A “brain dead Liberal” changes his opinion.
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.
Read the whole thing.
h/t to the Anchoress;
Enjoy all the havoc you’ve just created, sir, in your little world! You may find that you’ve just given others around you permission to free themselves, too. Maybe the word “liberal” can even be reclaimed, someday, to once again mean “broad minded, open and fair,” which is a far cry from what it means, these days.
Cottage industry wise, Baby Boomer Socialists (liberal is too kind), pretending to disavow their socialism, is rivaled only by e-bay.
It is completely unbelievable. Allow me to posit a more credible hypothesis: Mamet and his generation are embarrassed by the mistakes they made, so without an admission of guilt or a missed beat they put on the hat of a libertarian, or a conservative, or something else that they are not.
Ideologies are not hats one dons as the fashion suits. Mamet earned every last picogram of his reputation as a brain dead socialist and it does not suffice to put on a hat to make it go away. Plastic surgery may have rendered obsolete the aphorism that one gets the face one deserves at age 50, but fortunately there is no ideological equivilent.
Liberals claim that they alone believe in one’s responsibility to one’s fellow-man, but it is conservatives who actually open their wallets and give.
Conservatives are routinely accused by liberals of racism, but it is liberals who consistenly display the racism of diminished expectations towards various races and cultural groups.
As Mrs. M. Thatcher said, “the facts of life are conservative”.
All individuals mature at a different rate, and some take a lot longer than others to make this change.
As Chruchill said, 20 yr old liberals and 40 yr old conservatives.
I like the way Ebenstein sums it up (in Today’s Isms):
“The range of affection determines the degree to which a person matures, to which he can be called democratic. The child first knows only himself. Gradually he discovers a world outside his own body and desires – his mother, father, brothers and sisters, neighbors, and classmates. The degree of his maturation and adulthood is in direct proportion to his capacity to enlarge his horizon and make friends with all kinds of people.
The immature personality stops early in this process; he can only identify with his own group and considers others dangerous and hostile. This group egotism may include the family only, or it may extend to social class, political party, nation, or race. In all these cases, the attachment to the in-group is frequently more an expression of hatred for the outsider than of affection for the insider.
By contrast, the democratic personality is always aware of his own imperfections and those of his social class, party, or nation, and this realization makes him tolerant of different people, different races, different relgions, different ideas. His capacity to cooperate and love is not a rigid fixation on one particular object, but the exprerssion of a genuine capacity to cooperate, to share, to love.”
Many of the Liberals/fake liberals of today are not very democratic or very mature.
What many of them fail to recognize is that as a person matures, they want to take more, if not all the responsibilty for their lives and their pursuit of happiness.
With as little govt intervention as possible.
Gee, I wonder if the CWB supporters could ever understand this?
“A “brain dead Liberal” changes his opinion.”
No doubt this one hear that cathartic, life saving “pop” as his cranium dislodged from his rectal cavity and he saw his first glimpse of light and reality since his submission to neo-liberal dogmatism caused his the rectal cranial displacia insertion.
Interesting that this writer take the difference between statist progressivist, statist socialist classical liberal and principled conservatism to be a matter of how the human condition is viewd.
He is correct in that post all modernist statist socialist dogma sees the individual person and human being as “a problem” for the state to cope with and care for and also as ab entity imbued with instincts that are prone to making immoral or ethically wrong decisions.
By contrast classic liberalism and principled conservatism believe the best of the human character…they are philosophies of optimism for mankind’s natural abilities to succeed (without the aid of masterminding quid nuncs)…this is based in both ideologies acceptance of natural law and natural justice.
I’m glad one more escaped the negativity “matrix” concocted by leftist dogmatics and gained control of his life and a renewed self respect as well as respect for his fellow humans.
Wow. A guy in the Village Voice says government should “stay out of the way” and means it.
Yes my friend, THAT is what coffee smells like.
Good for him.
Maturity . . . what a concept for a Liberal to embrace.
My first thought is that I am always glad to see another person come to their senses, especially one with public profile and one which will attract some attention and hopefully a teeeeeeeeeeny bit of thought from other brainwashed liberals.
But, my second thought is that for 2 generations these people have been doing their best to destroy the achievements of our civilization by propagandizing our youth, lying in our media, and bullying in public. So, now they get to say “oops, sorry, I was wrong”?
How easy for him to say. But far too late for all the other brains turned to liberal mush while he made his “intellectual journey.”
During the time he took to write that piece, how many kids in our schools were taught by his compatriots that the US is evil, that western democracy is equivalent to all other ideologies and deserving of no special honour, that our history is one of abuse for which we must be punished, and
that we must share everything that we have created with others that have done nothing to deserve our good will, but will take it give nothing in return except hate.
So I am very ambivalent. Good to have another soldier in the battle for the future, but….
f**k you David.
Welcome aboard David.
Mamet’s essay should be required reading by every university student in North America. Of course everyone will howl, and the penny probably won’t drop till they all reach 40, but it would be an invaluable service none the less.
“Something for nothing”. Justification for stealing from the productive, in the name of “social justice”. Offering “something for nothing”, political sleight of hand to be granted power.
Across the gene pool, are there more self-reliant, productive people, or more who feel entitled to take something for nothing from them? Empirical evidence seems to show that the productive are vastly outnumbered by leeches, much to the frustration of the productive.
Those who do not feel able to compete, retreat into leechdom. The left avoids competition at all costs, even though the Nature which they celebrate (the ultimate Green Eco Human Free Utopia) is nothing but pure, brutal competition.
Leftism is an acknowledgement of one’s own inadequacy and fear of competing. Leftism is an expression of fear, rather than confidence.
I suspect there will be blowback from his (former) fellow lefties. I also expect he will be shocked and surprised by the level of animus his comments will engendered.
Cool. This guy is about to see how ridgedly dogmatic his former comrades really are.
He’s about to see what it’s like to be burned at the stake for heresy.
There is nothing more vicious than a leftard betrayed…
If he escapes the angry villagers (pun intended) he’s welcome to join us here in the real world.
Now hold on here a minute, folks. Mamet has always been a cogent and thoughtful playwright who rewards attention from all sides of the political spectrum, and this shift to the right I would say has been a very gradual process that he has thought through every step of the way. Think back to Oleanna from the early 90s which powerfully examines the brutal unfairness of feminist ideology and the rage it can instill in those who are steamrollered by it. And most particularly, take a look at the beautiful film he directed of Terence Rattigan’s The Winslow Boy. Like A Man For All Seasons it examines the high cost of standing up for what you believe to be true even though life would be so much easier if you just threw in the towel and went along. Mamet was never a knee-jerk simpleton of the left and doesn’t deserve the dismissive tone of a lot of these posts.
So, I no sooner finish reading Mamet’s piece in the Voice, and his closing comment, “The right is mooing about faith, the left is mooing about change,” when I looked up at my Thomson One terminal to note a headline on the DowJones newswire: “Meat Company Chief: Sick Cows were forced into US Food Supply,” which may explain where all that mooing comes from. Of course, it also adds a whole new dimension to use of the phrase “sub-prime,” hitherto confined to discussions about mortgages.
“Maturity . . . what a concept for a Liberal to embrace.”
When you’re a teenager, you’re SUPPOSED to think that everybody’s really nice, all war is unjustifiable, big business is bad, and the government is your nurturing, baby-sitting friend. There’s nothing wrong with teenagers thinking this; I’m sure most people here did. I did.
Maturity is emotional, and if you’re emotionally strong, your maturity will largely consist of realizing that everything is much more complicated than “war is bad”. (My own maturity, politically speaking, began with my first reading of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.)
If you’re not, you’ll spend your life as an emotional adolescent — i.e., a liberal.
It seems trite to say it, but Churchill was so right: “A man who is not a liberal at 20 has not heart; a man who is still a liberal at 30 has no brains.”
a mantra for conservatives not liberals, they just dont change. until Obama.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly
The truth dawns!!!
“Aha, you will say, and you are right. I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.”
Fundamental to conservatism, it seems to me, is the attitude I call constructive pessimism.
Forget the picture of dour, unhappy people dragging their way through life. Those aren’t pessimists. Those are disappointed optimists (there is no other kind) grown cynical. The true pessimist has already anticipated and allowed for all the bad things — the word in economics is discounted — and goes about with a sparkle in his eye and a spring in his step, because all his surprises are happy ones.
The “glass half full / half empty” business was dreamed up by another disappointed optimist. The true pessimist looks at the glass and exclaims in happy surprise, “Cool! There’s some beer here!”
Regards,
Ric
Enjoyed that, if but a bit weak at the finish… replete, of course, with the ‘requisite’ dogmatic responses, baited; ready at the wait~
” Maybe the word “liberal” can even be reclaimed, someday, to once again mean “broad minded, open and fair,” which is a far cry from what it means, these days. ” ~Anchoress
Say, where’d all the trolls go?
Hey, this is nice! Kate’s discovered troll repellent!
Speaking of troll-repellent, if we get a confession from our anti-Christian separatist, we can title it: “Out of the Frog.”
When people grow up they become conservatives. Liberalism is just a case of arrested development.
Warwick, your prediction will be spot on. He’ll be denounced, pilloried, cursed, spat upon, villified, crucified, and called every nasty name in the book.
And then he will truly know he was right.
Just so we’re clear… we “socialists” pay less in taxes than Americans:
http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10835581
I know the source isn’t rightwingnutbar.net, but the economist has been known to check its numbers.
Wow! This will be an earthquake in the theatrical and literary worlds, both bastions of knee-jerk, lib-left thought and practice.
I also say “Welcome!” Mr. Mamet and, unfortunatley, be prepared to be ostracized and treated quite badly by your recently abandoned comrades.
Liberals don’t take kindly to neo-cons; after all, you’ve been-there-done-that and know, from the inside, how insideous, inbred, inept, and inadequate the liberal worldview really is. Once you’ve managed to climb out of that box–well-padded with a stocked bar–everything becomes much clearer. Things don’t get easier, but being closer to the truth has a certain bracing quality that gives life a certain zest–a punch that liberalism can’t pack.
“Just so we’re clear… we “socialists” pay less in taxes than Americans:”
Absoultely, 100% false. Here is what the graph measures: the tax burden of
“single workers with no children of an average income.”
A relatively small segment of society. Here are the real numbers as per latest OECD figures:
Canada 33.4%
USA 28.2%
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/41/39494985.pdf
And if the USA’s tax rate were reflective of spending (ie not in deficit) their number would be closer to 30%.
For a deeper contextual understanding, start here:
http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_201185_39495248_1_1_1_1,00.html
So where are the stories oc conservatives or libertarians “seeing the light” and converting? Is it really a one way street?? Hmmmm
Is it a one-way street, the rat?
I sure hope so! It would be pretty foolish to admit you’d become LESS mature as you got older and MORE duped by the lib-left myths.
Wouldn’t it?
“Just so we’re clear… we “socialists” pay less in taxes than Americans.”
That’s because so few of you actually have jobs.
The following has been attributed to Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, G. B. Shaw, and Wendell Wilkie:
If you are not a socialist at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no mind.
I find it a bit strange that earlier in this thread, someone noted that it was immature idea to demonize others and always see the other side as the ‘enemy'(they were talking about how liberals do this), but in most of the posts here is an angry tone towards liberals, almost dehumanizing them, calling them “leftards”.
As a conservative I have no need to be angry or to put down liberals. Similarly as Christian I don’t see the necessity of castigating those of other faiths.
I believe what I believe. I have faith in what I believe, so why would I waste time getting angry at those who don’t believe it? It simply doesn’t make sense.
If my beliefs are right, they allow to me to go forward and live by them. I suppose if I doubted them on some level, I would spend energy getting angry at others who don’t believe them and calling them names.
But that seems like a step backwards. And if my beliefs truly are superior they should allow me to go forwards rather than spend time hating.
Mel Shortner
So smart
all of you
as your purchasing power disintegrates before your eyes
fsafaf
I was going to unload on john but you beat me to it.
The Economist, like the G&M are publications that are clinging to a reputation they no longer earn nor deserve. They both lost their balance a decade ago or more. They’re now nothing more than New York Times wanna-be’s.
They lost their integrity when they lost their balance and substituted it for an agenda.
Kate, the troll repellent seems to have a limited life span. Better whip up another batch!
Nice try Morningstar, but a hopeless non-sequiter. Changing the subject is not a viable tactic.
Mel the superiority of your beliefs, plus a buck, might get you a coffee. This is not some trivial difference of opinion, this is a contest between those who believe in freedom and those who believe in tyranny. We do battle with the forces arrayed against us or we concede defeat. Anger is an emotion appropriate to battle, and the job of calling Leftist liars and propagandists to account is nothing less.
Hate, otoh, is a crippling mental disorder commonly seen on the Left at this time, not the Right.
Morningstar here being a perfect example. She has nothing to say on the subject at hand that supports her worldview, because her worldview has been exposed as not merely incorrect but actually foolish. Brilliantly, I might add. David Mamet has just performed what I call an “external reality check”, and observed that people do not behave in “real life” in a way that matches the Liberal world view. Morningstar can’t process that, she’s got nothing.
But her HATE of people like yourself and myself compels her to say the first cutting thing that comes into her head. Something that isn’t on topic, not cogent, and indeed not even true.
That’s what you’re in battle with Mel. You can fight, or you can wait until they come and kick your ass.
Phantom:
I don’t appreciate your belittling attitude towards my beliefs. If you disagree with them, that’s fine. But surely there are ways for two conservatives to disagree that doesn’t involve the snide attitude you have displayed.
I am perplexed by your perception that you are “doing battle”. Surely you don’t believe that by posting on a conservative blog and using a lot of childish names about liberals you are somehow “doing battle” or affecting anything. It really takes no courage to do this and even less intelligence.
I know that liberals can be frustrating and can see the value of ‘venting’ this frustration. But it benefits no-one to delude yourself that this is accomplishing anything.
The unintentional irony of your post is almost humourous: you rail against liberals and then say they are the ones crippled by hate.
My perspective is that our ideas are better and that we need only promote them for them to prevail. The ideas can’t be promoted to people we’re insulting and demonizing at the same time – that’s just common sense. It is in this way we will ensure that our values triumph, and win the only ‘contest’ that counts – at the polls.
Mel Shortner
Mel, its my experience that being right about things doesn’t matter a damn. Being right buys you no coffee. If the last 50 years of Canadian history proves nothing else, it proves that.
No I surely don’t think posting on blogs does much of anything by itself. You have to get up off your couch and do something constructive with the information.
That’s what I’m suggesting you might want to think of doing for yourself, because Santa Claus ain’t going to bring you back your rights to your own property for Christmas this year. Or that 50+% of your income you pay the government every year either.
Welcome to the battle.
Phantom:
I suppose we can agree to disagree. The fact remains that it makes no logical sense to dehumanize and slander ‘the other side’ if one is confident of one’s own beliefs.
As well, since the goal is to change the country in accordance with our values – and to bring back private property, and makes taxes more equitable, as you stated in your post – the way to do that is to get more votes for our point of view.
This isn’t achieved by lambasting the other side with childish, ineffectual insults.
It’s achieved by presenting our views cogently so they can see the clear common sense of them and vote accordingly.
Given your talk, it seems that all you are interested in doing is ranting and engaging in infantile remarks. Frankly, as a very active conservative of many years, my opinion is that you are achieving nothing. Regrettably, you are doing a shameful disservice to conservatism.
Mel Shortner