February 25, 2016

"Thanks to several years of the Democratic party establishment strong-arming younger candidates off the field for Hillary, the only agent for fundamental change remains Bernie Sanders..."

"... an honest and vanity-free man who has been faithful to his core progressive principles for his entire career.... The Democratic National Committee, as chaired since 2011 by Clinton sycophant Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has become a tyranny that must be checked and overthrown.  Shock the system! Here are the flaming words of one of my heroes, Mario Savio, leader of the Free Speech Movement at the University of California at Berkeley.  In 1964, he declared from the steps of Sproul Hall to a crowd of 4,000 protesters: 'There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can’t take part! You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop!'"

One of my heroes, Mario Savio... when you get that that, of course, you know it's good old Camille Paglia. The new column — in Salon — is "Fight the soulless juggernaut: Big money, machine politics and the real issue separating Sanders and Clinton/Democrats face a stark choice: A money-mad, scandal-plagued establishment, or the potential of decency and change."

77 comments:

Hagar said...

Mario Savio died decades ago of congestive heart failure - an old man's disease.
Bernie Sanders soldiers on.

Bay Area Guy said...

I doubt more than 10% of current UC Berkeley students even know who Mario Savio is.

eric said...

Republicans do the same thing. This year, because of Trump, it's not working.

Because it's not working, it's driving some people insane. They see their power slipping away and they are flailing wildly, trying to keep hold to the edge of the cliff like the cartoon character suspended in mid air.

Lots of careers are going to be ruined, thanks to Trump.

David Begley said...

Who will be Hillary's VP?

Grandma Warren? One of the Castro brothers? Slim pickens.

Unknown said...

Actually the majority of Ms. Paglia's column was a take down of the industrial complex within which our hostess labors.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

Brilliant commentary by Paglia. She is at the top of her game is this one.

rhhardin said...

I'd go for corruption and change.

Sigivald said...

Change.

Remember Change?

2008?

Yeah, Change. That'll happen.

Because the President is a Sun-King.

Jesus, hasn't Paglia at least taken high-school civics?

Limited blogger said...

Look at Trump's children. Beautiful, bright, articulate, they are a healthy sign for our future. Meade touted Ivanka as dad's VP. Not an entirely crazy thought. Maybe she'll be our first female president?

Gahrie said...

an honest and vanity-free man

Apparently true. Sanders is one of the few politicians that did not become rich over the course of his "public service".

who has been faithful to his core progressive principles for his entire career

If by "progressive" you mean Communist. It's an understandable mistake, since most "Progressives" are actually Communists in disguise.

rehajm said...

Grandma Warren? One of the Castro brothers? Slim pickens.

Who are these younger candidates being strong armed off the field? Younger and geriatric are not mutually exclusive I suppose.

rhhardin said...

trendy careerist professors who sat twiddling their thumbs, as they played their puerile poststructuralist and deconstructionist word games.

Paglia has her own edifice to preserve.

Crazy Jane said...

Nobody could agree with Paglia on everything, but her directness and energy always make her essays worth a read. She is at her best when in her "emperor has no clothes" mode. In this case she describes 1) the Democrat Party's utter capitulation to the corrupt Clinton machine and its money and 2) our colleges' embrace of larded bureaucracies to the detriment of genuine inquiry and the preparation of students.

traditionalguy said...

Give em Hell, Camille. The dead hand of the Clinton Duo Tyrants that emerged from the 1960's anti-war rebellion has to be ended. We don't need or want the First Woman Tyrant destroying us "Just like Obama used to do."

Clyde said...

If you want to see how democratic socialism ends up, just look at places like Greece and Venezuela. If Bernie should be elected, God forbid, then you probably should dedicate a whole room of your home to hoarding toilet paper.

Clyde said...

As for Hillary, she belongs in the Big House, not the White House!

Hillary For Prison 2016!

Retv Retv said...

film streaming

Peter said...

I guess I missed where Paglia explains how funneling even more tax money into public universities would somehow result in these universities delivering more cost-effective education?

Although supporting public but not private schools would tip the balance toward greater government control of higher ed., as would increasing the dependence of these schools on "free" money, it's hard to see how more government influence and control is going to make higher ed. better.

I've enjoyed some of Paglia's writing in the past, but here I just have to ask: has she actually thought through the implications of this proposal?

Clyde said...

Also, after 7+ years of Obama, why do the Democrats want "change"? They've had their change, and it royally screwed up the country. If Democrats are angry about the way things have been going the past few years, they have only themselves to blame.

SGT Ted said...

Bernie's "cure" will be worse than the disease?

Drago said...

Why is everyone yelling at that little hunched-over lady with the bad memory and manical cackling laugh whose husband dumped her repeatedly over the years?

Drago said...

Peter: "I guess I missed where Paglia explains how funneling even more tax money into public universities would somehow result in these universities delivering more cost-effective education?"

Ah, first things first my friend. First things first.

mccullough said...

Sanders self-righteous indignation grates. It's not an endearing quality.

Brando said...

Paglia seems a bit too enamored of Sanders, but has Clinton's number perfectly. And I can see why smart(er) leftists would want Bernie--not only does he clearly stand for what they want (broader safety net, tough on the rich) but he also would be more likely to win against Trump now that Trump is looking like the GOP nominee. Clinton would make a terrible choice generally, but specifically against Trump who could attack her from all sides, and has much more ammunition to use against her. His "outsider" message works better against the ultimate insider (Hillary) who is like a weaker Jeb Bush. But against Sanders, it's really two outsiders in an unconventional battle. (It'd also be more interesting--the Clintons are simply boring, even when they're corrupt).

Dan Hossley said...

At least she equates "core progressive principles" with socialism. Refreshing honesty.

traditionalguy said...

Just think. Has anyone ever seen Shouting Thomas and Camille Paglia in the same room at the same time?

We have pictures lots of Meade and the Professor together showing they are not the same person. But not a one of ST with Camille together. And yet they are about the same age and both are old Curmudgins with a flair for words.

Brando said...

The one thing keeping Bernie from winning against Hillary is he is reluctant to go truly negative. There's tons of material there! He can even reduce her black support by drilling home all the policies she's supported that were harmful to black Americans. He's in a virtual tie nationally, if he unleashed the dragons he could pull ahead in a number of Super Tuesday states.

I just don't think the Bern has it in him--he sees himself as too high minded, and his years of Vermont politics have insulated him from the true dirtiness of national campaigning that the Clintons excel in. Surely Hillary would not return the favor, but he is trying too much to be a gentleman.

Trump will have no such qualms. Awful a president as I think he'll be, he's going to make this one entertaining year. There's the silver lining!

Gusty Winds said...

Looks like the Democrats' money-mad, scandal-plagued establishment was a little more prepared for an outsider challenge than the Republicans'.

Sanders is done. The University of Chicago event will be his last hurrah until he gets to speak at the convention.

Amexpat said...

Meade touted Ivanka as dad's VP. Not an entirely crazy thought. Maybe she'll be our first female president?

Ivanka is appealing in many ways, but I was disappointed to learn that she's good friends with Chelsea Clinton.

Amexpat said...

I find myself now rooting for Bernie. I think Paglia made a good point that he's honest and that Congress would be an effective check to his fiscally irresponsible agenda.

Robert Cook said...

"Also, after 7+ years of Obama, why do the Democrats want "change"? They've had their change, and it royally screwed up the country."

Heh...if by "change"you mean continuation of the status quo and the prior administration's favoring of the rich, sure!

Sebastian said...

@Clyde: "Also, after 7+ years of Obama, why do the Democrats want "change"?" They want to change the change. Because Prog change 1. doesn't work and/or 2. is never enough.

"Decency and change." Right, that's the first thing one associates with socialism.

All this railing against the "machine," the "big money," the "establishment" is foolish. Of course business wants tax breaks and easy rules. But the really big money is in the welfare-industrial complex (I include entitlements, "tax expenditures," and a chunk of defense spending). The establishment's goal is to stay in power. The way to stay in power is to give people what they want. What most people want is something for nothing. The Sanders way is to confiscate the property of the few ("change") to give lots of people lots more things for nothing ("decency"). The Reagan/Bush solution was to lower taxes in hopes of higher growth and revenue, tweaking some entitlements to encourage competition and rational private decision-making, but this also gave more people something for nothing (EITC, no income taxes for bottom 50%) and depended on debt. Hillary! will likely split the difference, sort of. Trump will do whatever, who knows.

Robert Cook said...

"Who will be Hillary's VP?

"Grandma Warren? One of the Castro brothers?"


Another one who thinks a Wall Street- and Pentagon-loving Goldwater Girl would have in her administration persons who are poles apart from her in every way.

Larry J said...

This election cycle is the first that I know of where the base of both political parties is in revolt against the party establishment. You can argue that McGovern in 1972 was an example of the Democrat base going against the party establishment. I think Reagan in 1976 and to a lessor extent in 1980 was, too. Today, we have a broad swath of (economically illiterate) Democrats are supporting Sanders against Hillary. We also have a possible preference cascade for Trump over the establishment's favorite Bush. If I'm right, none of the political models or polls we see today will be reliable. This may well be a Black Swan event.

khesanh0802 said...

@ Robert Cook It is hard to beat this administration for favoring the rich. Solyndra? Subsidies for $200K electric cars. Subsidies for Warren Buffett to put up wind mills? Just scratching the surface.

Terry said...

It would be great if Sanders would be asked to explain the difference between his brand of socialism and Hugo Chavez's brand of socialism. What are the differences that will allow his brand to work when Chavez's brand failed?

tim in vermont said...

I wonder what they gave Elizabeth Warren that was worth more than the presidency? More likely she just woke up with a horse's head on her bed.

MikeR said...

"I guess I missed where Paglia explains how funneling even more tax money into public universities would somehow result in these universities delivering more cost-effective education?" Meh. My mother graduated four years of UCLA for less than it costs me for one year of community college for one of my kids. There is no reason that public colleges need to be so expensive.
I'd add, there's no reason for the federal government to step in and solve it, a la Bernie Sanders. Any state can solve it by not letting their public colleges finance themselves with Pell Grants and student loans, and cutting the cost drastically. Close the current state colleges if necessary and open new ones without the administration bloat. I recall Texas was trying to do that? This would be a good place for conservative governors to actually do something to help.

Fernandinande said...

I denounce my support of twittering.

Sammy Finkelman said...

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/bramhall-cartoons-february-2016-gallery-1.2515775?pmSlide=1.2523699

This is the best link I could get. The cartoon is entitled: "Berning" It is dated February 8.

tim maguire said...

Would you rather lose with someone you can believe in? Or with a dried up old crone who represents everything you purport to detest?

Barry Dauphin said...

Puglia might be right about HRC, but she will be the D nominee. Bernie is the darling this year but is so anti-gun that he won't pack heat even when running against the Clinton machine. It will be a bad Super Tuesday for Bernie, as he does not have enough campaign organization where it matters, and the fix has been in for HRC all along with the DNC. She can simply grind it out like a football team with 350 lb lineman and a decent fullback--3.5 yards and a cloud of dust-- not pretty but it will win the nomination. But running against the Donald is another thing altogether.

tim in vermont said...

open new ones without the administration bloat.

You know it's the regulations the government puts on universities that creates much of this bloat. Every time you legally order an organization to do something, you create one or more jobs to make sure it gets done. And the best part is, the students pay for it with borrowed money! And, to top it off, you get to blame the people lending the students the money!

Sammy Finkelman said...

Then there's this (from 2009)

http://www.standrewsparishhighschoolclassof1964.com/3/miscellaneous4.htm

Near the bottom:

As boomers coast into their golden years, it's likely the acceptance of older workers at every rung of the corporate ladder will grow. In the 1960s, the boomers' mantra was: don't trust anyone over 30. In the 2010s, it'll probably be: don't trust anyone under 70.

tim in vermont said...

Bernie is the darling this year but is so anti-gun that he won't pack heat even when running against the Clinton machine.

He was never anti-gun in Vermont. Ever. He was sort of pro gun. A position Hillary has attacked and forced him to change. But I can't believe his heart is in it.

Curious George said...

"...or the potential of decency and change."

Nothing decent about Bernie's campaign staffers. Bunch of cheats like most Democrats.

Rick said...

It's amusing for someone her age to be so open about her age bias. I suspect she will feel differently when it's directed at her.

holdfast said...

At least Bernie is willing to point out how economically disatrous the Obama Maladministration has been. His analysis of the exact causes and cures is completely wrong, but at least he sees the problems, and he wants to Make America Great Again . . .

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

Retributive change. First it was Obama's faction strong-arming Clinton voters. Now it's the Clinton faction returning the favor. It's a Hutu-Tutsi cycle of democratic progress. Sanders is wisely allowing the two factions to degrade each other.

Amanda said...

Excellent piece by Paglia. She sounds like a European style socialist, good for her. Glad she sees how it and Sanders policies would benefit the US.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Amanda

And whaddya think about Paglia's critique of Ms. Clinton?

Amanda said...

I'm a Sander's supporter. I don't care what Paglia has to say about Clinton.

Terry said...

Blogger Amanda said...
I'm a Sander's supporter. I don't care what Paglia has to say about Clinton.

But you will pull the lever for Hillary in November.
No one cares if you hold your nose when you do it, as long as you pull the damn lever for Hillary.

Skeptical Voter said...

I knew Mario Savio. I won't say he was a friend of mine (more like a bartender) but I can say of Camille Paglia, "You are no Mario Savio."

Actually I did know Mario Savio---his glory days were on the Sproul Hall steps at Berkeley during the Free Speech Movement in 1963. I was in law school at Berkeley from 1965 to 1968. By then Mario had some kids to support (don't know whether he married their mom or not), But life and reality had caught up with Mario, and he took a job as a bartender at the Blind Lemon bar on San Pablo Avenue in the Berkeley flats. He poured a pretty good beer as I recall. But the Blind Lemon was an interesting place in those days. The Black Panthers were strong in Oakland just to the south of Berkeley. The little blonde sorority girls from Cal came down to the Blind Lemon to meet the black dudes coming up from Oakland--a sort of front line in the social cultural wars, and the little girls wanted to explore things. As for me--I just wanted a beer.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Amanda

I'm a Sander's supporter. I don't care what Paglia has to say about Clinton.

Well, you described Paglia's piece as "excellent," right? So, was the entire piece excellent, or just the part you agreed with?

Myself, I thought Paglia's critique of Ms. Hillary was excellent.

Amanda said...

Yes indeed I will vote for Clinton if I have to, considering the alternative.

tim in vermont said...

We know Amanda, because your principles are an inch deep and you are primarily motivated by tribalism.

Amanda said...

My dear Tim,
My principles are the motivating factor in me NOT voting for a Republican. The Republican platform and conservative ideology is diametrically opposed to what I believe in. It's all about staying true to my principles, unlike Trump supporters who don't care that Trump isn't a true conservative, as long as he hates the same groups of people that they do.

Drago said...

Amanda: "Yes indeed I will vote for Clinton if I have to, considering the alternative."

Amanda pines for a Mao. Alas, all she has is a corrupt and ailing old woman who attacked the victims of her husbands sexual predations.

Don't give up hope comrade. Don't give up hope. Perhaps Warren will jump in to give us our first native american big bank defending gal Pres.

Drago said...

Amanda: "The Republican platform and conservative ideology is diametrically opposed to what I believe in."

Freedom is a messy thing and frightens the left.

Drago said...

Amanda: "It's all about staying true to my principles, unlike Trump supporters who don't care that Trump isn't a true conservative, as long as he hates the same groups of people that they do."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/20/what-hillarys-claim-that-republicans-are-her-enemies-is-really-about/

Alas.

Bay Area Guy said...

C'mon, Amanda -- you can't vote for that "soulless juggernaut" Clinton in that "excellent piece" by Camille Paglia!

tim in vermont said...

My principles are the motivating factor in me NOT voting for a Republican. The Republican platform and conservative ideology is diametrically opposed to what I believe in.

Right, as has been pointed out, you don't believe in human freedom, apparently. You think that Venezuela and Cuba are some kind of economic models to follow. We get it.

It's all about staying true to my principles, unlike Trump supporters who don't care that Trump isn't a true conservative, as long as he hates the same groups of people that they do.

Really? You can see into the hearts of people you despise as haters? Do you have a lot of friends who support Trump, or do you follow a strict "no fraternization" rule, like most liberals. Because it seems to me that to make such a harsh judgment on people, you must have some personal experience and are not just parroting stuff you read on-line about people you have never actually met. I mean, how likely is that?

Amanda said...

Freedom? Seriously? That's funny. Y'all want big government to force women to give birth and take away a woman's right to choose what she feels she must do. Freedom? The freedom for gays to marry legally? The freedom for gays to serve openly in the military? The freedom to vote without restriction? The freedom of having health care not restricted by prexisting conditions? Yeah freedom means something different to rightists. The freedom to get an education that doesn't put people in huge debt? Y'all say you want small government, but lust after big government in their heart of hearts. Y'all say you treasure freedom, but fascism lurks just under the surface. Lip service to freedom, that's all.

Amanda said...

How about freedom from over reacting law enforcement? How about the freedom to not be shot in the back while you're running away? South Carolina ring a bell? How about the freedom to worship without a right wing white supremacist shooting up your prayer group? How about the freedom to be in a PP clinic without being afraid of being bombed or shot by right wing religious loons?

tim in vermont said...

You aren't talking about freedoms there, you are talking about benefits, handouts, with the exception of abortion. You are talking about taking from others to give you stuff you don't have to work for so that you are free, but not those taxed to pay for your stuff, they aren't free, they work for you!

On abortion, even you will perhaps allow hypothetically that were there two persons involved in the decision, instead of, as you doubtless hold as a certainty, only one and a tissue mass, but let's say in an alternate world, on another planet, another species perhaps, that there were two people involved, then the question of freedom of one party might possibly be constrained by the rights of the other. Of course here on Earth, with human beings, an unborn baby is not human until the instant of birth, or a short while thereafter, so considerations of the rights of two people is absurd.

tim in vermont said...

So you want to be completely protected from all risks associated with being a free person in a free world? What kind of state do you propose to protect you from all risks? To keep all wrong thinking people in check. At the same time you are keeping all of these wrong thinking people in check, protecting you from every risk, you are making it harder for the police to do their job.

I don't think, BTW, that any Republicans are running on the issue of keeping racist cops on police forces.

tim in vermont said...

What you want, Amanda, is a world where other people are all free to do the stuff you think they should do.

Amanda said...

Your purported "freedoms" are nothing more than hot air. You are members of a society, you have responsibilities, like it or not. If you want to live with no responsibility to your fellow man, I suggest Somalia.

Fritz said...

Even assuming Bernie is the mythological "good socialist" who won't abuse his authority over his fellow man, the majority of them won't be.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Amanda

15 rhetorical strawman questions does not an argument make. You need to get a refund for all that debt you amassed learning nonsense in College.

Gahrie said...

Amanda...you need to look up the words "liberty" and "libertine", figure out the difference, and rework your world view.

Michael said...

Amanda

You have a problem with Somalia? You think Somalis do not live responsibly?

some lefty you turn out to be

tim in vermont said...

Your purported "freedoms" are nothing more than hot air. You are members of a society, you have responsibilities, like it or not. If you want to live with no responsibility to your fellow man, I suggest Somalia.

So, if I wish to set aside some money for my old age, perhaps buy an RV and drive across the country, but I can't because you decide that the carbon footprint of my road slug is too high so gas should be $12 a gallon, and I shouldn't have so much take home pay because of my "responsibility" to provide free stuff to other, but I can no longer afford it due to the aforementioned taxes, the freedom I lost was nothing but "hot air"?

LOL

But I can see how it works, I get the "responsibilities" and you get the "benefits." I shouldn't want anything for myself but to work for the things you think everybody should have, whether they earn them or not, and as long as I don't want anything but what you think I should want, and as long as I recognize that it is my duty to work longer hours and more years to pay for these "freedoms for other people, because, as we all know "freedom isn't free,"" I am completely free and that is no "hot air!"

At least you admit the essential truth to what I said. But it sort of amazes me how you could have gotten through college without ever running into these arguments and that the best response you have is an absurd non-sequitor about Somalia.

Terry said...

Since no one wants to ask Sanders why the economy and social fabric of Democratic Socialist Venezuela are tanking and shredding, I will answer for him:
"Sabotage by the CIA. Also wreckers, hoarders, and gusanos."

Rusty said...

Blogger Amanda said...
Your purported "freedoms" are nothing more than hot air. You are members of a society, you have responsibilities, like it or not. If you want to live with no responsibility to your fellow man, I suggest Somalia.

You. Amanda. Are why I love the left.
Have you met garage?