Sadly, David Mamet, for years a highly-respected playwright, screenwriter and director, has lost his mind. Fortunately for him, but unfortunately for us, his lingering reputation allows him to get an insane screed published in the latest issue of Newsweek, where he even rates cover-story status.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html
Mr. Mamet is opposed to further efforts at gun control–after all, we already took submachine guns off the streets back in the 1930′s–and insists that “we need more armed citizens in our schools”. That’s all well and good–not that I agree with it–but really David Mamet just hates Barack Obama, which (I assume) is why his anti-gun control piece begins with extended ramblings about Karl Marx, communism, and the frightening specter of “the State”. [Note to Mr. Mamet: to paraphrase Walt Kelly, here in America we have met the State and it is us.] He goes on to bellyache about, among other things, the fact that President Obama has just “passed a law” guaranteeing himself and his children Secret Service protection for life; apparently Mamet is unaware that Presidents don’t “pass laws,” they sign laws passed by Congress (or they issue Executive Orders, which in the case of this particular president are commonly referred to as “diktats”). Anyway: I won’t belabor the issue, and you can read the story for yourself, but it’s a sad day for us all when David Mamet’s writing seems indistinguishable from a typically unhinged rant by Ted Nugent.
David Mamet became a conservative the day Obama did not grovel before Netanyahu sufficiently enough.
Well, “Glengarry Glenn Ross” is still a damn good movie, and “American Buffalo” still a damn good play. That is enough legacy for anyone.
Kim–thanks for explaining Mamet’s transformation; I knew he’d gone right-wing
some time back, but I had no idea why. And you’re right, of course; his work stands on its own.
My daughter works as a recruiter for a large mortgage house. She said on Facebook that she was looking for “closers”. I asked her if she was offering them coffee, and she didn’t get joke.
“That’s all well and good–not that I agree with it–but really David Mamet just hates Barack Obama, which (I assume) is why his anti-gun control piece begins with extended ramblings about Karl Marx, communism, and the frightening specter of “the State”.
It’s clear that you did not read the piece carefully. It’s obvious that David Mamet does not like Obama because he is against marxism-leninism. You need to stop following the Obama-cult and realize that Obama is just another silly follower of the socialistic ideology, and there is nothing special about him.
“here in America we have met the State and it is us”
So, it was you who decided to invade Iraq?
Hyphenated American: I read Mr. Mamet’s piece carefully enough to get his point, which you repeat on his behalf–Barack Obama is a practitioner of Marxism-Leninism. That, of course,is utter nonsense, backed by not one shred of evidence. As for whether there’s anything “special” about Obama: I made no such claim; it’s David Mamet (and, apparently, you) who find Obama’s run-of-the-mill liberalism to be somehow “special,” unprecedented in our history, and a form of tyranny. Finally–”So,it was you who decided to invade Iraq?” Clever line, but yes, it was the American people, via our elected leaders, who did that; we also condoned torture, “rendition,” and all sorts of other unsavory practices. That’s one of the reasons many of us were so upset about those policies (besides, of course, our substantive disagreement with them): they were being done in our name, “we the people”. Or, as an American, ought I to glory in our “exceptionalism” but disavow any connection to our faults?
“As for whether there’s anything “special” about Obama: I made no such claim”
Sigh…. Actually, you did claim that Mamet has a special hatred for Obama…
“That’s all well and good–not that I agree with it–but really David Mamet just hates Barack Obama, which (I assume) is why his anti-gun control piece begins with extended ramblings about Karl Marx, communism, and the frightening specter of “the State”.
So, it’s you who claim that somehow Mamet singled out poor and unfortunate comrade Obama – even though Mamet’s piece does no such thing.
As for “extended ramblings about Karl Marx”, you fail to explain which specific statement of Mamet your found mistaken except one:
” He goes on to bellyache about, among other things, the fact that President Obama has just “passed a law”…
Of course, it’s a matter of speech, something that a lot of people say. For example, even the White House itself claimed that “Supreme Court Upholds President Obama’s Health Care Reform” – even though by your strict definition it was not his – he did not write, nor did he pass it – he simply signed the final product. It’s customary for liberals to demand absolute 100% accuracy from conservatives, while allowing sloppy thinking for themselves…
“Obama’s run-of-the-mill liberalism to be somehow “special,” unprecedented in our history, and a form of tyranny. ”
I don’t remember saying this – nor do I think Mamet said it either. FDR was just as radical as Obama, and just as fascist-socialist in his views.
“Finally–”So,it was you who decided to invade Iraq?” Clever line, but yes, it was the American people, via our elected leaders, who did that”
This obviously misses the point though. You claim that “here in America we have met the State and it is us” – which certainly means that you believe that YOU, PERSONALLY made the decision to invade Iraq and to torture Islamists. All the words about “done in your name” are clearly dissimilar to your claim. You cannot stop anyone from saying that he did something “in your name” – but you cannot be hold responsible unless you really authorized him. I surely did NOT authorize Obama to push thought his moronic stimulus and Obamacare, and by no means I agree to any responsibility to their failure. It’s unfortunate that some people (hm hm, like you for example) cannot distinguish between the state and the individual.
As for Obama and marxism – I can surely have a long debate on this subject. Be warned though, I was born, raised and educated in the USSR, so I am well familiar with Marxism – both theory and practice.
Hyphenated American: I do appreciate the time you’ve taken to respond. It’s early in the morning here in Missoula, and I’m just not up to an extended response, so I think I’ll fall back on the “agree to disagree” bullshit that we all use when we’re tired of arguing. As for your last remark: well, gee, thanks for the warning–who knows what trouble I’d have gotten myself into? Allow me, though, to point out that, just as you were “born, raised, and educated in the USSR” and are therefore “well familiar with Marxism–both theory and practice,” I was born, raised, and educated in the USA, so I am well familiar with American history, government, and democracy–both theory and practice. So you, too, stand warned. (Please take all that as collegial jousting, however–no animosity intended. As my friends would tell you, in any battle of wits, I’ve unilaterally disarmed. Also, I’m sorry I made you “sigh”–I know just what that means when I put it in one of my posts.)
It’s all cool, comrade… Apparently we both live in US now. But if a person is arguing whether Obama is a Marxist or not, then clearly one must know Obama and his views, and he also needs to know a great deal about Marxism. Now, apart from reading his speeches, I also read his memoirs “Dreams from my Father” – and on the other side, I did read Marx, and I do know how marxism works. Apparently, you claim only familiarity with American history, and don’t seem to have much to say about marxism. Which begs the question (it’s a wrong usage for this phrase, but I like it) – what’s your basis for such adamant denial of similarity between Obama’s ideas and marxism?
Ah, comrade: you’re not content to leave it at “we’ll agree to disagree”? I don’t say much about Marxism because I claim no expertise on that subject, nor on the slightly different but related subject of Soviet-style communism. You’ve lived under Marxism, you’ve read Marx (I saw some of his grandkids’ films–hilarious stuff!), and who am I to tell you that Obama isn’t the second coming of Lenin? I’ll continue my adamant denials of that notion, and in fact will dismiss it as ludicrous; and you can hang on to your conviction to the contrary. I’ll add this: I’ve been hearing every single effort at “liberal” governance since, oh, 1962 or so decried as “communism” or “socialism” or “tyranny” of some sort (of course, such accusations date back even further, to the New Deal), and for some strange reason I still think I live in a free country. I could, of course, be wrong; keep me posted on when the gulag opens…
Okay, Jack, apparently, you don’t want to let it go, and want to continue debating. Fair enough.
“I don’t say much about Marxism because I claim no expertise on that subject,”
So, you cannot really complain when Mamet talks about Obama being a marxist – since you are no expert on marxism. Right?
“and who am I to tell you that Obama isn’t the second coming of Lenin? ”
I don’t know who would be ignorant enough to mistake Obama for Lenin. Firstly, good old Lenin’s brother was executed for trying to kill the tsar, and Lenin himself was expelled from the university for participating in demonstrations. And yet, he passed all the exames, stuyding on his own. He was not an “affirmative action” student like Obama, and you would not expect him to talk about “Austrian language” or claim that his plan would cut insurance by “3000%”. He also wrote plenty of theoretical works on Marxism, and was well known for his views before the revolution – and he was known for his effectiveness once he took the power.
Lenin was a vicious son of a bitch who killed millions of people and put even more people in slavery – but there is no comparison between Lenin and 0bama. It’s like comparing a a Brazilian soccer team with Pele and Garincha and a non-competitive soccer team of 5 year old American girls.
You may have taken my “second coming of Lenin” a bit more literally than I intended, but thanks for clarifying the key differences between him and Obama: Lenin=hard-working but vicious son of a bitch and mass murderer, Obama=affirmative action doofus who instituted death panels; or, more simply, Lenin=Pele, Obama=five-year-old girl. See, I’m already learning from you!
It’s a slow process, Jack, but you are on your way. You’ve learned a bit about Pele, Lenin and Obama.
“I’ll add this: I’ve been hearing every single effort at “liberal” governance since, oh, 1962 or so decried as “communism” or “socialism” or “tyranny” of some sort (of course, such accusations date back even further, to the New Deal), and for some strange reason I still think I live in a free country. ”
What do you exactly mean by “free country”? You think the Founding Fathers would look at our taxes, labor and envormental laws, at the huge weight of our buerucracy and agree with you? It appears that as long as liberals are allowed to screw and have abortions, they won’t in any way presume that they lost any freedom.
And speaking of gulags – we did not have the gulags during Jim Crow era, with abortions being illegal – but you won’t say that a black woman in teh South was completely free, right?
“as long as liberals are allowed to screw and have abortions, they won’t in any way presume that they have lost any freedom”: that seems a little reductive, comrade, and more than a little unkind.
It is unkind and reductive – but then, is it not fair? In the last 4 years of Obama’s presidency, were these two freedoms the only ones important to the left?
No.
So, name 2 freedoms which were most important to Obama voters in 2012…
I have never been keen on Mamet. Glen Garry Glen Ross is nothing but Death of a Salesman without even a Linda to redeem it. So why should I care about his politics?
You shouldn’t, though it might concern you (it concerns me) that Newsweek would not only publish his screed, but make it their cover story…
Jack, why aren’t you happy that Newsweek decided to show some diversity in their cover stories? Back a few years they said that “We are all socialists now” – so it makes sense to let conservatives talk about Obama the socialist. It’s only consistent.
BTW, why does it concern you that opposing view is heard on the pages of Newsweek? Is your ideology so weak that it would implode if people learn the opposing view?
It’s not my ideology that’s about to implode, it’s your head, as you stated in your post today. So if I say I’m “concerned” about Newsweek’s choice of cover story, it’s a sign of my ideology’s inherent weakness; but if you scream when you read something about “social justice,” then it’s a sign of your superior wisdom? I’m baffled, comrade; though not to the point of screaming.
“So if I say I’m “concerned” about Newsweek’s choice of cover story, it’s a sign of my ideology’s inherent weakness; but if you scream when you read something about “social justice,” then it’s a sign of your superior wisdom? I’m baffled, comrade; though not to the point of screaming.”
When I read something stupid written by a liberal – I respond to him- either through screaming at the monitor (take it as a metaphor) and/or writing a reply. When you read something written by a conservative, you first and only concern is why the media dared to publish it at all. You want to silence your opponents, I want to answer mine. Ponder why our responses are so different.
My response to my “concern” was to post a piece here stating what I thought of Mamet’s nonsense–kind of like your response to Clive Crooks, once you stopped screaming. I never asked “why the media dared to publish” the story–my concerns were (a) that giving Mamet’s screed such prominence would not improve the chances of having a reasonable discussion about gun control, and (b)that such poor editorial judgment on the part of a major news magazine wouldn’t help the public dialogue, in general, going forward. Both my concerns could well be misplaced, but I never suggested anyone should be silenced; the thought never crossed my mind. You spent too much time in the gulag, comrade, and then brought your paranoia with you to America.
“I never asked “why the media dared to publish” the story–my concerns were (a) that giving Mamet’s screed such prominence would not improve the chances of having a reasonable discussion about gun control, and (b)that such poor editorial judgment on the part of a major news magazine wouldn’t help the public dialogue, in general, going forward. ”
So, your first response is – the media definitely should NOT publish articles you so strongly disagree with. That’s sounds much worse than me noting the author is stupid. I don’t have a problem with liberal nonsense being published – as long as conservatives are published too. You, on the other side, simply don’t want conservatives like Mamet to be published at all. And the difference between your and my approach is, in my opinion, due to inherent fragility of liberal ideology, or, as someone else put it – “light is the best disinfectant”.
HA: Your continued misrepresentations of what I’ve said are inexplicable. Please refer me to where I indicated that my “first response” to Mamet was that “the media definitely should NOT publish articles [I] so strongly disagree with,” or where I said that I “simply don’t want conservatives like Mamet to be published at all”. I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse or if English isn’t your first language, but either way, I wish you’d stop attributing to me things I haven’t said and views I don’t hold–lord knows I have enough trouble defending my actual statements and views.