The View From 1776

§ American Traditions

§ People and Ideas

§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot

§ Books to Read


Liberal_Jihad_Cover.jpg Forward USA

Saturday, February 12, 2005

Death of a (Socialist) Salesman

Playwright Arthur Miller’s recent death reminds us of the secular idolatry that characterizes the liberal-socialist, anti-American intellectual cohort.

Perhaps the kindest description of Arthur Miller was recorded in my hometown newspaper The Stamford (CT) Advocate.  Nan Abell of neighboring Greenwich, Connecticut, and her late husband were instrumental in Miller’s success, having published his first novel.  Mrs. Abell, according to the newspaper account, “...remembered Mr. Miller yesterday as the quintessential American playwright, a wordsmith and a ladies’ man.”

When we recall Mr. Miller’s marriage to sex-goddess Marilyn Monroe, the ladies’ man description is clear.  But what does it mean to be a quintessential American playwright?

Judging from Arthur Miller’s words, it means to be critical of both America’s founding ethos and of its commercial substance.  Two of Mr. Miller’s most famous stage works were “Death of a Salesman” and “The Crucible.”

In “Death of a Salesman” Mr. Miller depicts commercial America as a dead-end, and elevates the intellectual nerd to the role of ruler of the socialist society aborning.  Superficially, it is a study of the slow decline of a formerly successful man, Willy Loman, who had placed his faith in business.  Needless to say, Willy must not only fail, but be revealed as a moral hypocrite.  That, of course, was the message of Sigmund Freud, still a domineering, godlike figure among intellectuals in 1947: the ills of Western civilization were simply unresolved guilt that arose from the conflict between false and ignorant ideas of morality and the “scientific fact” that man’s true essence was nothing more than the sexual urge to copulate with his mother and sisters.

In “The Crucible,” Miller reportedly was attacking the contemporary expos?s by Senator Joseph McCarthy of the deep-rooted pervasion of Soviet socialism in Hollywood and in the New York theater.  But, to do so, Miller reduced the Puritan traditions of New England to a caricature of evil and ignorance.  In recent years, evidence has piled up to document the charges of socialist corruption in Hollywood unions and of dedication to socialist propagandizing among screenwriters and playwrights, so vehemently denied by Miller and other liberal-socialists (see, among others, “Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced the American Film Industry in the 1930s and 1940s,” by Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley).

The Apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the church congregation that he had established in Rome around AD 57 (Romans 2:1, 6), “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things….God will give to each person according to what he has done.”

It is not for us to say that Arthur Miller was an evil man in his heart.  But we can without question assert that his works were typical liberal-socialist attacks upon the foundations of American society, with the intent to elevate the vision of socialist harmony and perfection that he and other intellectuals, once in full power, expected to bring to mankind.