her eyes for the sake of ideology, as she expresses concern over

the mainstream media’s avoidance of forthright dealing with several controversies that had been dogging Obama—even as every flimsy rumor about Sarah Palin was being trumpeted as if it were engraved in stone on Mount Sinai.

She mentions specifically the evasiveness of the Obama campaign, and the unanswered questions about his association with Bill Ayers and (especially, to her) Bernardine Dohrn, writing,

We don’t need another presidency that finds it all too easy to rely on evasion or stonewalling. I deeply admire Obama, but as a voter I don’t like feeling gamed or played.

Those two sentences, comparing the behavior of Sen. Obama and his campaign to that of the hated President Bush and his administration, have to have cost her. Paglia spends a fair chunk of her column on Ayers and Dohrn, whom she clearly finds disturbing; and from there she turns to Gov. Palin, writing,

Given that Obama had served on a Chicago board with Ayers and approved funding of a leftist educational project sponsored by Ayers, one might think that the unrepentant Ayers-Dohrn couple might be of some interest to the national media. But no, reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don’t know their asses from their elbows.Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. 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.I like Sarah Palin, and I’ve heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is—and quite frankly, I think the people who don’t see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn’t speak the King’s English—big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns—that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.As for the Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a vice-presidential nominee—what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less political experience than Palin, got John Kerry’s nod for veep four years ago? And Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, for whom I lobbied to be Obama’s pick and who was on everyone’s short list for months, has a record indistinguishable from Palin’s. Whatever knowledge deficit Palin has about the federal bureaucracy or international affairs (outside the normal purview of governors) will hopefully be remedied during the next eight years of the Obama presidencies.The U.S. Senate as a career option? What a claustrophobic, nitpicking comedown for an energetic Alaskan—nothing but droning committees and incestuous back-scratching. No, Sarah Palin should stick to her governorship and just hit the rubber-chicken circuit, as Richard Nixon did in his long haul back from political limbo following his California gubernatorial defeat in 1962. Step by step, the mainstream media will come around, wipe its own mud out of its eyes, and see Palin for the populist phenomenon that she is.

It’s a powerful smackdown to groupthink and cant from someone who’s as free of both as any columnist around (on either side of the political aisle); the fact that it’s also a powerful defense of someone who both needs and deserves it just makes it better.

All about Sarah?

I’m starting to wonder. There have been folks on the right who’ve been insisting since John McCain chose Sarah Palin that liberals are afraid of her and feel a particular need to destroy her; I’ve tended to think that was overstated. Certainly, I think a lot of folks on the left found her particularly galling—for daring to go “off the reservation” and be a successful woman in politics on non-leftist terms (with her strong pro-life position being the main part of that), and for Sen. McCain having had the nerve to pick a woman as his running mate when Barack Obama hadn’t—but I figured it was much more that she represented someone who could actually put the McCain campaign over the top, and therefore was a threat to be destroyed ASAP, by whatever means necessary.Now, though, I’m beginning to think that the voices insisting that liberals hate/fear her specifically may have more of a point than I thought. What has me considering this is a recent post on the media blog for Condé Nast Portfolio on whom the New York Times should hire to replace Bill Kristol if rumors prove true that they’re inclined not to keep him on their op-ed pages. The blogger in question, Jeff Bercovici, is clearly an unapologetic liberal, which is no surprise; what is a surprise is the theme that seems to underlie his suggested alternatives. Of the four names he puts forward, two are Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy—the folks who got caught dissing Gov. Palin on a mike they didn’t know was open. A third is Kathleen Parker, whom he makes a point of labeling as a Palin-hater. Why highlight that unless it’s part of the point, and to be adduced as evidence that she has “the independence of thought that Kristol so glaringly lacks”?Which in turn makes me think that that supposed “lack of independence” on Kristol’s part may be code for “he likes Sarah Palin”; which, if so, is ludicrous, since Kristol was booming Gov. Palin for the slot back when it required incredible independence of thought to even entertain the idea. Which makes me wonder if there isn’t a subtext for replacing Kristol: the Grey Lady is willing to have a conservative columnist or two around if it has to—but one who supports Sarah Palin is just too much. If they’re going to have a conservative columnist, it must at least be a properly elitist Palin-hating conservative.Do I take this as proven? Obviously not. But I’m wondering if there might be something to it . . . and if so, what its significance might be.

Clarification and further comment on double standards

After I put up my post last night on “the double standard of the Left,” frequent commenter and cyberfriend Doug Hagler called me out on a couple things. I posted a response to him in the comments there, but after thinking about it a bit, I decided to post an edited version of that comment on the main page as well.Part of his objection was to the blog to which I linked—or rather, to the commenters on that blog. As I noted, on high-traffic blogs, I don’t read the comments unless I know they’re tightly patrolled (as with, for example, U.S.S. Mariner, or Adam Brickley’s blog), because otherwise, they will uniformly be ugly. (And if you think this just applies to political blogs, spend some time in the sports blogosphere—your eyes will be opened. Republicans vs. Democrats has nothing on Red Sox. vs. Yankees.)More importantly, to point out a double standard on the Left is not to imply anything, positive or negative, about the Right; there’s simply no logical connection there. If there’s one thing I’ve found to hold true about groups of people, it’s that they’re all the same—the same tendencies, good and bad, will tend to emerge in roughly the same proportions unless something specific to the group acts to emphasize or suppress them. As such, do I imagine that being conservative means that one is immune to certain sins? No, certainly not. In this particular case, for instance, I know full well that the Right has its tendencies toward double standards, too. However, I will note that in areas in which the Right tends to get publicly sanctimonious, it usually follows through against its own, even if only because the media won’t let it do otherwise. Where is Mark Foley? Where is Larry Craig? Where is Ted Haggard? The list is not without exception (David Vitter comes to mind; the only explanation I have for his survival is that Louisiana is a different world politically), but neither is it short. When you have a preacher peddling leftist hate, like the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., liberals defend him; by contrast, preachers peddling rightist hate will often find their sharpest critics among evangelicals. Fred Phelps, that malignancy on the body politic, is a classic example.The question with regard to the attack on Mount Hope Church is, are there liberals who will call a spade a spade here, the way evangelicals (and even some fundamentalists) routinely do every time Phelps opens his yap, and denounce this as an intolerant assault on freedom of speech and freedom of religion? And with regard to the Obama campaign’s disabling of protections against credit-card fraud, will the liberals who sermonize about the corrupting influence of money in politics step up and call this what it is—namely, corrupt? The point is not that there’s supposedly some kind of vast left-wing conspiracy—we got enough of that kind of talk in the other direction from the Clintons. The point is, when the Left talks about tolerance, and political ethics, and the the need for campaign-finance reform, and all those things, are those just clubs to use to beat up Republicans? Or are folks on the Left willing to call out their own side on these issues?Certainly, Republicans aren’t perfect in this respect, but there are always GOP pundits and politicians willing to take up that role. The question is, are there leaders and media figures on the Left who will do the same? Or do they only care when it’s Republicans who are guilty?

Why the 44th President is doomed

No, I didn’t say “Why Barack Obama is doomed”; I don’t think his policy appointments and decisions will help the economic situation any, but I’m not suggesting that John McCain would have had the winning economic strategy. Rather, the point is that there isn’t a winning economic strategy at this point—the forces in play are just too big. Read Michael Lewis’ excellent piece in Condé Nast Portfolio to understand why. It’s long, but well worth it; remember, this is the guy who first identified the roots of the problem 20 years ago in his book Liar’s Poker, returning to autopsy the patient who died of the cancer he originally diagnosed. Trust me, read the whole thing—read it to the end; it will blow your mind. Then read the accompanying article on why there won’t be a recovery for a while yet, despite what the optimists say, and reflect on the fact that presidents always get blamed when bad things happen, whether it’s their fault or not. (George W. Bush can point to the mishandling of Katrina by Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin, for which he took pretty much all the blame outside of Louisiana; granted, Michael Brown and FEMA also did a very poor job, but the hit President Bush’s popularity took had far more to do with matters under their control than with things for which he was actually responsible. The only upside for Republicans is that this did lead the people of Louisiana to elect Bobby Jindal the next time around.) The Oval Office is going to be a rough place to be in 2010, and would be no matter who was sitting in it, for reasons which in large part will have nothing to do with its occupant. (At least on the economic side; when it comes to foreign policy, that’s another matter.)HT: Baseball Crank

The bottom line on this campaign

is that I ended up thinking a lot less of both the final candidates when it finished than I did when they first started running.Oddly enough, the opposite is true of Hillary Clinton.(I still think she’s a political opportunist, etc.; but I have to admire the spirit and resiliency she showed, even if it was in the service of raw, vindictive ambition. The negative things that she displayed during this campaign didn’t surprise me any, but we also, I think, saw some really positive aspects to her that I at least hadn’t seen before.)

Too little, too late

After sitting sphinx-like as his senior staff impugned Sarah Palin’s intelligence and character, John McCain finally opened his mouth—and this is the best he was willing to do? I’m sorry, Senator, but that’s just plain pathetic. To wait so long to say anything, and then not to address any of the specific lies floating around out there or call out any of the liars from behind their curtain of anonymity—especially given his vigorous defense of Barack Obama against attacks he deemed inappropriate—to fail to defend her against false charges given how hard she worked for you and how badly she was pummeled by your opponents for supporting your cause . . . that’s purely dishonorable. There is no other word for it.

The evangelical temptation to the political heresy

The thing I appreciate most about Phil Johnson’s post on that subject over at Pyromaniacs is that he keeps the lines clear:

My main point is about how the church corporately should be spending her time and resources, not about what an individual who is vocationally (or avocationally) involved in politics should do.

That’s a critically important distinction; losing it renders the whole conversation unintelligible. There is no question that Christians should be politically aware and engaged; the question is what the mission of the church should be. I do believe, obviously, that Christian theology applies to politics, and so I don’t think political quietism is a wise or appropriate Christian stance; that said, as Johnson argues at some length, the preaching of the gospel and the teaching of Scripture must lie at the center of our ministry and must be the core of our testimony at every point. We should apply that to politics as to every other part of life, but our politics—like our behavior in every other part of life—should always flow out of our faith, rather than the other way around. If it’s the other way around, we have a problem. The job of the leaders of the church, in this respect, is to make sure that it isn’t and we don’t.

HT: Bob

The double standard of the Left, in full force

as seen in two very different ways. For one, the Obama campaign has officially gotten away with fraud, which isn’t surprising. What’s rather more surprising is that they’re still getting away with it. Check out Gateway Pundit for the thorough rundown of how the Obama organization has been enabling—and is continuing to enable—significant credit-card fraud in order to fill their coffers. They will, of course, not be audited or investigated—that sort of thing is only for Republicans.For another, my prayers go out to the folks at Mount Hope Church in Lansing, MI who were assaulted—there is no other word for it—by a radical gay group this past Sunday. I know that church, slightly; I’ve never attended there (though I’ve driven by it many times), but we’ve known people who attended there, and know it by reputation. It’s a good church, and didn’t deserve this attack. Don’t expect the MSM to decry the intolerance of their attackers, though—again, that sort of thing is only for Republicans.

The work of holiness

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised,
barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.—Colossians 3:5-17 (ESV)I said yesterday that the bad news is that we’re all sinners, and that we’ll never win free of that in this life. That’s the bad news of the law, for which the good news is Jesus Christ; and for those of us who bow to him as Lord, though we may never know complete freedom from sin this side of eternity, we don’t have to just give up and give in, either. God’s grace is at work in us, setting us free from sin, and while that work is unfinished, he never fails of his purposes. No matter how bad we might be (or might have been) or how holy we think we are now, no matter how old and set in our ways or how young and callow, God is at work in us, and he calls us to work with him, to align our efforts with his. Paul lays out two parts to that in this passage. First he says, all these things that belong to this fallen world and to your old selves, put them to death. It’s much the same thing he says in Romans 8:13, where he writes, “If you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.”This isn’t something we can accomplish in our own strength; our own efforts need to be a part of it, and there’s an important place for spiritual disciplines such as prayer, worship, and silence, but it’s only by the power of the Spirit of God that we can make any real progress in dealing with our sin. The goal is the complete rooting-out and destruction of sin in our lives; we’ll never reach it in this life, but it’s nevertheless the goal toward which we work. It’s an ongoing struggle against the sin in our lives, to weaken and starve it, so that through loss of strength and lack of food, it dies away little by little, losing its ability to draw us into sinful actions. This requires us to know our own sinfulness, to be aware of the ways in which our sin tricks us and overcomes us, if we are to fight against it intelligently; and it requires constant vigilance—but then, as the Irish politician and writer Edmund Burke noted, that’s always the price of true freedom.Along with this, Paul says, “Change your clothes!” The image here is of the old self with its sinful practices as a suit of clothes we wear, and of the new self, which is from God, as another suit of clothes. The more we come to appreciate the new life God has given us, the more we learn to see the old self, those old clothes, for the dirty things they are. Imagine coming home after some fiasco, soaked to the skin, cold to the bone, covered in mud and filth, and taking a long, hot shower, or perhaps a long, hot bath; when you’re warm and clean, are you going to put those clothes back on? And yet that, in a sense, is just what we do whenever we turn back to sin: we’ve been washed clean, and yet we put the filth of the old self back on. Paul says, “Don’t do that—put on the habits of your new life in Christ.”If we put these two commands together, we get a complete picture. As we work to put to death the inward reality of sin, we are also to be at work stripping ourselves of our sinful habits, which are rooted in that inward reality, and replacing them with new ones. For the things we need to set aside, Paul points on the one hand to the disordered desires which lead us to pursue the pleasures and things of the world instead of God, and on the other, to the destructive passions, and the destructive language that goes with them; put those aside, he says, take them off and get rid of them. In their place, clothe yourselves with a new way of living, one which is marked by compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, and a forgiving spirit. These words describe an attitude that doesn’t give way to rage when one is done wrong but chooses to show grace, and is willing to waive one’s rights for the good of others, even when they don’t deserve it. The ultimate example of this is Jesus, who at times spoke quite sternly to the Jewish leaders who had set themselves against him, yet died on the cross for them, with a prayer for their forgiveness on his lips. Just so, says Paul, we should bear with one another and forgive one another just as Christ has forgiven us.Of course, it would be very easy to take these things and turn them into just another legalistic religion, just another way of putting faith in our own ability to be good enough—just work hard enough at being compassionate, kind, humble, gentle, patient, and forgiving, and you’ll please God. But look what Paul says next: clothe yourself with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony, and let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts. In other words, these virtues aren’t individual things to be worked on individually and to be accomplished by stern effort—they’re supposed to be the fruit of the love of God and the peace of Christ in our lives. When are we not compassionate, kind, humble, and so on? When we don’t love the people we’re dealing with, or when we’re not at peace—when we’re in conflict within ourselves, when we’re in conflict with those around us, when we’re anxious, when we feel the weight of our own lives resting on our shoulders. But if we open ourselves up to the love of God—because love, too, is not something we do in our own strength; love comes from God, it’s his gift to us and his work in our lives—and let him fill us with his peace, then these virtues are the result.