Conservatism is For Closers
One of my basic rules is, if Terry Teachout writes something, read it.
In the latest issue of Commentary, he writes about David Mamet, the ferociously profane, hilarious, electrifying playwright.
Mamet has written some spectacular stuff -- American Buffalo, Glengarry Glen Ross, Speed-the-Plow. But he also wrote the best, most compact manifesto for screenwriting I've ever read. It's here, and it's brilliant.
He also wrote an essay two years ago, for the Village Voice, entited "Why I Am No Longer a Brain Dead Liberal," in which he describes his new thinking as a result of reading works by the League of Conservative Super Heroes such as Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, Thomas Sowell, and Shelby Steele.
Teachout isn't totally sold, of course. And the whole essay is worth reading, as always:
Mamet does not fit easily into any political pigeonhole. He appears at first glance to be less a conservative than a libertarian. As he explained in his Village Voice essay, he is “hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government [has] led to much beyond sorrow,” and nowhere in that essay or the pages of Theatre does he betray any interest in the social issues that are central to the belief systems of most conservatives.
At the same time, though, Mamet’s repudiation of liberalism is rooted in a view of human nature that is more complex than that of most libertarians, and one that can easily be related to the skeptical worldview that animates his plays. “As a child of the 60’s,” he wrote in the Village Voice, “I accepted as an article of faith?.?.?.?that people are generally good at heart.” It was this credo that he specifically repudiated in that same essay:
I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama.
...Therein lies part of the strength of Mamet’s major plays: they present human behavior rather than trying to explain it. None of the characters is obviously sympathetic, nor do any of them step forward at evening’s end to reassure uneasy audiences that they are seeing man at his worst and that a well- regulated society has the power to lead him in the paths of righteousness. Instead, Mamet portrays human life as a Hobbesian war of all against all, leaving it to the viewer to draw his own conclusions about the ultimate meaning of the struggles for dominance that he witnesses on stage. The only difference between Mamet then and Mamet now is that he has decided that government intervention can do little or nothing to ameliorate the effects of these struggles, and that men do better to work out their differences through the operation of free markets.
Still, I love that line: "hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government has led to much beyond sorrow."
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Conservatism is For Closers
Also a good part of Teachout's Commentary article:
I've seen lots of artists (musicians mostly) just assume that everything they love about their art will be doomed without their state subsidy -- as if people would never value art enough to pay for it themselves. No, art wouldn't be doomed. But you'd have to make art that people actually like. This they can't comprehend, though, so if a fellow artist brings up the bad effects or superfluity of art subsidies, they treat him like he has fallen prey to some deranged self-hatred. Sad.
Jul '10
Re: Conservatism is For Closers
I'm not so sure Teachout has it right. I think Mamet knows what is the good and bad in his characters. The fact he leaves out the 'moral' of the story means he knows the audience can figure it out ourselves. I find this flattering view of the audience different, than say, the Sopranos writers, who preyed on the audience's willingness to live vicariously through the pro(anti-)tagnonist (who doesn't sometimes want to be a Mob boss, where the only rules are your own?). Which is also why the last scene in the Sopranos was so awful.
Jun '10
Re: Conservatism is For Closers
He certainly knows his craft. The screenwriters job is to scare you, enchant you, trick you, or confront you, with some overall purpose in mind--not just hold your hand and direct you through a wax museum full of preachy overly-transparent characters, as so often happens in bad TV drama.
Jul '10
Re: Conservatism is For Closers
From Teachout: "...the social issues that are central to the belief systems of most conservatives."
Teachout therein repeats the common canard that libertarians are not true conservatives because "social issues" are not central to our political philosophy.
As a life-long libertarian, I would counter that we are, in fact, the Right Wing of the Right Wing. We argue for the smallest possible government and for upholding the principles of the Constitution. We believe that the social issues are properly left to the States, whereas "social cons" would advocate Federal settlement of those controversies.
So who is more conservative? Those who put their faith in the 10th Amendment? Or those who would ignore it pursuit of pet social issues?
May '10
Re: Conservatism is For Closers
My favourite Mamet thing is his wonderful adaptation of Terrence Rattigan's The Winslow Boy. It's always made me suspect that underneath his progressive veneer, he hankered for the good o'l fashioned ideas of individual liberty, truth, justice, right.
I believe it was Mark Steyn who said on a Ricochet podcast once that all effective storytelling is fundamentally conservative.
Re: Conservatism is For Closers
Rob...
Thanks for the link to the manifesto. What a great read. Love Mamet.