More on David Mamet, political changer
[Hat tip: commenter “Jimmy J.”]
I’ve written about playwright David Mamet’s left-to-right political conversion before, but Andrew Ferguson’s new piece in the Weekly Standard updates us on some of the details, and just how far he’s come.
As conversion stories go it’s a typical tale, although Mamet is hardly a typical person. But he has many characteristics of the classic changer:
—He’d always been a fiercely independent thinker and skeptical of “received wisdom,” although previously this characteristic had not been expressed in the political realm
—He’d previously been almost entirely unacquainted with conservatives, and in fact rather politically disinterested:
It was the first time he thought about partisan politics for any sustained period.
“This was after the 2004 election,” he told me [Ferguson] in an interview last month. “I’d never met a conservative. I didn’t know what a conservative was. I didn’t know much of anything.
—When he began to question his previous beliefs, he was open to reading conservative writers and gave them a fair hearing.
—In retrospect, it seems he was conservative all along and was unaware of that fact:
“I think he has the same values today that he did before,” [Shelby] Steele said. “He’s said to me he thinks he might have always been conservative without knowing it. All that happened was, he finally found a politics that suited his values.
—Once his conversion was underway, it took on a life of its own, and it hasn’t been easy. Most changers are as shocked and reluctant as Mamet was, but they are unable to deny the evidence once it is before them, and must follow where it leads, including to self-recrimination and social ostracism:
“Forcing yourself into a new way of thinking about things is a wrenching experience. But first you have to look back and atone. You think, ”˜Oh my god, what have I done? What was I thinking?’ You realize you’ve been a co-dependent with the herd. And then, when you decide to say what you’ve discovered, out loud, you take the risk that everyone you know will look on you as a fool.”
Ferguson says that Mamet is reluctant to talk about what his conversion has cost him psychologically, or what it might cost him professionally. My guess is that he has lost old friends but gained many new ones; for example, he’s been fortunate, because of his celebrity and contacts, to have met both Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele and become friends with both of them. It also sounds as though his marriage hasn’t suffered because of his conversion, as relationships sometimes do.
Mamet says he doesn’t read blogs. It’s a pity, because I think he’d enjoy mine.
then, when you decide to say what you’ve discovered, out loud, you take the risk that everyone you know will look on you as a fool
funny…
but did he first check to see if the group was a group of fools, for a group of erudite fools calling the smart one a fool for not following their folly…. well, thats not anything but a foolish way to denote normal
The Eye of the Beholder – (The Private World Of Darkness)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eye_of_the_Beholder
” where her “ugliness” will not trouble the State”
I am very familiar with such solutions… 🙁
Mamet’s story reminds me of a description I once heard applied to religious converts — that they were much more committed than people who had lived it all their lives, sort of along the ‘Paul on the road to Damascus’ model.
I wonder 1) if that’s true in any objective way; 2) if it applies to Mamet. I haven’t seen any great examples that seem to apply his talents that I know of, though I will admit to a very limited exposure.
Be sure to read the stuff about the speech folks!
“I wonder 1) if that’s true in any objective way; 2) if it applies to Mamet. I haven’t seen any great examples that seem to apply his talents that I know of, though I will admit to a very limited exposure.”
I believe the TV show “The Unit” was one of Mamet’s attempts to apply his talents to his paradigm shift.
“I’d never met a conservative. I didn’t know what a conservative was.”
Imagine a conservative saying he knew no liberals? Can’t. He’d have to be someone who never watched tv, read papers, watched movies, etc.
There is more political diversity at a meeting of deacons in a Baptist church in rural Mississippi than in Hollywood or an Ivy League faculty meeting.
Provincialism — Narrow-mindedness, insularity, or lack of sophistication.
In terms of politics, Mamet was a political rube, a hick, an unsophisticated provincial, unaware that there were other ways to think and vote because he had never broadened his horizons beyond the cloistered confines of his like-minded backwater community.
Political provincialism.
As far as I can tell, speaking as a longtime fan of his work, Mamet was just never a very political guy. He was a liberal for “provincial” reasons, as stan aptly put it. It was reflex.
But his work as a whole really has to be tortured to find political allegory within. Glengarry Glen Ross can be seen as a fable about cutthroat capitalism, but that’s a seriously reductive reading of it. Homicide dealt with anti-semitism, but in an odd way that left the film’s meaning rather obscure. In fact, the only play he wrote that seems directly and poignantly ideological is Oleanna, which if anything is an argument for violent revolt against PC – it’s like an expression of that voice in Mamet’s head which suddenly bursts out exclaiming, as he put it, “Shut the f*ck up!” The woman in that play is one of the most horrifying characters ever created, and I knew many like her in my younger college days.
Some of his early stuff, such as The Verdict, and some later stuff, such as Wag the Dog, have liberal stereotypes in them (Catholic hypocrisy; Chomsky-like theories about media manipulation of the masses), but the things are so well-written that the politics are easily transcended. He also wrote The Edge and Ronin under pseudonyms, though I don’t know why.
Anyway, I’ve always respected Mamet – he’s a great and unique writer who tends to put the art above the politics. I plan on devouring his new book.
I liked “Ronin” and wondered why he used a pseudonym.
I also enjoyed both “The Spanish Prisoner” and “Spartan”. I tend to enjoy his films for the most part.
how many conservatives do the “reverse political changer?” conservative into a lefty
there must be one
anyone know?
“how many conservatives do the “reverse political changer?””
Doesn’t that require a blow to the head?
Jim Sullivan, thanks, for the leads–I’ll have to take a look at his work.
daxypoo: two come to mind, David Brock and Arianna Huffington.
I wrote about the scarcity of right-to-left conversion here.
I had no idea he wrote “Ronin”. It’s one of my favorite movies that most people have never heard of – or at least never mention. I can’t say I know much about him or his other work either. I haven’t crossed paths with it. I just know he’s very famous for plays. I didn’t realize he was so involved in movies.
“You realize you’ve been a co-dependent with the herd. ”
– David Mamet
This is telling. Mamet grew up in a community much like mine: He grew up in Jewish community in Chicago (which is probably a double whammy!) He is my stepmother’s cousin through marriage. I grew up in a pretty homogenous community: Miami Beach, FL which was almost exclusively Jewish for many decades. (It’s changed much now with the advent of “South Beach” and the “coolest cool” that goes with it.)
Anyway, back to topic — most people where I grew up were Jewish….and Jewish. So that’s really all I knew. And we certainly were not taught basic planks or philosophies of the two poitical parties in school and the differences between them. So unless you lived in a home that was very politically involved, you really had no education along those lines. If you did, it was undoubtedly one-sided.
When I turned 18 and went to register to vote — I asked my parents with which party were they registered and the answer was (big surprise!) : Democratic. So that’s how I registered.
But I was never a rabid Democrat (not by any means) , and even in college, never felt there was great pressure one way or another — and I went to what many consider a rather elite school. But it was after the 60’s chaos and I think most people in mid – late 70’s were not interested in that rekindling that kind of atmosphere. There was no general election during my years in college so there were a lot of topics (such as certain sports programs) that got a lot more attention than politics. Ironically, right after college I was introduced to a guy I dated for a short while that was a hard line Democrat — he was working for the Ted Kennedy campaign — but except for the Kennedy name, it didn’t really mean much to be! Today he’s a well-known Democratic talking head on TV — his business is strategic advising for Dems. and running campaigns. Whenever I see him on TV, I laugh — and have one of those “what was I thinking moments!” (But he was a very nice person).
I think families, communities in which one grew up, and scholastic experience form the basis of one’s political beliefs rather subtly, as that is where most of us learn our values and morality.
From there we’re sort of on our own. Some people tend to be more group-oriented and I think the beliefs of the stronger leaders of the group tend to help formulate one’s early political beliefs. For instance, this was definitely a hallmark of the 1960’s and I imagine the pressure to participate in rebellion (of anything considered to be “establishment”) was pretty much inescapable.
I was always more of an individual thinker — and, if anything, tended to go against what was “in vogue” at the moment. Not that I was a Goth-type (Goth didn’t come of age until I was many years out of college). I was a thinker but quite introspectivee. The question “why” pervaded all my experiences. I had this need to know why I should think this, why we do that, why …everything is at it is. Unfortunately Google was a long way away!
Over time, I realized that my belief system and morals were much more in line with Republian values, though I remained (and still do) much more flexible on certain social issues. I don’t think many people THINK a whole lot about what belonging to a party means today, and as we’re all individuals, rarely do we share every opinion on every subject. The answer lies in a general alignment with primary values and feeling more comfortable with like-minded persons with similar beliefs — even if there are certain disagreements.
Generally, the base of each party defines its beliefs and traits, the specific beliefs and platforms. Ironically, all too often these “leaders” (and I use that word tenuously) tend to be most intolerant of those who disagree. The real problem lies in the fact that such basic beliefs are not static. And more than evolving from one state (condition) to another, many beliefs actually change with the times and the culture. This is probably especially true in America were influxes of people born elsewhere bring new and different values and beliefs with them. Over time, many who once thought themselves to be staunch supporters of a party look around one day and feel out in nowhere’s land. Did they change? Did the party change? Many have grown up with a ore or less black and white decision evaluation system: things are either Black or White; they are either Right..or WRONG. Politically that translates primarily into whatever the opposing party believes in — it’s WRONG! It is these and differences that evolve as we live our lives and undergo different experiences. Then, somehow one wakes up one day and finds that they feel very much out of sync with those they had previously identified with.
I think it takes a curious mind and a thirst to learn, and a atrong and honest sense of self, to consciously live in an atmosphere which allows for the possibility of change. Change is really hared to accept in most instances. It also takes the ability to remove oneself from the crowd, to seek out information and facts, and to be able to differentiate talking points from basic beliefs, to open oneself to change.
And it takes courage — courage no one else can give you — to make that leap — and accept the realization that there’s been change to admit to such change in public.
To some, the practical-minded and independent, the leap is easy. To others it is a great chasm over which one has to make it to the other side. Political beliefs are so tied to social interaction, and status and having access to “the right people” today, that it can seem insurmountable.
I don’ think David Mamet rolled over one day and said, “I’m not a Democrat!” Rather I think he recognized subtle discomfort with thoughts and beliefs espoused by people with whom he was in contact everyday. Things that might not have held so much importance relevant to other things in daily life slowly but surely become more significant. Then it is a slow realization that becomes increasingly apparent until one reaches the conclusion for integrity’s sake (to those who believe that self-integrity is a key factor in one’s makeup) that they are who they are and believe what they believe — and they HAVE changed. And what others think about that is no longer the more important factor.
The interesting thing to me about his story, and Peter Hitchens’s, is that, once they “fell through that first floor,” they fell through another, and another, and another with increasing rapidity and violence, a sort of cascading effect.
That’s how it was with me, too, to the point where, as I looked at yet another Liberal Idea, I would wonder with some weariness, “So, what’s wrong with THIS one?” and sure enough, find a flaw at the root.
I am able to accept that one could navigate the USA for 50+ years and never be confronted with conservative views. The concept of “provincial” seems apt.
As csimon describes, the identity is not centered around party or politics. It is “Jewish”, without much thought as to how the political identity squares with the religious practice. I have somewhere recently seen Judaism described as a set of practices, while Christianity (or Islam?) is a set of beliefs. Acting “Jewish” is more important than thinking Jewish.
For whatever depth that view holds, it squares with Mamet acting like those he knows, without ever needing to–or being challenged to–examine how those social forms actually support the core of Jewish faith. It takes little imagination to extend “Jewish” into “theatrical leftism”.
I wonder 1) if that’s true in any objective way;
yes… its true objectively…
which is why the counter-revolution has so much literature on preventing it.
ie… when victims realize they are victims, they fight back harder than ever, and so the counter revolution which would stop CHANGE, has to be prevented some way before the revolution can be completed.
locking us down with food, and economics, and from rioting is generally how its done.
so the people pavlovian trained to protest tiny things will make it easy to lock us down for bigger things.
then the rules all come into effect as the constitiution is suspended temporarily as they argue that lincoln did it (but not to install a despotic state)
the first piece of property we all own is ourselves…
so when private property goes, so does our ability to own ourselves, we are then cattle and can be disposed of at will for the good of the many…
duh..
way back when i had the discussion with many, and now we are on the verge of it happening.
what was impossible turned out to be easy given reasonable peoples lack of response when it was reasonable to respond.
“how many conservatives do the “reverse political changer?””
very successful ones who become very wealthy and connected… they then have a change, and realize that maybe the only way to stop the masses from taking what they have, is to join the side enslaving them…
this was covered in my story of the friends all dining at a table together and doing whats ‘fair’…
when the wealthy man pays for his own, tips the waitress and leaves the others to their own bills (which they run up incrementally from changing the definition of fair), then comes the man in the shadows that can set him apart and convince them that they are different from these people, better, and that the only way is the lefts way
this is a very different conversion from a person up and down the ideological scale, in that most on the bottom have the position of cannon fodder… while the person at top and influential makes a choice of sides… like Koch and Soros…
being invited to be a member or attendee at bilderburg and council foreign relations (or trilateral commission), has a way of changing you and your perception of whats going on in one area (of many) behind the scenes with people.
its very easy to believe that these people actually control, when all they have is great influence… not the same thing… but its easy to be fooled and swayed by such a collection of people…
and it ALSO has to do with who you may have dealt with to get that place or position. ie… did you find that once you accepted and worked towards the goals, that you got promoted, and like certain others under examination, had the way smoothed and readied for you, and made difficult for others
[any one who ever took the time to read the book Bella Dodd school of darkness would get a lot more of this backworld… (dodd was the head of the communist party usa AND the teachers union, but changed sides/defected and gave testimony to congress)]
their control is like finessing a 10lb fish on 5lb line… their hooked, but have to be played carefully, or that line and control can snap…
making the public do weird things as fads is a good way to pretend to prove control…
at that point which side would you want to be on? the small side with the brains, knowledge, and gaming things? or the large side that is ignorant, and bumbling, and will not even learn to defend themselves?
its an interesting thing to note that the power is in the big bumbling ignorant confused mass… who guides it, exercises its power (for a while, no one is immortal)…
when its guided by itself, it just likes to plink along and earn and have a decent life and ignores politics and all that…
when its guided by others, its made sick… parasites fester it… it no longer has the will to do what it needs to do to remove them. like a over pious to insane extremes, who has become infected with ticks and lice, or a cut, and refuses to treat himself as they dont want to kill what is killing them…
this lumbering mass was set free by the constitition, which made the despotic who would set yolk to it, clerks that served its more basic needs.
the difference between a pit crew, who supports the efforts
and a race horse owner willing to set it to plow to earn steady rather than in fits and spurts in competition.
It’s mind boggling to me that someone could be, as Mamet described himself, “a brain dead liberal” for 50+ years and not really understand the distinctions between conservatism and liberalism. Especially an intellectual like he is who makes his living with words.
I grew up in a household where we watched William F. Buckley on “Firing Line” and Milton Friedman’s show called “Free To Choose” every week. They were both incredibly persuasive and intellectual powerhouses. I was ready to reject liberalism by the time I was eligible to vote in my first presidential election at the age of 18.
I remember when I was still in high school I was offered a big discount on magazine subscriptions if I ordered several at one time. I chose Rolling Stone, Forbes, and Sports Illustrated. Every time a new Forbes would arrive the very first thing I always did was turn to the back of the magazine and find the opinion column written by Thomas Sowell. I couldn’t wait to read him. And it was P.J. O’Rourke writing over 30 years ago in Rolling Stone about libertarianism that inspired me to vote for Libertarians Ed Clark and David Koch in my first presidential election in 1980 (that’s the only time I ever voted for someone for president who wasn’t a Republican).
As I remember it, there was alot of lively debate about the differences between liberalism and conservatism in the ’70s and early ’80s. While I accept Mamet at his word that he was basically apolitical and didn’t pay attention to those debates, it is hard to see how he avoided them.
The Making of a Native Marxist: The Early Career of Earl Browder is interesting for insight..
“There is no God and no soul. Hence, there are no needs for props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or permanent absolutes …. Teaching children to read is a great perversion and a high literacy rate breeds destructive individualism … the child does not go to school to develop individual talents but rather are prepared as “units” in an organic society …. The change in the moral school atmosphere … are not mere accidents, they are the necessities of the larger social evolution.” John Dewey father of modern centralized American education
“Russia and Germany are attempting to compel a new order by means typical of their nationalism – compulsion. The United States will do it by moral (per)suasion. Of course we expect some opposition, but the principles of the New Deal must be carried to the youth of the nation. We expect to accomplish by education what dictators in Europe are seeking to do by compulsion and force. …” Lous Alber 1933
[which is why everything is the same, but much slower]
“Through the schools of the world we shall disseminate a new conception of government– one that will embrace all of the collective activities of men; one that will postulate the need for scientific control and operation of economic activities in the interest of all people.” Harold Rugg, president of the American Educational Research Association and author of 14 Social Studies textbooks
if you took history… and it was called “social studies”, then you didn’t learn history did you? if its the same why did it need a new name?
“An equitable distribution of income will be sought…the major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual. It must seek to give him understanding of the transition to a new social order.” ( Willard Givens / a report presented at the 72nd annual meeting of the NEA in 1934.)
“Dr. Goodwin Watson, Professor of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, begged the teachers of the nation to use their profession to indoctrinate children to overthrow “conservative reactionaries” directing American government and industry … [He] declared that Soviet Russia was one of the most notable international achievements of our generation.” New York Herald Tribune reporting on NEA Convention in New York City June 29, 1938
“Surely the training of children in homes and schools should be of at least as great public concern as are their vaccination… [People with] guilts, fears, inferiorities, are certain to project their hates on to others…. Such reaction now becomes a dangerous threat to the whole world…. Whatever the cost, we must… [put] aside the mistaken old ways of our elders…. If it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even
violently.” Brock Chisholm, World Health Organization (WHO), (new attitude toward old fashioned parents)
“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
“A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.” – Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart, The Future – If There Is One – Is Female
“The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. … Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. … “Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests.” — Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall 1969
“Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.” — Mikhail Gorbachev
“The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.” — Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in “A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind”, by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5
“[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children…. The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed.” — Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women’s Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
“We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.” — Nikita Kruschev
“Destroy the family, you destroy the country.” — V.I. Lenin
.
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” — V.I. Lenin
“The bourgeoisie is many times stronger than we. To give it the weapon of freedom of the press is to ease the enemy’s cause, to help the class enemy. We do not desire to end in suicide, so we will not do this.” V.I. Lenin
“…first ascertain exactly the position of the various capitalists, then control them, influence them by restricting or enlarging, facilitating or hindering their credits, and finally they can entirely determine their fate.” — V.I. Lenin
“We must declare openly what is concealed, namely, the political function of the school…It is to construct communist society.” — V.I. Lenin
.
“The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into smaller states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them.” — V.I. Lenin
what we are living is the collection of ideas above, and a whole lot more that most people wont take any time to read any more than they took the time to read mein kampf BEFORE that 10 year period last century
given that mamet can live his live and not actually know what the other side believes other than what his masters circulate… should be a big warning sign.
the common people dont read this crap which is what the people who move and shake the world (like the fabian glass) do…
i can literally make this huge without ever doing anything but quoting people from 1840 onwards… no explanations… just quotes…
explanations would take a lifetime..
Scott…
one would have to realize that the liberal under discussion then was not the classical liberal of john stewart mills… but the neo liberal of leninism… the transition was so smooth… never noticing that personell became human resources… history became social studies… classical liberal became its opposite neo liberal… and under one name, liberal, one faded and its hegelian opposite rose up (with a lot of help from people)
like rock collectors know a lot about rocks…
to suppose that you understand them without reading what they are interested in and such, is the common position…
Liberalism
L.T. Hobhouse
First Published 1911
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_67/8246000/8246189/1/print/8246189.pdf
the stuff i find in old books we have forgotten would blow most peoples minds… (even more so to know that some were contemporary and at a reading level most today have a hard time with).
GREAT changes are not caused by ideas alone; but they are not effected without ideas. The passions of men must be aroused if the frost of custom is to be broken or the chains of authority burst; but passion of itself is blind and its world is chaotic. To be effective men must act together, and to act together they must have a common understanding and a common object. When it comes to be a question of any far-reaching change, they must not merely conceive their own immediate end with clearness. They must convert others, they must communicate sympathy and win over the unconvinced. Upon the whole, they must show that their object is possible, that it is compatible with existing institutions, or at any rate with some workable form of social life. They are, in fact, driven on by the requirements of their position to the elaboration of ideas, and in the end to some sort of social philosophy; and the philosophies that have driving force behind them are those which arise after this fashion out of the practical demands of human feeling. The philosophies that remain ineffectual and academic are those that are formed by abstract reflection without relation to the thirsty souls of human kind.
[rats cant format this in the tiny box]
This has been an interesting series of comments to read.
And although there are too many topics to mention individually, the sociological/psychological question mooted here as to why people who are at least nominally Jewish should in preponderant numbers, historically and reflexively embrace a secular doctrine that has only some superficial points in common with their putative religious faith, is an interesting one.
Those here who are claiming a Jewish background don’t seem to be subscribing to the usual “explanations” I received in my Jewish Cultural and Intellectual History class back in college: such as that Judaism is a religion of “collective moral responsibility”, or that it emphasizes compassion for the alien, or that sociologically speaking, members of an historically “out group” should naturally identify with other culturally marginalized persons.
That of course, doesn’t really even address the issue as to whether among unconsciously “liberal” persons a distinction between socialism viewed as an economic system, and socialism as a theory of total human reordering is even taken note of.
For my money, those here who suggest that much of the recent American phenomenon is merely an historical accident, with people following suit, and embracing the practices and beliefs – at least superficially – of those around them, makes sense.
Take for example someone I know – knew as she has died – who expresses the same sentiments without reference to religious upbringing. A well educated woman, fluent in several languages, educated at a top tier university, numerous credentials layered on a degree in literature, practicing eventually as a psychotherapist; but who, when exposed to closely argued discussions over the second Amendment, eventually came around, at least intellectually, to the distributive right position. And who, in her private conversations with me, went so far as to voice the opinion that those who argued from the conservative or libertarian position, were, all things considered, the “stand-up guys” in the debate.
Yet she would continually recount how those in her university town circle would constantly refer to mainstream Americans in the most bigoted way and with the most ignorant and even morally vile characterizations.
Why don’t you say something? I would ask.
Her answer was that she didn’t dare for fear of ostracism and retaliation.
The concept of Liberalism, taken at least partly in its root sense, has something to recommend it to the human spirit.
Political progressiveism, not much.
DNW: it is an interesting and sad commentary that your friend was so afraid of ostracism and retaliation that she failed to speak up. And yet that is a very common reaction, especially when a person is protecting his/her livelihood.
As far as Jews being liberals goes, it may have little to do with the Jewish religion per se, because the more religious Jews (orthodox) tend to be more conservative politically.