Mamet sees creeping totalitarianism in Obama 2

on 14 Comments

Amazing that the Jewish Journal of LA is running this nutty piece by David Mamet directed to Jews who are voting for Obama. The statement about a liberal government being inherently indisposed toward Israel ought to be true, by the way. The other pronouncements– alternative reality: 

Will you tell your children that a liberal government will increasingly marginalize, dismiss and weaken the support for and the safety of the Jewish state?

Will you tell them that, in a state-run economy, hard work may still be applauded, but that it will no longer be rewarded?

Will you explain that whatever their personal beliefs, tax-funded institutions will require them to imbibe and repeat the slogans of the left, and that, should they differ, they cannot have a career in education, medicine or television unless they keep their mouths shut?

…Most importantly, will you teach them never to question the pronouncements of those in power, for to do so is to risk ostracism?

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

14 Responses

  1. Krauss
    November 1, 2012, 3:37 pm

    What interests me is the psychology behind this all.

    Mamet, an intermarrying, assimilated liberal New York Jew who was the chief creative force behind ‘Race’, a very liberal (and critical) Broadway play on race relations from a decidedly left-wing perspectice has done a 180, now he supports(or supported) Sarah Palin.

    He mimicks the same actions of Haim Saban, who he too intermarried, and even told his rabbi to ‘think of me as a Christian in favour of Judaism’.

    Saban was also a total leftie and then snapped in the mid-90s and now admits to being ‘like Avigdor Lieberman whenever Israel is attacked, and then I calm down’.

    No, he’s always like Lieberman. Except perhaps for the open threats to execute his opponents(like Lieberman).

    Or take Michael Steinhardt, the brain behind Birthright. Who plainly admitted that Zionism for him was something he came to later in his life since he was a devout atheist(‘and feeling guilty about it’) and since he couldn’t start believing in a higher power, he turned to Zionism. There’s something to be said for ex-left wing Jewish men after the age of 50, something snaps in their minds.

    It will be interesting what Goldberg will do in 10 years. Remember, he was a devout Kahanist in his youth and even in his biography(released just a few years ago), he praised Kahane as a man of ideas.

    In Goldberg’s case, I suspect it will be a return to the fold where he began. After all, if you’ve had a Gentile white man who dabbled in being a devout follower of David Duke and then heaped praise on him as a man of ideas in his biography, when he is in his 40s, I wonder how many people would call that man a ‘liberal’.

  2. bobsmith
    November 1, 2012, 3:45 pm

    Between Pesach with his “Wicked Son” and his nutty interview with Pat Robertson, then factoring in his racism and gynophobia, he’s a sick individual. And his plays suck.

  3. Dan Crowther
    November 1, 2012, 3:45 pm

    ‘Please remember that we have the secret ballot and, should you, on reflection, vote in secret for a candidate you would not endorse in public, you will not be alone.’

    — Wow.

    • marc b.
      November 2, 2012, 8:38 am

      he is borderline insane. republicans are under attack in america and don’t feel free to state their political positions? what mamet really means is that he, the famous playrwrite, is entitled to a podium from which he can make public pronouncements, and everyone else has the right to nod.

      • Dan Crowther
        November 2, 2012, 4:28 pm

        My impression was that he was referring to another “we”

  4. radii
    November 1, 2012, 4:30 pm

    I liked Mamet’s House of Games with it’s clever reveal of a con getting conned but I walked out of his Spanish Prisoner because it was so self-indulgent and phony I just couldn’t stomach anymore of his pretentious dialogue (after 15 minutes) … he is a self-important, pompous ass to begin with and now he seeks to use his literary and film fame to pronounce on politics and he chooses the Chicken Little route – funny considering he likes to convey himself as so macho

    • marc b.
      November 2, 2012, 8:58 am

      i enjoyed ‘sparta’ or ‘spartan’, or whatever it was, too, but he is a one trick pony. and you could see the seeds of his persecution complex going back decades to ‘oleanna’ (and evidence of his stylistic tics, or should i say tic, the repeated interruption of dialogue.)

      CAROL: . . . that it is prejudice that we should go to school?
      JOHN: Exactly. (Pause)
      CAROL: How can you say that? How . . .
      JOHN: Good. Good. Good. That’s right! Speak up! What is a prejudice? An unreasoned belief. We are all subject to it. None of us is not. When it is threatened, or opposed, we feel anger, and feel, do we not? As you do now. Do you not? Good.
      CAROL: . . . but how can you . . .
      JOHN: . . . let us examine. Good.
      CAROL: How . . .
      JOHN: Good. Good. When . . .
      CAROL: I’M SPEAKING . . . (Pause)
      JOHN: I’m sorry.
      CAROL: How can you . . .
      JOHN: . . . I beg your pardon.
      CAROL: That’s all right.
      JOHN: I beg your pardon.
      JOHN: I’m sorry I interrupted you.
      CAROL: That’s all right.(

      JOHN: Yes. Tell me frankly.
      CAROL: …my position…
      JOHN: I want to hear it. In your own words. What you want. And what you feel.
      CAROL: …I…
      JOHN: …yes…
      CAROL: My Group.

      yes. .. erm … I … ted…, what? tedious.

      in oleanna the poor professor is the victim of ‘political correctness’, the female undergrad apparently misinterpreting his interest in her, it later appearing as if he was ‘set up’ by his student and ‘the group’. this potted psychohistory of male-female relations in academia conveniently glosses over hundreds and hundreds of years of the exclusion of women from higher education, and the predations of male professors, often exploiting their authority over undergrads, either in the form of unpaid, unattributed labor, and the more icky bits of sexual predation. (the recent nyrb has an excellent essay by a former student of john cheever which gives a sense of the constant hand slapping students had to deploy to ward off groping professors.)

  5. DICKERSON3870
    November 1, 2012, 5:41 pm

    RE: “Mamet sees creeping totalitarianism in Obama 2” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Apparently David Mamet is not familiar with America’s current unholy trinity of “inverted totalitarianism”, “manufactured consent” and “monetary fascism”.
    Wake up Mamet. Get your head out of your . . . um . . . er . . . the sand.


  6. pabelmont
    November 1, 2012, 5:43 pm

    Mamet: “…Most importantly, will you teach them never to question the pronouncements of those in power, for to do so is to risk ostracism?” Sounds like the Zionist stranglehold on USA’s MSM and pols to me; and like the gradual diminishment of free speech inside Israel (i.e., clamp-down on BDS-talk, [proposed?] closure of university poli-sci department because too “anti-Israel”).

  7. hophmi
    November 2, 2012, 1:52 pm

    I read Mamet’s book, and frankly could not understand what the guy’s problem is; the book was really awful, like something a Fox News talking head would write. I saw Race and thought it was very good. I want to see somebody wear the play’s T-shirt, which is a black T-shirt that says “RACE” in big red letters.

  8. Citizen
    November 2, 2012, 2:44 pm

    Mamet flirted briefly with existentialism, then universal moral standards, then he came back to tribe ethics uber alles. Case closed.

  9. valency
    November 2, 2012, 3:11 pm

    The guy’s “problem” is high functioning narcissistic sociopathy. All his plays are about what the world looks like to a manipulative high-functioning sociopath. He couldn’t write a neurotypical character if he tried.

  10. yonah fredman
    November 3, 2012, 3:25 pm

    I thought Glengarry Glenross was great.

Leave a Reply