David Mamet and the intellectual right-hand turn
David Mamet was never a doctrinaire lefty -- despite his recent, infamous Village Voice self-description as a "brain-dead liberal" who has come to reject the mentally moribund party line. He has been absolutely hawkish in his support of Israel, for example. His drama Oleanna was attacked by many feminists as a spurious cry of "male victimhood," and he has been a long-time member of the National Rifle Association. It's not that he was some sort of phony liberal; he simply has had a strong moral system that sometimes coincided with Democratic Party principles, and sometimes did not -- as, needless to say, many leftists do. In the '70s and '80s, he wrote brilliant, explosive dramas and film scripts, powered by masculine betrayal and a conviction that American politics and business amounted to a con job or outright theft (Glengarry Glenn Ross, Speed-the-Plow, American Buffalo, Wag the Dog). This made him, at least in his art, more or less liberal: He certainly wasn't pro-business.
But for some time, he has gravitated toward more traditional paeans to integrity and justice and even macho effectiveness -- in the understated classicism of The Winslow Boy and The Voysey Inheritance, for example, or the duty-and-honor militarism of his TV series, The Unit. Essentially, Mamet began by writing bitter moral satires (sometimes still does, given the evidence of Romance and November). But increasingly, he has turned toward expressions of the ideals that he feels are vanishing, if not already absent, from contemporary life. Pointedly, they're the qualities his previous characters lacked or despised.
The typical, Delta Force-style mission in The Unit, it should be noted, is, in effect, a con job or heist -- actions that had once been signs of cynical callousness or desperation in a business office have a moral justification, even a determined enthusiasm, in a war on terror. At the same time, The Winslow Boy and The Voysey Inheritance are actually Victorian tales of stiff-upper-lip, British family honor -- a far cry, it would seem, from his down-and-dirty hoods, near-hoods or soulless yobs. But then, Mamet has always admired professionalism of whatever ilk, even among the salesmen hustlers of Glengarry. Why else did he give Alec Baldwin's bully-boy motivational speaker one of the most memorable monologues in American cinema? These guys have to be good at what they do -- the better to display their moral failings.
Not surprisingly, conservative pundits who crowed over Mamet's party defection generally betrayed their unfamiliarity with anything of Mamet's more recent than the film version of Glengarry Glenn Ross, drawn from a play he penned nearly 25 years ago. Certainly, they don't seem to have read any of his essays.
For years in his essays, Mamet has been elaborating on his distrust of psychiatry (especially as woozily applied in the Method school of acting), his scorn for conventional Hollywood and its anti-ethics, his pleasure in traditional, Hemingwayesque male habits (cigar smoking, hunting, poker playing, manly craftsmanship) -- and any number of other stands supposedly dear to conservatives' hearts and anathema to liberals.
Particularly touching -- when it came to the pundits' wish-fulfillment -- was Daniel Henninger's column in the Wall Street Journal. Henninger sincerely believes that the playwright's public confession is a sign that the current, swelling consensus against many Republican stands on the war, the economy, the health care system, the environment, the bailouts of lending firms but not homeowners and so forth, is starting to break in favor of the right -- however much the right's laissez faire absolutism and anti-tax faith might embody Mamet's feisty libertarianism ("Unless the Democrats figure out a way to back down big brother, the years ahead likely will bring more Mamet drop-outs.")
One thing that can be said about the liberals who have trashed Mamet for his defection: At least they're familiar with what he's written. But as has been plain for years, Mamet, like many thoughtful, forcefully articulate artists, is really an idiosyncratic party of one. A more revealing and longer-term context than any proposed by our hurray-for-my-team, election-year politics is offered by fellow playwright David Edgar who examines the past century's history of ideological side-changes among British and American intellectuals and artists -- from W. H. Auden and Arthur Koestler through Irving Kristol to Christopher Hitchens. book/daddy once read that the popular impression that we all start as starry-eyed young liberals and turn into crotchety old conservatives is inaccurate: Actually, we more often harden in our values, however inconsistent they may be. it seems that is true, but Edgar provides a more nuanced and troubling perspective on what that entails, particularly when it concerns Islam, poverty and both the left and the right's relationship with them:
There is something quite particular about spending the second half of your life taking revenge on the first. Inevitably, however complete the conversion, what defectors think and do now is coloured by what they thought and did before....
The directness and lack of apology in neoconservative polemic is a result of the fact that its authors had discharged the same ordnance in the opposite direction, and knew the likely weight and calibre of the returning fire. Most political defectors leave the left because its authoritarian practices stand in such stark contrast to its emancipatory ideals. For many, however, there is a double paradox: on opening their suitcase at the end of the journey, they find not just that the libertarian ideals they left the left to preserve have gone missing, but that the only thing remaining is the very cynicism and ruthlessness which they left the left to escape.
Critical Mass (National Book Critics Circle blog)
Again With the Comics
Brit Lit Blogs
Buzz, Balls & Hype
The Elegant Variation
Grumpy Old Bookman
The High Hat
The Litblog Co-op
The Literary Saloon
The Phil Nugent Experience
The Quarterly Conversation
Quick Study (Scott McLemee)
Boston Globe Books
Chicago Tribune Books
The Chronicle Review
The Dallas Morning News
The Literary Review/UK
London Review of Books
Times Literary Supplement
San Francisco Chronicle Books
Voice Literary Supplement
Washington Post Book World
AJ BlogsAJBlogCentral | rss
Terry Teachout on the arts in New York City
Andrew Taylor on the business of arts & culture
rock culture approximately
Laura Collins-Hughes on arts, culture and coverage
Richard Kessler on arts education
Douglas McLennan's blog
Dalouge Smith advocates for the Arts
Art from the American Outback
For immediate release: the arts are marketable
No genre is the new genre
David Jays on theatre and dance
Paul Levy measures the Angles
Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture
John Rockwell on the arts
Jan Herman - arts, media & culture with 'tude
Apollinaire Scherr talks about dance
Tobi Tobias on dance et al...
Howard Mandel's freelance Urban Improvisation
Focus on New Orleans. Jazz and Other Sounds
Doug Ramsey on Jazz and other matters...
Jeff Weinstein's Cultural Mixology
Martha Bayles on Film...
Fresh ideas on building arts communities
Greg Sandow performs a book-in-progress
Exploring Orchestras w/ Henry Fogel
Harvey Sachs on music, and various digressions
Bruce Brubaker on all things Piano
Kyle Gann on music after the fact
Greg Sandow on the future of Classical Music
Norman Lebrecht on Shifting Sound Worlds
Jerome Weeks on Books
Scott McLemee on books, ideas & trash-culture ephemera
Wendy Rosenfield: covering drama, onstage and off
Chloe Veltman on how culture will save the world
Public Art, Public Space
Regina Hackett takes her Art To Go
John Perreault's art diary
Lee Rosenbaum's Cultural Commentary
Tyler Green's modern & contemporary art blog