An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

NOTA: Addendum #2

I will eventually publish a second part to the series I started here. But that second installment requires some research, and time for said research is scarce right now. In the meantime — adding to Roger L. Simon’s confession from the right — I discovered this morning a counterbalance confession from the left, by David Mamet. An excerpt:

… I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it? 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.

I’d observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.

There’s much more to the essay than that, so please, read the whole thing — or, consider Paul Silver’s take on the essay (and additional excerpts from it) here.

  • cosmoetica
    He was ok till here:

    I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher)

    That's a guffaw-inducer.
  • Pete Abel
    Each to his own, Cosmo.
  • PaulSilver
    Cosmoetica,
    Why guffaw-inducer?
  • cosmoetica
    Have you ever read Sowell: He's not called Uncle Thomas for nothing? He's the Clarence Thomas of the Fourth Estate, and about as well-reasoned as Michelle Malkin on the Japanese Internment.

    That Sowell would be called a philosopher when he is a political columnist, and then appended with 'greatest'- not even mere 'great', pretty much undermines the intellectual credibility of Mamet's argument; a man who, himself, is not particularly known for his great philosophic stances in his writing, short of profanity and stereotypes.
  • PaulSilver
    I usually enjoy Mamet's plays about the clash of intellect and emotion. One called "Edmund" scared the crap out of me because it provoked my own fears about repressed rage. Also I don't think his article was intended to be a intellectual analysis but a personal reflection about labels.

    Nevertheless I am getting a lot out of reading Mamet and the Roger Simon piece.

    I notice one distinction is that we often conflate means and ends. I might support liberal ends but also conservative means. For example I support the dramatic reduction of all pollution including green house gases. Meanwhile I support using the trading of carbon credits or a carbon tax to influence the market place.
    Likewise I prefer better schools but also think that vouchers should be given a more through test.
    I think a lot of us in the middle of the political spectrum share and prefer this kind of flexibility.
  • cosmoetica
    As long as the flexibility does not impinge on basic civil liberties- like separate but equal school systems, or the gov't supporting religion, that's ok, but too often 'conservative means are merely masques for destroying civil liberties.
  • PaulSilver
    "As long as the flexibility does not impinge on basic civil liberties"

    That a good criteria for how to pick a candidate to support..
  • cosmoetica
    And that's why O is my choice. He brings a grassroots bottoms up approach to prob solving. Hill and Mac are old time top downers.
  • domajot
    I must say I've never understood the need to define man as essentially either good or evil. I've never spotted the slightest clue suggesting that this is an either/or dilemma., except in the minds of those who appear to need to sort everything in neat black and white pigeon holes.
    That anyone would base his life view on either asspumption is incomprehesible to me.

    What purposte does it serve to say than man is essentially good, or essentially bad?
    Say what you want, but we have to deal with both varieties, every day. Most commonly, the people we meet are a combination of both good and bad tendencies.
    I'm perfectly happy to let it go at that.


    .


    .
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC