Redstate

By silver_blue Posted in Culture — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

You've got to be amused at the liberal press sometimes, and the way they think. Even if sometimes you might also feel the need to shout at them.

Obviously it's well enough known now that the highly regarded writer David Mamet wrote an article recently called Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal' in The Village Voice magazine. In it he discussed how he started to question long held political beliefs, and to think about his predjudices and ingrained thinking. As a result of this, he felt that he didn't truly hold many of these beliefs, and by expanding his reading and his thinking he had come to the conclusion that he held far more opinions that might be considered "right-wing" in regards to political and social issues.

Cue criticism.

I think most notably and amusingly the comment in The Guardian Arts Blog, which not only took a matter of days after Mamet's article to talk about his talent "going off the boil" but also expressed concern on "the effect on his talent of locking himself into a rigid ideological position."

Um...let me think. Having admitted that he had held long ingrained opinions without really questioning them, Mamet had then said that he'd re-evaluated his beliefs, become more questioning, and read more widely. As a result, he'd come to know his own mind and his own beliefs more truly.

That's right - re-evaluating his beliefs, becoming more questioning and reading more widely - that equates, according to The Guardian, to "locking himself into a rigid ideological position." As opposed to, presumably, continuing to adhere to ingrained opinions which he hadn't really thought through or understood, but which were left-wing or liberal. That wouldn't be rigidly ideological at all.

I admire Mamet for having the courage to admit that he questioned his own beliefs, and to reach conclusions that are likely to prove unpopular in the professional areas in which he works. I'd similarly admire anyone who genuinely questions and thinks about their beliefs, whatever conclusions they draw.

What's pitiful is the response that, because his beliefs are not what the majority of theatre critics or the liberal media might agree with, the fact that he holds such beliefs makes him ideologically rigid and is a threat to his work. The ideological rigidity, the inability to judge work on its merits (and it'll be interesting to see how coloured the reviews of Mamet's next work are), those are flaws among those members of the media, not Mamet.

This article also posted on my personal blog.