Camille speaks!

Paglia returns to cast a withering eye on Clark ("what a phony!"), Kerry ("the hair!"), Madonna ("a monster"), bloggers -- and the "delusional narcissists" in the White House who led an out-of-his-depth president into a disastrous war..

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Kerry Lauerman

Oct. 29, 2003 | Camille Paglia retired her Salon column more than two years ago, and some readers still remain in deep denial, sending us letters -- "WHERE'S CAMILLE?" and "Bring back Paglia!" -- and clamoring for her singular blend of historical analysis and crackling street smarts.

The last time we spoke with Paglia, in February, at the onset of war, she spoke of "a terrible sense of foreboding" about what would come next. We pick up the conversation from there -- and cover other recent key cultural developments, from Gen. Wesley Clark ("What a phony!"), Sen. John Kerry ("the hair!"), and the tumultuous fall of Rush Limbaugh. She also cast a disapproving eye on the confused antics of Madonna, the comedic influence of David Letterman, and bloggers ("endless reams of bad prose!").

Paglia continues her work as a professor of humanities at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia and is completing a book about poetry and a new collection of her essays. Salon spoke to her last week by phone.

You talked the last time about being "extremely upset about our rush to war." Has it played out as you would have predicted?

How to start! This Iraq adventure is a political, cultural and moral disaster for the United States. Every sign was there to read, but the Bush administration is run by blinkered people who are driven by ideology and who do not feel the largeness of the world and its multiplicity of religions, ethnicities and customs. Despite the multicultural ambitions of higher education in the last 25 years, there has been a massive failure in public education. Media negligence also played a huge role in this cataclysm.

Throughout all of last year, as the war drums were beating, the media did not do its job in informing the American people about the complexities of Mideastern history or of the assumptions of world Islam. For example, it should have laid out the dark saga of foolish decision making by the European powers as they cut up the Ottoman Empire after World War I and unleashed the territorial disputes and animosities that still plague us. With more historical perspective during the debate over Iraq, I don't think the polls would have been as high as they were.

I also blame the media for failing to inform the American people about the ancient history of Mesopotamia and of the vision of Saddam Hussein -- who was just a Podunk tyrant who was no threat to the continental U.S. -- to revive the greatness of Babylon. If that had been understood, maybe more people would have suspected that all that bluster about stockpiled weapons of mass destruction was hot air. Of course it was in Saddam's regional interest as a macho man to imply that he had this mountain of armaments, that he could strike the West at any moment. The Egyptian pharaohs were always pounding their chests and boasting in exactly the same way. U.S. intelligence was so naive to have fallen for that, hook, line and sinker!

Another sin by the media was their failure to publicize the immense archaeological and artistic past of Iraq, to show America that Iraq wasn't just this desert wasteland over a big puddle of oil. Few people realized that until the National Museum was looted after American troops seized Baghdad. Then came -- the utter hypocrisy! -- tear-stained, hand-wringing articles by those big blowhards at the New York Times: "Oh, the Bush administration are such awful vandals!" Well, where the hell were all of you last year? Why didn't you show the architecture and artifacts of ancient Mesopotamia or Islamic Baghdad under the caliphate? The American people were led to believe that Baghdad was just a bunch of Bedouin tents huddled in the middle of the desert. As I said the last time I spoke with Salon, I also blame the Democratic senators--

A "bunch of weasels," you called them at the time--

Yes, and that word "weasel" went out from that interview and caught fire. The New York Post used it by that weekend, and from there it was seized by the right wing, as in the bestselling "Deck of Weasels" playing cards. It's a great example of the power of Salon: We put "weasel" back into the American vocabulary!

The emptiness at the heart of the Democratic Party is absolutely clear in the current campaign for the 2004 presidential nomination. The Democratic senators never take a stand without consulting a pollster. They're all trimmers -- they put their finger in the wind and frantically trim their sails. They were so twisted up about political fallout before last fall's election that they gave Bush a rubber stamp for war. Sen. Robert Byrd was the only strong, eloquent voice denouncing this dangerous expansion of presidential power and misuse of our military.

I had a momentary hope, when Bush recently hung out that outrageous bill for $87 billion, that maybe Congress would stand up and refuse to pay for one more day of this. But no, they've all collapsed again like toothpick men. As I repeatedly prophesized over the years at Salon, we are in a period like the Roman Empire, where there is an arrogant, imperial executive branch and a misuse of the army for partisan or fantastically hallucinatory purposes.

My view -- which is an extreme position -- is that we should get the troops out of Iraq now. But even many liberals are saying, "We're gone too far. We cannot turn back now!" Oh, yes, we can! Get the United Nations in there, and get out! I don't think this thing is worth one more American life -- not with the pressing needs we have at home. We have catastrophically compromised our internal system of defense against terrorism because of this adventure overseas. Our National Guard and reservists are over there -- our first responders for emergencies in terrorist attacks here.

Next page | "I don't personally hate Bush ... but I feel very sorry for him"
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

I don't personally hate Bush. I think he's sincere and well-meaning. But I feel very sorry for him. Every time I watch him, I feel his suffering, and I suffer with him. But he's out of his depth in this job. His view of the world is painfully simplistic -- like a Wild West video game where the good guys wear white hats and always win. But he's surrounded by manipulators -- like Vice President Dick Cheney, the invisible man, the shadowy puppeteer.

The person I do hate is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who is out of control and who has trashed what should be the professional cooperation between the State Department and the Pentagon. Rumsfeld is lost in some delusional state. He's like Newt Gingrich in the grandstanding narcissism department. Both Rumsfeld and Gingrich show how narrow-bore thinking can turn high I.Q. into colossal stupidity.

Where have you gone, dear Camille? Your silence has been maddening in this mad, mad, mad world. Unlike most commentary in print and broadcast media, your keen insight and crackling intelligence stimulates and educates the readership, opening minds, broadening viewpoints, and challenging narrow assumptions.

Of course, Dubya is woefully in over his head on matters of international engagement. Your hilarious lampoon of the plucky antics of the Bush administration is reminiscent of the old gag reels about the gang that couldn't shoot straight. He empowers hawk Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who lacks any vision and plan for the reconstruction of Iraq, and diminishes dove Secretary of State Powell, who warned him against the long-term human and financial costs of waging war against rogue Arab nations. Dubya's short-term memory problems have erased the fact that he was elected because of his diverse pre-election appointments of certain administration officials with supernova appeal overshadowing his own shortcomings and weaknesses.

Presently, Dubya may be properly credited for expanding the ever-widening credibility gap between the executive branch and the electorate with his unilateralist style of leadership. He goaded the American people into war with ominous, falsified claims of hidden weapons of mass destruction in silos beneath the Iraq desert, while blithely ignoring intelligent debate concerning pressing domestic and economic crises. His pretext for war is captured in his stark, cryptic warnings concerning the specter of Saddam's dirty nukes triggering cataclysm. And the pretext for stifling protest and debate over the war is handily accomplished by offensively brain-numb conservative pundits smearing his critics as Socialistic, anti-American, and treasonous liberals.

Honestly, I have no great joy as America liberates Iraqis -- only heartache that we live in the dangerous world in which we will raise a new generation who must brace themselves for the greater uncertainty, and, sadly, the possible downfall of American prosperity stemming from fear, war and terrorism.

-- James Kelly

. . .

I want to offer my thanks to Camille Paglia for clearly recognizing the genius of Rush Limbaugh, calling Al Franken a cry-baby and Wes Clark a phony, and making a case for Irish-American right-wing gab as a modern art form. Perhaps next she could discuss her favorite hip-hop performers and NBA picks.

-- Robert Eason

Paglia says Bush is "well-meaning and sincere," but she should be required to do a bit of research into Bush's very shady history before making such statements. At the very least she ought to read "Bushwhacked" by Molly Ivins -- a well-documented horror story about the self-serving, dishonest president. I fear that Paglia's opinions are formed based on whether or not she likes the personality of her subject, and we all know that Bush excels at back-slapping. She has failed to notice that while he's slapping the back he plunges a knife into the gut.

-- Sally Raynes

In the Salon interview, Paglia starts out by railing against the New York Times for its lack of coverage about Iraq. In fact, a few weeks before the war, when it was clear the invasion was imminent, the Times did a big spread on Iraq's cultural and architectural treasures -- and the potential blow to civilization if they were destroyed. The mainstream media has been craven in the coverage of this war, but I thought that one piece was a great, if quixotic effort.

But much of the rest of Paglia's scorching criticism is right on the mark.

-- Scott Kuhlman