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 26 of 26)
376. "Seeking middleground is not very well served by having 1 conservative news outlet and 55 liberal ones."
I would agree with that statement if it I believed that a liberal bias in fact existed. I constantly hear people profess that such a bias exists (usually conservatives), but there are studies that would suggest otherwise. What are your reasons for believing that the bias does exist?
Alyssa at 4:52PM on Sep 24th 2008
377. and is that a good wow or a bad wow?
Richelle at 12:47PM on Sep 24th 2008
----------------------------------
Let me put it this way, Your husband is a lucky dude.
I hope you both have a happy life together.
Observant at 5:20PM on Sep 24th 2008
378. Alyssa; That's right. The news networks are all owned by multi-million dollar corporations. The last thing they are is "liberal".
Ryan Anderson at 6:04PM on Sep 24th 2008
379. Ryan,
Did you forget that CNN, HN, TNN, TBS, etc. are owned by Ted Turner, who used to be married to "Hanoi Jane" Fonda? If that guy's not as liberal as they come, I'm preteristvision in disguise!
LOL :o)
GearHedEd at 6:28PM on Sep 24th 2008
380. Alyssa -- And there are an equal number of studies that suggest it does exist. Why does Fox scare you people? Ignore it. Go listen to Olberman or Coombs. Let the other side have their Fox. Who cares?
But if you people think a bias doesn not exist then I want you to think about this- In the news you almost never hear anything about the humanitarian work we are doing in Iraq/Afghanistan. All you hear about is death and destruction. I have been there. I have seen and heard things that both chill my soul and melt my heart. Only a small fraction of my time related to combat. Most of it related to helping a victimized society learn self reliance and self respect. Think mainstream media will talk about that? No.
Cliff Mansfield at 6:40PM on Sep 24th 2008
381. Gear; good point about Ted. I meant ABC, NBC and CBS. Owned by Disney, GE and Westinghouse, respectively.
Ryan Anderson at 6:49PM on Sep 24th 2008
382. 81. Gear; good point about Ted. I meant ABC, NBC and CBS. Owned by Disney, GE and Westinghouse, respectively.
Ryan Anderson at 6:49PM on Sep 24th 2008
xxxx
For an Ike Eisenhower deja vu moment, go look up the amount of defense contracts being held by GE and Westinghouse. GE is a little under 4 trillion.
So Ike's 'military industrial complex' now includes two of your major news networks. In NBC's case, to the tune of 3800 BILLION dollars.
So you're going to get the news that benefits the pentagon or GE's bottom line.
That makes the line between the Pentagon and GE and NBC very murky, a merger of government and corporation and it raises a legit question re NBC's content.
Know what that's called? Ask Benito Mussolini - it was his idea.
Clif Kuplen at 7:00PM on Sep 24th 2008
383. Ryan: It isn't about who owns CBS NBC ABC. It is about who is in editorial control. That job is usually held by somebody with an agenda we can't possibly know. But that doesn't preclude a bias toward that person's beliefs.
Cliff Mansfield at 7:01PM on Sep 24th 2008
384. Fox is the only news outlet out of dozens that has ANY conservative viewpoint
xx
just on that point, identifying Mark Foley and Larry Craig repeatedly as democrats with no effort at retraction and the fact that they had a press office on Aruba for over a year and they were the only 'news' net without one in Iraq kills any idea that they're anything but a propaganda wing of the Republican party.
That's fine, but it's no more journalism than WWF is a wrestling match. It's the republican's moveon.org on tv but more flexible on truthiness.
Clif Kuplen at 7:20PM on Sep 24th 2008
385. "Alyssa -- And there are an equal number of studies that suggest it does exist. Why does Fox scare you people? Ignore it. Go listen to Olberman or Coombs. Let the other side have their Fox. Who cares?"
Can we agree not to use terms like "you people"? I'm sure I'm just as much an individual thinker as you are Mr. Mansfield. I wasn't talking about Fox in the least. If you're going to respond to my posts, I would ask that you hold me accountable only for what I have said.
I was merely commenting on your declaration that there is a liberal bias. And I have seen stories on humanitarian efforts in the news. However it's not shocking to learn that the more violent aspects of Iraq are given the most play. That's not conservative or liberal, it's just human nature. We love good news stories, but it's just not as exciting as the violent stories. This is why we all slow to see the accident on the side of the road.
And one could argue that any excessive reporting of the violence in Iraq is an attempt by conservatives to justify our prolonged stay, instead of a liberal plea to get out. My point is that it's entirely subjective what we interpret from what they're telling us.
Alyssa at 7:56PM on Sep 24th 2008
386. "It isn't about who owns CBS NBC ABC. It is about who is in editorial control. "
Yes, but those with editorial control don't last long if they're not parrotting the corporate message. Corporations are profit machines. News stations that are owned by corporations assume the same goal. The very nature of conservativism is that things stay as they are, or revert to how they were. There's not much newsworthy in that, and if it's not newsworthy, people don't watch, and it's not profitable. So if that's what you want to call a liberal bias, then I guess I can go with that. It's entirely different, however, than suggesting that the news stations adhere to and propogate a political philosophy. They adhere to an economic philosophy instead.
Alyssa at 8:03PM on Sep 24th 2008
387. Kool. Y'all win. I don't care. Leave it at "we disagree". Buh bye
Cliff Mansfield at 8:40PM on Sep 24th 2008
388. that's sweet of you, observant, thanks :) and i'm sure he and i will have a wonderful life together, him and i meeting on this crazy ass blog was the best thing to happen to both of us.
Richelle at 11:24PM on Sep 24th 2008
389. " You need to understand that Fox news is almost the ONLY news outlet on tv that is vaguely conservative and nearly half of America is conservative.
xxxx
I simply can't go along with that.
CNN is sycophant, and if one party is 'ahead' to them, and since 911 they have been all politics all the time, that party gets a higher percentage of every interview on every show.
Only since bush's popularity dropped to below 40% did CNN present anything like balanced coverage, and now it's swinging the other way.
They are sycophants, but they chase the bottom line, and right now, conservatism is self destructing and that's the money story.
I don't believe that republicanism has anything to do with traditional laissez faire conservatism. Supply side is not conservative, it is reactionary - a restatement of eighteenth century economics.
Now conservatism means single party government, merger of corporation and government, jingoism and huge governments with shrinking accountability and liability and the reformation of an elite ruling class.
None of that's conservative, and 'social' conservatism isn't laissez-faire - it's in your face your pants and your business.
Because of deregulation, each of the major nets is merged with defense and government, or is owned outright by a foreigner with no interest in America except how to exploit her.
As to the past eight years, CNN and MSNBC were both biased towards conservative coverage. Matthews of goofball is an admitted republican and neocon, and their other players were tucker carlson types except for Olbermann and now Rachael Maddow.
Outside of those two hours, Olbermann and Maddow, there is NO liberal commentary programming whatsoever on my television. Until this month, there was just Olbermann.
However, the nation is swinging back to center it seems, and sycophants will swing with it in such a way that it maximizes profits and benefits the itnerest and objectives of the parent company.
In libertarianism, to fail to do so is to commit corporate hari-kiri. There is not one micron of wiggle room in modern corporatism. Cut throats or get yours cut.
Clif Kuplen at 1:13AM on Sep 25th 2008