David Mamet: Why I am no longer a braind dead liberal

[0roo0roo]

..

 

[Lemon law]

Why is it after reading only one page of this tripe, I want to pull a Norman Mailer and point out the Mamet was brain dead before and brain dead after words. Being liberal or reformed liberal has nothing to do with it.

I always distrust someone who says they are turning over a new leaf. The new Nixon was exactly like the old Nixon, except the new Nixon was older than the old Nixon.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Why is it after reading only one page of this tripe, I want to pull a Norman Mailer and point out the Mamet was brain dead before and brain dead after words. Being liberal or reformed liberal has nothing to do with it.

I always distrust someone who says they are turning over a new leaf. The new Nixon was exactly like the old Nixon, except the new Nixon was older than the old Nixon.

Probably because you're a brain-dead Liberal? :Q

"Glengarry Glen Ross" is a great movie though and "The Edge" is an underrated gem.

 

[Moonbeam]

Very nice article. A good example of a person who went from being a brain dead liberal to being a real liberal.

 

[Rainsford]

OK, first of all, if I ever wrote anything so self-involved and egotistical, I would hope someone would hold an intervention on my behalf. I have had people come to my door trying to convince me to discover Jesus who conveyed their feelings in a far less obnoxious way.

The problem with David Mamet's views seem obvious...focus on the first two words of the phrase "brain dead liberal" instead of the last one to get an idea of what that problem might be. Liberalism is, far more than conservativism, a "big tent" philosophy. And since the tent IS so big, there is plenty of room for the practical liberals and the far left socialist types to all get along. Part of that is necessity, as the only alternative is the conservative tent, which has been growing smaller for some time now.

The reason I suggest David Mamet may not be playing with a full sack is that he's examined his flawed liberal views and decided that, rather than taking the best parts of liberal philosophy and throwing his dumber ideas overboard, the only alternative is to jump into bed with people like Thomas Sowell (who Mamet specifically praises). Liberalism doesn't have to mean hating the military or thinking government can solve all your problems, yet rather than moving from brain dead liberalism to practical liberalism, Mamet just went right off the tracks and ended up with brain dead conservativism.

Mamet's objections to his brand of liberalism was that it wasn't very practical, that it didn't line up with objective reality. Which may be true, but there are many philosophies that don't bear too close a relationship with reality, and it appears that Mamet simply went from one to another. Rather than examining his views and modifying them as appropriate, he just decided to burn the whole house down and jump on board with the next band of idiots that wandered by. Exchanging Karl Marx for Thomas Sowell is certainly political movement, but it's entirely lateral movement...Mamet hasn't improved or refined his position, his self impressed commentary to the contrary.

 

[Craig234]

There are always some people with flawed thinking who are faux-liberals who 'find the truth' in conservatism. Consider Joe Lieberman or Dennis Miller; neocons are kind of in this camp, adtoping the means of the worst of communist tactics, with a naivete and idealism making kumbaya liberals look practical, threatening to discredit the very ideals the espouse, e.g., promoting democracy and liberty.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
OK, first of all, if I ever wrote anything so self-involved and egotistical, I would hope someone would hold an intervention on my behalf. I have had people come to my door trying to convince me to discover Jesus who conveyed their feelings in a far less obnoxious way.

The problem with David Mamet's views seem obvious...focus on the first two words of the phrase "brain dead liberal" instead of the last one to get an idea of what that problem might be. Liberalism is, far more than conservativism, a "big tent" philosophy. And since the tent IS so big, there is plenty of room for the practical liberals and the far left socialist types to all get along. Part of that is necessity, as the only alternative is the conservative tent, which has been growing smaller for some time now.

The reason I suggest David Mamet may not be playing with a full sack is that he's examined his flawed liberal views and decided that, rather than taking the best parts of liberal philosophy and throwing his dumber ideas overboard, the only alternative is to jump into bed with people like Thomas Sowell (who Mamet specifically praises). Liberalism doesn't have to mean hating the military or thinking government can solve all your problems, yet rather than moving from brain dead liberalism to practical liberalism, Mamet just went right off the tracks and ended up with brain dead conservativism.

Mamet's objections to his brand of liberalism was that it wasn't very practical, that it didn't line up with objective reality. Which may be true, but there are many philosophies that don't bear too close a relationship with reality, and it appears that Mamet simply went from one to another. Rather than examining his views and modifying them as appropriate, he just decided to burn the whole house down and jump on board with the next band of idiots that wandered by. Exchanging Karl Marx for Thomas Sowell is certainly political movement, but it's entirely lateral movement...Mamet hasn't improved or refined his position, his self impressed commentary to the contrary.

I don't see this out of the frying pan into the fire thingi at all. Seems to me he is acknowledging truths on the other side he had formerly denied. He's like Obama, no?

At any rate, in order to make a case for your position you would have to say something about Sowell and Marx so us ignorant folk could get some notion of what you see. Otherwise, I just have to take your words on faith. And was he going whole hog for Sowell or taking some of his ideas in part?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Craig234
There are always some people with flawed thinking who are faux-liberals who 'find the truth' in conservatism. Consider Joe Lieberman or Dennis Miller; neocons are kind of in this camp, adtoping the means of the worst of communist tactics, with a naivete and idealism making kumbaya liberals look practical, threatening to discredit the very ideals the espouse, e.g., promoting democracy and liberty.

This is a flaw? Wouldn't it depend on what they find to be true?

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Why is it after reading only one page of this tripe, I want to pull a Norman Mailer and point out the Mamet was brain dead before and brain dead after words. Being liberal or reformed liberal has nothing to do with it.

I always distrust someone who says they are turning over a new leaf. The new Nixon was exactly like the old Nixon, except the new Nixon was older than the old Nixon.

It's "afterwards", not "after words".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I read this the other day. I thought it was a pretty good read. I am not surprised it ended up here, nor am I surprised by the comments so far.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Very nice article. A good example of a person who went from being a brain dead liberal to being a real liberal.

Yep. Excellent article IMO. If you ever want to achieve peace with yourself and the world, then eventually you have to reconcile your pie-in-the-sky ideology of perfection with objective reality.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I read this the other day. I thought it was a pretty good read. I am not surprised it ended up here, nor am I surprised by the comments so far.

was thinking exactly the same thing

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I read this the other day. I thought it was a pretty good read. I am not surprised it ended up here, nor am I surprised by the comments so far.

was thinking exactly the same thing

And I'm not surprised at the comments from the two of you. This sort of "born again" conservativism plays VERY nicely into the story that is often used to sell conservative ideology, the flawed liberal who has come to realize the error of his ways and embraced the "real world" ideology that conservative views supposedly represent. The fact that the story doesn't make a lot of sense doesn't really matter at all, does it?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Rainsford
OK, first of all, if I ever wrote anything so self-involved and egotistical, I would hope someone would hold an intervention on my behalf. I have had people come to my door trying to convince me to discover Jesus who conveyed their feelings in a far less obnoxious way.

The problem with David Mamet's views seem obvious...focus on the first two words of the phrase "brain dead liberal" instead of the last one to get an idea of what that problem might be. Liberalism is, far more than conservativism, a "big tent" philosophy. And since the tent IS so big, there is plenty of room for the practical liberals and the far left socialist types to all get along. Part of that is necessity, as the only alternative is the conservative tent, which has been growing smaller for some time now.

The reason I suggest David Mamet may not be playing with a full sack is that he's examined his flawed liberal views and decided that, rather than taking the best parts of liberal philosophy and throwing his dumber ideas overboard, the only alternative is to jump into bed with people like Thomas Sowell (who Mamet specifically praises). Liberalism doesn't have to mean hating the military or thinking government can solve all your problems, yet rather than moving from brain dead liberalism to practical liberalism, Mamet just went right off the tracks and ended up with brain dead conservativism.

Mamet's objections to his brand of liberalism was that it wasn't very practical, that it didn't line up with objective reality. Which may be true, but there are many philosophies that don't bear too close a relationship with reality, and it appears that Mamet simply went from one to another. Rather than examining his views and modifying them as appropriate, he just decided to burn the whole house down and jump on board with the next band of idiots that wandered by. Exchanging Karl Marx for Thomas Sowell is certainly political movement, but it's entirely lateral movement...Mamet hasn't improved or refined his position, his self impressed commentary to the contrary.

I don't see this out of the frying pan into the fire thingi at all. Seems to me he is acknowledging truths on the other side he had formerly denied. He's like Obama, no?

Not really...what "truths on the other side" is he acknowledging? He's embracing conservatives because they don't hate the military and because they don't think people and government are perfect angels at all times? I'm a liberal and I don't hate the military or put unlimited trust in government. He's allowed himself to buy into the conservative marketing campaign that common sense and reason are wholly owned properties of the right, that the only alternative to hippie style liberalism is far right conservativism.

If he really did used to think that the needed to hate the military or that America was in the toilet, as he claimed, I can respect his ability to move on from that ideology. But where he and I part ways is when he decides that the only alternative to the far left is embracing the far RIGHT. Stupid people are always looking for some bandwagon to jump on, if Mamet was really trying to not be so brain dead, he'd have examined his position with a little more reflection and realized that there is an excellent middle ground. Instead, his coming out essay reads more like a sports fan deciding on a new favorite team. That's just dumb, I don't care what side of the political fence you're on.

At any rate, in order to make a case for your position you would have to say something about Sowell and Marx so us ignorant folk could get some notion of what you see. Otherwise, I just have to take your words on faith. And was he going whole hog for Sowell or taking some of his ideas in part?

Sowell and Marx are far more alike than I suspect either one would like. Their views couldn't be more different, of course, but both of them are evangelists of their particular viewpoint, totally devoid of any input based on reality. Sowell isn't a smart guy who decided that the far right had the good views, he's a dumb guy (who can, admittedly, write well) who decided he wanted to be on the far right and all his views are derived from that political stance. Marx had a certain view of class in society, and his tailored his ideas to fit that view, regardless of whether or not doing so made sense.

The problem with both of them is that they tell good stories, stories even they probably believe, so they are able to attract followers. Which is all well and good, but we're dealing with actual issues, not trying to sell a Toyota. Having a good story for the sake of having a good story is a good way to get some pretty bad ideas. And Mamet has clearly bitten down on the story hook, line and sinker. Not only does he call Sowell "our greatest philosopher", but he apes the conservative bedtime story to such a perfect extent that you wonder if his obvious talents for writing took him out for a little ride. He didn't quite sink to the level of ridiculousness we often see in conservatives becoming overly enthusiastic about the obvious patriotism and true American values that come from drinking cheap beer and watching NASCAR...but he gets awfully close.

 

[cwjerome]

What is this practical liberalism Rainsford speaks of?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Why is it after reading only one page of this tripe, I want to pull a Norman Mailer and point out the Mamet was brain dead before and brain dead after words. Being liberal or reformed liberal has nothing to do with it.

I always distrust someone who says they are turning over a new leaf. The new Nixon was exactly like the old Nixon, except the new Nixon was older than the old Nixon.

I think that was your problem the last four pages were much better.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What is this practical liberalism Rainsford speaks of?

The kind of liberalism conservatives do their darndest to pretend doesn't exist

Seriously though, I think the word "practical" is a little redundant, but I want to distinguish it from the fabricated liberalism conservatives have been bad mouthing since Reagan discovered you could make a very good political living doing so. But the basic idea is that idealism can work outside of a philosophy or political science lecture, that one can deal with reality while trying to improve it instead of wallowing, as Mamet does, in the sense that the world we've got is the best we're going to do. That there are alternatives to broken government besides no government at all...that the conservative strategy of amputation before diagnosis is not a very good approach to running the world.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Why is it after reading only one page of this tripe, I want to pull a Norman Mailer and point out the Mamet was brain dead before and brain dead after words. Being liberal or reformed liberal has nothing to do with it.

I always distrust someone who says they are turning over a new leaf. The new Nixon was exactly like the old Nixon, except the new Nixon was older than the old Nixon.

I think that was your problem the last four pages were much better.

No they weren't, they were just better WRITTEN. David Mamet is a (very good) screenwriter, that's what he does. He paints a great picture. But don't confuse that with making a good argument.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I read this the other day. I thought it was a pretty good read. I am not surprised it ended up here, nor am I surprised by the comments so far.

was thinking exactly the same thing

And I'm not surprised at the comments from the two of you. This sort of "born again" conservativism plays VERY nicely into the story that is often used to sell conservative ideology, the flawed liberal who has come to realize the error of his ways and embraced the "real world" ideology that conservative views supposedly represent. The fact that the story doesn't make a lot of sense doesn't really matter at all, does it?

Wow, someone seems to be a bit sensitive...

My comments were very generic in nature, but now that you highlighted it - I'm REALLY not surprised by YOUR comments so far. I find it very interesting that you seem to be so defensive/sensitive about this. Meh...

 

[Tab]

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

Excuse me? This guy wasn't a brain-dead liberal he was just brain-dead to begin with...

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Very nice article. A good example of a person who went from being a brain dead liberal to being a real liberal.

Yep. Excellent article IMO. If you ever want to achieve peace with yourself and the world, then eventually you have to reconcile your pie-in-the-sky ideology of perfection with objective reality.

I swear to god someone must have hacked your account and typed this.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What is this practical liberalism Rainsford speaks of?

The kind that doesn't involve Hilary *socialism* Clinton...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I read this the other day. I thought it was a pretty good read. I am not surprised it ended up here, nor am I surprised by the comments so far.

was thinking exactly the same thing

And I'm not surprised at the comments from the two of you. This sort of "born again" conservativism plays VERY nicely into the story that is often used to sell conservative ideology, the flawed liberal who has come to realize the error of his ways and embraced the "real world" ideology that conservative views supposedly represent. The fact that the story doesn't make a lot of sense doesn't really matter at all, does it?

Wow, someone seems to be a bit sensitive...

My comments were very generic in nature, but now that you highlighted it - I'm REALLY not surprised by YOUR comments so far. I find it very interesting that you seem to be so defensive/sensitive about this. Meh...

Hehe, come on...you and daveymark talking about the comments? I don't think it's too big a stretch to imagine what you were implying. If I guessed wrong...my bad.

The reason I responded the way I did is not so much that I'm sensitive or defensive about the topic as I am interested in it. I find the conservative vs liberal mythology pretty fascinating, particularly in terms of how hard some people fall for the story about their particular side. It's one of the more interesting psychological aspects of politics and I don't think many people are paying as much attention as they should be.

But while we're on the topic of stereotypical comments, your suggestion of "sensitivity" is right out of the conservative playbook...a particularly tattered and well read page, I might add. You guys might want to try some original material every once in a while

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I read this the other day. I thought it was a pretty good read. I am not surprised it ended up here, nor am I surprised by the comments so far.

was thinking exactly the same thing

And I'm not surprised at the comments from the two of you. This sort of "born again" conservativism plays VERY nicely into the story that is often used to sell conservative ideology, the flawed liberal who has come to realize the error of his ways and embraced the "real world" ideology that conservative views supposedly represent. The fact that the story doesn't make a lot of sense doesn't really matter at all, does it?

Wow, someone seems to be a bit sensitive...

My comments were very generic in nature, but now that you highlighted it - I'm REALLY not surprised by YOUR comments so far. I find it very interesting that you seem to be so defensive/sensitive about this. Meh...

Hehe, come on...you and daveymark talking about the comments? I don't think it's too big a stretch to imagine what you were implying. If I guessed wrong...my bad.

The reason I responded the way I did is not so much that I'm sensitive or defensive about the topic as I am interested in it. I find the conservative vs liberal mythology pretty fascinating, particularly in terms of how hard some people fall for the story about their particular side. It's one of the more interesting psychological aspects of politics and I don't think many people are paying as much attention as they should be.

But while we're on the topic of stereotypical comments, your suggestion of "sensitivity" is right out of the conservative playbook...a particularly tattered and well read page, I might add. You guys might want to try some original material every once in a while

lol, the "sensitivity" comment had nothing to do with me being Conservative. It stemmed from the fact that your posts here seem to show that you are sensitive/defensive.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I read this the other day. I thought it was a pretty good read. I am not surprised it ended up here, nor am I surprised by the comments so far.

was thinking exactly the same thing

And I'm not surprised at the comments from the two of you. This sort of "born again" conservativism plays VERY nicely into the story that is often used to sell conservative ideology, the flawed liberal who has come to realize the error of his ways and embraced the "real world" ideology that conservative views supposedly represent. The fact that the story doesn't make a lot of sense doesn't really matter at all, does it?

Wow, someone seems to be a bit sensitive...

My comments were very generic in nature, but now that you highlighted it - I'm REALLY not surprised by YOUR comments so far. I find it very interesting that you seem to be so defensive/sensitive about this. Meh...

Hehe, come on...you and daveymark talking about the comments? I don't think it's too big a stretch to imagine what you were implying. If I guessed wrong...my bad.

The reason I responded the way I did is not so much that I'm sensitive or defensive about the topic as I am interested in it. I find the conservative vs liberal mythology pretty fascinating, particularly in terms of how hard some people fall for the story about their particular side. It's one of the more interesting psychological aspects of politics and I don't think many people are paying as much attention as they should be.

But while we're on the topic of stereotypical comments, your suggestion of "sensitivity" is right out of the conservative playbook...a particularly tattered and well read page, I might add. You guys might want to try some original material every once in a while

lol, the "sensitivity" comment had nothing to do with me being Conservative. It stemmed from the fact that your posts here seem to show that you are sensitive/defensive.

I'm just trying to explain my views on the topic. If you want to think of that as being defensive...I can't really help you.

I understand the confidence inspiring approach of being so sure in your beliefs you never have to explain them, but this being a political discussion forum, that strategy would seem a little counter-productive. Honestly though, the reason I said you're just playing an old conservative trick with your "sensitive/defensive" comments is because I'm really not sure what seems so overly sensitive or defensive about what I wrote.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I read this the other day. I thought it was a pretty good read. I am not surprised it ended up here, nor am I surprised by the comments so far.

was thinking exactly the same thing

And I'm not surprised at the comments from the two of you. This sort of "born again" conservativism plays VERY nicely into the story that is often used to sell conservative ideology, the flawed liberal who has come to realize the error of his ways and embraced the "real world" ideology that conservative views supposedly represent. The fact that the story doesn't make a lot of sense doesn't really matter at all, does it?

Wow, someone seems to be a bit sensitive...

My comments were very generic in nature, but now that you highlighted it - I'm REALLY not surprised by YOUR comments so far. I find it very interesting that you seem to be so defensive/sensitive about this. Meh...

Hehe, come on...you and daveymark talking about the comments? I don't think it's too big a stretch to imagine what you were implying. If I guessed wrong...my bad.

The reason I responded the way I did is not so much that I'm sensitive or defensive about the topic as I am interested in it. I find the conservative vs liberal mythology pretty fascinating, particularly in terms of how hard some people fall for the story about their particular side. It's one of the more interesting psychological aspects of politics and I don't think many people are paying as much attention as they should be.

But while we're on the topic of stereotypical comments, your suggestion of "sensitivity" is right out of the conservative playbook...a particularly tattered and well read page, I might add. You guys might want to try some original material every once in a while

lol, the "sensitivity" comment had nothing to do with me being Conservative. It stemmed from the fact that your posts here seem to show that you are sensitive/defensive.

I'm just trying to explain my views on the topic. If you want to think of that as being defensive...I can't really help you.

I understand the confidence inspiring approach of being so sure in your beliefs you never have to explain them, but this being a political discussion forum, that strategy would seem a little counter-productive. Honestly though, the reason I said you're just playing an old conservative trick with your "sensitive/defensive" comments is because I'm really not sure what seems so overly sensitive or defensive about what I wrote.

You seem sensitive because you responded to a GENERIC POST with your usual rhetoric trying to denegrate Conservatives. MY post had nothing even remotely close to that so obviously there must be some sensitivity/defensivness going on.

BTW, I see you are a mod now. I'll be sure to play nice with you...oh wait...no I won't