Re: David Mamet on liberalism

1

I await his denunciation of Chappaquiddick.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 11:19 AM
horizontal rule
2

I thought "Shut the fuck up" was Mamet's typical reaction to, well, everything.

"Shut the fucking fuck up, you fucking fuck," actually.


Posted by: Anderson | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
3

Your link is broken, Labs. Who ever told you you could blog with men?


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
4

I used to have simplistic opinions. Now I have new simplistic opinions.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
5

It's a very weird essay from which it's hard to figure out how he'd actually stand on any matter of policy. He's in favor of a constitutional system of ambition checking ambition, which is nice. Other than that, the least abstract claim he makes is about the awesomeness of Thomas Sowell, which I'm not particularly ok with.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
6

He says Thomas Sowell is the greatest living American philosopher. How is one supposed to take this?

pwned by w/d, but still.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
7

To the person involved, converting from one stupid, ill-considered set of opinions to another can seem life-changing. To onlookers, just tedious.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 11:34 AM
horizontal rule
8

And 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.

David Mamet is fifteen years old.


Posted by: felix | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
9

Maybe he can get into cancer research instead.

This all sounds like Dennis Miller's metempsychosis -- a kinda dumb intellectual move, marked by general egotism and really bad timing.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
10

How is one supposed to take this?

I take it as the single most ridiculous statement of the piece.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 11:44 AM
horizontal rule
11

Is Mamet's wife still Rebecca Pidgeon?


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 11:47 AM
horizontal rule
12

The Village Voice's website is not cooperating with me. Oh, now it finally did in a new window.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
13

I think the essay is just a veiled excuse for why Spartan sucked: "I had Bush Derangement Syndrome!"


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
14

This is the same David Mamet who wrote "Oleanna" in 1992, "Wag the Dog" screenplay in 1997, "Glengarry Glen Ross" in 1984, and we're meant to believe that he's only just discovered his deep reactionary streak? Weird.

Also, dude, this is precisely the wrong time to be jumping on a horse called "markets are best, government intervention in markets always makes things worse". Because guess who disagrees? The markets.


Posted by: dsquared | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
15

Is Mamet's wife still Rebecca Pidgeon?

The way this question is worded makes it seem as if the same person could continue to be Mamet's wife while no longer being Rebecca Pidgeon.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
16

15: Well, if she wants to keep her newly reactionary man happy, she could easily become Rebecca Mamet.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
17

While reading this article, I felt my facial muscles tightening, and the words beginning to form in my mind: Shut the fuck up.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
18

wikipedia will give you answers instead of pedantry: "Mamet and actress Lindsay Crouse were married from 1977 to 1990, and have two children together, Willa and Zosia (pronounced Zoh-sha). Since 1991, Mamet has been married to actress and singer-songwriter, Rebecca Pidgeon. They have two children, Clara and Noah."


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
19

Is Mamet's wife still Rebecca Pidgeon?

No, the troika of wolves pursuing her finally caught up.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
20

Not that I have anything against pedantry: her troika (Russian sled drawn by three horses) was attacked by an unspecified number of wolves, as I recall.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
21

What? People can't get divorced?

Lindsey Crouse is a really good actress.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:18 PM
horizontal rule
22

her troika (Russian sled drawn by three horses) was attacked by an unspecified number of wolves, as I recall.

No, I had the "pursued" part right. For all we know the wolves were pursuing her troika to deliver some kind of delicious baked goods.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:20 PM
horizontal rule
23

But they didn't show the kill, did they. Fucking censorship. I can watch a man and woman having sex, or two men having sex, or two women, but I can't watch a beautiful woman being torn apart by wolves. This country's priorities are sick.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
24

What? People can't get divorced?

They can, but "Is Rebecca Pidgeon still Mamet's wife" and "Is Mamet's wife still Rebecca Pidgeon" have different, you know, valences.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:26 PM
horizontal rule
25

Is Mamet's pidgeon Rebecca still wifing?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:27 PM
horizontal rule
26

Rebecca Pidgeon is super hot.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:30 PM
horizontal rule
27

22, IMDB suggests cookies, in fact.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
28

24, that may be true in the realms of connotation, but the fact remains that the copula was used.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:43 PM
horizontal rule
29

And 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.

David Mamet is fifteen years old.

If only! I think this is a whole subset of conservative-libertarians. The "I used to be a big hippy, then learned corporations are all wonderful!" subset. Hypothesis: these people are a related and perhaps overlapping set with Ogged's category of "annoying liberals".


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
30

14

"Also, dude, this is precisely the wrong time to be jumping on a horse called "markets are best, government intervention in markets always makes things worse". Because guess who disagrees? The markets."

No, just some people who lost money in the markets and want to be bailed out. The only difference this time is the identity of the losers.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 1:05 PM
horizontal rule
31

That essay is all over the map. The typical unfogged thread is more on topic than that.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
32

He says Thomas Sowell is the greatest living American philosopher

Labs? Maybe THIS is what's wrong with your philosophy class. Not enough Thomas-fucking-Sowell.

How fortunate for the hoi polloi that the greatest living philosopher also has a syndicated column.


Posted by: Anderson | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
33

30: Jame's, come on, you're not that clueless. Show me a functioning market of any size or complexity that even exists without regulation.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
34

James, that is.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
35

30: bzzt, nope, that's a talking point. Plenty of people who made money still rather like the idea of the continued existence of a financial system to spend it in.


Posted by: derauqsd | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
36

33 34

Lots of markets exist without regulation. The market for cocaine for example. But that wasn't my point.

My point was there always are going to be people who don't like particular market outcomes and who appeal to the government to alter them. These people are not the voice of "the markets" even when they happen to be rich and powerful. I am skeptical of complaints about market outcomes in general but I am particularly skeptical of complaints from rich and powerful people who have lost money due to their own greed and stupidity.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
37

Favorite comment from the Village Voice thread:
Shorter Mamet:
"I used to be a total douchebag, but now I'm a total asshole. Yayyy! Look at Me!"

My own take:
"I'm 17 years old and I just read The Road to Serfdom!"


Posted by: Waingro | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
38

Lots of markets exist without regulation. The market for cocaine for example.

This is hilarious. Shearer, you really are somebody's elaborate piece of performance art, aren't you?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 2:26 PM
horizontal rule
39

35

"30: bzzt, nope, that's a talking point. Plenty of people who made money still rather like the idea of the continued existence of a financial system to spend it in."

People who wants to be bailed out often predict catastrophe if they aren't. That doesn't make it true.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 2:26 PM
horizontal rule
40

Then I repeat myself (do I repeat myself? very well, I repeat myself. I am large, I contain platitudes)

Plenty of people who made money still rather like the idea of the continued existence of a financial system to spend it in.


Posted by: dsquared | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
41

40

Or maybe they just want to keep the marks in the game.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
42

James, please don't comment on topics that I know much better than you. It hurts me to read your comments.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
43

Lots of markets exist without regulation. The market for cocaine for example.

Cocaine can only find a market b/c of our government-regulated economy, so I don't think the example holds.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
44

anyway, the bigger problem is that politicalfootball meant "market" in the broad sense, and you replied with an example of an extremely narrow market. not the same thing.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
45

Sweet Jeebus, I'm glad it wasn't just me.

I admit that I had a couple beers last night, but it was two and two only. But when I read Mamet's essay early this morning, it made my head hurt.

It was so confused and rambling and off-topic and seemed like it might be about to make some kind of point before it veered off into some other alleyway. As I forced myself through it, I thought, Mamet's generally considered a fairly sharp playwright/screenwriter/novelist so I must just not be getting his point.

You don't know how glad I am to stumble into this den of befuddlement and find others like me: people who think David Mamet doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about even remotely.

Sad, so very sad, when a writer can't even convey in words whatever his dipshit point was anyway.


Posted by: The Critic | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
46

Clearly, Mamet has determined that market forces reward those people who reject liberalism more than those who remains liberals.

See Juan Williams, Mara Liason (sp?), etc.


Look for his employment with Fox any day now: "Liberal Democrat David Mamet says 'Democrats are idiots!'"


Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
47

The "I used to be a big hippy, then learned corporations are all wonderful!" subset.
Makes me think of Lileks and his too-easy-to-mock obsession with Target.


Posted by: Nathan Williams | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
48

How fortunate for the hoi polloi that the greatest living philosopher also has a syndicated column.

It's like we're France or something! Finally recognizing the philosopher/intellectual as the conscience of the nation! Go us/US!


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 3:24 PM
horizontal rule
49

Not only that, but our president's choice for history's greatest philosopher had his own daily comic strip, at least until Johnny Hart died.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 3:31 PM
horizontal rule
50

den of befuddlement

If I ever have my own blog again, that is even better than "Thus Blogged Anderson."


Posted by: Anderson | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
51

Shouldn't it be that the market for cocaine exists *despite* government intervention?


Posted by: mike d | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 4:04 PM
horizontal rule
52

"market" doesn't mean "demand".


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
53

Shouldn't it be that the market for cocaine exists *despite* government intervention?

Gov't intervention drives up the price and creates production/marketing incentives that would not otherwise exist.


Posted by: Anderson | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
54

(Wow, that was great, I actually looked like I knew what I was talking about there.)


Posted by: Anderson | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 4:09 PM
horizontal rule
55

I am large, I contain platitudes

Can this be the new mouseover text?


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 4:09 PM
horizontal rule
56

S,N!:

I found ... that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president--whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster--were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

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.

"Oh" indeed. This is a put-on, right? An elaborate joke perpetrated by Mamet in the voice of one of his characters, except without all the "fucks" and stuff, right? Sadly, no.

A quick history review for Mamet is in order. Eisenhower arguably started the Vietnam debacle by sending Diem to Vietnam and funding and training his armies there. The first U.S. ground troops were sent there by LBJ. Kennedy won the Kennedy-Nixon election by a margin wider than the number of electoral votes from Illinois. There is no evidence that any CIA agents were among the Cuban exile force that invaded Cuba, much less "hundreds" of them. Sorenson always said that Kennedy had significant input on the book. (Bonus question: tell me, David, if I reveal to you that Brent Bozell wrote The Conscience of a Conservative for Barry Goldwater, will you become a liberal again?) And if Kennedy was in bed with the Mafia, what on earth was Bobby Kennedy doing going after all those mob members?

At best Mamet's claim to no longer be a "brain dead" liberal would appear to be only half true.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 4:15 PM
horizontal rule
57

"Thomas Sowell is the greatest living American philosopher"

I am SURE this is a strong sign that the essay has, at the very least, a satirical element to it.

At least, I hope it does, or else it way too strongly proves Rorty's point that artistic brilliance, even in a highly literary and urbane sphere, may be completely unrelated to moral or intellectual insight of any other kind...

Any thoughts on the piece once you get to the very end? It was my thought that the "... and yet ..." and the very last night were intended to suggest that the rest of the piece should be read in a less literal light than you might initially have assumed. That, and the fact that Mamet loves trick endings...oh, and that it's being carried by _The Village Voice_...


Posted by: Eric | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 5:00 PM
horizontal rule
58

I think that high-testosterone gut thinkers usually end up right-wing. A fair number of rock n rollers ended up that way.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
59

57 - Are you saying that Mamet is trolling?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
60

I can finally read the essay! Wow! Perhaps the stupidest opinion piece by a prominent writer since Mario Vargos Llosa's ode to the benefits of Spanish conquest back in the early nineties.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 5:02 PM
horizontal rule
61

57.2: Rorty's point has been proved a dozen times over and more, surely.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 5:03 PM
horizontal rule
62

This is running on the front page of Yahoo. I almost thought it was a trick, but no, someone's actually pointing out the obvious in a mainstream publication.

McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China Iraq


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 5:15 PM
horizontal rule
63

This essay actually spells out that which I do not understand about the laissez-faire aspects of modern conservatism. Namely, why is it always assumed that the leaders of governments are corrupt and evil, but the leaders of corporations are shiny beacons of light?


Posted by: F | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 6:03 PM
horizontal rule
64

63: because corporations produce things that rich assholes desire, and governments do not.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 6:05 PM
horizontal rule
65

It's about accountability, F. If corporations act in destructive ways, they will go out of business, because of the lightning-fast trail of word of mouth that inevitably pervades society. Unless there is a monopoly or they can stay solvent longer than any of the people who have been wronged, which is obviously impossible. This would also be untrue if some sort of misleading advertising could theoretically exist which causes people to think the corporations are not as evil as they actually are.

Whereas if governments act in destructive ways, they can't be replaced, unless there is some sort of democratic system for doing so.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 6:09 PM
horizontal rule
66

Also, because of the way markets work, profits don't usually exist, because they would be inefficient. So the really smart bad guys don't stay in business very long, and only the philanthropists have staying power.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 6:11 PM
horizontal rule
67

I have read these books by Thomas Sowell and they are surprisingly good:

http://www.amazon.com/Migrations-Cultures-World-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465045898/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-America-History-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465020755/ref=pd_sim_b_title_3

His essays tend to be unhinged though.


Posted by: lemmy caution | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 6:31 PM
horizontal rule
68

Ahh, I get it now. Shorter David Mamet: People are innately bad, but the world is somehow magically an okay place. Therefore, we should stop trying to make it better.


Posted by: F | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 6:47 PM
horizontal rule
69

59: I dunno about trolling, but he does have a deep sense of both irony and suspense, so you never can tell...

61: "Rorty's point has been proved a dozen times over and more, surely."

I know, surely, surely--Refinstahl, Pound etc. Yet that doesn't make its object lessons any less irritating or unpleasant to swallow. =S


Posted by: Eric | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 6:56 PM
horizontal rule
70

That wasn't me.


Posted by: Eric | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 7:03 PM
horizontal rule
71

Yes it was.

Or else you can adopt a less generic name!

I recommend "Ericula".


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
72

70: Oh! Then the other Eric above you probably needs a new handle.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
73

Halfabee.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
74

58: in America, maybe. It's socially dependent. I'm sure in Russia they end up Communists who are nostalgic for Stalin, who knew how to handle shit. Whatever the reactionary position is.

I can't be bothered to read this essay, but I must say that NPR does suck. That's why your modern liberal prefers the Daily Show. Perhaps Mamet just was not informed of that in time.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
75

CholEric? GenEric? HystEric? DysentEric? TurmEric? SphinctEric?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
76

I was just saying that if Mamet thinks NPR is The Left, he's safe from zombies because what they want is brains. I hate NPR so much that people get tired of hearing me say so. The NPR Voice has killed liberalism and the Democratic Party.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 7:45 PM
horizontal rule
77

Mamet will be coming out with a new play just in time for the Republican National Convention: Zell Miller: The Musica


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
78

l


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
79

The NPR Voice

HATE HATE HATE


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 10:35 PM
horizontal rule
80

Jesus, Emerson, did McManus bite you recently or what? Go swig down some holy water or something.


Posted by: HamLove | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 10:44 PM
horizontal rule
81

41: so what? Whether they're angels or crooks, they are, in fact "the market" and you don't get to pretend otherwise just because they're not the self-reliant Randian supermen of your imagination.


Posted by: dsquared | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 3:10 AM
horizontal rule
82

70-72, 75: Sorry!!! (And I *definitely* do not need to be either CholEric or DysentEric!!)

Back to the matter at hand...after having read it again, I'm now more convinced that it was intended primarily to provoke, and to promote his new play, in particular to conservatives.

Consider the bit about how he infers that government is generally useless from his experience that taking the director away from the play usually leads to shorter rehearsals and a better play.

Does he truly think that? If so, Mamet's a big name, and he's plenty of cash and pull, and he's hardly a creative wallflower--so why isn't he expressing this belief creatively and attempting to produce at least a few director-less plays and films? Have you heard anything about him trying to throw a bunch of actors on the boards with a script and just watching what happens? So it's hard to think that he's not trying to pull his audience's chain here at least a little bit.

I don't think the piece is just "trolling" or full out satire, though--I think it's a plea for understanding and listening, and an argument that there are valid points on both sides...


Posted by: Eric T | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 5:16 AM
horizontal rule
83

80: That's hurtful, Eel Man. I am my own person, not a slave of McManus. I've always been this way.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 5:17 AM
horizontal rule
84

GenEric? ChimEric? A1phanum3ric? Bode Eric?


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 5:37 AM
horizontal rule
85

79: HATE HATE HATE

Mamet, Mamet, masturbate, Mamet


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 6:09 AM
horizontal rule
86

Mamet's essay now comes with the Andrew Sullivan seal of approval.

"So good to see that he understands the core conservative idea," Sully says.

In theory it seems like there should be a distinction between being a conservative and being an idiot, but. . .


Posted by: felix | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
87

86.3: presumably it wouldn't be clear to either Mamet or Sullivan, since they are both (the latter certainly, the former apparently).


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 7:36 AM
horizontal rule
88

Are there any cases of people switching later in life from right to left? No "I was against big government but now I've seen the destruction caused by markets" experiences? I won't draw any infuriating lessons from this.


Posted by: bjk | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 8:39 AM
horizontal rule
89

81

"41: so what? Whether they're angels or crooks, they are, in fact "the market" and you don't get to pretend otherwise just because they're not the self-reliant Randian supermen of your imagination."

No they aren't, they are participants in the market. Participants in the market may have political opinions, the market doesn't.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 10:27 AM
horizontal rule
90

Are there any cases of people switching later in life from right to left?

John Dean?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 10:33 AM
horizontal rule
91

re: 88

Happens all the time. When people who once had money lose it, and then want a safety net.

So, your infuriating lessons can fuck off.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 10:35 AM
horizontal rule
92

John Dean went from the right to the center when he pled guilty. He's not left now, he's an old-fashioned pre-Nixon Republican.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 10:38 AM
horizontal rule
93

88: Why, yes.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
94

There is the famous trio of National Review apostates: Joan Didion, Garry Wills, John Leonard. Didion was never exactly on the left; in some ways -- with what people have called nihilism, though I don't think that's exactly right -- she's in a similar boat to David Simon.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 6:24 PM
horizontal rule
95

Then there's Austin Bramwell, outlining the trajectory of many a humiliated former movementarian leftward, if not exactly to "the left" per se.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 6:29 PM
horizontal rule
96

Yeah, happens all the time.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 6:36 PM
horizontal rule
97

It was stipulated *later in life*, and Brock and Lind were both pretty young. Of course, maybe nobody changes their opinions after 30, or very few. And who is John Leonard?


Posted by: bjk | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 9:06 PM
horizontal rule
98

Wasn't Brock about 40 when he came out with that book?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 9:09 PM
horizontal rule
99

Lind was 34 when the book linked to came out. Born the same year as Brock.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 9:10 PM
horizontal rule
100

Arianna Huffington.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
101

I nominate Ariana Huffington as the new Kobe.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 9:17 PM
horizontal rule
102

I can't think of Arianna Huffington without thinking of Al Franken referring to her as "the beautiful, but evil, Arianna Huffington."


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-13-08 10:51 PM
horizontal rule
103

When I read the Mamet column yesterday, my first thought was that the Unfoggetariat would not be kind to the apostate. Burn in hell, former liberal. But I took his point to be that the "Amerika- always wrong" thinking that he had previously engaged in was perhaps too simplistic. I would say his essay reminded me of the quote attibuted to Twain about how your Dad is an idiot when you are 16, but by 25 you are amazed at how smart he has become.


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 03-14-08 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
104

103: IOW, his point was a worn-out cliche about the sort of caricature of liberalism typically indulged by ex-liberals who develop a fixation on all the little things that have annoyed them over the years and mentally reduce "the left" to a collection of tics. This fixation is handy as an excuse to switch focus to a set of anti-liberal positions that don't require much in the way of thinking through. It's a typical sample of the genre.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 03-14-08 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
105

104 gets it exactly right. But who is surprised? Mamet's a fine writer, but he's been clearly a tool (and a misogynist) forever.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-14-08 3:00 PM
horizontal rule