Welcome Home: the journeys of David Mamet and George McGovern.

A few days ago this blog discussed the new George McGovern -- the former far Leftist who now saw government as too obtrusive and invasive. Many people took this as some sort of major conversion. And while I applaud Mr. McGovern’s new insights I don’t think the conversion is nearly as dramatic as many people assume. Mr. McGovern has moved toward a classical liberal position from that of a contemporary liberal.

Joining Mr. McGovern on this journey is David Mamet, playwright, novelist and film director. Mamet wrote of his journey in the March 11th issue of The Village Voice. He said:

I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

...What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.

Mamet says he went on to read Thomas Sowell, who Mamet called “our greatest contemporary philosopher” but also writers like Paul Johnson and Milton Friedman. He concluded that “a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.”

Mr. Mamet seems to see his change as rather dramatic. I’m sure that many of his contemporaries on the Left will see it that way as well. But I don’t believe that Mr. McGovern and Mr. Mamet have really strayed that far from their previous beliefs. Their ends for society remain pretty much the same. They want peace, prosperity and the maximum amount of human well-being. What has changed is the means they wish to use to achieve those ends.

When real liberalism, the original kind of Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Adam Smith and the Age of Enlightenment, came onto the scene it was a radical change. It attempted to smash the power structure of the day, which was feudalistic and built on the use of state power. Raw power was used to protect the privileges of kings and priests, of church and state. Liberalism demanded reform. It called for separation of church and state. It pretty much called the separation of everything and state. It argued that individuals were best able to improve their own lives if they were free.

Liberalism argued that state power was the enemy of peace, prosperity and the people. And it sought ways to limit the state and to free the individual. This was considered the Left in those days as evidenced by the esteemed libertarian thinker Frederic Bastiat sitting with the Left in the French National Assembly. Classical liberalism was a truly revolutionary movement.

But a third force arose. It was one that adopted the goals of liberalism but also adopted something from the conservative side of the spectrum. This was socialism. The socialist hardly differed with the liberal when it came to the primary goals. He wanted peace, he wanted prosperity and he wanted equality. Liberals agreed though they had a different view of equality.

The socialist brought with him two conservative traits. He adopted the view that an elite knew best and needed to control the populace in order to protect them from exploitation and themselves. This was the old feudalistic view of the people revived. But even more importantly he embraced the use of state power to achieve liberal ends. He did not abandon the goals of liberalism but felt that the conservative means of state power was a better method of achieving those goals. The old classical liberals believe that this was a fatal compromise. They felt that means and ends must be brought into line with one another. More importantly they felt that state power wouldn’t achieve liberal goals but conservative goals.

Mamet said that he looked at the presidency of George Bush, who he despises, and found it wasn’t that different from the president he admired. The reason is that Mr. Kennedy, like Mr. Bush was wedded to the use of state power. State power is an excellent method for achieving illiberal goals but a rather poor way of promoting peace, prosperity or equality.

Statism and war are inherently connected and history bears this out. As for prosperity the state is not an engine of wealth creation but of wealth consumption. It might redistribute what wealth is created but in the process it destroys the incentives to produce wealth. State benevolence turns too easily into state dependency. And it is not the poor and powerless who see their welfare promoted by government but by the rich and powerful who have easy access to the political elite. Progressives and socialists felt that the good intentions of the Left were sufficient to reign in the conservative nature of state power. But good intentions, when mixed with state power, too easily turns into the Gulag or the Killing Fields.

A failure to understand basic incentives and the feedback loops of markets meant that the economic ecosystem was tampered with in ways which produced results contrary to the goals that the planners had in mind. Each manipulation produced unintended consequences which were addressed by further interventions which only created more unintended consequences. The good intentions of the planners were irrelevant because they failed to understand the ecology of markets. In addition they confused markets with state privilege. They failed to see the difference between the producer and the rent-seeker, the latter being those who use political means to obtain wealth for themselves through subsidies, protectionism, or redistribution. The modern Left assumed that all “business” was the same, failing to note that the one segment earned profits through production of goods and services while the state capitalist redistributed wealth through political means.

For the first time Mamet and McGovern are seeing the need to use liberal means in order to achieve liberal ends. Previously they followed the fallacy of the Socialist left in adopting conservative means to achieve liberal ends. Mr. Mamet said, “I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of he government led to much beyond sorrow.” That encapsulates the transformation. He is recognizing that the use of power, the conservative means, did not lead to the liberal ends that he sought.

What is happening with Mr. McGovern and Mr. Mamet is that they are once again bringing ends and means together. Neither has ceased to be a liberal in the true meaning of the word. On the contrary, they are more liberal than ever. Perhaps they still have further roads to travel and more understanding to gain, but I think it is time to say, “Welcome home.”

Yes, the leopard can change his spots!

Here are some excerpts from an editorial writing by a former politician. Who wrote it?

Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that "'one-size-fits all' rules for business ignore the reality of the market place." Today I'm watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse.

Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior.

Health-care paternalism creates another problem that's rarely mentioned: Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states.

Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.

Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as "payday lending."

Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next.

Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went one step further and laid the data out: Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy. Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of debt but fewer ways to manage it.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

If you read the whole thing it is basically a defense of the individual’s right to make economic choices for himself, even if those choices are less than optimal. In other words it is a defense of capitalist acts between consenting adults. A few years ago the same write defended social freedom of choice:

Today, however, there are those who would deny others the choice to eat meat, wear fur, drink coffee or simply eat extra-large portions of food, to give a few examples. Wearing perfume in public raises the ire of certain organized interest groups.

While on any day each of us may identify with the restrictive nature of a given campaign, there is a much larger issue here. Where do we draw the line on dictating to each other? How many of these battles can we stand? Whose values should prevail?

Life in America has remained relatively peaceful compared with that in other societies. But we are becoming less tolerant and more mean-spirited in everyday social interactions. We have become less forgiving. Suing institutions as well as each other for perceived harms has become a ruinous sport.

New attempts to regulate behavior are coming from both the right and the left, depending only on the cause. But there are those of us who don't want the tyranny of the majority (or the outspoken minority) to stop us from leading our lives in ways that have little impact on others.

While the choices we make may be foolish or self-destructive-bungee jumping is my favorite example of insanity-there is still the overriding principle that we cannot allow the micromanaging of each other's lives.

When is the thrill too risky? How many drinks are too many? When is secondhand smoke too thick? All of these questions need to be considered with some measure of tolerance for the choices of others. We are witnessing a new age in this country: the fragmentation of society along lines that do not break on typical demographics such as race, age or income. These new divisions are based on paternalism-what we believe is best for each other.

The beauty of choice is that it allows some people to drive a high-powered car to dinner, allows others to have a drink with dinner and allows a cigarette to be smoked after dinner. In all cases, we require individuals to make certain their behavior does not have an impact on others. To the degree that it does, they will be held responsible for their choices.

But when we no longer allow these choices, both civility and common sense will have been diminished.

All I can say is that I agree about 99% with these sentiments. Unfortunately he is now a former officer holder not a current office holder. But these are relatively consistent libertarian views -- supporting freedom of choice in the economic as well as the personal realms.

The author, by the way, is former Senator, George McGovern, the darling of the Far Left. McGovern started his political life in the Progressive Party of the radical Left Henry Wallace -- Wallace was Roosevelt’s vice president but didn’t think FDR was far enough to the Left. McGovern later joined the Democratic Party. If McGovern hasn’t abandoned his old antiwar views, and I have no reason to think he has, then is pretty much on my side. I’d vote for him. He certainly sounds a hell of a lot better than any of the politicians running for President today. George, come back. All is forgiven.