A Conservative Journey Through Literary America – Part 6: Mamet of Tarsus
by Matt PattersonIn March 2008, Pulitzer Prize winning playwright David Mamet, author of “Glengary Glen Ross” and the man many consider America’s greatest living dramatist, wrote an essay for The Village Voice titled “Why I am No Longer A Brain Dead Liberal.” This essay was a thunder clap in the arts community, leaving, as Dinesh D’Souza put it, the “left-leaning literary and cultural intelligentsia…in shock.”
The Saul-like conversion of Mamet has produced reams of commentary from both the left and the right, but it is the reaction of the left that is especially interesting. Many in the liberal “intelligentsia” have greeted the news by openly wondering whether such a political shift will result in the loss of Mamet’s famous creative powers. A “depressed” Michael Billington, for one, writing in The Guardian, is fearful of what Mamet’s conversion portends for his work because, “the precedents for a shift to the right on the part of creative artists are not exactly encouraging.”
So how did Mamet come by his new conservative frame of mind? The essay itself is fascinating, for it is that rarest of artifacts – the admission of an honest mind that it has been wrong about large and important things, and a frank embrace of what it once thought to be wrong.
Mamet tells us that while working on the political play November (which opened at the Ethel Barrymore Theater in New York in early 2008 and starred Nathan Lane) he started thinking about politics – specifically, how politics manifested in the clash between his two protagonists, a president who holds a realist (conservative) world view, and his Utopian (liberal) minded speech writer.
Mamet began to realize that a large gulf existed between his long-held liberal beliefs and the real world which surrounded him. For example, of the liberal aversion to business;
…I began to question my hatred for ‘the Corporations’ – the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.
This is followed by an astonishingly mature re-evaluation of his views on the military;
…I began to question my distrust of the “Bad, Bad Military” of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world.
Most interesting is Mamet’s realization that many of the reasons that he and other liberals had once lionized John F. Kennedy were some of the same reasons those same liberals detested George W. Bush!
Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.
All of this is fascinating, but the question remains: Will Mamet’s conversion be followed by a loss of literary juice, as Billington and others feared? Of course not, or at least, not necessarily. The trope that one cannot be both creative and politically conservative is a vile myth, promulgated by snide liberals who fancy they have exclusive claim to the arts, a meme containing just as much validity as the one passed along by liberal professors that there aren’t more conservatives in academia because well, you know, you have to be smart to be a professor.
The reason liberal professors even say such things is because there is an undeniable dearth of conservatives in the academic establishment, so they come up with an explanation which elevates themselves while simultaneously degrading their political opposites. In so doing they fail to take into account other possible explanations for the discrepancy – differences in temperament, for example; differences in goals and values.
(It is not unlike, at bottom, the oft cited discrepancy between men and women’s pay – liberals are apt to see oppression in such statistics, completely ignoring what everybody outside of academia knows, that men and women choose, generally, different professions as a result of differing values and goals – family, flexibility, danger, etc.).
Can this be the answer to why there aren’t more conservatives in the arts? Could conservative minded folk just value the arts less, or in a different way, than liberal minded folk? Are we really talking about a difference in temperament?
Next week we will explore this possibility, and conclude the series.
Ed. note: You can read a new chapter of this eight-part series every Saturday and Sunday morning. Previous chapters –Part one, two, three, four and five.]
Matt Patterson is a columnist and commentator whose work has appeared in The Washington Examiner, The Baltimore Sun, and Pajamas Media. He is the author of “Union of Hearts: The Abraham Lincoln & Ann Rutledge Story.” His email is mpatterson.column@gmail.com.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
43 Comments
Well you just know his IQ HAD to lower after the shift. I mean HOW could there possibly be any intellectuals on the right, it just doesn't happen. (sarcasm)
I admire and enjoy Mamet, and while I found his "confession" well-written and often bracing I hardly thought it fascinating. His observations were true but also fairly fundamental, and he often either failed or missed opportunities to make deeper points about the Left. But it was a good beginning.
As for why there is "discrepancy" between leftists and conservatives in the academy, I'm afraid you missed a major (if not the key) reason: control of the search committees and tenure. Which makes their derogations of conservative under-representation even more despicable.
I've been a fan of Mamet's ever since an ill-fated date night that included a rental of "Oleanna," which – as anyone who's seen the film or play could guess – resulted in a humorous same-night breakup. A regular theme here at BH, obviously, is 'why aren't there more conservative films,' to which I normally respond, 'watch Mamet, specifically Red Belt,' but Oleanna just the same. The mark of a great writer is knowing who wrote something you've ever heard before being told the author's name. There is no voice in American letters that is distinctive as Mamet's – I liked his work when he was a lib, and I still like it now that he's a conservative. For the left, the arts and academics are zero sum games – either you're with them, or your're untalented, troglodytic and evil.
As we have so few conservative in the arts, I was thrilled with Mamet's essay, and I re-read it ever six months or so just to cackle – his description of when he finally, mentally snapped while listening to "National Palestinian Radio" had me in stitches. That is was in, of all places, The Village Voice made it that much more of a howler.
Glengary is probably one of the best written dramas about the plight of the salesman – ever. His talent owns no bounds, and just because he now sees the light, will not diminish his abilities. I wish more could look honestly upon themselves – they would draw similar conclusions.
Speaking of theatre, is Stage Right dead? Where is he?
Oh, and with this "Conservative Journey Through Literary America" BigHollywood is ceasing to be a blog purely about conservatism and film and becoming one about Pop Culture, and American Culture, in general.
I love it.
P.S. Nolte, Breitbart, you need to get Furious D to write a few pieces here.
Honest evaluation is not a trait that comes naturally or easily to the left because they have wrapped up their own personal worth in their views, i.e. they explain their own failures through an inability to get the governent to enact the "right" policies. That makes it extremely hard for most leftists to re-evaluate their politics views.
One of the points that David Mamet made in his open letter was that he'd been defining himself as a liberal out of habit for years. And when he stopped to examine what he really believed, he realized he hadn't been one for a while. I think that's true for a lot of liberals that I know. It's a default position among those in the arts, maintained in large part by a lack of self-examination.
I have always enjoyed Mamet's work, and I never thought of it as promoting "liberal" themes and ideas. He explores human emotional conflict. "Liberalism" actually doesn't lend itself to that exploration very adroitly, being preoccupied with themes of concord and cooperation; there’s plenty of hypocrisy and irony in liberalism, but not an embrace of the natural state of conflict in human interaction.
I am less surprised that Mamet is not a liberal, than I am at his personal realization, and public declaration, that he is not. And given the political beliefs of his peers, I think we can add “courageous” to the adjective “gifted” when describing David Mamet.
One of the points that David Mamet made in his open letter was that he'd been defining himself as a liberal out of habit for years. And when he stopped to examine what he really believed, he realized he hadn't been one for a while. I think that's true for a lot of liberals that I know. It's a default position among those in the arts, maintained in large part by a lack of self-examination.
I have always enjoyed Mamet's work, and I never thought of it as promoting "liberal" themes and ideas. He explores human emotional conflict. "Liberalism" actually doesn't lend itself to that exploration very adroitly, being preoccupied with themes of concord and cooperation; there’s plenty of hypocrisy and irony in liberalism, but not an embrace of the natural state of conflict in human interaction.
I am less surprised that Mamet is not a liberal, than I am at his personal realization, and public declaration, that he is not. And given the political beliefs of his peers, I think we can add “courageous” to the adjective “gifted” when describing David Mamet.
I have been a huge fan of Mamet's for a long time. As to the question of whether he has lost his so-called literary juice, I think not. I realize it is not on a level with Glenngarry Glenn Ross, but the Unit is one of the best shows on network television, and treats the military fairly as well. As for the discrepency between the number of liberals vs. conservatives in academia, I tend to agree with Raven's comments, but would also simply add pure peer pressure.
When I saw the play Oleanna in college I realized that Mamet could not be a liberal, much less a brain dead one.
If there is one thing that I think characterizes Mamet is his stones. Whether he was on the left or right, his material goes right at or through some challenging terrain. No coward is he.
I also think that if you are awake and aware, at some point you have to realize how silly liberalism is. This is especially true in academia, where they (we) take themselves SO seriously.
Can Billington (or anyone, for that manner) provide substantive examples where an artist shifted to the right, and lost their creativity in the process? Or is Billington merely making an assumption about what he thinks will happen?
You're right, AuthorJack. I found the old Mamet maddeningly good at what he did. Today, I find him just as good, but at least I don't have to hate myself for liking his work anymore.
Funny, CBK, I had a similar break-up experience over Mamet's House of Games. No regrets.
Agreed. Hardly fascinating to see someone realize what we already know to be reality. None the less, it is reaffirming to see that some can shake off fantasy for reality. I think there will be a lot more "conversions", if you will, when the morning after "b*tch slap" of the cHosEn OnE's marxism starts to, finally, hit home. When the children of the left start seeing their daily consumables become either scarce or difficult to afford, they will reach a similar epiphany.
—-Honest evaluation is not a trait that comes naturally or easily—-
witness, the petulant child.
blunt, to be sure but, he grew up.
By "petulant child" I assume you mean Obama. . . and Pelosi. . . and Reid. . . and Frank. . . and Dodd . . . and so on.
heh, ,,,no longer the guilty pleasure!
It was probably doomed from the start then – but if Oleanna or House of Games won't end it, then a good dose of The Spanish Prisoner surely will. I neglected to explicitly mention a lesson I learned from the Oleanna ordeal: I "accidentally" rented it to end two subsequent relationships. For men and women alike, Mamet should forever be revered for the perfect excuse to break up with a person.
I cant think of any who have openly moved to the right whose work suffered, but I have no doubt that there are a large number of artists who moved right and just didn't bother to tell anyone. I remember when Esquire featured Jack Nicholson in the "What I've Learned" feature, he made one explicit reference to supporting Pres. Bush. The letters column two issues later was, as I recall, quite full with liberal fury that Jack Nicholson would express such an opine. I would think for most successful writers, actors, producers etc, it's just not worth it. I wish more would take Mamet's route, but I don't blame them for not doing so.
You mean the Unit _WAS_ one of the best shows. It got the axe this season.
Huh. I'll have to file that away for future reference. If I add it to Paul Simon's Fifty Ways I won't forget:
"Just rent House of Games, James."
There, that ought to do it.
Thanks.
Exactly! You don't have to be particularly smart to be a college prof – trust me, I've been around a lot of them – but you do have to be a leftist @$$-kisser to survive the interview process and get a tenure track position. If you manage to conceal your conservatism and get the position, you'll never get tenure if it ever comes out that you are a conservative before tenure is conveyed.
Conservative white males – especially in the arts departments – are the ni&&ers of academia, and suffer just as much discrimination as blacks did in the '50's old south. No exaggeration.
As a man of profound faith, there was simply nowhere else for Mr. Mamet to go.
Additionally, you can see hints of this conversion throughout his work– I'm especially thinking of "The Edge."
I've always thought of Mr. Mamet as one of those Conservatives In All but Name, and who we'll see "come out" in years to come. That list includes Clint Eastwood– and, I'm sure, Quentin Tarantino.
Red Belt is a great movie with a conservative message, that thankfully does not beat you over the head.
It got mediocre to bad reviews. Is there any coincidence that it was the first movie he released after he "came out"? I doubt it.
the man woke up and he will never be treated the same by the left again.
I'm trying to imagine QT as a conservative…. Not yet anyway http://books.google.com/books?id=c5SdiFJmswcC&...
Just because someone dresses and behaves funky does not mean they are creative. Neither does being manic depressive (VanGoh like). There are many creative people amongst us who look and act like uptight businessmen. I believe Motherwell wore a business suit, at least he owned one.
I do not view creativity as a divine gift of either you have it or don't, but notice that many creative people actually have dedicated many many hours of their life developing skills needed to be creative.
Creativity is problem solving. The chemist, physicist, engineer, doctor are as creative as the painter. Do you check out their politics before checking out their actual credentials in their field of knowledge? Doubtful. If you have a life threatening illness, you'll look for the guy with the highest rates of success.
A little off topic, but let me respond to the "why there aren't conservatives in academia" argument, which may or may not have relevance to the "why there aren't conservatives in the arts" argument.
I am a PhD grad student in Biology, conservative, and Christian. As a grad student, I am essentially in the academic establishment. I work directly with the faculty and aid in teaching the undergrads. I frequently find myself at parties held by my professors.
I think the dearth of conservatives has a great deal to do with the fact that academia is so overwhelmingly liberal. So overwhelmingly liberal is the atmosphere of the upper echelons of academia that I was loathe for the longest time to fully expose myself. I know the cross necklace I wore oft times brought about comments, but still the inherent assumption is that I was a pinko on the inside. This last election finally brought about my greater exposure when I found myself at a faculty house party listening to one professor decry how horrid the right-wing media was towards Obama. When I pointed out the treatment of Sarah Palin, this was met by a moment of shock, followed by blustering replies. I was finally exposed to a wider audience, somehow I had managed to slip in.
Now, through this, I have not been met by outright dislike or hatred, and some even value my opinion all the more because I represent a viewpoint not common to that world. Despite this, however, the overall atmosphere and implicit assumption that everyone is liberal makes it unpleasant at times. Derogatory generalizations of Conservatives is commonplace and the political activism of faculty makes it uncomfortable for you to speak your own mind. As a grad student, there is always a level of hesitation in being confrontational on matters not necessarily related to your studies and work. To actually reach the level of tenured faculty, the student must first complete their Ph.D. which can last 4-7 years on average. In the sciences this is typically followed by one or two postdoctoral positions each lasting around 3 years. Then one becomes an assistant professor and it is 5-7 years before you can achieve tenure.
That's a bloody long time scraping yourself up the ladder and given the politics of the university, this means also maintaining a level of good relations with a large number of faculty who are not only liberal, but vocal and sometimes almost militant about it.
That's around 15 years, give or take, for the conservative to survive in hostile territory, with no guarantee of success at the end. In comparison, private industry tends to be more conservative in nature and with the prospects of larger salary, is a far easier route.
So if I had to explain it, its not because conservatives are less intelligent. Its not because their view of the value of academics is somehow inherently different. Rather I would chalk it up to the shear unpleasantness of trying to survive in a politically hostile environment with no guarantee of success. Few people are willing to actually put up with all that. I myself would like to stay in academia, but as the environment wears on me, I find myself increasingly considering other career routes. I have even at times, God forbid, considered caving and just becoming a liberal.
Though I know nothing of the world of the arts and literature, I wonder if it is not similar.
There are conservatives in the academy, just like there are conservatives in the arts. We're quiet though, oh so quiet. It's risky out here to admit to being conservative– whether politically, culturally, or fiscally. My husband and I are two conservative professors and admirers of "the change" Mamet went through. We just quietly teach our classes, focusing on the importance of truth, rigor, logic, grammar, history, and the importance of a solid argument, not on the faux-import of the flavor of the week. Of course, we fled the US to find jobs overseas in order to be able to get jobs as hetero, conservative, Catholic, professors of philosophy who refuse to teach (minister? proseltyze?) inane politics. We long to come home to the US, but fear, with the increasingly shrillness of racial identity politics at home, that we'll be political refugees from the American academy for a long time to come.
Good article. I have to say that unfortunately in the visual arts at least (my area) that it IS true that you can't be both conservative and creative as the visual arts has slowly but very surely evolved, or rather has been steered via universities, into being nothing more than left wing political illustration, almost exclusively. What little is not political illustration isn't worth mentioning, literally. Ironically western contemporary art has become little different than the "official art" in China that extolled Mao's universe, only it lacks the bravura. Good to know irony isn't dead.
Cool thought, if women really were paid less, why wouldn't all employers hire only women to cut labor costs?
Because it's against the law, that's why. Equal opportunity employment.
I think it failed because no-one went to see it. I thought it got pretty good reviews (I went to see it because they intrigued me and I like Chewitel Ejiofor)), and while I wanted to love it, I found the end unsatisfying and the action scenes poorly shot. I hope Ejiofor gets more starring work though–he is amazing, and can easily command the screen for a full length movie.
That's exactly right, Peter. The market dictates that if you had identical products at different prices, there would be higher demand for the lower-priced product.
But Liberalism demands equal outcomes regardless of input, so all must be paid the same regardless of how much effort, experience, efficiency, or just plain competence an employee brings to the table.
Now I know why CBS cancelled "The Unit." Fiercely patriotic and pro U.S.A., the show came from the Mamet stable of excellent writers who possess something rarely seen on TV: a firm grasp of plot and character development and the ability to string two intelligent sentences together. High class entertainment all the way. No reason to stay up past 10 p.m. on Sunday nights … Dennis Haysbert, Max Martini and Robert Patrick won't be stopping by. Any chance an enlightened network might resurrect "The Unit" a la that other beautifully crafted/acted series, "Friday Night Lights"?
[...] Also by Matt Patterson: A Conservative Journey Through Literary America, Parts Five and Six. [...]
[...] Big Hollywood: Mamet tells us that while working on the political play November (which opened at the Ethel Barrymore Theater in New York in early 2008 and starred Nathan Lane) he started thinking about politics – specifically, how politics manifested in the clash between his two protagonists, a president who holds a realist (conservative) world view, and his Utopian (liberal) minded speech writer. [...]
I always thought the time slot worked against the unit because of CBS showing the NFL and other sporting events that almost always ran over. Even if you had a DVR, it was extremely hard to program it to properly record Cold Case and the Unit. I would almost always record those shows since there were typically commercial free shows such as The Tudors better suited to live viewing on Sunday nights. It would be great if Direct TV did for The Unit what they did for Friday Night Lights. For some reason, military shows (R-Ring etc.) tend to get canceled, probably because the average age of viewership is too old for advertisers (that is what happened to JAG for example.) I share your pain.
A longshot—-you didn't teach in Connecticut, did you?
A longshot—-you didn't teach in Connecticut, did you?
You must be logged in to post a comment.