My goodness

David Mamet comes out as a quasi-libertarian.

Comments

Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough to political messages embedded in screenplays, but is this really that big a surprise? I've been a Mamet fan for years but I've never detected any obvious left-leaning political message in his work. I guess it is mildly surprising any time a major author/playwrite who has achieved some critical success comes out of the closet as a libertarian or conservative, but in this case I don't see why anyone should be particularly shocked. Good for him for having the courage to admit his philosophical evolution though. And even better that he published it in the Village Voice.

Posted by dsr | March 12, 2008 11:18 AM

I think it was more of a surprise to Mamet than to some of his close readers. But it'll probably be a surprise to some of the Voice's readership, and to many others in his circle.

I enjoyed the article - I have to say, his political views, though arrived at by a different route, seem to be almost identical to mine. (Which, naturally enough, makes me think that he's right!)

Posted by Derek Lowe | March 12, 2008 11:37 AM

It's interesting enough that his views actually did evolve, rather than ossifying into an unthinking secular religiosity.

Mamet's collections of essays, BTW, are fantastic. As good as his plays, and better than most of his films.

Posted by Eriver | March 12, 2008 12:38 PM

His post was interesting, if not particularly stellar - there are some good passages, but I doubt it will make many people change their minds.

However, the comments are fascinating - some liberals attacking him for "becoming an elitist" and others, simultaneously, attacking him for "wallowing with the selfish proles."

One of the earliest comments comes from Misty, who seems to feel that Mamet has fallen from grace, but she will keep trying to make the world a better place, instead of succumbing to the seductive call of the HDTV, like virtually everyone else.

Really, Misty? If you think that most people are barely above animals, how can you possibly reconcile that with a government of the people? Is it your fervent hope that only such as you shall be elected to office, and a league of angels shall accompany you as you restructure society to create a perfect world, rules by the just few. How many times do you have to be beaten with the evidence stick in order to understand how fragile your system would be?

And hen there are the people who accuse him of being an elitist. Because believing that everyone is both saint and sinner, trying to get ahead and get along at the same time, is somehow a sign of elitism. I try to be open-minded, but I struggle for sure with the idea that libertarianism - that people should be left alone to do their own thing, - is somehow "elitist".

Posted by jb | March 12, 2008 4:44 PM