David Mamet’s recent “conversion” to conservatism has been a lot on my mind. Mamet is
one of our greatest, most prolific, playwrights and screenwriters — a Pulitzer Prize winner, with a unique voice, and an extensive catalog of essays on everything from drama to literature to cinema. His latest piece, which appeared in the Village Voice, has generated oodles of controversy. It’s entitled Why I am No Longer a Brain Dead Liberal and is classic Mamet, and one of the more articulate reconstructions of how one passes from liberal to conservative ideologies.
But even more interesting than Mamet’s change of mind, to me at least, is the point of view that facilitated it. Like most liberals, he’d come to believe that the government, the military, and corporations were evil, while people were basically good. But then:
I began to question what I actually thought and found that 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.
Leave it to a playwright to view this important subject through the lens of drama. Mamet’s view that “people were basically good at heart” is a classic liberal position. For the leftist, evil has to do with a person’s environment, upbringing, or chemistry, not their essential nature. Nevertheless, Mamet correctly notes that the U.S. Constitution was created to check this depravity:
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.
Thus, the three branches of government — Legislative, Executive and Judicial — were formed out of an understanding that “people are swine,” and no one person or office should have ultimate power. In other words, our Constitution was framed by the perspective that human beings are sinners.
In this sense, Mamet’s “transformation” is nothing but a shift toward a biblical worldview.
Scripture does not paint a pretty picture about the nature of humanity. We are fallen, twisted creatures with a conviction of Good, but an inability to consistently live there. An 
honest appraisal of human history confirms this. The Elliot Spitzers, Ted Haggars, Brittney Spears and Kurt Cobains of the world are not anomalies. The newspaper is replete with stories about war and murder and embezzlement and fraud. The evidence of Original Sin is indisputable.
The belief that Man is Bad is not only borne out by experience, it’s the basis of all right thinking.
But apparently, this move from a Utopian to a Realist position has serious ramifications on one’s politics. Could it be said that the primary difference between liberals and conservatives is their view of human nature? The fact that David Mamet’s new, more realistic understanding of human nature forces him to eschew liberal ideology, would suggest so.
I really, really want to agree with you on this premise, Mike. But alas. . .
The icons of modern conservatism, Goldwater and Reagan, believed that government is the problem and that the common man, free of it’s shackles, are -minus a small percentage of the population – propelled to find their good nature when allowed their God-given right to freedom.
In other words, the evil side of humanity is allowed to flourish when the populace is robbed of its inherent rights.
Now, you don’t have to convince me of the depravity of human nature. But I still think it’s a minority. (though a growing one)
It is liberals who believe that government is necessary and infalliable unless conservatives are in power. They look to the government for solutions instead of implementing a model where free citizens naturally bring about solutions.
On the military, however, your point is valid. But, conservatism doesn’t love the military because it restrains the dark side of human nature. They love it because it protects the document and institution which gaurantees their God-given right to freedom from that minority of world rulers who would impose their depravity on free people.
The weakness of a man who is willing to live and let live is that he is vulnerable to the man who says yeah, but if I kill you, I get your stuff.
Happy Resurrection week, Mike.
Dayle,
If you read Mamet’s essay, he says the same thing. In his experience, man is essentially depraved and will act in his own self-interest. And he also states that government intervention is not the answer. Again, in his experience, there are not many examples of problem areas that were made better when government intervened.
I don’t think Mike was saying “live and let live”, but rather just trying to point out that Mamet has shifted towards a Biblical world view (which includes the depravity of man apart from God), and has done so because of the experiences he’s had with people.
I would question the idea that men “when allowed their God-given right to freedom” will be “propelled to find their good nature.” This infers that man’s nature is essentially good or, when properly cultivated, can become good. Depravity, as defined in Scripture, does not just apply to thieves and serial killers. Pride, gluttony and sloth are equally egregious before God and need some sort of “governing”.
Mark is right — my primary thought in this post is how Mamet’s political ideology shifted as a result of a more realistic view of human nature, and whether or not this is indicative of a fundamental distinction between liberals and conservatives regarding Man’s makeup.
Thanks for your comments, gentlemen!
Mike,
regarding: I would question the idea that men “when allowed their God-given right to freedom†will be “propelled to find their good nature.â€
I would question that idea also, but that’s what Reagan believed. My point is that your labeling of Mamet’s conservatism doesn’t jive with the standard bearer’s (Reagan).
Mark, I didn’t read Mamet’s essay, so I’m not referring to it with my comment. I’m referring to Mike’s post only. So, I’ll assume you’re correct. I’ll try to read it later.
One more thing, Mark.
The live and let live comment was not presented to represent any point Mike made.
My point with that line is to demonstrate that it only take a few bad guys to run roughshod over a large number of good guys who have the aforementioned attitude. Thereby making the bad guys seem to outnumber the good.
Also, our love for the military is because their priority is not to conquer, but to make sure our free-loving non-agressive nature is not taken advantage of by the Hitlers of the world.
Whatever government has come to be in America, it’s foundations rest in a Judeo-Christian worldview. It’s why so many biblical images and references populate our historical documents and origins. As I see it, when conservatives decry government it is not the idea of government, but the abuses of it. Government subsidized health care, welfare and education are addendums to, outgrowths of, a dysfunctional system. So when liberals gravitate toward bigger government it has less to do with the “governing” of society as the “coddling” of it.