The Conversion of a Liberal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

David Mamet explains why he is “No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal’”

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374064,374064,1.html/full

Pretty interesting reading - EXCERPT:

[i]I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind.

As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.

These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life. How do I know? My wife informed me. We were riding along and listening to NPR. I felt my facial muscles tightening, and the words beginning to form in my mind: Shut the fuck up. “?” she prompted. And her terse, elegant summation, as always, awakened me to a deeper truth: I had been listening to NPR and reading various organs of national opinion for years, wonder and rage contending for pride of place. Further: I found I had been�??rather charmingly, I thought�??referring to myself for years as “a brain-dead liberal,” and to NPR as “National Palestinian Radio.”

This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong.

But in my life, a brief review revealed, everything was not always wrong, and neither was nor is always wrong in the community in which I live, or in my country. Further, it was not always wrong in previous communities in which I lived, and among the various and mobile classes of which I was at various times a part.

And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it? I began to question what I actually thought and found that I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama.

I’d observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances�??that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired�??in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.[/i]

2

Er… I don’t get why this man has equated pessimism with liberalism.

One can be a conservative and be pessimistic, or be liberal and be optimistic.

I for one, believe people suck, and persons are awesome. I’m not necessarily more or less liberal or conservative because of that view.

His view was originally unsupportive of both the liberal (trust the government, distrust big business) and the conservative (trust the market, distrust government) view point.

I’m not saying it isn’t a nice piece… but his nomenclature confuses me.

3

His problem probably stemmed more from the “brain-dead” part than from the “liberal” part.

Although this propensity people have in wanting to label themselves as part of a particular group gets to be annoying. No two people ever agree on every issue. And even if two people find themselves in perfect agreement on the principle of an issue, they’ll nickel and dime over the particulars of it most of the time.

Our modern politics mostly suck because each party becomes mired in the positions they’re “supposed” to hold, even if it’d be beneficial to their constituents if they adopted and idea “from the other side.”

4

[quote]pookie wrote:

Our modern politics mostly suck because each party becomes mired in the positions they’re “supposed” to hold, even if it’d be beneficial to their constituents if they adopted and idea “from the other side.”
[/quote]

Very good point.

5

Interesting. I would point out that “liberalism” has undergone a substantial redefinition. Once upon a time (ca 100 years ago) it meant people who believed in free markets, representational governments and civil liberties. These people were in opposition to the conservatives of the day who opposed these and were often monarchists.

Eventually, moderate liberalism won the ideological wars hands down. Reagan’s revolution was in effect and acknowledgment that nobody was really backing the older conservative platforms.

However, in the 1960’s strong anti-establishment criticism came into vogue (termed “radical chic” in the day). Much of this took over Marxist rhetoric rather uncritically. This made what has gone unnoticed, a more authentic American tradition of liberalism which is now the middle of the political spectrum and the sort of left over Leftism this author is so disenchanted with.

I am reading a very interesting book called “The Soviet Tragedy” by Martin Malia. This traces the complete disaster that was the Soviet Union (excellent read if you like that sort of thing). In it he has quite an illuminating chapter on “what is socialism”. He posits that it (and remember this is what has become the standard in the US left) was really never anything more than a moralistic stance of helping the more unfortunate. It is very hard to argue with that in the abstract. Hence the odd duality that ever time it gets into power millions die (35 m in the USSR, 65m in China, 12 m in Germany – and yes, the Nazis were socialists too, contrary to popular misconception, they were just national socialists as opposed to international ones). On the other hand, everyone can claim with a straight face that no matter what the body count, “that wasn’t socialism”. He sees the fundamental error in Marxism as confusing sociology (“class struggle”) with politics.

(I would point out that there are a few other more trendy versions of this. The Nazis confused politics with biology much as their successors the radical feminists have. The people who got politics largely right were the US founding fathers, I think, who built conflict resolution and consensus building into the political structure, just as Memet observes.)

Malia also talks about why the Russian left did what it did and screwed it up. Mostly this was because they had gotten their ideas from abroad and taken them out of context – distressingly similar to a lot of campus intellectuals I run into daily. These are the people who often frame modern political discussion.

He also writes at length about how Sovietologists managed to misinterpret almost every facet of the USSR. Now that we can actually have a look at what they did, the sorts of dysfunctions that propelled our views are a chilling read (and, I might add, probably being repeated with our assessments of radical Islam).

I mention this book because it actually has made me do a complete rethinking of the socialist origins of most far left thinking, although this was not his point at all: He just wanted to do a real forensic analysis of the USSR now that he, as an historian, had access to sources. I think that it might be a good read for some of you too.

And, as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj

6

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Interesting. I would point out that “liberalism” has undergone a substantial redefinition. Once upon a time (ca 100 years ago) it meant people who believed in free markets, representational governments and civil liberties. These people were in opposition to the conservatives of the day who opposed these and were often monarchists.

Eventually, moderate liberalism won the ideological wars hands down. Reagan’s revolution was in effect and acknowledgment that nobody was really backing the older conservative platforms.

However, in the 1960’s strong anti-establishment criticism came into vogue (termed “radical chic” in the day). Much of this took over Marxist rhetoric rather uncritically. This made what has gone unnoticed, a more authentic American tradition of liberalism which is now the middle of the political spectrum and the sort of left over Leftism this author is so disenchanted with.

I am reading a very interesting book called “The Soviet Tragedy” by Martin Malia. This traces the complete disaster that was the Soviet Union (excellent read if you like that sort of thing). In it he has quite an illuminating chapter on “what is socialism”. He posits that it (and remember this is what has become the standard in the US left) was really never anything more than a moralistic stance of helping the more unfortunate. It is very hard to argue with that in the abstract. Hence the odd duality that ever time it gets into power millions die (35 m in the USSR, 65m in China, 12 m in Germany – and yes, the Nazis were socialists too, contrary to popular misconception, they were just national socialists as opposed to international ones). On the other hand, everyone can claim with a straight face that no matter what the body count, “that wasn’t socialism”. He sees the fundamental error in Marxism as confusing sociology (“class struggle”) with politics.

(I would point out that there are a few other more trendy versions of this. The Nazis confused politics with biology much as their successors the radical feminists have. The people who got politics largely right were the US founding fathers, I think, who built conflict resolution and consensus building into the political structure, just as Memet observes.)

Malia also talks about why the Russian left did what it did and screwed it up. Mostly this was because they had gotten their ideas from abroad and taken them out of context – distressingly similar to a lot of campus intellectuals I run into daily. These are the people who often frame modern political discussion.

He also writes at length about how Sovietologists managed to misinterpret almost every facet of the USSR. Now that we can actually have a look at what they did, the sorts of dysfunctions that propelled our views are a chilling read (and, I might add, probably being repeated with our assessments of radical Islam).

I mention this book because it actually has made me do a complete rethinking of the socialist origins of most far left thinking, although this was not his point at all: He just wanted to do a real forensic analysis of the USSR now that he, as an historian, had access to sources. I think that it might be a good read for some of you too.

And, as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj[/quote]

interesting post. thanks

7

A liberal changing his mind is not noteworthy.

8

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
A liberal changing his mind is not noteworthy. [/quote]

David Mamet is a brilliant director and his piece here is thought provoking, and certainly noteworthy. Have some respect. On the same token, what makes you think your opinion is noteworthy to anyone here?

9

[quote]Gael wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
A liberal changing his mind is not noteworthy.

David Mamet is a brilliant director and his piece here is thought provoking, and certainly noteworthy. Have some respect. On the same token, what makes you think your opinion is noteworthy to anyone here?[/quote]

He has a point though.

A liberal changing to conservative is not noteworthy, a conservative changing into a liberal would be news.

10

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Interesting. I would point out that “liberalism” has undergone a substantial redefinition. Once upon a time (ca 100 years ago) it meant people who believed in free markets, representational governments and civil liberties. These people were in opposition to the conservatives of the day who opposed these and were often monarchists.

– jj[/quote]

Very interesting post. Thanks

11

Good post, that was an interesting read. He describes fairly well the basic philosophical underpinnings of why a certain breed of conservatism (not necessarily ploitical in nature) seems to take place as you experience a bit more of life and the nature of the world you live in. Most tend to (hopefully) take on a more pragmatic, level-headed approach to life. It’s the give-and-take which allows things to get done in the business community.

Idealist rhetoric, which sounds great to teenage ears thru 100-watt speakers and reads like poetry on paper doesn’t really translate well into actual RESULTS. Read: Communism.

12

There was a saying back in the 30’s that if you hadn’t become a communist by age 25 you had no heart and if you hadn’t abandoned it by age 30 you had no brain.