The presidential contest is not simply an election about who rules America; it is also an election about which set of principles defines American politics. For the past two and a half decades, conservatism has set the agenda. Is the left making a comeback?
I don't think so. Notice that Democrats avoid terms like "the left" and even "liberalism" like the plague, while Republicans routinely associate themselves with the "right" and the "conservative" label. Also the left is now defined by shrieking demagogues like Michael Moore, while intelligent people are keeping their distance or moving out of this menagerie.
In this connection, the case of David Mamet is a revealing one. It has now been six months since playwright David Mamet declared himself an admirer of America and the Constitution, and bid farewell to what he called the "brain dead left." Our left-leaning literary and cultural intelligentsia is still in shock.
The New Statesman warned that Mamet was embracing a "Hobbesian strain of conservatism." The folks at the Daily Kos website feigned indifference: "Who really cares?" But until this time Mamet was regarded as a virtual demigod of American high culture. Now we can expect the accolades to stop.
So what turned Mamet around? Well, it's been a change coming for some time now, and presumably it's not the kind of change that Barack Obama is looking for. Consider this piece of dialog from Mamet's play Bobby Gould in Hell. When Bobby echoes the old liberal nostrum, "Nothing's black and white," he receives this crushing response: "Nothing's black and white? What about a panda?"
Then there was a play that I saw several years ago on Broadway, Mamet's Oleanna. While Mamet disclaimed any political motives, you only had to see the play to recognize that it was about the feminist witch-hunt. Basically a female student (somewhat reminiscent of a young Hillary Clinton at Wellesley) makes false allegations of sexual harassment against a well-meaning but incautious liberal professor. In the name of the sisterhood, she destroys the poor man's career. I think resistance to political correctness played a big role in showing Mamet the exit out of liberalism.
Still, Mamet's essay in a March issue of the Village Voice, "Why I am No Longer a Brain Dead Liberal," came as a complete surprise. In this essay Mamet did not declare himself a Republican or a McCain voter. HIs conversion was to a kind of philosophical conservatism. Mamet affirmed what he called the conservative or tragic view of life over the liberal or perfectionist view.
Mamet openly identified with his Jewish heritage and boldly said that National Public Radio might as well stand for "National Palestinian Radio." Mamet also expressed unabashed love for America, which is something that left-wing Democrats only express at their presidential conventions when it is time to put on a performance for the American people who are watching. The rest of the time they are mentored by the likes of Jeremiah Wright whose motto is better expressed as "God damn America."
Perhaps most touching, Mamet expressed the profound sense of liberation that all independent-thinking people feel when they stop kowtowing to liberal shibboleths. "I no longer need to believe the drivel that is spoken around me," Mamet said. "I feel lighter already." To which I can only say: welcome home, David Mamet.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 26)
1. Dinesh you hypocritical , ....wasn't your very last 'blog' on how NOT to judge all christians the same just 'cause you can't see god?, now you are lumping all liberals together and saying that we should denouce the liberal title due to the fact that ONE other liberal that happens to be a writer did so?. Then I demand you become an athiest because a friend of mine that blogs and is real smart did so.
emanon at 10:57PM on Sep 18th 2008
2. " 'I need to believe the drivel that is spoken around me,' Mamet said. "
Indeed, Dinesh. Indeed.
Your drivel is best spoken around those who desire your kind of America.
And with any luck, any small piece of good fortune in a country that desperately needs a bit of fortune, your kind of America is headed for history.
Now go away.
brandon at 10:58PM on Sep 18th 2008
3. I'm very proud to be a liberal.
Liberalism brought you the U.S.A. Liberals also created the social programs to combat matters like delinquent fathers.
Liberalism was an attempt by many to escape royalism and conservatism, as it existed around Edmund Burke's time. The liberal protectionist act of the Boston Tea Party is one of the founding legends of this country. They refused to let the English tea company into America when American tea merchants were being taxed and the British East India co was not. It was an attempt to control the colonies economically, so the tea went into the drink.
The constitution was liberal. The founders who revolted against tyranny were liberal. Non-interference with your religion by government is liberal.
Emancipation of slaves and women's suffrage are liberal. In the mid nineteenth century, from just before Lincoln's time the Republican Party was liberal but all that changed a quarter century later with infiltration of the party by corporatism; democrats then became the liberal party and the torch of freedom was passed on.
If you can vote and don't own property, thank a liberal. If you can vote and you're a woman or a black person, thank a liberal. If you're retired and get a social security check, thank a liberal and thank the government agency that delivers it on time.
If you work a forty-hour week and have a paid vacation, thank a liberal. If you earn time and a half for overtime and double time for holidays, thank a liberal. If you take a prescription medication that has to pass government trials to prove it works and won't kill you, thank a liberal. If you drive on an interstate or federal highway, thank a liberal. If the government hasn’t stepped into your life to confiscate your guns or seize your private papers, thank a liberal. If your home is wired for electricity, thank a liberal.
If you were educated on the GI bill or got an NDEA loan, thank a liberal. If you got an education in a public school, thank a liberal. If your water won't poison you, thank a liberal. If you have a right to a speedy trial at which your accusers must produce a body of evidence, THANK A LIBERAL!
Tax paying Americans deserve representation. In a corporatized government, privatized functions are no longer subject to recall by vote. If the same corporations can merge and fix prices and restrain trade with impunity as they've pretty much done these past thirty years they will grow larger, take over more functions of government and control government to benefit them instead of us. That's what's going on right now.
Liberalism as held by democrats at this time seeks more of a balance as dictated by the constitution. Some things are better privatized; some are not. We also know that small government is a myth. Conservative governments have always been the largest ever.
They are only small in accountability.
Clif Kuplen at 11:06PM on Sep 18th 2008
4. Dinesh, I really don't understand your point. One man who was a liberal is now not a liberal. Fine, he can do that. Are you suggesting that no conservative has ever likewise made the transition to liberal?
I also disagree that liberals avoid calling themselves liberal. I don't. I don't understand why anyone would. Conservatives are proud of being conservative. Liberals are equally proud of being liberal. And you know what? In my opinion the world really needs both of them. The conservatives are there to keep the liberals from changing things too quickly, which can cause unforseeable and unwanted consequences. Liberals are there to drag conservatives kicking and screaming out of the illusion of past glories and into the present reality. It's the balance that's important. We're meant to feel frustrated by that.
Neither perspective is a stupid perspective, regardless of the fact that it's difficult to comprehend the other side's opinions. It is unfair to both perspectives to suggest that either side is missing some obvious logical connection which should lead them to a particular philosophy. Our opinions are not facts. And though both perspectives view the same facts, they interpret them differently based upon the life experiences of the viewer. It's really that simple.
What gets my hackles up is not that people have different opinions than mine. I'm humble enough to admit that I don't necessarily know the correct answers to everything, and that maybe the opinions of others will make more sense. No, what gets my hackles up is people who baldly claim that people with different perspectives are less intelligent. Both sides do it. Some people really even enjoy it. To me it's counterproductive. Neither side will be persuaded to a new viewpoint by assaulting their egos and pride. The only real way to get people to stay open to new ideas is through genuine and respectful conversation, and by each person acknowledging that they don't actually know much at all for certain. That goes for liberals and conservatives, atheists and theists alike. I call myself an atheist because it's an easier description than agnostic. I don't believe that there's any evidence of a God, and without evidence I have no belief. However, I will certainly acknowledge that my definition of evidence is not necessarily how others would define it. Others do see evidence of a God. Not scientific evidence, but certainly other forms. If someday I see it too, I may revise my opinion on God.
I often wonder why it is so difficult for people to come to this same conclusion. Why is it so hard to admit that you aren't certain? Why is it so hard to admit that your facts are probably in fact opinions? Why do we continuously allow our egos to divide us?
Alyssa at 11:14PM on Sep 18th 2008
5. Why I am a Brain Dead Liberal by David Mamet 3/11/08 Village Voice
An interesting part of his article:
"I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president(Bush)—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.(JFK)
Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.
And I began to question my hatred for "the Corporations"—the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.
And I began to question my distrust of the "Bad, Bad Military" of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world. Is the military always right? No. Neither is government, nor are the corporations—they are just different signposts for the particular amalgamation of our country into separate working groups, if you will. Are these groups infallible, free from the possibility of mismanagement, corruption, or crime? No, and neither are you or I. So, taking the tragic view, the question was not "Is everything perfect?" but "How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?" Put into which form, things appeared to me to be unfolding pretty well.
Do I speak as a member of the "privileged class"? If you will—but classes in the United States are mobile, not static, which is the Marxist view. That is: Immigrants came and continue to come here penniless and can (and do) become rich; the nerd makes a trillion dollars; the single mother, penniless and ignorant of English, sends her two sons to college (my grandmother). On the other hand, the rich and the children of the rich can go belly-up; the hegemony of the railroads is appropriated by the airlines, that of the networks by the Internet; and the individual may and probably will change status more than once within his lifetime."
I have found a few brain dead liberals who post on the internet who need to look at this. Some of them are acting like "Capitalists" and getting people to donate money so they may buy a Presidential election, while at the same time complain and find fault of others who collect less money, who also want to buy an election.
Robert OKane at 12:10AM on Sep 19th 2008
6. Alyssa
Right on. I believe cooperation rather than competition is better for the individual, and the whole society.
Jerry Brown at 12:11AM on Sep 19th 2008
7. gee, its just like when jerry rubin began playing the stock market.
Louis IX KingofFrance at 12:29AM on Sep 19th 2008
8.
Oooh. Some asshole playwright slams on liberalism. Why don't you celebrate by printing names of hay people? It's okay, you can eat a cracker, and you and god can call it even.
ex-christian at 12:30AM on Sep 19th 2008
9. Mamet has used his celebrity to spin his own yarn. Complicite, subserviat, Repetitive and tiresome. Celebrity calls upon its submissive servants to pay up their due. To speak when the pavlovian milkbone is offered, on cue, in the proper syntex. David has his role to play or he can no longer be Mammet. Even if the spit dribles off his chin. Sorry f I have been too kind. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Go count your money. Celebrity is another comodity for those without honor. Or nothng to say.
SPLINTERCOTTAGE at 12:44AM on Sep 19th 2008
10. Who "rules America" ? The President is not a king, or a dictator. Double-Dumbass, your ignorance is exceeded only by your ego.
Master Shake at 12:58AM on Sep 19th 2008
11. "Perhaps most touching, Mamet expressed the profound sense of liberation that all independent-thinking people feel when they no longer have to kowtow to liberal shibboleths. 'I need to believe the drivel that is spoken around me,' Mamet said. 'I feel lighter already.' To which I can only say: welcome home, David Mamet."
Welcome to neocon drivel.
Well, at least Mr. D'Souza owns up to his partisan bias. Letting you know RIGHT UP FRONT that you will not be hearing honest testimony. Simply more propaganda hurled at the left side of the aisle from the right. Yay for petty mud-slinging and the hurling of insults!
It is sad. There are educated clowns out there - such as Mr. D'Souza - who lower themselves to this kind of political trash-talking. And not all of them are on the right. But, ever since media owndership has been consolidated into the hands of folk like Rupert Murdoch, the media now speak more or less in synch with a partisan conservative voice. So, yes, most of the shameless purveyors of the slimy loogies splattered over the page and TV screen and radio speaker these days are conservative lap-dogs.
Just like Mr. D'Souza.
Jon Bergen at 1:55AM on Sep 19th 2008
12. I remember another celebrity who 'saw' the vapidity of the liberal cause. His name was Ronald Reagan. You may have heard of him.
His remark was, "I would never have listened to a Conservative trying to persuade me to change my way of thinking. But when I discovered that my own party (Democrat) was infiltrated by the Communists, it was too much for me." That may not be the exact words he used, but it's close.
Anna at 2:49AM on Sep 19th 2008
13. Dinesh: You "profess" to be a Christian.
I would be most interested in how you would classify Jesus were he to walk the streets of this country today. Based on the teachings of the Bible you claim to believe in - would you describe him as a "conservative" or a "liberal?"
I for one, can only conceive of "liberal" as the correct description and while I do not put myself on his level of spiritual evolution, I proudly and loudly claim that "liberal" name for myself as well!
To (most) of the other posters on this blog: Your writings contain far too many intelligent comments for the small mind of Dinesh to ever comprehend. But keep up the excellent work for the benefit of the rest of us. I thank you on our behalf!
doda at 2:27AM on Sep 19th 2008
14. Every time I read the posted comments, I end up feeling dirty. It boggles my mind that people who so consistently disagree with and vehemently despise Mr. D'Souza BOTHER to continue coming here to read what he has to say.
Chrissy5754 at 4:48PM on Sep 19th 2008
15. This is interesting... sorta. Too bad Mamet's best work is long behind him; the last decent thing he did was State and Main. I wonder if there's a connection there?
Ian X. Christian at 3:32AM on Sep 19th 2008