David Mamet, one of the more interesting writers working in America for stage and screen, has an interesting essay in the Village Voice. The whole thing is good, really, but here’s a sample:
For the Constitution, rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests.To that end, the Constitution separates the power of the state into those three branches which are for most of us (I include myself) the only thing we remember from 12 years of schooling.
The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.
Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullsh*t and go straight to firearms.
I suggest reading the whole thing.
Notably, I’m a bit ahead of Mamet here. He’s basically experiencing a conversion from American-style left-liberalism to a more libertarianish conservatism. I myself did that some years ago, but am now much more of a centrist, since I’ve come to see conservatives as not really having all the answers and government as vital and every bit as trustworthy as “the market” (which couldn’t function without government intervention anyway). But it’s always interesting to see people who’ve changed their minds. I’ve had my mind changed on more things than I can count anymore.
(Via Glenn.)
{ 19 comments }
How about you change your mind and play a different game than damned Halo 3!
LOL… Yet another reason to learn how to handle firearms well.
Scott Kirwin’s last blog post..Bad Science & The Underdog Meme
Well Kevin, I’m not up for Call of Duty, but if you’ve got other suggestions, and can lend me the funds…
I didn’t say you had to play with me. But there are a billion other great titles out there to play! Frak, man, grab Burnout Paradise from my box and play with Dwayne or something. He’s always up for playing.
Or, heck, go crazy and play an RPG like Eternal Sonata. That’s a great game!
Man, seeing you play Halo 3 exclusively is like watching a man consume only vanilla ice cream at a Coldstone Creamery! It’s depressing.
Coldstone makes EXCELLENT vanilla ice cream.
Quiet you.
Some of us like to master one game and get really good at it. Especially a game with so much depth to it.
I’d just read Mamet’s essay before this visit to Dean’s World. It’s a very nice piece of thought and writing. The comments reacting to the piece are awfully amusing, too! Yes, he is being tarred and feathered and driven out of the community. And his plays (say his instant critics) sucked anyway.
He’s never been my favorite playwright, but I’d certainly welcome more essay like this. He picks up my favorite critique of contemporary politics: The answer is almost never either/or. It’s usually both.
John_B’s last blog post..?Don’t Turn Saudi Wedding into Funerals?
I guess if you really enjoy your tub of vanilla ice cream there’s nothing wrong with that.
I’m going to be over here enjoying my rainbow taste explosion ice cream topped with awesome sauce. After that Michael Bay is gonna swing by and we’re gonna blow some shit up while riding velociraptors equipped with lasers and rocket launchers. Optimus Prime might stop by and bring some of his Autobot friends too. But that bit isn’t certain. If he can’t John McClain said he’d fill in and show us how to kill terrorists and get the girl.
You know, the usual.
“in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers”…one of the things that has always struck me about liberals/progressives is that they tend to perceive government as an idealized parent-image, rather than as something made up of individuals who have their own interests to pursue.
“After that Michael Bay is gonna swing by and we’re gonna blow some shit up while riding velociraptors equipped with lasers and rocket launchers. Optimus Prime might stop by and bring some of his Autobot friends too. But that bit isn’t certain.”
Special effects bore me. Give me a good story!
(Hey, that’s almost on topic. Mr. Mamet’s work is story-rich.)
it isn’t washington that runs the country anyways. its the civil service. unelected, cynical, corrupt, and running all your lives…
“But it’s always interesting to see people who’ve changed their minds. I’ve had my mind changed on more things than I can count anymore.”
A person who never changes his mind, is a person who has stopped learning, is a closed mined ideologue, or is dead.
That’s an interesting perspective on liberalism. Maybe my eyes have been opened a bit.
I’d generally been thinking that liberals were heavily “emo”, or maybe engaging in theatrics so nobody would notice their self-supposedly defective souls.
As a former camp counselor, I found that manipulating the kids into doing what I wanted done by making them think it was what they wanted to do, was far more effective and more conserving of my energy.
Of course, there were still the little thugs that needed to be squashed, but at least I had the energy left to do that without worrying about the rest of the kids.
Base your structure on the material you are working with, and things go a lot better. Sounds like Mr. Mamet learned that late.
All kidding aside, Dean your description of libertarian-conservatism is another example of the tensions of power Mamet was describing. Not only the tension between three branches of government, but aslo keeping up the tension between differnt areas such as church, socialorganizations,etc.
Letting one group dominate the others leaves less liberty for anyone.
urthshu, the civil service is made up of us poor, falible humans. The fact that it works so well here in the United States, Canada, and the rest of the West, is something many do not acknowledge.
My sister in law is Colombian, and she has expressed both marvel and frustration – marveling why it works so well here and frustrated on why it works so poorly at home.
And Mr. Esmay said, ” I’ve had my mind changed on more things than I can count anymore.”
Maybe that is why so many people really likee to read what you have to say
I just finished reading the entire essay and I like it. I was unaware of the similarities between Bush and Kennedy. However, I think, that Mamet was describing the leftist opinion of Bush and comparing it against Kennedy’s real history rather than saying Bush actually did all those things – which is provably false.
And I’ve always disagreed with the liberal view that all people a basically good. So, I was pleased to read:
Which was it indeed! You can’t believe that, for example, Bush is a lying monster and all people are basically good at heart. I was also pleased to read that Mamet agreed with me on the Founding Father’s reasoning for the separation of powers. And I’d ask, if all people were basically good why would that separation be necessary?
Like the right, “mooing about faith,” I find my answer in my faith. People are not basically good. I think Mamet would say they’re essentially decent and I’d say what we accept as decent is only the product of a system that assumes people are essentially indecent and is designed to check those baser tendencies. To ensure that the indecent are continually fighting with one another for primacy. That way, knowing that we’re not going to get all that we want (to frak the other guy over for our own benefit without consequence), sometimes a genuine good may be produced.
Of course, I readily admit, this is a rather bleak outlook on society but I think if it’s not the most realistic, it’s at least the safest.
Assume you’re going to be mugged and you’re going to take precautions against it. That way, if it occurs you’re ready and if it doesn’t let no one fault you for being paranoid. Their skin isn’t on the line – yours is – so who cares what they have to say anyway?
Comments on this entry are closed.