[lit-ideas] Re: David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:22:45 -0700
Is Mike just checking to see if I'm awake? I didn't read the article and
probably won't, however I do know that I don't believe in the perfectibility
of human nature; so Mike is wrong there. I said as much on several occasions
-- both that I didn't believe in the perfectibility of human nature and that
Mike was wrong -- just to deal with that ambiguity.
Liberal Democracy as a viable form of government originated in the United
States. Our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights,
embody that Liberal form of government. It is Liberal in the sense of
liberally giving rights to the people as opposed to an autocracy or monarchy
or dictatorship that told the people what they could and couldn't do.
Time passed. Conservatives now want to keep that form of government. They
are conservative in the sense of wanting to retain American Liberalism.
Liberals, so called, aren't Liberal in this traditional American sense.
Liberalism has become a euphemism for something our founding fathers would
have hated. The original American Liberals would hate what is today called
Liberalism because today, Liberalism is Socialism. It wants the Government
to take care of people from the cradle to the grave. It wants the
government to owe and give them everything. Irene calls America a Second
Rate country probably because it doesn't socialistically provide health care
and other "entitlements" made popular in Europe in nations now finding it
difficult to pay for them.
The original American Liberal government had just a few tasks, but one of
the largest was national defense. Modern Liberals don't care about national
defense. In fact they oppose it. They think acts of national defense are
warmongering. Their heads are up their arses as our founding fathers would
have said.
I'll accept either or both of two titles: If you want to define Liberalism
as what our founding fathers embraced then I'm a Liberal. If you want to
define Conservatives as those who want to preserve what our founding fathers
embraced, then I'm a conservative.
Europeans who embraced socialistic panaceas in the twentieth century had two
titles also: Fascist and Communist.
Lawrence Helm
Going back to sleep in San Jacinto.
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Eric Yost
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:12 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead
Liberal'
Mike: Liberalism as a theory of governance doesn't believe in the
perfectibility of human beings as Lawrence seems to believe it does, on
the contrary, it recognizes that all of us are self-seeking and
corruptible and ever will be and therefore our enterprises require
rigorous accountability and regulation -- the bogeymen of conservatism.
See? You really should go to the link and read the whole essay. Mamet
addresses that "perfectibility issue" and believes that our system of
government -- both liberal and conservative -- responds well to human
corruption because it anticipates it.
You want to pin the tail only on the Donkey. All sides have good tails.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374064,374064,1.html/full
Best,
Eric
PS: Don't miss the part about Mailer on Godot. It's a hoot.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
