David Mamet on conservatism
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 02. 2014
- This week on Uncommon Knowledge, playwright David Mamet discusses his book The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture and his conversion to conservatism. Mamet explains how, by studying Jewish and Christian texts such as the Talmud and the Bible, he came to approach arguments from a new perspective that aligned itself with conservative politics. Throughout the interview, Mamet discusses his newly found conservative position on several issues, including social justice and civil rights, the decline of the family and the sexual revolution, affirmative action and race, and domestic politics and foreign policy.
I really enjoy listening to David Mamet. He is so sincere in his convictions.. a pretty good writer too.. (understated for effect..). ''Coffee is for Closers''...
"[W]hen people stop arguing what you have is a dictatorship" ~ David Mamet
*****
Your quote is incorrect it should read:
"Gridlock is not an American problem. It's an American achievement." ~ George Will
and in context.....
"Let me just say this. The Republican Party is being told to be the party of no. No more stimulus spending. No cap-and-trade. No card check. None of this other stuff. Gridlock is not an American problem. It's an American achievement. The framers of our Constitution didn't want an efficient government; they wanted a safe government. To which end they filled it with slowing and blocking mechanisms. Three branches of government, two branches of the legislative branch, veto, veto override, supermajority, judicial review." ~ George Will
Peter Robinson has achieved black belt level of intra-interview plugging. I probably will never forget the name of David Mamet's book the secret knowledge.
Interesting - very smart man... It's ALWAYS important to hear BOTH SIDES whether you believe them or not... I always did like Mamet.
David Mamet has raised political discourse to an art with his ability to apply multiple cultural/religious philosophies to the analysis of questions of our time. In particular the idea that you should be able to state your opponents beliefs accurately as a start to discussion demonstrates what is missing from modern political discourse in particular and society in general. As a polemicist he approaches the giants Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. He is breathtakingly smooth with analogy, anecdote, example, and metaphor.
Mamet fails at understanding his opponents beliefs accurately.
This is close to being my favorite Uncommon Knowledge episode ever
David is great.
The very first concept they discussed here is what is now called "virtue-signaling".
TV show idea: "Make David Mamet Smile." Each person gets 30 secs to try and make him smile. The person who does is crowned a genius and gets $1,000,000. But no one would ever make him smile, obviously, so the production company would give the million to the charity of Mamet's choice. Win-win for everyone. All I ask for is a "Created by" credit.
So, what you are saying is that because you cannot factually dismiss Mr. Mamet, you pick on a perceived shortcoming to ridicule. Says a great deal about you, and nothing about him.
I don't smile that much either, and I'm a big fan of myself. So... your perceiving it as a negative is your own opinion.
David Mamet makes some brilliant points. We can no sooner replace constitutional rights with social justice as we could replace constitutional rights with Sharia law. The day that we do either of those we lose all our rights and tyranny is the result.
I also thought it was interesting he pointed out if you destroy the central position, which in America is the U.S. Constitution, than no one can come together in the center and sort our our differences. Because there is no center.
Thank you for this interview.
Lucid, and erudite. Great stuff, thank you.
Chap. 1: "We cannot live without trade. A society can neither advance nor improve without excess of disposable income. This excess can only be amassed through the production of goods and services necessary or attractive to the mass. A financial system which allows this leads to inequality; one that does not leads to mass starvation."
Chap 2: "I will now quote two Chicago writers on the subject, the first, William Shakespeare, who wrote 'Truth's a dog must to kennel; he must be whipped out, when Lady the brach may stand by the fire and stink'; the second, Ernest Hemingway, 'Call 'em like you see'em and to hell with it.'"
Chap 3: "The grave error of multiculturalism is the assumption that reason can modify a process which has taken place without reason, and with inputs astronomically greater than those reason might provide."
Chap 4: "College, while it may theoretically teach skills, also serves to delay the matriculation of the adolescent into society."
Chap 5: "No, the luckless product of our Liberal Universities, skill-less, will not touch that item his culture named taboo: work. So we see the proliferation, in the Liberal Communities, of counselors, advisors, life coaches, consultants, feng shui 'experts,' as the undereducated chickens come home to roost."
Chap 6: "A subjective system can never be shown to have failed. If its goals are indeterminate, general, and its progress incapable of measurement, how can its performance be faulted?"
Chap 7: "From the Left's point of view one need not work, and may not only Hope to be provided for, by this government, but may insist upon it."
Chap 8: "A Slave is not permitted to make these distinctions. Al of his behavior is circumscribed by the will of his master. The necessity of making distinctions is the essence of freedom, where one not only can but must choose...The essence of freedom was and is choice."
Chap 9: "...I was from Chicago. It was a rough city, ruled by Machine Politics, which ruled the state, and currently rules the country."
a SUPERBE book ...wonderfully writed...
That he calls out tribal identification is great. I do, too. But he says he thinks it doesn't occur on the Right. And that's simply not true.
I think this phenomenon of "recognition symbols" is at least as common on the Right as on the Left.
+Benjamin O'Donnell Agreed, and I found it odd that Mamet wasn't called on that as soon as he spoke it.
Idk about that; iirc, I read that liberals are statistically more likely to shun others based on their political views than conservatives
I suggest that people read Mamet's book. The essential point of the book is that Mamet noticed that he did not practice what he preached, but that he believed and lived a conservative life. Much of the specific ideas and beliefs that separated Mamet from the Left that he thought he belonged to made so much sense to me. He also wrote a lot about the clubbiness and fear of ostracization of leftists. Leftists are afraid to think and speak what they really belive. Wanted the interview to cover that stuff.
I think that's true on both sides. Some things I'm conservative, some things liberal. Anybody who swallows EITHER ideology hook, line, and sinker is a moron who can't think for themselves.
Great interview.
I am watching this in 2022. Still worth it.
Your newest subscriber for Life thanks you for your channel!
Some of the topics of this interview worth us to think a bit. First of all we should be clear ourselves that what is the nature of our country. Capitalism, European Socialism or the constitution is extremely important. The consequence of disobeying it can be dangerous to our country's future. Wrong policies can definitely be so powerful to put our country backwards for 10 years or even more, it depends on the timing and the issues. Also I Agree with him the punishment to the criminals. I believe this, if we let the serious murderer to live longer, more innocent people will be dead tragically. Our country is the Capitalism of the freedoms and entrepreneurship. Which means we don't divide the rich from the poor. We have the equality of the opportunities, but not the equality of the properties. If you work hard and willing to challenge the opportunities, you can achieve what you have worked hard for it. After you achieve what you get, it's yours. Because you are the one worked hard for it. After you die, it will be your children's, because this is also why did you work hard for it. This is our solid system of the Capitalism natures. It has been poven working exceptionally well as the main reasons off why we have made the country to the one strongest country of economy, defense, democracy, liberty and exceptionalism. It also made us to be the only leadership of the admiring model. This means we have maitained and succeeded our Founding Fathers's wish by following their steps of the freedoms and entrepreneurship. It is also going to be better, if we continously follow our constitutions strictly. The constitution is set there to remind and warn us what is right and what is wrong. It's the clear divider, if we are going the right direction, or if we exceed the limit of the wrong doings. It will also give us the correct judgement of what is legal and what is illegal. We are the country have been fought with terrorists, Nazis, and Communist for decades, that makes and helps us know what systems are not same kinds believing with us and we should not involve in even a bit, ìt will be wrong for us to do this. Because the wrong ideologies can mislead Americans with patriotism be confused. It can also give the people who don't like us the opportunities to deteriorated our country's exceptionalism. This is why I believe y I value the constitution and fr
Dave woke up.
Loved it
"She calls money shoe coupons."
Hahaha!
First of all, I love David Mamet's work, and in fact Mr. Mamet has been the subject of some recent discussion between another filmmaking friend and myself. I would like to offer some of my own comments from the perspective of an Unreconstructed, Pro-Confederate Southerner (who is NOT at all ashamed), a Southern conservative, or perhaps more accurately a Southern libertarian.
Not so comfortable with the implication I am interpreting from Mr. Mamet's dialogue on (what seems to be the Supreme Court) Many of us see the so-called "supreme court" as a nine person oligarchy who have, by their torturous interpretations of the 14th Amendment, in fact exercised the act of making legislation -- in that their overturning of several State laws (not only in the South) against homosexual behaviour, the SCOTUS has in fact made "lawful" what before was unlawful. To my legalistic mind, it takes a new law to overturn an old one -- NOT the opinion of the majority of nine APPOINTED judges
As the conversation segues into Civil Rights [at 08:22] movement -- another topic that has been slanted by Leftist and regurgitated in countless retellings is the idea that the Civil Rights movement was all about trying to repress or oppress Black people. Again, the TRUTH was much more complicated, and indeed there were many Black people who did not favour the Government just coming in with its strong arm, uprooting their children (where up to this time they were enjoying the low student to teacher ratio that is desirable in all classrooms) and throw them into a sea of White children in schools which were already complaining about overcrowded classrooms.
Our issue (or at least the majority I think) was NOT to deprive these people of a good education (they were probably already getting that) but that the remedy of the U.S. Government was as ham-fisted in execution as it was knee-jerk in reaction. From the time the U.S. Constitution itself was ratified the ISSUE with the Southerner has always been to WHAT EXTENT is intervention by the U.S. Government either necessary or --especially-- PROPER? So since the Liberals were FOR this type of ham fisted / knee jerked reactionary nonsense I think to call it a "success" is a dubious claim.
[starting - 10:58] Lost the "hopefulness of youth" or its stupidity? ;-)
[starting -- 14:00 - 14:42] The interviewer remarks that conservatism is pure empiricism -- and does so in a way suggesting that one does not have to bring God and the Bible into it. However, I have accepted the existence of God (and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel) on the BASIS of empirical evidence, both in terms of science (ie Creationism, which is supported to some great extent by Intelligent Design -- thought the two are different) as well as the simple HISTORICAL FACT (historical records being their own empirical evidence) that our laws, and indeed many of our legal customs derive from our Judeo-Christian heritage. (ie WHY do we have 12 jurors? Answer: In acknowledgment of the 12 Tribes of Israel, and the 12 Apostles of Christ) So the Divine Order stamped in mankind's DNA and the empirical view are NOT diametrically opposed at all.
[at 22:05] The interviewer brings up "race" I agree 100% with Mr. Mamet here. Lyndon Johnson IS wrong, but he is proven wrong by MORE than Dr. Sowell. Booker T. Washington was born a slave, got an education, and became a leading exponent for education within the Black Community. Opposing Washington was W.E.B. DuBois, who was born in Massachusetts to a free family and raised in an upscale area. W.E.B. DuBois DID NOT HAVE the bona-fides that Booker T. Washington had when it came to the subject of slavery and past repression of the Black community.
At the dawn of the 20th Century these two men stood as the mouthpieces for TWO DIFFERENT directions that the Black community could take. On the one hand there was Booker T. Washington, former slave, who advocated reconciliation, moving forward, and education. On the other hand was W.E.B DuBois, NEVER WAS A SLAVE, NEVER KNEW SLAVERY PERSONALLY who advocated CONSTANT AGITATION. Indeed Booker T. Washington could have very well been speaking of WEB DuBois when he wrote:
" I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers WHO DO NOT WANT THE PATIENT TO GET WELL, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an EASY MEANS of MAKING A LIVING, but also an EASY MEDIUM through which TO MAKE THEMSELVES PROMINENT BEFORE THE PUBLIC.
My experience is that people who call themselves "The Intellectuals" understand theories, but they do not understand things. I have long been convinced that, IF THESE MEN COULD HAVE GONE INTO THE SOUTH and taken up and become interested in some practical work which would have brought them in touch with people and things, the whole world would have looked very different to them. Bad as conditions might have seemed at first, WHEN THEY SAW THAT ACTUAL PROGRESS WAS BEING MADE, they would have taken a more hopeful view of the situation." [1] {emphasis added}
So Lyndon Johnson was mostly wrong in perpetuating the myth that some former slaves did not MAKE THEMSELVES EQUAL by hard work and education. Another of these was Dr. George Washington Carver, who was an educator, and along with fellow Southerner Thomas Hunt Morgan, paved the way to the modern study of genetics. In the Book of Matthew we are told to be wary of false prophets, and are instructed "... by their fruits you will know them." [Matthew 7:15] So what was the fruits of these two men?
Booker T. Washington's model gave us the famed Tuskegee Airmen, who were NOT ONLY the BEST pilots of World War II, but also EDUCATED, PROFESSIONAL MEN. They were each and all doctors, lawyers, teachers, architects, scientists of varied disciplines, educated, and professional, SUCCESSFUL men. What has been the fruit of the W.E.B. DuBois model? Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and agitators who have no interest whatsoever in actually advancing the interests of the Black community, but only their own self interests. What has LIBERALISM benefited the Black community?? Mr. Mamet is right, it has destroyed the Black family unit, and NAILS it dead on the head (as White liberals are concerned) it is paternalistic and an exposes the utter hypocrisy of the liberals.
[25:00] Here I both agree and disagree with Mr. Mamet. Certainly taxation AS WE KNOW IT is theft, and he is right, IF that were taken out of the equation those morons in Washington DC would not be able to get us into as much trouble as they do. However, I DO believe that a society is supported by its government, and that the people MUST support their government and thus taxes are a necessity -- perhaps an evil necessity -- but a necessity nonetheless. However, I think a more logical solution would be to REMOVE the power of taxation from BOTH the State and the Federal levels and place it at the most LOCAL levels of government -- the Counties or Parishes.
IF County or Parish magistrates were the only ones who had the power to raise AND COLLECT taxes, then this critical power would be PLACED IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE -- as it is much easier for the people to keep watch over LOCAL morons than it is the morons in their State Governments who may be more than 100 miles from their grasp, and certainly easier than monitoring the FEDERAL MORONS who are in most cases hundreds to THOUSANDS of miles away from their grasp. No only would it put the critical power of the purse BACK into the hands of "We the people" but it would also do serious damage, if not end entirely the problem of how lobbyists have stolen our government. The State and Federal Governments would be sustained by an allowance from these taxes originating from the local levels. Let them experience some "trickle up" economics for a change. ;-)
[1]. Booker T. Washington. My Larger Education, Being Chapters from My Experience. Doubleday, Page & Co. (1911) pgs. 119-120 online edition courtesy of "Documenting the American South" a project of the University of North Carolina.
docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/washeducation/washing.html
The ambient audio is so distracting, I can't seem to focus on what they're saying
I met Peter Robinson at a recent Ricochet podcast/meetup in LA and he was the nicest dang dude on the planet. He's also astonishingly young-looking for a fellow who is approaching 60.
he is the best interviewer i have ever watched.
But, Lisa, the whole point of Mamet's "conversion" is that there are clear differences between liberal thought and conservative thought.
+ stephen molasky -- So, after the last two years we've just had, would you please clarify that statement?
'cause about two weeks ago I just saw all but 3 republicans hold their nose and vote for legislation they thought was garbage because they more-or-less chose party over country. Many of whom said so straight into the news cameras before entering the House to cast their vote.
Don't think I've ever seen a conservative listening & thinking as intensely as this interviewer. More power to you, Mr. Mamet. Set those conservatives straight!
No. What is it?
***** Thanks. I'll check it out.
+ Lynn Turman -- Strange, I was listening to it in the background while I played some solitaire and it struck me that this entire interviewe is the very same "cultural interrogation" that he brings up talking about a certain lecture. (4:38).
So I replayed the video and you can clearly how uncomfortable the interviewer is as he says "right" which compels Mammet to try to clarify himself before the subject changes. And what does the subject change to? The interviewer directly asking Mammet to defend his conservatism _in spite of being a Jew._ Then, in editing they made the deliberate decision to cut away to the interviewer laughing at Mammet's joke about "ask two Jews, get three opinions."
I'm trying not to read too much into it, but given the murders in Charlottesville on August 13, its hard to pretend this is a purely academic question for admittance into the Conservative "tribe."
Here is the way I see it. I also had a conversion years ago. I used to be happy to call myself a liberal. I used to think to be a conservative you have to have a low I.Q. or be narrow minded in your world view. Of course, I still think that way about conservatives. I just never used to think that people in the liberal camp can be the same way, but they do. Here is what I arrived at. I found that both liberals and conservatives have many people in their ranks that are more concerned with their political ideologies than facts. That is, I see both sides deny facts, science, common sense when trying too hard to be beholden to their ideology. I then decided, while there are neo-conservatives there are neo-liberals. I could continue to call myself a liberal if the nonsensical ones are just neo-liberals. But then, I would be misunderstood. My political stance is Non-partisan. I like facts, the balance of probability, doing onto others rule, science, equality, equal rights to basic needs, etc. Both liberals and conservatives fight these things when trying to uphold their ideologies. So fuck both sides. I am my own person.
Dan S I was just going to make a similar comment. Anybody who identifies themselves these days as a Conservative or Liberal is giving up fee thought for tribalism. A shame Mamet can't get his head out of the dark side long enough to glimpse the hypocrisy and simplistic nature of his current stance in _converting_ from one team to another.
A brilliant, subtle, multilayered artist still, whose politics currently reflect the opposite tendency: that of being another another old crank listening to AM radio and ranting about _Liberals_ in broad strokes.
+Dan S
You just sound like a left-leaning independent. Good for you. You indeed are your own person.
Dan S all your comment shows is that you know little about either side.
Go West, young man!
What you're describing as observing from both camps sounds like recognizing that individuals are dogmatically defensive of their political orientation.
You’re wrong
He's entitled to his opinion, coherent or otherwise.
So,the solution to abandoning one form of pseudoreligious political tribalism is espousing its opposite,actually religious political tribalism and being taken in by its tennets hook,line and sinker?Must say,for all my admiration of the man's work and plays,he has let his wits become blunted by the passage of time...
Not completely buddy...
+Bass Nerds I agree that everything is ideology,including this discussion and that we are all indeed tribal creatures at heart;it is precisely for this reason that Mamet's claim to have abandoned liberal left ideology because of its 'tribalism' for an even more sinister religious and political tribalism seems so intellectually void of substance.It is his position that should call for a higher and not lesser 'moral' ground to follow such a radical shift in perspective,not mine.
As for a phrase you used ''any belief system that wouldn't destroy a culture or cause mass destruction if it became the underlying zeitgeist of that culture''....I am pretty sure it is precisely the sort of butch neoliberal capitalism and neoconservative nationalism Mamet is now espousing in Tea Partiers and their likes that is the underlying zeitgeist of our culture and we all see quite well how beneficial to the entire planet it is proving so far...
Mamet hasn't written a decent play in over two decades now by the way and I do believe his ideological shift has everything to do with it;for a man who spent his whole life castigating precisely those grey areas where people are forced to live because of the inequities of power and the bitter struggle for survival within the modern capitalist system where nothing but success at all costs matters regardless of the means deployed,he now has essentially embraced the words,ideas and voice of every single one of his characters he once would've portrayed as the 'bad guy' in his plays.I'm not sure how that counts for intellectual integrity in your eyes,but it most certainly does not in mine.
GOAT
I really love how he intellectualizes his self serving position...all heart.
13:45 what does he mean by "completely transform the nature of the country"?
I see myself as an independent. I think that political belief as recognition symbols happens as much on the right as it does on the left. Instead of looking at politics from a point of view of belief based on our individual confirmation biases, why can't politics be approached from the same empirical non biased standards that are applied to the sciences?
33:38 Truth!
the host is so likeable
28 minutes to 30 minutes very fascinating especially what he said about Jewish people.
It saddens me so, to hear a man that I respected for so long and whose talent and works I admired. Mostly because of his ability to capture the essence and reality of human nature move so far o the right that he has fallen off the grid all together.
Joe W > he's moved so far to the right that he has fallen off the grid all together.
So now, like Jon Voight, he's "crazy".
Joe W So he's suppose to be a mainstream conservative to be accepted by the entertainment industry? Don't blame conservatism, blame the idiots that are the gatekeepers and career builders that reside in the entertainment industry,
Joe W David Mamet stated quite clearly why he has changed his political views. To label somebody as "crazy" because they don't hold your exact view of reality is why intelligent thoughtful people like Mamet have been slowly distancing themselves from Liberalism.
What did he say that you disagree with? The man lays out reasoned arguments for his positions. What are the boundaries of this grid which presumably defines the outer limits of rational thought. Look forward to some specifics.
The prism and prison of the "ism". Mysterium coniunctionis, until we can transcend polarity consciousness we will be divided and conquered, always blaming the other guy. Mamet opened with a method to consensus, that is the Trivium, not owned by any "ism". Thanks for the interview, very interesting.
Oh, David.
There's one major problem with this video. GWB was not a conservative.
Why do people use as an example Social Security...one has to pay with each paycheck earned...it is not for free.?
He lost me at "I don't think this happens on the Right."
At 20:30 he's like, "she may have complete sexual freedom but she doesn't have complete sexual freedom to knock herself up and then abandon herself." Apparently he's oblivious to how he just contradicted himself: the birth control pill is the very thing that prevents her from getting knocked up! Or else I don't know what he means by "abandoning herself", unless he just means ability to be rid of the child, which women actually have lots of options for and it doesn't stop at the pill. Women can also use the morning after pill, go get a legal abortion (in some places they even offer third trimester abortions), or use a host of other contraceptive medication and methods, or can put the kid up for adoption, or if the father does try to abandon then all a woman has to do is sue him for 18 years of child support. A woman has all these options lined up for her, if anyone doesn't have sexual or reproductive freedom it's men. And how does any of that tie into men who earn more not wanting to get married anyway? Or men being predators? What a meandering, spurious, illogical, non-sequitur mess of thinking on this topic.
Btw, saying at 20:50, "it doesn't matter how hard you work you're not going to make more money" is once again self-contradicting. Neoliberal or classical liberal economics, which he sure enough supports as a modern conservative, is exactly the very system that has created this situation where one doesn't make more money despite working harder. Since 1980, real income for most people (excluding 2-4% of the population) has increased barely 2 dollars when adjusted for inflation, and that's despite working more and more hours throughout this whole period. And it's a very good argument exposing neo-liberal capitalism for the scamming, criminal pile of dogshit that it is. This guy's head is just completely scrambled, I'm wondering now if there was maybe a lot of drug/alcohol abuse in his life that's damaged his ability to think things through. No wonder no one of any importance pays attention to him anymore.
That is some jacket
This has aged like fine wine 🍷
Sigh. Equal rights and the source of western culture is not from the bible. You don't find democracy in the bible. You find tithing and theocracy. The biblical view of society and politics is grossly different from western notions of proper government. It's much more similar to Islamic country notions of proper government.
Democracy and personal rights and notions of equality before the law come from the Greeks. Ancient Athens in particular, and to lesser degree Sparta and some of the other city states of the time. People like Aristotle and Socrates and Democritus gave us these ideas, not Moses.
Somebody like Mamet should know this.
Individualism certainly doesn't come from ancient Greece. Greek thinkers did not have a strong sense of the individual, and were more concerned with the health of the polis, of the state. A strong focus on the unique value of the individual comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Absorb Everything
Sigh. Absorb everything uncritically apparently.
The unique value of the individual as property of Yahweh, and under the thumb of he state. That's what you find in the bible. There are good reasons that Christianity developed things like The Inquisition. And witch burning. And various other horrors. And kept them for centuries.
The ancient Greeks were concerned with the political structure in order to make life good for the individuals involved. What is virtue to Aristotle? Acting to gain or keep value. What is the motive? Happiness. You don't find that among the cruft and blood baths and firestorms in the bible.
+puppetsock "Conservative".
If, in political terms, the alternatives are "conservative" or "progressive"... then why is there any such thing as a conservative on the damn planet?
"Conservative."
Conserve... ative.
What is it they're trying to... conserve?
The two "guidebooks to civilisation", according to Mamet... which itself is a massive call, are the bible and the U.S. Constitution. One derived from the other.
"Other than that there's gonna be... there's gonna be... there's gonna be...."
Not his finest moment.
There's gonna be... what? It's impossible to conduct oneself ethically without the bible? The U.S Constitution's, what, two-hundred years old? The world's moved on.
Mamet puts a hell of a lot of store in Western civilsation here. Remember what Ghandi said about Western civilisation?
"I think it would be a good idea."
Two-tone Blue I quote you... "Why is there any such thing as a conservative on the damn planet? "Conservative." Conserve... ative.
What is it they're trying to... conserve?"...
Have you been living in an incubator your whole life with all your needs met by someone else? "What is it they're trying to conserve?" Are you serious? EVERYONE, even "progressives", are conservatives at heart because we all want to preserve/conserve what we've worked hard our whole lives to build up. You think all those fair weather progressives in government would really donate their retirement pensions to society to further the overall good? Not.
And what about progressive environmentalists? Are they liberal with our water, air, trees, etc? No. They are trying to conserve them. Conservation = Conservatism.
I hope you'll reconsider your understanding of the word conservatism which has been so cunningly twisted by the media and the far Left to serve (and conserve) their own interests. It's a necessary and largely positive quality.
Marshall Duncan What is it you've been trying to build up? What have you got? ("Depends what you mean by 'got'.") Maybe I'm just not a grasping, acquisitive, avaricious neurotic.
That said, I don't do jack shit for charity, either. I'm doubtful as to its social value as politicians exploit charity work in the interests of continuing to misspend the tax take.
But let's leave the Department of Conservation (NZ) out of this.
Yes, the world should take some responsibility for saving *itself*.
I appreciate your recognition of the work of progressive environmentalists.
What if, in order to conserve the environment, it were necessary for there to be a sea change in the way society conducts itself?
Know what a conservative is? A revolutionary, the day after the revolution.
I was hooked on 'The Unit' back in the day, and Redbelt is my favorite movie. If only David put as much time into studying the Bible as he has writing fiction...
up to 4:29 it's funny . . cuz in this conversation, jon voight is a 'recognition symbol' of the right within Hollywood. Now, the liberal he talked to who said voight is crazy is being discriminatory & tribe-y, but yeah idk. . . . I feel like that anecdote is kinda the same trick going the other direction
Peter, you drive a Prius???? I am sure I heard you say that, if that's true I am deducting 2,3% from your respecto meter for that. Current balance is now 97,7% available. ; )
I enjoyed this video Peter, nicely done.
Shoe coupons? That's hilarious.
brashest guest I've seen on unc knowledge
*groaaaaaaaan*
I agree with most of his views but I don't understand the need to identify ones self as a "conservative" When people speak about "liberals" and "conservatives" it turns me off. If you see yourself in either camp you're suffering from brain death. Everyone should have their own unique perspective, issue by issue. It's called being intelligent.
True but it's a identifier and everyone uses those.
A lot of people with the name Murphy identify as Irish (Do you?) But I'm going to assume that you are a small percentage Irish who have lived in america all your life and have never set foot in Ireland.
In other words It doesn't make me right, but theres reasons for the stereotype.
Lisa Murphy The issue I have with your comment is that no one actually has a unique perspective - issue by issue. I bet if I asked you your thoughts on abortion, gay "marriage," sex, education, taxes, foreign policy, religion, government intervention etc. you'd have a cafeteria of opinions that most likely wont' gel with another once they're put into practice. In fact, you indirectly admit that your superior than those who place themselves in either the left or right. That's a bit pompous.
TickleMeElmo55 My brain is owned by no organization, institution or circle of peers, which puts me well above most people intellectually, which isn't saying much. There are many great people out there who're my superiors in their capacity to get to the actual truth of things, and to see the fairness and unfairness of a viewpoint or philosophy. These people have their minds open on all issues but always look for the rational, empirical truth.
The terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are confusing. The political Left have stolen the word 'liberal'. They are not liberal. Most Americans don't seem to understand what the word liberal means. The American Constitution is the quintessential liberal document. In politics, the word liberal means; one that affirms liberty. Modern 'liberals' are leftists. They do not affirm the U.S. Constitution, they have a perverted sense of 'equality', in a world where people, cultures and religions are not equal. The Constitution (The Declaration of Independence) affirms that people have certain inalienable rights. Not that everyone should have the same amount of material wealth, that everyone has the same abilities, etc..
American 'conservatives' are the real liberals. They are not conservative in the classical sense of the word. They are conservative only in the sense that they seek to conserve the liberal principles of the Constitution.
The Democratic Party is the Party that supported slavery and segregation, and opposed the Civil Rights Movement for 100 years, until it was passed in the 1960s. Now, they have successfully fooled many people into thinking that they are the Party that supports racial minorities and that the Republican Party is the party of racism. The Democratic Party has always been the Party of propaganda and racial division. They have simply changed their propaganda, and now pretend to be the morally superior, supporter of racial minorities. Their history is exactly opposite.
THis is sadly called a RINO. Republican in name only , COnservatism takes reason and adherance to things that thru time have bore out to be true or pragmatic. LIberalism of today, is onl based on how = one feels at the time. Not based upon what works
“Glengarry Glen Ross is about a situation I lived in for a while, when I was out of work and living hand to mouth and trying to get from one day to the next… but now I’m rich and successful I’m writing a play called ‘Devil Take the Hindmost’ cos I don’t wanna pay taxes and think we should let bankers fleece anyone who can’t be rich like me and foreclose on their life. Thank god the scales have fallen from my eyes now that I got money and I can see that being tight and without conscience is my political calling. My doctor called it political Alzheimer's but I think tea party ladies are just the second coming of our saviour Lord mammon.” Why is it that when people write a play or act in one they think they can cure cancer.
How the Mighty Have Fallen.
Tsnore
what do you mean ?
A conversion to conservatism-how nice, I did not know that politics was a religion.
Conservatism isn't a religion, only liberalism falls into that bracket😜
It's a worldview, just like any other worldview.
Now, which of his statements did you disagree with, and upon what basis? Give the time stamp.
17:42 - "So your conversion to conservatism - I'm sorry, I shouldn't say 'conversion' because it's often a religious term..."
Yesica1993 What views of his do you believe are all the gospel truth? It is all projection.
ERIC PLEASANT He believes that he has found the true ideology-whatever that might be!
27:09 watch his reaction. Like, doesn't he want to know what Mamet means by that? Like, he has no idea how to respond. Like, ugh that's awkward. If he's being obscure, get him to open up the idea some more. Then he says the tea party is brave as a total apparent non-sequitur. This is a funny funny dance.
" We all love America differently " . . . 😑
3:38 "I don't think it happens on the right." Jesus, this guy is blind and deaf. He's very sharp and rational until it comes to people he agrees with. To them, he apparently is so extremely forgiving, that he chooses not to ascribe the irrational motives he so readily does to those with whom he disagrees. That's really unworthy. Or maybe, "the right" to him are about 50 rational, modest people with whom he agrees, and not all the intolerant and hateful nutcases, and "the left" consists of those politically correct people he sees every now and then whom he dislikes, and not all the rational people, scientists, authors, and nice, normal, tolerant, intellectually honest people.
Get a load of Mamet's body language. So funny. Love the guy, but how funny he holds himself.
what'd u notice? I kinda thought the interviewer dude is making him a little uncomfortable sometimes.
Family Guy brought me here
Small table...
Wasn't that Glengarry Glen Ross Alec Baldwin scene added in the movie?
I love you david mamet. and I know you are very intelligent. and have tread down some serious philosophical roads. but when you said you're cool with the tea party- - I can't quite put that in context. AND YOU KNOW ABOUT the MEDIA MANIPULATION INDUSTRY. [wag the dog]. I guess you would point out that liberals do media manipulation, too. idk. wow, david. wow, man. idk. I just can't--
this is an elaborate performance art piece. He's about as conservative as Donald Trump.
excerpt : "the pursuit of freedom ... has led to misery" . . I don't quite understand, but sounds interesting, tell me more. then, his answer is "everybody gets divorced these days"?? . . . I guess I'm glad the playwright still has a body, I'm just really sorry about this other weird creature he has to share it with
thank you for owning the destruction of societal norms by your generation David. as a genX who had to snuffle up the crumbs of a post industrial society and it pissed still i found it mildly cathartic
Jews have always been pretty liberal. Mamet's liberal, if you look at the definition, and not the Statist caricature of itself it has become.
George W. Bush is not a conservative and neither is Rand Paul. Folks need to read Russell Kirk.
Things were better in the olden days... That's what I'm hearing coming out of Mamet's mouth. Ask any person of color if that's true.
The reason he doesn't have any friends anymore is because he's hysterical. Equating rabid, foaming at the mouth capitalism with socialism means that 'liberals' or 'the left' or (whichever term Mamet would like to use) can't actually take him seriously anymore. I converse and enjoy the company of people I disagree with politically all the time but frankly, I wouldn't know what to say to someone who equates universal health care and taxes with 'socialism'. How do you even begin to talk to them? It's a form of madness. America is a sick nation. It saddens me deeply.
It's not madness. The Health Care bill was written by the Special Interest Groups and Pharmaceutical Industry to SERVE THEM, not the people. It is all just a power grab. As he rightly calls it expansion of power. That can only come at a loss of individual liberty. To call endless expanding government anything but the road to tyranny is a form of madness. Read history. The game plan is obvious.
Well, but universal healthcare paid through money stolen from us (i.e. taxes) really IS socialism. This is just a matter of fact.
Mamet has no understanding of Capitalism whatsoever.
Supporting the free market does not mean you support the Republican Party, that's just idiocy and bad judgment. I'm sure David learned that in his high school Government class.
Social conservatism is the lowest kind of ideology, just another form of tyranny
Social conservatism is just as necessary as social liberalism. Just as the roots and the new shoots on a tree are necessary.
Arman Nasseri Social liberalism is unstable and in decline
Boring
The more I listen to Mamet expound on the motives and meaning of everything, I'm amazed at what a shallow view of humans he has....wow. And I'm supposed to believe he's brilliant? I think he's quite a crass and ham-fisted thinker.
I found the interviewer sycophantic
With all do respect David, go back and write a new play or screenplay stop trying out for FOXNEWS. You come across as a ditto-headed pundit with nothing to back up what you are saying.
ERIC UN-PLEASANT: Why didn't you call Fox News "Faux news?" Isn't the cool way dumb lefties like you talk? Speaking of nothing to back up what you are saying ... you would know. You come across as a fucking idiot. Have a nice day.
Jason Salazar I do not agree with Mister Mamet or his sudden attack on liberalism as if conservatism is the true religion even though it is the true source for all of that fear and intolerance that you claim that we people have.
Jason Salazar The Tea Party has no merit like Mamet has no merit and spends his time trying to forment his own hate for his former ideology.
Jason Salazar Mamet is making baseless views and he believes that they are true with no foundation-I find it all annoying.
ERIC PLEASANT "conservatism is the true religion even though it is the true source for all of that fear and intolerance that you claim that we people have"
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Mamet said the bible and the US constitution are the only two "manuals for human life". What a shallow statement. I guess he never heard of the great Vedic texts, which existed thousands of years prior to those "manuals".
Great interview. Personally, I think he is wrong about two things. First, that the races have the same intelligence capacities- clearly there are differences no matter how much we want that not to be true. Second, that America is multicultural, this is a common mistake this days. America is not just an idea but a people too. Just like all nations.
briliant mind failing
Claire Metayer so arrogant and ignorant of you
Great interview.