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 2 of 26)
16. You mean the GREAT Ronald Reagan? Why of COURSE I've heard of him! Dinesh - and most of the modern conservative extremists - would be nowhere without Mr. Brylcream, whose legend increases with each retelling.
Ian X. Christian at 3:36AM on Sep 19th 2008
17. Ah Anna, Is this the same Ronald Reagan who considered ketchup a vegetable for school children and encouraged cutting down trees in the rain forest as "progress" because we were all going to be here for the Apocalypse and since the earth would be destroyed it really wouldn't matter? What a paragon of intelligence! - Not to mention sleeping through his cabinet meetings.
I will give him this: He was an excellent mouthpiece. He sure knew how to read his lines and you couldn't even see the strings move!
doda at 3:59AM on Sep 19th 2008
18. "Nothing's black and white," he receives this crushing response: "Nothing's black and white? What about a panda?"
This is what you call a crushing response? It sounds more like some cheap tag line from a politician refusing to deal with the question.
MOre importantly, you don't know what a true conservative is. These neo-cons are anything but conservative. Read a little (God knows you don't read a lot) about Barry Goldwater. Barry felt gays should serve in the military and he was for abortion. What he was against was goverment spending like a "drunkin' sailor" to the point where China and the Saudi's control our financial fate.
Keep this one thought in mind... "All man are created equal". This might be the most LIBERAL line in western history.
jparaudajr at 5:56AM on Sep 19th 2008
19. Uh, Mr. DD? Do you really want to know what a true conservative would have to say about you and your drivel and your right to blog your views? No white man who ever lived was more conservative than my grandfather and, I'm sorry, but he would never consider you as being equal to a white man, would never consider anything you had to say as being worth hearing and he and his friends would have thrown you in prison (if you were lucky) for having the audacity to say it publicly. I understand you are very proud of your white wife. Sorry, but under the norms my grandfather and his generation were hellbent on 'conserving', your brown butt would be 'strange fruit hanging' from the nearest tree. You should get down on your knees and thank the next liberal you see.
lordfussy at 6:39AM on Sep 19th 2008
20. Dinesh; I guess you've got to look for "victories" wherever you can find them. Congratulations on Mamet???
Ryan Anderson at 6:59AM on Sep 19th 2008
21. Perhaps Mamet feels "lighter" because he no longer will have to think for himself: the Right has pre-packaged answers for everything. And as far as the word "Liberal," I guess you missed Paul Krugman's best-selling book, "The Conscience of a Liberal."
Greg Landingham at 7:09AM on Sep 19th 2008
22. "When Bobby echos the old liberal nostrum, "Nothing's black and white," he receives this crushing response: "Nothing's black and white? What about a panda?"
OK, when I'm able to breath again after the hysterical laughter, and clean the coffee spit from my keyboard, I'll try to refute this brilliant argument. Right now I'm speechless. Really? This is a crush on liberals? REALLY Dinesh? HAHAHAHAHA
Seriously, though. You always try to define who liberals are, what they think, who they follow, and truly you have no clue. You also take one liners and paste them up as absolutes. As a liberal, I do not say there is NO black and white anywhere. Sure there is. Many things occur that you can deem "right" or "wrong" with no in between. The problem with a guy such as yourself is the inability to see ANY gray areas. Like our president, you don't do nuance. Or at least don't admit to it. Circumstances can change any hard line opinion, even yours. Those are the moral questions in life, some of which no matter what answer you come up with, it will defy some portion of your right and wrong stance. Killing another human is wrong. But what if your wife and children are being attacked and you kill the attacker to save them? What if your children are starving and you see apples growing in a farmers orchard? Will you steal an apple for your children so they can eat? Stealing is wrong you know. I saw a recent article that had this one: You're touring a cave with a group of 15 people, including your whole family. A very large man becomes wedged in the only small opening leading out of the cave, and the tide is about to come in. If you do nothing, all will die. If you kill the stuck tourist, you can save the other 14. Any religious, rightous person such as yourself that can never see that there may be something OTHER than just black and white is the one with moral deficiencies. In real life, Dinesh, people have to make "lesser of 2 evil" decisions everyday, I'm glad you think you have all the answers. Those of us that actually feel compassion and empathy....you know....liberals, put more time into it.
Jude at 7:27AM on Sep 19th 2008
23. There's gotta be a slogan for the Panda argument.
"Giving liberals two black eyes" ?
"Bamboo-zled again" ?
"Bears repeating" ?
"Roly Poly Holy Rolling?" ?
"Ling-Ling Levels Liberals" ?
Jude at 7:47AM on Sep 19th 2008
24. 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
The above just proves that
Camille Paglia's column was soooooooooo on target.
M2D5 at 7:57AM on Sep 19th 2008
25. Funny my life long republican girlfreind is voting Obama, she thinks Palins a disgrace and knows McCains ads are lies. She's sick of it, because she's smart and has a conscience. She wants her party back from you clowns.
Dennis at 8:28AM on Sep 19th 2008
26. Dinesh,
This is a very insightful and though-provoking blog about David Mamet and conservatism.
Lately, I have been thinking about the differences between liberals and conservatives.
As the Bible teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the perfection of God, it also teaches us to strive to become more holy, set apart from sinful ways, to be more like God. In the meantime, the devil teaches us to doubt what God has said, ever since the garden of Eden, when the serpent promised enlightenment to Eve and Adam, but the judgment from God was death, after all, just like God had said in the first place.
So goes the core difference between conservatives and liberals.
Conservatives accept and observe a standard of right from wrong, regardless that we all stumble and fail to live up to all the standards, all the time. The standards still exist as a goal, for the betterment of society as a whole, and for the betterment of each individual.
When a conservative falls short of the standard, conservatives don't delete the standard of morality, conservatives usually admit our mistake and endeavor to straighten up to once again meet the standard.
Liberals deny that there is any right from wrong.
Like Satan, liberals deny the moral standards of God, saying there are NO moral standards, except promoting debauchery, because mankind is basically good, though debauched, as long as you reject higher moral standards.
This is to the detriment of society, as we see our increasingly secular culture becoming more violent and self-absorbed, refusing to look to God, while obsessing about ourselves. Vanity. Liberalism.
I am surprised that you think the country remains conservative after the past few decades. I guess that you are right, for it really is the liberals and activist judges who have been perverting our way of life for decades, with laws that go against right from wrong, and even promote wrong over right: abortion, homosexual activism, etc.
Barack Obama, (B.O.), is a wolf in sheep's clothing, preaching a different gospel that immorality is okay, and only intolerance of immorality is evil. When B.O. speaks, the wicked lost listen and rejoice. He would have been a popular community organizer in ancient Sodom and Gomorrah, I suspect. But B.O. made a major goof up in picking Joe Biden over Hillary for his Veep, snubbing the Hillary half of the Democratic party and exposing his poor judgment.
John McCain brilliantly chose a female conservative for his Veep, instantly transforming the race from change (B.O.) versus no change (McCain), into chump change (B.O.) versus change for the better (Palin).
Mamet should do more overt playwriting for conservatism, this election season.
VOTE
FOR
SARAH
Rev 3:16 at 8:34AM on Sep 19th 2008
27. Dinesh,
This is a very insightful and though-provoking blog about David Mamet and conservatism.
Lately, I have been thinking about the differences between liberals and conservatives.
As the Bible teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the perfection of God, it also teaches us to strive to become more holy, set apart from sinful ways, to be more like God. In the meantime, the devil teaches us to doubt what God has said, ever since the garden of Eden, when the serpent promised enlightenment to Eve and Adam, but the judgment from God was death, after all, just like God had said in the first place.
So goes the core difference between conservatives and liberals.
Conservatives accept and observe a standard of right from wrong, regardless that we all stumble and fail to live up to all the standards, all the time. The standards still exist as a goal, for the betterment of society as a whole, and for the betterment of each individual.
When a conservative falls short of the standard, conservatives don't delete the standard of morality, conservatives usually admit our mistake and endeavor to straighten up to once again meet the standard.
Liberals deny that there is any right from wrong.
Like Satan, liberals deny the moral standards of God, saying there are NO moral standards, except promoting debauchery, because mankind is basically good, though debauched, as long as you reject higher moral standards.
This is to the detriment of society, as we see our increasingly secular culture becoming more violent and self-absorbed, refusing to look to God, while obsessing about ourselves. Vanity. Liberalism.
I am surprised that you think the country remains conservative after the past few decades. I guess that you are right, for it really is the liberals and activist judges who have been perverting our way of life for decades, with laws that go against right from wrong, and even promote wrong over right: abortion, homosexual activism, etc.
Barack Obama, (B.O.), is a wolf in sheep's clothing, preaching a different gospel that immorality is okay, and only intolerance of immorality is evil. When B.O. speaks, the wicked lost listen and rejoice. He would have been a popular community organizer in ancient Sodom and Gomorrah, I suspect. But B.O. made a major goof up in picking Joe Biden over Hillary for his Veep, snubbing the Hillary half of the Democratic party and exposing his poor judgment.
John McCain brilliantly chose a female conservative for his Veep, instantly transforming the race from change (B.O.) versus no change (McCain), into chump change (B.O.) versus change for the better (Palin).
Mamet should do more overt playwriting for conservatism, this election season.
VOTE
FOR
SARAH
Rev 3:16 at 8:36AM on Sep 19th 2008
28. Wait, so he's embraced the Constitution, but somehow feels allied with Republicans at the same time??? I thought he was smart.
America's Most Gangsta at 8:41AM on Sep 19th 2008
29. 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.
********************************************
What I notice much more strikingly, is how conservatives avoid the term "Republican" like the plague that it is. How many times was it spoken and read at the 'Ye who shall remain nameless' National Convention????
America\\\'s Most Gangsta at 8:42AM on Sep 19th 2008
30. Perhaps this super lame posting by DD is by way of his need to pack up and leave in a few days.
Absolutely nothing in his desparate attempt to
1) set up his usual "strawman" argument: A formerly vocal and widely read Liberal is now saying that he is no longer comfortable with that label. (he is not accepting the "label" of Conservative (particularly as Dinesh defines it) either!)
2)Strawman=absolute truth; Because a "leading" liberal has had a change of heart???, all liberalism is therefore refuted and all liberals (who are all identical people to Dinesh) should now become conservatives.
3) Liberalism vs Conservatism=atheist vs theist; Dinesh believes that all liberals are, by definition, at least closet atheists. If only all liberal unbelievers could see the rightness of conservatism (which he thinks really includes all believeing Christians), they would also "find the Lord".
Actually, if one reads Davis Mammett's thesis carefully, he is really saying that he has stopped labeling political viewpoints, recognizing that very few of us are "totally" liberal or conservative. Both major parties have their "centrist" wings (for which please read,those who see that either extreme view must be at least partially wrong all the time). In the case of the Republicans, the extreme right has held inordinate sway over the rest of the party in recent years. Now, perhaps in reaction to this, the Democrats are now leaning further left than they have during the same period. If we can learn anything from this, we should recognize that this is a perfect example of the "checks and balances" government that our founding fathers (most of whom would be seen today as "liberals" for their renegade approach to the conservatism of Great Britain at that time). If we allow our admittedly imperfect (Winston Churchill remarked: Democracy is the worst system of government ever devised by man, except for all the others.) system to operate, as it generally has, most of these "black and white" issues will eventually be seen as having been "gray", and will also have been resolved according to the best abilities that our executive, legislative, and judiciary arms of that government can do, within their "checks and balances".
Harvey at 8:41AM on Sep 19th 2008