No bullet quotes this time; merely one paragraph demonstrating that brilliance in one field — in Paglia's case, literary criticism — doesn't naturally translate into brilliance in another. From Salon's interview, Part II, the astute critic and bumbling political analyst declares:
I don’t see Hillary as even getting as far as the debates! If things continue to trend downward for her, in terms of her favorability and the increasing scandals, then the Democratic establishment will have to take action to avoid a sure GOP win. Hillary has way too much baggage for a general election–that should have been obvious from the start…. I don’t think Hillary wants to be defeated, so what I’ve been predicting all along is that there will be a "health crisis," and she will withdraw. Right now, her campaign is trying to change the headlines by releasing some new policy statement every day, but it’s not going to change the looming investigations into her conduct as Secretary of State. And of course the GOP is holding back its real anti-Hillary ammunition until she’s the nominee. Then we’ll all be plunged backward into the endless nightmare of the Clinton years–it will be pure hell!
Let us pass over the paragraph's opening. It's just too weird. Perhaps Paglia was speculating after a few belts of bourbon; maybe she had just emerged from a transcendentalist trance; or, it could be that she was only playing that old prediction game of long shots. There is a one-in-a-million chance she's right, and if so, she'll be hailed as a seer. If she's wrong — which she is — no one will remember. It's a paradox: In political punditry, long-shot predictions are the safest bets. (Mark it: I hereby predict that Ben Carson will be the Republican nominee. When he isn't, forget it.)
What beguiles are Paglia's strategic references to "looming investigations" into Hillary's recent official conduct and the GOP's menacing firepower aimed at her, now held in cunning reserve. In Salon Interviews Paglia Part I the critic admitted to habitually snorting "Drudge." Alas, her addiction may be catching up to her. There are no looming investigations; there are only Republicans' fifth, sixth, tenth, fiftieth rehashes of fizzled investigations. If I may enter Paglia's academic field for one moment: Theirs is merely a knockoff of Moby-Dick.
And my, how clever of the GOP to hold back "its real anti-Hillary ammunition" until Hillary is in the snare. Paglia doesn't reveal who these Bulging schemers are, but if they're really loaded for $600 hair, then they're a wickedly conspiratorial bunch capable of concealing the most magnificent counteroffensive in American political warfare. Clear throat. We're talking about the modern GOP here — a chaotic gang that shoots every which way but out.
The final sentence in Paglia's paragraphical insights is, sadly, all too true. Republican assaults throughout the general-election season (and into Hillary's presidency) will plunge us relentlessly backward into the nightmare of Gingrichism. But I look at this this way. As Kafkaesque as it all will be, Kafka is also endlessly entertaining. It's not as though there's an alternative to mad-dog electioneering or presidential butchery in American democracy; we are hooked on politics as a bloodsport, and that's that. Perhaps 2016's surrealism will metamorphose into rereadings of Dante's maiden cantos. Hellish? Sure. But an entertaining hellishness? You bet.