Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge" - Milton Friedman, Chile, etc.

The Secret Knowledge

I have just been outraged, listening to Garrison Keilor's "The Writer's Almanac".

He devoted today's program, Dec 5, 2011, to Rose Wilder Lane and Joan Didion (as well as Calvin Trillin).

No mention of "The Discovery of Freedom."  Just "Little House on the Prairie."  In these days, with Ron Paul surging, there can be no mention of Liberty or of any threats posed by government.  It is "freedom" that is the enemy.

I found myself recoiling at the tremendous spiritual evil which is the Democratic Party, the Liberal Establishment.

Stupidity, greed, power lust -
just lust, distilled, as doctrine -

=========
Cont 12-10-11

I happened upon David Mamet, the playwright, in his new book at the Library.  I must have seen Mamet on a talk show or two, or otherwise seen or heard him reviewed or interviewed.  And I have seen a couple of his films (that he wrote - I don't think he directed them, but he could have).  Anyway, he's a big name, and obviously a master of the American Vernacular.  Here in Great Falls among Bison alumni, he should get 10 bonus points for writing "American Buffalo."

This newest book is called, intriguingly, "The Secret Knowledge."  I used to believe that "secret" and "sacred" were somehow related or cognate.  Not so, apparently, but in this use of the word, Mamet comes very close to what I was thinking of.  Never has there been such an embarrassing liberal "conversion" to the doctrines of so-called "conservatism" as Mamet's.  He read a couple of books by Hayek and Friedman, and started listening to Fox News, and one of the greatest playwrights of our time was now a raging conservative - as exemplified by Hayek, Friedman, and a number of the rest of the Pantheon.  Ayn Rand isn't indexed, but her essay collection, 'The Virtue of Selfishness" is in the Bibliography.  So are several works by Noam Chomsky.  Obviously, Mamet had read him during his "liberal" period, and sees no reason to think the less of the great linguist and political philosopher, now.  At least we know Mamet is being honest here, and I can follow his every step so far.

You're probably thinking, as I was, "Surely this is a parody" - some sort of radical joke or ploy - a put-on, in other words.  Except for the Zionism and Neocon nonsense, I pretty much agree with everything Mamet says, and when I don't, it's either because he or I don't exactly have the best answer or analysis, already.  As all my friends know, I'm a stalwart defender of Hayek.  And if I can't defend him on some obscure point of economic theory, there are many others who can.  He was a good man, and had original and important insights into the economic order, and did everything in his power to maximize the public good.  He was a sincere Millian Utilitarian.

Milton Friedman I'll leave to Mamet, since they're both Jewish, and presumably understand each other better than I do.  I've heard Friedman speak and teach, and shaken hands with him.  I liked his books much better before I met him.  He was actually a sort of gangster type.  Or perhaps rightist Bolshevik of some kind.  I'm not even sure he was a rightist, and like Hayek, he denied being a conservative. 

Chicago School, I suppose, says it all - even though Friedman was a disciple of the original group centered around Frank H. Knight, Aaron Director, and several others.  (Hayek was Austrian School - quite different from the Chicago economists).  My best econ professors were their students, or Friedman's.  Friedman was really more of a technocrat and econometrician/historian.  He had all the classical liberal arguments for a free society - he especially mentions A.V. Dicey, and his jurisprudence, so he was a genuine "classical liberal" (libertarian), and not the supporter of dictators, etc., he is made out to be.

Remember, this is the Rockefeller-funded University (Chicago) which trained the best business economists in the world - for several decades.  They were much in demand by any country that wanted to succeed.  Whatever you want to say about Chile, it has one of the strongest economies in Latin America, as it did before the 1973 Coup.  I don't think we can really blame Milton Friedman for "the Chicago Boys" successes, or any of them for the human rights atrocities.  That wasn't his sphere of interest or influence.

In fact, when I investigated this further, I found that there were a number of Chicago-trained Chileans there already.  Pinochet's coup was engineered by CIA and other American interests.  I wouldn't be surprised if Rockefeller, the CFR, and Henry Kissinger in particular were involved.  Indeed, there are still warrants out for Kissinger over this, I understand.  Why not blame Harvard instead of the University of Chicago? - they are, after all, major rivals in this "industry."

And since Hayek and Friedman are often mentioned in the same sentence, as though they were intellectual brothers or something, let me throw some light on this.  Their methodology and values are somewhat different, although they might come to similar policy conclusions.
Both men are, in some sense, libertarians.  And both founding members of the Mt. Pelerin Society (a very interesting story in itself which Mamet might want to follow up on.  Indeed, he might be eligible for membership!)

But they come from opposite ends of society and culture.  Friedman's mother worked in the garment district sweat-shops of New York City - a fact which Friedman claimed proved the value of "capitalism" and "free enterprise."  Through Rutger's, Friedman attended nothing but public schools - New York City's were among the best in the world, then.  Yet, he is viciously opposed to public education, and the strongest and most important advocate of a universal voucher system.

His take on medicine is very similar.  It has been regulated to death.  There should be no occupational licensure.  The market should determine everything.  And since there are those who have no tokens to play in the market game, he has a ready answer (and one which I suspect he knew could never be implemented) - a guaranteed annual income.  Can a single person survive on $1000/month?  OK.  Pay everyone that, or a portion of it if they are presently making less than $2000/month.  And let them keep half of what they earn up to the $2000, at which point the subsidy will end, and they will be taxed at some fair rate (say, 25%, on everything they make over that).  But neither Friedman nor I really likes the idea of a tax on regular wages and salaries of working people.  It's the unearned income, the rents and speculative or monopoly profits which need to be highly taxed - both to discourage abuse of these powers, and to maximize the income of the state.  It's just the opposite, in other words, of the punishing "conservative" view of keeping the poor, poor and dependent, and letting the very wealthy get a free pass on everything because they are somehow "creating jobs" with their stolen wealth and influence.

If Mamet is serious about this shedding of his tattered and corrupt liberal skin, and emerging fresh and free into the glorious sunshine of freedom, I might be able to help.  If you've got the money, I've got the time.

Updated-2-5-12-

I picked up a DVD of Mamet's alleged masterpiece, the film of Glengarry Glen Ross, with his own screenplay, and starring four of the greatest actors working then - Jack Lemmon, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, and Kevin Spacey.  Wow!  I had no idea.  Think "Death of a Salesman" on meth or crack cocaine.  This is the Film Noir version of Film Noir.  I mean, it's almost unwatchable for people in my class, who have worked in sales and marvelled that such barbarity could persist in today's America.  But it's Amerika, right?  In the Kafkian sense, maybe.  The German national temperament is much more temperate, I'm sure.  Cool.