David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'

Wow. I never thought I would write a positive comment to something written in the VV, and yet, much like Norman Mailer, here I am admitting my mistake. It's almost like I just looked across the battle lines and saw my enemy. He looked like me, had the same ideals, and I could even see ghost images of his entire life behind him and they looked just like mine. Yet, here we were, about to kill each other. This is the first article I have ever read that reveals the truth we all know and hold, that even the worst of conservatives and liberals have common ground. If more people would admit it, and government did stay out of the way for the most part, this country could continue to "work it out" for the next thousand generations.

Sounds like Mamet is hyped about his political conversion. Just cause information is new to you doesn't make it right, and just cause it's old don't make it wrong. That said, his old and new beliefs both seem lopsided. Why do you have to be a JFK fan if you're against a totally free market? Or vice versa? Give me a break.

aw, I don't see him arguing that you "...have to be a JFK fan if you're against a totally free market. Or vice versa" He is simply pointing out a basic truth that our Founders knew and that we have lost, that centralized power leads to corruption and malfeasance driven by populism, greed, or both, or as Mamet puts it: "I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow." Given the numerous examples to date, from the Great Depression to the recent housing melt-down, why in the world does anyone still think that centralizing power and decision-making in the hands of a few is a good thing? Is it because they feel that their values are the right ones to be adopted by everyone, but that this can only be done through the coercive arm of government rather than through conversations with free people? The Great Depression was an outcome of the creation of the relatively new Federal Reserve system and excessive control over money by a centralized authority which contracted the money supply at just the time that it needed loosening, thereby creating the biggest and longest-lasting financial crisis the country has ever seen. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are an enormous $5.1 Trillion!!! liability on taxpayers. They were created to impose on us the government's values of high home ownership rates. (Sure its "good" to have a high level of home ownership, but what is the goal, and who decides? And why is it good for the state to discriminate against renters?) When will people learn that centralized control is a terrible idea, and that as the power of a centralized authority grows, it attractiveness as a target of corrupt or populist politicians only grows further? Chris Dodd, the darling of some on the left, is just one more corrupt politician who seeks to regulate the industry for the "common good." (From Wikipedia) "As Dodd in his role as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee proposed a housing bailout to the Senate floor in June 2008 that would assist troubled subprime mortgage lenders such as Countrywide Bank in the wake of the United States housing bubble's collapse,[22] Conde Nast Portfolio reported that in 2003 Dodd had refinanced the mortgages on his homes in Washington D.C. and Connecticut through Countrywide Financial and had received favorable terms due to being a "Friend of Angelo" - a friend of Countrywide CEO Angelo R. Mozilo.[23] Dodd received a $75,000 reduction in mortgage payments from Countrywide at allegedly below-market rates on his Washington, D.C. and Connecticut homes.[22][23] Dodd has not disclosed the mortgages in any of six financial disclosure statements he filed with the Senate or Office of Government Ethics since obtaining the mortgages in 2003. [24] Dodd's press secretary said the "Dodds received a competitive rate on their loans," and that "they "did not seek or anticipate any special treatment, and they were not aware of any," then declined further comment.[25] Republican State Chairman Chris Healy stated that "Dodd has crossed the ethics line by obtaining two generous mortgage deals with a company that is the corporate poster-child for the national subprime lending meltdown."[26] The Hartford Courant reported Dodd had taken "a major credibility hit" from the scandal.[27] The Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Kent Conrad and the head of head of Fannie Mae Jim Johnson also received mortgages on favorable terms due to their association with Countrywide CEO Angelo R. Mozilo.[28][23] The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and two Connecticut papers have demanded further disclosure from Dodd regarding the Mozilo loans.[29][30][31][32] On June 17, 2008, Dodd met twice with reporters and gave conflicting accounts of his deals with Countrywide. He admitted to reporters in Washington,DC that he knew as of 2003 that he was in Countrywide's VIP program, but claimed it was due to being a good customer, not due to his political position. He omitted this detail in a press availability to Connecticut media.[33] Countrywide has also contributed a total of $21,000 to Dodd's campaigns since 1997. [23] Dodd has received approximately $70,000 in campaign contributions from Bank of America, who is buying Countrywide, in the last year-and-a-half before the Countrywide Financial loan scandal broke. [34] Only Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have received more Bank of America money than Dodd. [34] On June 19, Dodd told the Danbury News-Times "I don't believe I did anything wrong."[37] The state's leading newspaper, the Hartford Courant however concluded Dodd was negligent in accepting the Countrywide mortgage and suggested it was time "Dodd got off his high horse, came clean and admit he screwed up." [38] A New York Times editorial the same day accused Dodd and fellow Senator Kent Conrad of being painfully out of touch regarding the "Friends of Angelo" loans.[39] Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has called for House and Senate to investigate Senators Dodd and Conrad.[40]" I am reminded of Animal Farm, where its difficult to distinguish the pigs from the humans, and where some are more equal than others because they are in government.

It's odd, I've been reading and watching Mamet for a long time, and it all seems more of a piece with his new views than the way he describes his old views. Especially, one of my favorites, his essay about the Cherry Orchard. As a liberal, I never got the vibe he describes as his former self. Which of his old plays look like the work of someone who thinks people are basically good at heart, (Glengarry Glen Ross?) reflect a "perfectionist" view, and all that jazz? I must have missed those. Everything I can think of, even his bear movie, seemed to me, at the time, a lot like his new and improved wisdom.

Loved it David......Very Fresh

In these wacky days of "all culture and religion is relative and equal...except the West which is evil"...I am rescued from my dalliance with hopelessness by this kind of essay. A great mind like Mamet, saying what many people believe, but actually needing courage to say it because he works in the head-in-the-sand political climate of the entertainment industry, is very heartening. Mamet, like most great writers, seems to take the core beliefs that we ourselves have formed over many years of experience and trial and error, and give them voice in a much more eloquent way than they bounced around in our respective heads. Thank you David Mamet, you have always been one of the few interesting writers in Hollywood (and the stage of course), and your clear thinking essay made my day.

While this essay is very good for many reasons, it is the logical follow-on to Mamet's book "The Wicked Son" which showed a glimmer of his "coming out" by exposing the hypocrisy that exists in the "liberal" world today. Welcome to the real world, David.

I don't consider Mamet's new philosophy particularly liberal or conservative. Perhaps a better title would have been simply "Why I Am No Longer Brain-Dead."

I have always enjoyed and admired Mamet's work. However, much of this essay is simply bullshit. He writes: "I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow." Oh really? Did Lincoln's intervention in the corrupt, evil and inhuman system of slavery not lead to "much beyond sorrow"? granted, it DID lead to much sorrow, but to nothing beyond it? Again, did the national government's intervention in racial segregation throughout the country, especially the south, lead to nothing "much beyond sorrow"? Perhaps the FDA's intervention in protecting Americans from harmful drugs has led to only sorrow? Maybe it would have been better to have let any company sell any snake oil it wanted as long as it made a profit? Although, truth be told, after 8 years of Bush (and, to be fair, 8 years of Clinton), the FDA is letting more and more "new" snake oil through. But I digress. Can anyone truly say that any of these actions have led to nothing "much beyond sorrow"? Sorry, David. I still like your work. But you may want to re-think this statement.... Tony

Mamet changes from a guy who thinks people are good at heart to a guy who thinks if left alone people will just try to get along and work it out. Both equally brain dead. MAMETLOL