David Mamet no longer liberal, newly brain-dead

Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism. As a result, they may refuse to read it, which will be their loss — and a major loss.

Those who value substance over words, however, will find in this book a wealth of challenging insights, backed up by thorough research and brilliant analysis.

So wrote—in words—one Mr. Thomas Sowell a few weeks back. Sharp-eyed readers may note that Mr. Sowell contrives to disdain putting a too-high value on words while in the process of trying to make a case for a book...the substance of which is comprised of, you know, words.

I only bring this up in case you had stumbled upon sometime filmmaker David Mamet's renunciation of his former liberalism in a recent Village Voice, and raised an inquisitive eyebrow at his pronouncement that Mr. Sowell is "our greatest contemporary philosopher." I've read Sowell's columns for years, for laughs, because the guy writes about as well as I figure-skate, and when I saw Mamet's praise, I thought, wait, there's gotta be another Thomas Sowell, he can't be talking about that pompous putz, because at the very least, Mamet knows writing. But no, same guy. So what, maybe Sowell's books are better than his columns?

Sorry, not gonna find out. I try to be a good faith guy, but life's short. Better I should puzzle out just what Mamet means with that "our"... because it sure ain't got nothing to do with "my."

Comments

[bill]

I was going to say something, but I haven't read Sowell's books either, so I'd be arguing with you about books neither of us has read.

Looking forward to "Redbelt", though!

[Glenn Kenny]

Me too, Bill. People-not just the usuals, either-are telling me it's very good.

[bill]

Really? Oh, that's good news. I thought "Spartan" was fantastic and hugely underrated. GREAT movie. And I'm more than a little curious to see Tim Allen handle Mamet's dialogue.

I will say one thing specific to your post: You seem to be presuming that by Mamet renouncing his liberalism he is simultaneously announcing his conservatism. As you know, I'd be cool with that myself, but I've read his article in the Village Voice, and I didn't get that at all. I'll admit that I find it a little difficult to summarize what he IS saying, but I know that's not it.

[Swann]

A monstrous gap exists between the quality of Sowell's columns and Sowell's books, and a less monstrous -- but still troubling -- gap exists between his popular and academic books. I think a fair comparison on the "other side" would be Paul Krugman. In any case, Sowell's classic "A Conflict of Visions" should be read by anyone interested in politics. I've read a lot of thick tomes through the years, and some impressive thin ones, and "A Conflict of Visions" rates up there with the postwar greats (alongside Galbraith's "The Affluent Society," Rawls' "Theory of Justice," Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom," Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" or James Buchanan's "Calculus of Consent").

[Aaron Aradillas]

Isn't Mamet also the guy who didn't know how certain characters were "whacked" in the first Godfather?

I think he also gave high praise to Crash.

[bill]

Oh my God. Why hasn't he been arrested yet?

[Ed Gonzalez]

Finally I dig one of his movies ("Redbelt") and Mamet has to go ahead and do this.

[Wende]

Mamet claims that he came to his stunning revelation after reading Thomas Sowell, along with Shelby Steele, Milton Friedman and Paul Johnson as research for his play, November.

Your limited awareness of Sowell, and undoubtedly of Shelby Steele as well, is most certainly due to the painful fact that liberals tend to marginalize, if not completely ignore African-Americans who are conservative, no matter how brilliant they may be.

Read Thomas Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis Social Policy" and you may discover who the pompous putzes really are. To paraphrase Pogo, they is you.

[manny]

It's always funny when a 'reformed liberal' steps forward and all the liberals come out and call him/her a retard, moron and every other epithet they accuse conservatives of lobbing at people.
Reading the piece, I don't think he is going to be voting straight ticket Republican at all. He sounds like he is realizing that the Libertarian view is actually pretty darn good.
If anything he is more classically liberal now.
I happen to think he is spot on. Many on the left think politicians are good and will 'fix' things and not realize that they are just as corruptable as they or anyone else is. The less involvement they have in ANYTHING the better.

[Mike De Luca]

I have always thought the fact Thomas Sowell's commentaries have appeared in the New York Post to be enough of a valid reason to not only dismiss his work, but to dismiss him as an individual as well. You know, like Kyle Smith. And Mamet's logic, like, say, the plotting of "Spartan", is shaky at best. The Kennedy-Bush comparison, for example. It is a well-accepted fact among historians that the blame for the Vietnam does not rest solely on the shoulders of JFK, but on Truman, Eisehower, JFK, and even more so on those of LBJ and Nixon. Whereas, the engineers of the quagmire in Iraq are, without a doubt, Bush and his pals from Project For a New American Century. JFK also, to my knowledge, never sanctioned torture or indefinite detention in secret prisons. And, in my opinion, there is no doubt that Bush would dropped the ball, had he been the one to handle the Cuban Missile Crisis. Mamet is certainly entitled to his opinions, but, in this case, he is off his wagon.

[bill]

Dude, you wrote "In the Mouth of Madness" and you're taking shots at "Spartan"? Wow. Sorry to get all personal, but Manny is right. You guys are taking a fairly low-key, tonally speaking, opinion piece by Mamet and using it to take cheap shots at him. He disagrees with you on some things! Heaven forfend!

[Glenn Kenny]

Hey, Mamet's the guy who came out with the "brain dead," and nobody here is saying "retard" or "moron." The worst it's gotten is "pompous putz," which I stole from Robert Christgau (apropos Ravi Shankar, of all people). And I think Bill's right in one of his earlier comments—Mamet doesn't come out and embrace a right wing position, and it's likely, as Manny says, he's gotten more libertarian. Of course, it's pretty convenient to be a libertarian—you can be right almost all the time, but nothing in the real world is going to change as a result of your opinion. But anyway...

Also, Wende, my "limited awareness" of Sowell is not so much based on my tendency to marginalize African Americans who are conservative, but, as I said, on my reading of his columns, which are horrifically written—and smug about it. Swann has almost convinced me to give "A Conflict of Visions" a try, although if I find a single sentence as riotously inept as the "words/substance" riff I quote above, I'm gonna send him a bill!

As for Shelby Steele, I'm reasonably familiar with his positions...and find his hateful observations with regard to Barack Obama entirely repellent, so I'm giving him a pass...

Also, whatever its flaws, "In the Mouth of Madness" never goes so completely off the rails as "Spartan" does.

[bill]

So it's easy to be a libertarian, because they'll never have any power? You're right, that does sound pretty sweet. That must be why libertarians believe what they do.

I searched for your review of "Spartan", and was disappointed to find that you apparently didn't write one. So, okay, how do you think it goes off the rails?

Regarding "In the Mouth of Madness", I'll let that go, since I shouldn't have taken that route in the first place.

[Glenn Kenny]

I hold a great many beliefs that could be called libertarian, but I don't think a truly libertarian form of government is going to emerge...not in this lifetime.

But I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet so I shouldn't be going there in the first place.

As for "Spartan," well—SPOILER ALERT—it begins to go off the rails when Derek Luke's character buys it. WHile every plot twist in, say, "House of Games" has its own infernal logic, and raises the stakes at every turn, this feels like a show-offy mind-f**k. And after that, the way the picture metastasizes from a small, dark thriller to a big-issues quasi-blockbuster is just...dispiriting.

But Alexandra Kerry looks pretty foxy in her cameo, huh?

[bill]

What big issues? "Spartan" has no point to make. It wants to be a tight, dark action film, and that's what it is. And if Luke doesn't SPOILER!, then the movie more-or-less stalls out. Plus, the misdirection in that scene was, I thought, pretty ingenious. I disagree with you, sir!

[bill]

Oh, and I had no idea that was Alexandra Kerry. I guess now she won't be asking to come back.

[Aaron]

In reference to A Conflict of Visions, I would infer from Mamet's essay that he has read that book, and its concept of "constrained" and "unconstrained" visions seems to be centerpiece of Mamet's new political philosophy. Me? I have yet to find a "there are two types of people"-type analysis of society that I find particularly compelling, Sowell's analysis included.

[Brandon]

I too am befuddled by what Mamet is trying to say, exactly. Is it not more "perfectionist" (and "tragic") to expect change/have faith in the will of a diaspora of individual people and their various self-interests than it is in professional bureaucrats who perform this service/privilege in our stead?
I don't expect perfection or tragedy from either 'side'. I expect the competent Authority that should come from being a part of directing the same play staged over and over and over....

[Ed Hulse]

Mamet finally woke up. Good for him. Too many film critics are unrepentant, weepie lefties. Who needs 'em?

Paul Krugman gives me the heebie-jeebies. Everytime I happen to come across him while channel-surfing, he reminds me of guys I used to see coming out of peep-show joints on Eighth Avenue. He's got that shifty-eyed, oh-oh-you've-just-caught-me-doing-something-naughty vibe.

[unrepentant lefty]

Look, I'm no Krugman groupie, but a peep show??

Project much, Ed?