David Mamet Demolishes the Left’s Sacred Cows
Famed playwright and screenwriter David Mamet came out of the ideological closet three years ago as a newly minted conservative.
The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture lets Mamet smash the liberal groupthink he blindly called his own for too long.
The book, a scattershot series of essays unified by Mamet’s striking prose, doesn’t read like a typical conservative manifesto. Would Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter expound on the id, the ego, and the superego in explaining how liberals brush aside inconvenient facts?
There’s plenty of red meat for right thinkers, but the Pulitzer Prize winner concerns himself with the bigger picture, the cultural struggle for a nation’s soul. Liberal dogma is decimating the economy, the family unit, and the culture at large, he argues.
The book feels like the rebirth of an intellectual, a man whose mind is now in the service of an entirely new paradigm. And he can’t wait to share what he’s learned with the masses.
This former “brain-dead liberal” admits he had never spoken with a conservative or read a conservative’s work until roughly eight years ago. But The Secret Knowledge reveals he’s been catching up with alacrity.
Those looking to read Mamet smite his smug celebrity peers in casual debate will be disappointed. Who wouldn’t want to drop in on Mamet at a celebrity gathering, waiting for him to pounce after listening to yet another tired rant against the GOP?
Then again, that may be a good thing. Mamet appears incapable of pulling his punches.
He isn’t the first to call the Left’s embrace of socialism its own brand of religion, but his muscular wordplay brings home the point in intense fashion.
He dubs socialism “the largest myth of modern times and the most easily debunked,” and says those on the Left who demand Israel make all manner of concessions in the name of peace should be called out for who they are.
“Is this desire anti-Semitism? You bet your life it is,” says Mamet, who is Jewish.
You can almost hear Alec Baldwin snapping off such a line on the big screen like he did so memorably in Glengarry Glen Ross, the film version of Mamet‘s celebrated play.
And Mamet goes further a few pages later, declaring that Western liberals enjoy the “contemplation of the suffering of the Palestinians” in the endless Middle East debate.
“Actual information about the Middle East conflict is considered an intrusion and a distraction from the spectacle,” he writes.
Received the book yesterday and finished it this morning (it’s not long). An interesting and wide-ranging bibliography. The author has subjected his former beliefs to a stern and systematic re-examination. The book makes it clear that he has always had the temperament of a conservative (as I understand and experience it, at least) and has now brought his ideas into accord with that temperament. A few historical lapses of no consequence for the main lines of his argument.
In his case the reflexive liberal/radical explanation for defection (“sell-out”) would be the most blatant of absurdities. He can only lose income opportunities in showbiz because of his treason.
F#$%^ng Mamet! He’s my f#$%^ng hero! He’s finally seen the f#$%^ng light. Certainly f#$%^ng took him f#$%^ng long enough!
What did Winston Churchill once say, “A young man who isn’t a liberal doesn’t have a heart. And old man who isn’t a conservative doesn’t have a brain.” Well, nice to see that David Mamet has a brain.
Liberals are dazzled by appearances: if Joseph Goebbels expresses hate speech, he gets an intellectual hangman’s noose throughout all eternity, and rightly so.
If you’re James Cone, you can say the exact same thing and you become a tenured professor and interviewed by Bill Moyers as a man with a “powerful message”.
In fact the only thing “powerful” about either man is the stink.
I read another article today about Mamet’s transformation or should I say his maturity. He writes one passage that I found compelling and will make a point of reading his book. I offer the following passage: “Our American plane has been forced to land at some foreign airport, by the outbreak of World War III. It will not be allowed to depart. Two planes are leaving the airport; we must choose which we want to board. One plane is flying to Israel and one to Syria, and we must choose.
That’s where the sympathy stops.
No one reading this book would get on the plane to Syria. Why? It is a despotism, opposed to the West, to women, to gays, to Jews, to free speech. … And yet one may gain status or a feeling of solidarity by embracing the “Arab cause.”
The WSJ’s treatment of Syria and the US’s policy on Syria under 0 today was a great read. Until very recently, John Kerry was making hopeful visits to Damascus on a regular basis, even dining there a quatre with his wife, Assad, and Assad’s ever so fashionable and open-minded wife.Kerry was pushing for rapprochement with Syria right up until the current “unpleasantness” erupted. Wonder where Anna Wintour got the idea to do a feature article on Mrs. Assad, the “reformist’s” first lady????? According to the WSJ article, O is still hoping Assad will “make a good decision” so he can be welcomed back into his good graces. BTW, if we recalled our ambassador to Syria, I missed it in the press…..
Too bad none of his former Progressive friends will read it. The people buying it all had this epiphany years ago.
Still, I hope it sells well, he won’t be selling any more scripts or plays. The Left never forgives apostasy. There is no Right Wing film or theater business for him work in.
I salute him for sacrificing his successful career to speak the truth.
mk
Regarding the Churchill quote by Libertyship46, above, Sir Winston is mistaken. “Liberalism” even then was not “heart,” and today it is the doctrine of tyranny, mind-control, National Socialism dictating people’s lives at the point of a gun. “Conservatism” is “heart” precisely because it is human, individual, not collective, the doctrine of Natural Rights. Anyone young or old who can’t tell the difference is not immature. They’re simply stupid.
Freedom is an objective reality, not an intellectual exercise. There’s nothing “liberal” about the lawless dictatorship that Democrats are trying to impose on America. These gangsters are Regressives, the opposite of liberal. The time is long past to call them by the name that describes them as they are.
Well put! A related one-liner as to the “Fairness Doctrine’s” alleged claim upon the universe of thinking: the distinction is not liberal vs conservative, it’s liberal vs rational.
Funny you should mention National Socialism! Hitler’s party was the National Socialist’s. Also, he practiced socialism, within Germany. Of course one must get the money somewhere. The Jews were handy so he robbed then murdered all he could. A surprisingly similar juxtaposition exists today between Liberals and Israel!
Mamet’s conversion is good news indeed. I pray he writes some really good fiction about man’s quest for liberty and a connection with God? What happens to the soul of a country whose leaders cheat? Adolescents are in deep need of real heroes who uplift and inspire.
More good news! My kids & I watched the delightfully entertaining, 17 Again. The movie actually called out immoral behavior including harpooning a teach-ocracy willing to pass out “wink-wink” condoms and calls it sex ed. I was pleasantly surprised.
Check out The 535Project at http://www.libertysoup.org/Home.html …therapeutic politics for the soul of a free nation. The 535Project gives citizens the power to INSIST on a limited & solvent government.
(Wouldn’t you rather Insist than complain?)
He has come to realize the jerks he was with before; it will take him a while to recognize the jerks he is with now. He can trade knee-jerk Palin-bashing, for knee-jerk Obama-bashing. Still, it is a breath of fresh air, and I will probably read the book.
Have you always been an insufferable ass? And do you plan to remain one for the rest of your life?
Try some content, rather than an EXCLUSIVELY name-calling post; then we may be able to see if you have anything to say.
Oh Dwight, if only Mamet could be more like you. Wouldn’t he be wonderful?
Maybe so, but not nearly as successful and famous. So it goes.
Dwight! There he goes again. “Jerks on the left. Jerks on the right. I alone in the supreme middle pointing out the follies of all the others.
I am reminded of the Bob and Ray show satirizing radio soap operas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV2pS1-sNzI
Why SHOULDN’T he lump leftists and socialists together? A leftist is merely, at BEST, an aspiring socialist… he hatches from the same sort of egg and grows into the same sort of bird, and it is no accident that he flocks with those of a similar feather— that is to say SOCIALISTS. The ideological beginning is the same, as is the end result when the chickens come home to roost. That the fledgeling “leftist” is oblivious to what he will become changes nothing.
I like a lot of this from Mamet, but thinking anti-Israel stuff is all about anti-semitism is too simple. One of the pillars of the progressives is underdoggism, or underdogma as I heard it called. They just can’t miss any opportunity to sob along with people (or animals, or trees) they see as suffering. Then they blame anyone successful nearby. When Israel was under threat and bravely struggling to survive, they loved it. Now, whatever the reality, the perception of Israel is ‘powerful and successful’. That obliges lots of good liberals to go into attack dog mode.
I know, it’s bullshit. But it’s how they think. I used to be a liberal too, but I’m getting better, really I am…
Reality Check, I think all socialists are leftist, but not all leftists are socialist.
Could you please provide some examples of actions of Leftists, that are not Socialists, that differ from Socialists?
Ecoloons, feminists, anti-racists, anti-capitalists and even communists are all part of the political left but may not get along with socialists or each other. If you doubt that try putting them in a room together. Retreat to a safe distance though.
They don’t mind marching together, but when decisions have to be made in a tight spot is when the fireworks start. George Orwell, the british socialist narrowly escaped being shot by the communists in Spain in 36. Many others didn’t make it out, and not because of Franco. In fact Franco won the Spanish Civil war because he offered unity which the International brigade didn’t.
Know your enemy…
Socialism is an Economic System. The Enviromental Movement is is Stealth Socialism sold as Nature Worship. Racial and Femimist Warlords are Cultural Marxists — seeking to impose Socialism — in my opinion.
Yes and no.
People who support racial and gender equality (equal rights and opportunity, not forcing equal results) are liberals, and I mean it in the classical sense, not socialists who call themselves “liberals”. In the past it were Republicans far more so than Democrats who supported equal rights for blacks. But the Republicans don’t support affirmative action because it discriminates on the basis of race which makes it illiberal.
The cultural socialists took over the liberal struggle for equal rights and used the various supposed “underclasses” – ethnic and religious minorities, women, poor people, even criminals – to form a coalition against the so-called “cultural hegemony” of the “white male Christian ruling class” (just for the record, I’m not racially white, not a male and not a Christian), following Antonio Gramsci’s strategy.
So no, supporting equal rights certainly isn’t exclusive to socialism, but yes, it was taken over and is exploited to serve a socialist agenda.
Hit my local Barnes and Noble today to buy the book. Turns out that they hadn’t ordered it. Sorry, Barnes & Noble; your choice, your lost customer.
Tried to get my local library to order it. No dice. (And this in a county that will order some libertarian/conservative books.)
Thank heavens for Jeff Bezos, Amazon, and private enterprise. Yet another “vote” for Amazon. They sell whatever their customers want to buy. Good for them, good for us.
While the book may be a bit too strident and flawed in other ways, I look forward to reading it. I know Mamet will make it an interesting ride.
The book is not strident in the least. It is wise. And wonderful. I just finished it. I wish it would convert more liberals, make the scales fall from their eyes…
The Left’s hatred of Israel is anti-Americanism by proxy. Progressives hate America, and since Israel is America’s closest ally in the ME, they get the same treatment by association. The anti-semitism is more apparent than real, in my possibly-too-charitable interpretation.
“The Left’s hatred of Israel is anti-Americanism by proxy.”
Never thought of it that way, but most other explanations of “Progressive” support for Islamists make far less sense than your assertion.
Yep, Sanity Inspector’s comment is spot on. Think of it this way:
Israel is merely “The Little Satan”. America is “The Great Satan”.
(Hat tip: Ahmedinejad….)
You are at least partially right. It’s not just Israel’s alliance with the US, which is more than enough for some, but also the hatred of the Soviets for Israel. They had various reasons to hate us (mostly having to do with Soviet Jews who struggled to emmigrate to Israel, and Israel being quite a useful ally to the US in the Cold War, and also a little with Stalin’s antisemitism), and the leftists of today sound like an echo of yesterday’s Soviet propaganda. The Soviet propaganda portrayed the US as an evil empire and Israel as its pawn, an extension of American power. Great Satan and Little Satan. The Arab wars (using Soviet weapons) allowed Israel to capture quite a few of their toys (such as a fully working Mig, radar system and other stuff) which Israel gave the US. Israeli intelligence also gave the US photocopies of Khrushchev’s secret speech that exposed Stalin’s crimes, which dealt a severe blow to Soviet image and to the USSR’s supporters in the West.
Today I wonder if we sided with the right guys because the USSR dissolved, but Marxism is actually gaining ground globally, including in the US, and we’re about to be thrown under the bus. Maybe we should have allied with the Soviets, be anti-American, and maybe even blow up some American targets, so today your president would be sucking up to us. But I’m just being sarcastic.
You should read the account of Jared Israel (a far leftist Jew who supported the PLO for 30 years) about how he became pro-Israel. He believes the CIA controls the American media. At some point the lies about Israel in the media became too blatant even for him, so he concluded that the the US is actually anti-Israel, so he turned pro-Israel. He also published some letters he got from Leftists. One of them said “the Palestinians are the good guys and the Israelis are on the side of the bad guys”. It didn’t say we are the bad guys, but *on the side* of the bad guys, so who are the bad guys?
But there’s also enough antisemitism in a growing part of the left. I think there are three types:
- Those who take their poison from Stalin. They believe Israel is a pawn of the US.
- Those who take their poison from Hitler. They believe the US is a pawn of Israel.
- The sheep. They are the majority who just follow either of these shepherds quite unkowingly.
James! Usually it`s difficult to understand,what you mean,but today you have spoken clear,thank you.
Thanks for the info about the book. Kudos also on the thoughtful, 99% civil discussion of the author and topic. My first visit to this site. I am impressed!
I have not yet Mamet’s book, but I think it is sad how conservatives are warping the debate. Conservatism has gone off the rails, by identifying government as the enemy, whilst they enjoy it’s rather enormous benefits including National Security. Conservatives routinely seek to defend the founding fathers while at the same time decrying the government these fathers created. At the core of the conservative mistake is not recognizing that evil can come from outside government also. The purpose of government is to protect us from evil doers, both within and outside our borders. I want this protection.
Conservatives also fail to acknowledge the moral correctness of regulations such as child labor laws and emergency medical care. Should people be allowed to die if they cannot afford a doctor? Why do we have laws that force hospitals to treat the dying? If conservatives are really for no government “intrusion”, they would be for the repeal of such laws. Yet, I have not seen it, because conservatives themselves want the protection of mandated health care, in case they really need it. It would be morally incorrect to allow people to die if they have financial difficulties. That’s why hospitals are forced, by government, to treat those in dire need. Should we be “freer” and allow such deaths? I think not.
Conservatives need to espouse a balanced approach to government: we need it, but not too much of it. I am not hearing such reasonableness.
My impression is that such reasonableness, as you put it, is quite common among moderate conservatives and even some more conservative conservatives. The problem is that government and its regulations have grown far beyond forcing hospitals to treat dying patients even if they can’t pay for it, and that isn’t the government the United States’ founding fathers created. The United States was founded as the freest country on earth and remained so for a long time. It brought it success and prosperity, and attracted millions of immigrants from all over the world. Freedom has also its price, such as having to take personal responsibility, and also some insecurity since you have a great opportunity to create your own glorious destiny and own it, but if you fail it’s your failure and you should own it too, though you can ask people for help.
And I don’t think conservatives in their heart of hearts really long for a government that will guide each and every step they make lest they slip and break a leg, or even their head. If that’s what they really want, then indeed they are unreasonable in demanding small government.
If you paid attention to actual conservatives, you’d understand their (our) arguments. You appear more interested in perpetuating the left’s lies about conservatives, however, so you’ll never understand conservatives.
Conservatives do not believe ALL government is evil. Rather, that government, like fire, is a dangerous tool, too easy to be overused and difficult, once control of it is lost, difficult to reign back in.
“And Mamet often lumps liberals and socialists together, a fact many on the left would respectfully dispute.”
Sure they’d dispute it. And they’d be wrong. I’ve yet to see a liberal who isn’t a socialist. Sometimes of the national type, but usually of the internationalist type.
It’s about time Mamet! You have writing and living conservative for a long time. Nice to have another politically conservative Jew.