February 11, 2016

"Steinem’s polished humanitarian mask had slipped, revealing the mummified fascist within."

Camille Paglia is weighing in on the recent feminism cataclysm.
I’m sure that my delight was shared by other dissident feminists everywhere....
Indeed!

As for Madeleine Albright, who said "There’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help other women," Paglia says: "Waspishly policing the earth was evidently insufficient for the feminist politburo, who are now barging into the salvation and damnation game."

Oh, that reminds me of something a commenter — tshanks78 said — yesterday as I noted the way we don't see Bernie Sanders making equivalent "first Jewish President" arguments: "Is there a special place in hell for Jews that don't support Bernie Sanders?"

Back to Paglia:
Yes, [Hillary's] been handed job after job, but primarily due to her very unfeminist association with a man. As a senator, she initiated nothing of substance, and as Secretary of State, she stumbled into one disastrous fiasco after another, escalating the destabilization of North Africa and the Mideast.
And she was handed an unopposed path to the Democratic Party nomination. Why?! She lost to Obama. She never proved she had what it takes to be a dominating campaigner. Everyone just cleared out of her way. But some old man had the nerve to step into the path and prove the inanity of the everyone else's deference to the ex-President's wife.
Hillary Clinton, in contrast, is a time-server and trimmer who cynically panders to every audience and who shuffles through policy positions like playing cards.
A trimmer.  That's a rather British word, meaning someone who "inclines to each of two opposite sides as interest dictates," according to the OED, which attributes this usage "to Lord Halifax and those associated with him (1680–90), but by him accepted in the sense ‘one who keeps even the ship of state’; hence ‘one who changes sides to balance parties’ (Johnson)." Example from 1682: "A Trimmer, one neither Whigg nor Tory, is a Hater of Anti-christ, an Abominator of Enthusiasm."

Paglia wonders how Hillary ever got to be thought of as "a feminist icon." As for Gloria Steinem:
It was precisely because of the borderline lunacy of so many of those women [feminists, circa 1970] that I became a fan of Gloria Steinem from the moment she appeared on the national scene.

With her chic aviator shades, hip-huggers, and flowing, streaked-blonde hair, the telegenic Steinem normalized the public image of feminism and made it palatable to a vast mainstream. She projected steadiness and cordiality and presented feminist goals as utterly reasonable....
Former fandom renders Paglia, in her own eyes, an apt critic. Steinem resorted to "male-bashing." She alienated women who stayed home with their children and those who maintained a moral objection to abortion. She "and the leaders of the National Organization for Women... became backstage secret agents for the Democratic party," notably giving "Bill Clinton a free pass for his gross violation of fundamental sexual harassment principle." And Steinem denounced Paglia's magnum opus "Sexual Personae," comparing it to "Mein Kampf."
For nearly 25 years, Hillary Clinton, with her simmering subtext of contemptuous bitterness about men, has been pushed along and protected by a host of powerful women journalists in print and TV, Steinem chums or sympathizers who have a lot to answer for.

80 comments:

tola'at sfarim said...

The special place in hell for Jewish voters, is reserved for Republican voters like myself

Michael McClain said...

Ouch! In the words of a former U.S. President, "You should put some ice on that."

Chuck said...

Has there ever been a "Camille Paglia" story that was worth worrying about?

Owen said...

Paglia really does take the wood to Steinem, in a way that perhaps only former fans can do.

Of course, that exposes her to a "jilted suitor" critique; but damn, she's got a wonderfully slashing style.

David Begley said...

Gloria is a mummy. Not nice.

David said...

"mummiified fascist"

Hoo boy.

Brando said...

Paglia is 100% correct in every part of that article. I think she sees what a lot of feminist women are seeing, which is that there's nothing really "feminist" about Hillary, that her "vote for me as I am a woman" pander is insulting and crass, and in fact it says a lot about her "feminist" supporters that they back this person.

Think what you will about Liz Warren or Kelly Ayotte--none of us even know who they're married to, they achieved power on their own (sure, a spouse obviously "helps", for men and women, but Hillary is uniquely dependent on having been married to Bill for getting the entire Democratic establishment to try and hand her the nomination TWICE).

As for Steinem, Paglia nails it--what is really "feminist" about forcing a single party line on abortion (where genuine feminists have a variety of viewpoints) and bashing men? And then turning around and for the sake of leftist partisanship sticking by a crude, boorish president when he clearly sexually harassed several women, took advantage of his position over a young intern (and even started calling her a deranged stalker until she proved he was a liar), and even likely RAPED a woman? At that point Steinem is toast, and she pops out of irrelevancy to try and reclaim some 1972-era magic for Hillary's pathetic campaign.

Here's hoping Sanders gets the momentum necessary to put a stake in Clinton and her allies for good.

Brando said...

"Of course, that exposes her to a "jilted suitor" critique; but damn, she's got a wonderfully slashing style."

I think it adds a bit of credibility--Trotsky was an effective critic of Stalin (until his murder) precisely because he was speaking the communist language. Paglia can be called a lot of things but people like her are more damaging to the Steinems of the world precisely because they understand them.

Henry said...

It is instructive to watch someone like Jessica Valenti attempt to flip the script:

There has been an extraordinary amount of scorn – both from the right and from Bernie Sanders supporters – around the notion that Hillary Clinton and women planning on voting for her are playing the “gender card”. The criticism comes in part from Clinton’s unabashed embrace of women’s issues as a central part of her presidential campaign, and in part – let’s be frank – simply because Clinton is a woman.

For anyone paying attention it is clear what Valenti leaves out. In her telling there is "notion" that the Clinton campaign is playing the gender card. The "notion" has arrived unsummoned, a mysterious ectoplasm that only Clinton haters can see. Actual actions by Clinton supporters -- the explicit accusations of sexism against Sanders' supporters; the explicit demands that young women support the woman candidate -- go unmentioned.

When all key facts are left out, the theorist can slink off to foregone conclusions.

David said...

Hilary's "simmering subtext of contemptuous bitterness about men"

Hoo boy again.

Chris said...

I see, so Steinem and Albright are both going to hell because neither of them would help Carley Fiorina.

samanthasmom said...

I was one of the 1970's feminists. There was a big push to put abortion rights as the keystone to the movement, but some of us believed a stronger push for the Equal Rights Amendment would make it less imperative for a woman to abort her child. We argued pushing for unfettered access to abortion would lose us support from some of the people we would need to pass the ERA. Steinem was one of the women pushing hard for abortion rights first. Before a consensus was reached, the pro-abortion rights group found their court case and moved forward. We did lose a lot of support for the ERA, and we still don't have it. A lot of the women who had been enthusiastic feminists lost their energy as the bodies of dead unborn babies piled up, and motherhood became the new "curse". Steinem and her crew are responsible for feminism having a bad connotation today, for pole dancing being "female empowerment" while motherhood is "slavery", and for the Democratic party's infatuation with "women's health" only involving access to abortion. But what can you expect from a former Playboy Bunny?

Owen said...

Brando: "I think it adds a bit of credibility--Trotsky was an effective critic of Stalin (until his murder) precisely because he was speaking the communist language. Paglia can be called a lot of things but people like her are more damaging to the Steinems of the world precisely because they understand them."

I owe you a beer.

traditionalguy said...

Trump has set the world on fire for truth over political correctness spells. He is today's Martin Luther simply by telling the truth.

Meanwhile the one who was Trumplike before her time takes her bow too. Go Camille. Give em hell.

Big Mike said...

Subtext. "Women should be free to choose," but only as long as they choose the way Steinem wants them to choose.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Blacks aren't allowed off the Democratic plantation, and women can't leave the Democratic kitchen.

Owen said...

Samanthasmom: "...Steinem and her crew are responsible for feminism having a bad connotation today…" If I may venture an opinion, I agree. I think they overplayed their hand. It's one thing to change the law to permit things --here, chiefly, abortion-- but it's quite another to take that permission as a mandate to Make Everybody Obey. I think today's manifestation is same sex marriage. First the plea was tolerance. Now it has become inclusion. First, it was leave the individual to make these profound life decisions without laws importing a bigoted/antiquated morality. Now, it is you will damned well do whatever we ask and give us entry into your home, wallet and conscience.

Such overreach seems to be a persistent problem, mostly with Progressives but possibly with anybody who after much struggle suddenly succeeds. They face an existential question: What do they do next? See Eric Hoffer's inimitable epigram: "Every cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and ends as a racket." I am working from memory here...

tim in vermont said...

You can't spell Clinton without clit! So it's clear how ladies have to vote, and anybody who denies this truth are just as bad, if not worse due to lack of authenticity, as those forcing female circumcision on their daughters!

rhhardin said...

Women vote stupidly on national issues, regardless.

That's why every campaign is 100% PC.

holdfast said...

Hillary's "simmering subtext of contemptuous bitterness about men" is actually quite understandable, given the quality of the men in her life - he husband and her idiot brothers - but it's still not fair for her to take it out on the nation at large.

holdfast said...

@exhelodrvr1

Don't forget that Jews should stay in the Democrat Shtetlech. And Hispanics have to keep working the grounds in the Democrat Hacienda?

tim in vermont said...

Every cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and ends as a racket

Wow. I love that.

Tank said...

@holdfast.

I think you mean Democrat Kibbutz.

Really, that word fits perfectly.

Brando said...

"There has been an extraordinary amount of scorn – both from the right and from Bernie Sanders supporters – around the notion that Hillary Clinton and women planning on voting for her are playing the “gender card”. The criticism comes in part from Clinton’s unabashed embrace of women’s issues as a central part of her presidential campaign, and in part – let’s be frank – simply because Clinton is a woman."

Valenti is proof that even younger feminists (though I think she's old enough to be a mother to many of Bernie Sanders' supporters) can be just as rigid and fossilized as the Steinems of the world. Yes, Clinton being a woman, we can just say she gets this scorn for that reason, with no evidence whatsoever. Sure, a man who married a sex predator and lying scumbag, a man who himself can't tell the truth if his life depended on it, a man who has no accomplishments and botched everything in public life that he ever touched, a man who has the charisma of a bag of sand--yes that man would not be mocked or despised. In Valenti-world, women are constantly victims of sexism, and it's always the same tired refrain because they can see no other possibilities. And they latch on to the Hillarys of the world and go down with the sinking ship.

Skeptical Voter said...

Ah well Paglia takes another shot. Good for her although I'm not certain who's listening. Younger women seem to have written the Hildebeest off. There'll be other Paglia pieces down the road.

rhhardin said...

If Hillary had been getting the job done, she'd have had better men in her life.

Brando said...

"I see, so Steinem and Albright are both going to hell because neither of them would help Carley Fiorina."

Carly's not a woman in the same way Ben Carson isn't black. Remember, when the facts don't help you, change the facts.

"Before a consensus was reached, the pro-abortion rights group found their court case and moved forward. We did lose a lot of support for the ERA, and we still don't have it. A lot of the women who had been enthusiastic feminists lost their energy as the bodies of dead unborn babies piled up, and motherhood became the new "curse". Steinem and her crew are responsible for feminism having a bad connotation today, for pole dancing being "female empowerment" while motherhood is "slavery", and for the Democratic party's infatuation with "women's health" only involving access to abortion."

There was an article in the Atlantic recently about how until the '70s the pro-life movement was largely liberal (and vice versa for the pro-choice movement) due to the prominence of liberal Catholics, and abortion hadn't really been seen as a women's rights issue until the '60s. I think the big mistake of the Steinem crowd (in the '70s, I mean--in the '90s their big mistake was going all-in to defend misogynist men so long as they were seen as on the side of the left) was demanding a certain orthodoxy on abortion and other issues (e.g., motherhood, traditional roles). It alienated a lot of people who otherwise might not today see "feminist" as a dirty word--consider that less than half of American women today consider themselves "feminist". It's not because they think women don't generally deserve equal rights, but rather because they don't like the idea of being associated with a group that has anchored itself so tightly to a rigid set of controversial beliefs.

Dan Hossley said...

Hillary, Albright, Steinem, Paglia, Sharpton....they are relics of a distant and largely re-written past. If the democrats were smart, they'd put them back on the shelf.

Owen said...

Sorry for mnemonic slippage, Hoffer was better than I remember:

“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”


― Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time

Saint Croix said...

Paglia is always a blast to read. So mean, so fun!

Rick said...

Every cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and ends as a racket

This is more applicable to institutions than causes, but these tend to become conflated over time. Often this is intentional because an institution's best defense against criticism is to pretend that criticism is of the cause rather than the institution. This allows them to respond by pointing to cause's merit rather than their own.

MaxedOutMama said...

But surely the reasons younger liberal women are not enthused about voting for Hillary are that:
A) They see her dishonesty and ethical issues with the clearer eyes of youth, and
B) She is an anti-feminist candidate, and
C) They would not vote for a man with her record if given a more genuinely liberal candidate, which they have in Sanders.

There is no deeper betrayal of ANY real feminism than a woman who tolerated and encouraged the "drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park" campaign to protect Bill Clinton from his sexual misdeeds. Some have said that she orchestrated the crew to deal with "bimbo eruptions". Well, there is no greater betrayal of any real feminism than looking at lower income women as bimboes and claiming they are liars when it is their word against a man's.

Paglia is right that her career began as a derivative of her husband's, but Hillary had the very real opportunity to make her own way and become Hillary! rather than First Lady Hillary or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Both as a senator and as Secretary of State, her chief achievement seems to have been making a huge amount of money for her family and her clique. What good she did for the public or the nation is hard to establish.

She now has a long and consistent record of what I can only define as private selfishness and public loyalty to her man of the moment - first Clinton and then Obama. Why would any woman feel inclined to vote for her on the grounds that Hillary! is a woman? Why?

So they don't, and the Clinton family's consistent record of buddying up to power brokers and Wall Street is quite disconsonant with the priorities of today's political center, much less today's political left. Then add the ethical issues, and certainly they cannot trust Hillary when she tells them that she's in their corner now.

Reproving younger women for doing that is only going to make it much worse. Hillary Clinton needs to stop running as a woman and run against Sanders. She has to make the case. If she's not willing or able to do that, trying to haul it out for her with superdelegates is only going to implode the Democratic party.

sunsong said...

Paglia nails it with pizazz!

Brando said...

"There is no deeper betrayal of ANY real feminism than a woman who tolerated and encouraged the "drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park" campaign to protect Bill Clinton from his sexual misdeeds. Some have said that she orchestrated the crew to deal with "bimbo eruptions". Well, there is no greater betrayal of any real feminism than looking at lower income women as bimboes and claiming they are liars when it is their word against a man's."

Some Clintonite media shills have feebly tried to argue that Hillary wasn't involved in that. Assuming that's true (which I don't) this was something she obviously knew about--the public shaming of Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and to a lesser extent Kathleen Wiley, then Lewinsky and Broaddrick. This was news--she knew. Did she publicly come out and say "it is terrible that some people in trying to defend my husband are saying awful things about these women--it sends a chilling signal against any woman who dares accuse a man of harassment, assault, or rape"? Did she ever say "I believe Bill, but I cannot abide by our fans writing this trash about his accusers--it's an insult to all women"? Did she even privately express misgivings about this?

We know the answer. When the chips are down, the Clintonites decide their own power requires circling the wagons, take down any threat. And Hillary more than anyone else should have known Bill had a long history of cheating on her, mistreating others, letting his bad temper get the better of him, and of course lying--the constant lying. She knew his accusers had more credibility than him, and she still chose to at best remain silent when they were being trashed in the media.

Feminist? If she's that, then the word means nothing.

MadisonMan said...

It is instructive to watch someone like Jessica Valenti attempt to flip the script:

She has a special place in my heart because her first appearance on this blog lead to a very long and hilarious thread.

But yes, for her, Anything Clinton is delicious catnip to be rolled in.

tim in vermont said...

I agree that Hillary produces an eye roll among the young women I know, millennial friends and acquaintances of my daughters and their friends. They overheard all about Bill in their childhood.

Bill Peschel said...

And Steinem denounced Paglia's magnum opus "Sexual Personae," comparing it to "Mein Kampf."

Ahhh, the taste of revenge served cold.

wildswan said...

Totally agree with above comments on how feminism was weirdly flipped (pole dancing is empowering work while motherhood is slavery; supporting Democratic men who sexually use and degrade women is feminism). The original sin, I believe, was going all-out for abortion as Paglia says. And then, it's interesting to see from her that feminism now has a history and has curmudgeonly grandmothers and free spirit aunts and conformist daughters. But feminism wants to say it has no history, no variety of possible positions; it's a morality - one, true, universal and required.

And is Hillary on the wrong side of feminist history? - rather than leaving life choices to the people involved, Hillary wants to have the government monitor conformity to whatever an (evidently incompetent) government thinks today as if the government were a Scott Adams boss.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bay Area Guy said...

Steinem’s polished humanitarian mask had slipped, revealing the mummified fascist within.

I.love.this.quote!

Half of feminism are females who simply want to be treated more equally, and not have their individual dreams shackled by societal mores. I buy this.

The other half -- including most of the self-appointed leaders -- are simply leftwing fascists trying to finagle and/or bully their way into more power. The hell with them, I say.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Paglia identified the progress of chauvinism in generational and political feminism that is counterproductive to women's interests and sabotages normal human relationships. With improved knowledge and increased experience, she reconciled the different aspects of life with her own perspective, and reached a conclusion that is closer to the great majority of humanity.

$9,000,000,000 Write Off said...

And HRC is being "handed" this job too. She leads Sander 394 Delegates to 42. I don't know why people say Sanders "won" in New Hampshire, Hilary destroyed him (at least in the votes that count).

Saint Croix said...

her first appearance on this blog lead to a very long and hilarious thread

was that the boobie thrust?

Birkel said...

Write Off:

What is "because the media keeps its dwindling audience like mushrooms?"
I will take Democrat pols for $800, Alex.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I'm guessing Lord Halifax's use of "trimmer" relates to back to trimming sails, but I can't help but imagine that Paglia's use is some sort of dog whistle on the word trim...

Boy oh boy, if Prof. Althouse is already preparing a "How Hillary Lost Me" post and it starts off with reference to Candidate Hillary's ridiculous overplaying of the woman card, how very happy that'd make us!

Paglia wonders how Hillary ever got to be thought of as "a feminist icon."
I wonder that, too! The answer might tell us something useful about how our culture is formed and cultural ideas are controlled, don't you think?

tim in vermont said...

I object to her use of the word dowager to describe Glo Stick. Say what you will about her, she earned her position on her own. The word refers to a title of, usually an elderly lady, that derives from her husband's position. If you are going to use that word, use it right and with force and apply it to Hillary.

Alex said...

Let these old feminists eat each other - no pun intended.

Bay Area Guy said...

@WriteOff

She leads Sander 394 Delegates to 42. I don't know why people say Sanders "won" in New Hampshire, Hilary destroyed him (at least in the votes that count).

This includes "Super-Delegates" who are not bound to any candidate. This is the two-tiered structure the Dems enacted following the McGovern debacle of 1972.

In theory, Sanders could win every state, yet the Super Delegates could vote for Hillary to win the Dem nomination.

Of course, there is a word for this: political suicide.

tim in vermont said...

I agree about the superdelegates. They are there to appear to be leading the parade, but if the parade heads off in another direction, they will shuffle right on over to place themselves at the head again, as they did with Obama.

amr said...

Salon is awful but Paglia is pretty great, even when I disagree with her.
She made sense on the site when it was young, but it's slow descent into... whatever it is makes her stand out like Manute Bol in Midwestern Kindergarten class.

Brando said...

"In theory, Sanders could win every state, yet the Super Delegates could vote for Hillary to win the Dem nomination.

Of course, there is a word for this: political suicide."

Yeah--in both parties' cases, if the voters in the primaries clearly favor one candidate, any delegate machinations to undo that would cause the sort of rift that would destroy the nominee's chances in November. The harder question (which was considered during the '08 Democratic race) is what if the earned delegates from all the primaries go slightly for one candidate, but the other candidate technically got more votes (such as because of the way delegates are broken out by state)? It would be hard to mollify a crowd that believes the nomination was stolen from their candidate simply because of party tricks.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Brando

Exactly. Say it's a close race, and Bernie wins a slight majority of the earned delegates as the convention approaches. In theory, the Democrat adults (Super-Delegates) could ignore this, and tip the nomination to Hillary with their votes.

But, of course, this would cause much hollerin' and hoopin' among Sanders supporters about a rigged game, and would likely (hopefully) throw the general election to a drama-free (cough, cough) more mild candidate, (clear throat) like....Rubio (ducks from tomato throwers).

The other option we haven't talked about is if Bloomberg runs 3rd party, wins a few states, and nobody gets 270 EV. Then, the election gets thrown to the House, which hopefully picks a modest (cough, cough) GOP candidate.

TosaGuy said...

I've seen no indication on the gazillion Sander's posts I see on Facebook about any organized campaigns for BernBots to call those superdelegates who are elected officials (Sen Baldwin and Rep Moore in WI) urging them to repeal their pledged support to Clinton and say "I will cast my superdelegate vote with the majority of primary voters in my state."

Until I see that happen, I will remain of the opinion that Sanders isn't really trying to win this thing.

Titus said...

Paglia repeats herself quite a bit. How many times does she have to write about her breakup with Gloria?

Anthony said...

I noticed Jeb! had ashes on his forehead yesterday. I thought they were Baptists or something. Did he convert for his wife?

Not that it means anything in particular to me, although I am a Catholic. But he'd be what, the second RC president? I'd be willing to bet our Lefty friends would suddenly find their religious bigotry again.

Bruce Hayden said...

The thing about Hillary and Superdelegates is that most people in her position, if they lost the earned delegate count, or the popular vote, would drop out. I think that Sanders would. But Hillary? I suspect that she would fight it to the bitter end, Superdelegate by Superdelegate. It has always been about her and her family first, regardless of who she hurts. Think of the people who have died as a result of her being Sec of State. Not just the four Americans in Benghazi, but also the Libyans, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraquis, etc. she traded American foreign policy for cash for her husband and their foundation. Who gave away state secrets to our enemies with her private email system so that she wouldn't be subject to FOIA. Now, she wants even more power. If she takes down her party in her quest for this power, don't expect an appology - they just got in her way.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think one of my bigger problems with that generation of feminists is how anti-family so many of them were. I understand about not getting married - two of my brothers never have, and much of my adult life has been unmarried. But, for women, it means ether being childless, or having children outside of wedlock, and I don't consider the latter choice nearly as legitimate as doing the right thing and having kids the traditional way - in wedlock. Statistically, single women do not do well raising children. The boys are more likely to end up as criminals, or dead, and the girls more likely ending up in poverty and single motherhood. It is the implied preference for essentially that outcome that I think is counterproductive for society.

Brando said...

"I've seen no indication on the gazillion Sander's posts I see on Facebook about any organized campaigns for BernBots to call those superdelegates who are elected officials (Sen Baldwin and Rep Moore in WI) urging them to repeal their pledged support to Clinton and say "I will cast my superdelegate vote with the majority of primary voters in my state.""

I don't think they need to do that just yet--when Obama ran, a bunch of early Hillary endorsers switched late in the game when it was clear it was a real race. I suspect if Bernie surprises everyone in SC or on Super Tuesday, we'll see a big shift. Moderate Dems are more comfortable with Bernie than "establishment" (for lack of a better term) Repubs are with Trump.

"I noticed Jeb! had ashes on his forehead yesterday. I thought they were Baptists or something. Did he convert for his wife?"

He did. Interestingly, WASPy Bush is Catholic, while Hispanic Ted Cruz is Protestant.

"The thing about Hillary and Superdelegates is that most people in her position, if they lost the earned delegate count, or the popular vote, would drop out. I think that Sanders would. But Hillary? I suspect that she would fight it to the bitter end, Superdelegate by Superdelegate."

She may--if she hasn't been made weary by the process--but even then, those superdelegates are mostly elected officials or at least bigwigs with some stake in their party. Pulling shenanigans to give it to Hillary would not just threaten them with their voters, it could lead to a permanent exodus to a third party. Why would any left-leaning Democrat--or any Democrat who sees that their party will thwart their own voters--want to be in a party that does that? It could cause longer term blowback than just losing the November election.

The only saving grace to the GOP insanity this year is that the Dems are poised to do the same. They're stuck between an aged socialist and arguably the worst and most flawed politician they've ever nominated. And if Sanders somehow pulled off the nomination, Bloomberg is likely to run, taking the would-be Clinton voters with him.

That's the only scenario where I could see a President Trump happening. None of these outcomes will be good for the country, but fortunately we have a gridlocked Congress that will prevent some of the worst damage from happening.

Sebastian said...

"Waspishly policing the earth was evidently insufficient for the feminist politburo, who are now barging into the salvation and damnation game." Now?

@Owen: Hoffer was great but also wrong. In the U.S. most movements are born as rackets. Feminism is a case in point.

@MoM: The fact that "young women" see Hillary! as anti-feminist only confirms that feminism is not about the idea that women are equal etc., as our hostess has tried to insist, but about the pursuit of power for the benefit of women as determined by a Progressive elite. Bernard S. offers more freebies, more governmental power, more progressively. Bye-bye Hillary!

William Chadwick said...

I find that behind most "humanitarian" masks--at least those of the people praised as "humanitarians" by the "liberal" Hive and its shills in the media--there's an inner fascist, manifested in a desire to wield the Mailed Fist of the State to remake society in their own image.

Owen said...

@Sebastian: "Hoffer was...wrong." Who am I to disagree with your stronger version of how the game is played?!?

TosaGuy said...

Brando...points noted.

However, I think your comments steer to the party big-wig picture. The BernBots are the type of sign change.org petitions and get all animated about everything political. It is not hard to herd them towards calling their elected officials who are delegates. Later states like WI have their primary in April and agitation now would add to the sense of Bernmentum. Part of Bernie's schtick is going against the entrenched and he needs to rally his troops against the apparatus that is stacked against the will of his voters.

rcommal said...

Owen, good memory--you were very close:

"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."
Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time

Levi Starks said...

Headlines like this are why I hang out here

JAORE said...

"Carly's not a woman in the same way Ben Carson isn't black. Remember, when the facts don't help you, change the facts."

Hell, Brando, Carly's not a woman, but Kaitlyn Jenner is. You are right, but didn't push the insanity envelope far enough.

Unknown said...

trimmer: This is nautical in origin, a sailor who trims the sails. This will be familiar to any modern sailboat sailor, but I think this usage goes back to the days of sail when crewmembers were assigned to keep the sails in proper trim (adjusting the tension n the lines and sheets that controlled the sails). A crucial function when squeezing out that extra fraction of a knot consistently shaved an appreciable amount of time from a long voyage. So a trimmer was a skilled member of the crew, but not the man who ran the show. I don't think this is a good analogy for Hillary's career history.

wholelottasplainin' said...

A commenter on another site posts this, regarding Steinem's long-time contemptuous attitude toward Paglia:

"Steinem also gives men permission to silence women. On a New York stage in 1992, Steinem said, "We don't give a shit what she thinks" about Camille Paglia. Steinem’s statement was broadcast on 60 Minutes. On national television, Steinem gave permission to every man listening to silence any woman by saying, "I don't give a shit what she thinks".

We're talking vendetta and payback here.

(I've seen the 60 Minutes clip myself, so it's real.)

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

"Trimmer" was always an honorable word. It meant someone who leaned out in the direction opposite the one the ship was listing towards, so as to keep it upright. I don't understand Paglia's using it to dismiss Clinton.

Re: Carson and Fiorina, the one isn't "really" black, nor the other "really" female, any more than Cruz and Rubio are "really" Hispanic. The latter two got called "Cuban nationals" (!!) the other day in a NYT editorial. If someone had called, say, Bill Richardson a "Mexican national," all Hell would've broken loose.

jaed said...

A trimmer is someone who trims his sails to the prevailing wind - that is, someone who acts by self-interest and fashion, not out of principle. The metaphorical trimmer is the ship itself, I think, not the sailor. A ship that does nothing but follow the prevailing wind isn't going anywhere in particular.

Dante put the Trimmers in the vestibule of the Inferno, if I remember correctly. They had to chase banners back and forth, with biting insects encouraging them to run. They were neither good nor evil, hence neither in actual Hell nor eligible for Paradise.

tshanks78 said...

I got my own tag! Woohoo! Let's dispel with this notion that I don't know what I'm doing! Thanks Althouse!

David said...

The Jews in Hell have a lot of scores to settle with some fellow denizens. Just mixing those Jews in with the others would be chaotic. Perhaps The Devil could be persuaded to give them a tiny little homeland in Hell, a little Jewish Hell-country, maybe in a arid area with no natural resources surrounded by Nazis. That would surely be the end of the Jews in Hell. Why, they couldn't hold out for a half a year.

David said...

"A trimmer is someone who trims his sails to the prevailing wind - that is, someone who acts by self-interest and fashion, not out of principle"

Funny thing, though, Skilled trimmers get to the destination a lot faster than the fools who keep trying to steer into the wind. Those types can even end up going backwards.

David said...

"We did lose a lot of support for the ERA, and we still don't have it"

Actually you do. They are called the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. I've never understood why ERA supporters discounted these so much. (I could have understood it before the last 40 years of expansive interpretation of these elements of the Constitution, so perhaps that was the reason. Thank the former slaves and the Radical Republicans.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Some Protestants (At the Lutheran church I attend, for instance) have the ashes put on the forehead on Ash Wednesday.

If you see someone with no ashes, point to their face and yell, "Hey!! Ash-hole!!"

Shouting Thomas said...

You're feminist blubbering is dumb, shameful shit, Althouse.

There is no right way to keep bitching about a non-existent problem.

You never had a bitch. Pretending that you do is a sin.

Shouting Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Terry said...

"I've seen no indication on the gazillion Sander's posts I see on Facebook about any organized campaigns for BernBots to call those superdelegates who are elected officials (Sen Baldwin and Rep Moore in WI) urging them to repeal their pledged support to Clinton and say "I will cast my superdelegate vote with the majority of primary voters in my state.""

That's not the way that Dems work these days. Instead they will do something like approach a young child or grandchild of the super delegate on the street, and give him or her some Bernie pamphlets to pass on to the parent/grandparent super delegate. Nothing illegal about that, no-sirree, just sending the message that they know the route your kid or grandkid takes home from school.

ken in tx said...

For Anthony, some United Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Congregationalists, have Ash wednesday services. We even sing Latin hymns. You should visit sometime.

Kirk Parker said...

rhh @ 9:49 am: you should have stopped after the first three words. I see no lack of stupidity and state or local voting either. Where do you think elected officials like socialist Seattle City Council member Sawant come from?