Camille Paglia

[anhinga_drafts]

I rediscovered Camille Paglia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

This time I bumped into her articles on the political season, which just ended:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/11/12/palin/print.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/10/08/palin/print.html

Comments

[spamsink]

I don't share her fascination with populist phenomena. Those phenomena must never rise above the level of amusing.

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

> I don't share her fascination with populist phenomena.

But I do :-) In any case, I finally found someone who likes and supports Obama, and at the same time dares to publicly state that she likes and admires Sarah Palin (despite holding completely opposing political views), and that's great!

I'd like to see more people saying that..

> Those phenomena must never rise above the level of amusing.

Well, things often don't behave as they "must", do they?

[spamsink]

Oh well, both of them sicken me to some extent (granted, Obama does to a much lesser one than Palin).

Well, things often don't behave as they "must", do they?

Wrong rhetorical question. The right one would be "Lest what?" May be not so rhetorical after all.

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

> both of them sicken me to some extent

There are plenty of people who say that virtually all politicians sicken them. I am frequently in that mode myself; after all, what else one can feel if one looks at politics too closely? However, one does not have to be in the same mode of thinking all the time; it's OK to switch between them.

What Paglia does is fairly rare and (hence) non-trivial..

> May be not so rhetorical after all.

But who cares. It's boring to be politically correct about this, even if sometimes populism leads to unpleasant, and sometimes even rather horrible, consequences.

And what does it mean to say "must never" about the phenomena which exist, widespread, and are not under anyone's control? It does not mean we want a law against "populism", does it?

[spamsink]

It's boring ...

I never was an adrenaline junkie.

And what does it mean to say "must never"

It means a) there is no law against wishful thinking, and b) that ochlocracy must die.

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

> I never was an adrenaline junkie.

that's the difference between us! :-)))

> ochlocracy must die

but it won't ;-) this ochlocracy thing, it's rather bad, does not want to fulfill its sacred duty and die ;-)

*******************************

Actually, I do like to see a scenario, where ochlocracy ends, and at the same time positive aspects of our life are not destroyed..

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

I wrote:

> Actually, I do like to see a scenario, where ochlocracy ends, and at the same time positive aspects of our life are not destroyed..

But I can only imagine "very futuristic" versions of such scenarios; in the "ordinary life" I can't see them..

[spamsink]

Then wouldn't it be fair to ask what positive aspects of our life are due to ochlocracy? Off the top of my head I can only think of one - CA Prop. 13 regarding property taxes, but even that is debatable.

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

Was there any other form of government, than an ochlocracy, ever? And is not "one person, one vote" the ultimate ochlocracy? A dictatorship can pretend that it is a "benevolent rule of the elite", but a democracy would not be able to even pretend that..

And all positive aspects of our current life depend on the current political system being preserved, don't they? Basically, it would take a revolution to even try to get rid of ochlocracy, and the attempt is quite unlikely to succeed in that goal, but quite likely to destroy our rather nice way of life..

[spamsink]

Was there any other form of government, than an ochlocracy, ever?

Ever heard of absolute monarchy?

And is not "one person, one vote" the ultimate ochlocracy?

Not unless laws are passed by that vote.

My definition of ochlocracy is when the job of the government (esp. its legislative or judicial branches) is done by popular vote.

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

> Ever heard of absolute monarchy?

Yes, but even that is usually a pretense. Unless the monarch take the will of various groups into consideration, the monarch's life becomes endangered rather quickly..

> when the job of the government (esp. its legislative or judicial branches) is done by popular vote

your definition is very narrow.. you basically just object to the ballot questions then (we actually passed Question 2, over the uniform objections of political establishment, so this is an example of when ballot questions might be good)..

but then what do Obama or Palin have to do with "ochlocracy" -- all their populism is just to get elected (just like "populism" of any other elected official), not to get the government making decisions by popular vote.. So why did you even bring the "ochlocracy" up in this context, if you are using the narrow definition?

[spamsink]

So why did you even bring the "ochlocracy" up in this context, if you are using the narrow definition?

Ok, broaden it a little, including the nomination process.

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

And what should that be?

(That is, to the extent that it's not a private business of each party, to be conducted as the particular party sees fit.)

[spamsink]

Currently the final step of the nomination at the party conference is perfunctory, the nomination being effectively done ochlocratically. It should not be so.

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

Well, we disagree :-)

In any case, the society can demand that if a party is sufficiently large, it must go through a regulated democratic process of primary elections, but it certainly cannot demand that a party must refrain from doing so :-)