Michael Moore, Hero or Rogue

Republican

Do you mean "True Believer"?

Thomas
So that is what Bush is a true believer.

Oh, absolutely!

IMO anyone with those tendencies belongs in the "Crazy" House not the "White"House.

The question of whether the film must be seen in order to have an opinion about it seems a minor point. Whether Moore's an idiot or not seems to be the question. He's no more an idiot than is Coulter or Limbaugh. All three debate issues from their subjective perspective. Al Franken is another. We all know who they are. It's seems misguided to designate any one of these folks as an idiot. Some of them research their facts better than others. Moore is accurate on his facts. He has of course presented them with a flare and from his point of view. But that's all a fair part of the game. It seems to me we should evaluate the degree to which any of these polemicists research their facts and get them right or not. Judging a person's intelligence based on whether you agree with them or not is pure rhetoric. And I think LW was correct to call rufio's hand on it. Good for you LW.

And yes, Bush is a true believer. It's not whether a person is a true believer, but rather what they truly believe that, again, is the point. Bush's form of fundamentalism is as rigid and unquestioned, as blindly defensive and pathological as any religious fundamentalist's. And it's just as dangerous.

I don't know if it's "the" question, but it is the question au1929 asked in the title of his thread. That makes it fair game to express an opinion on Moore without having seen his latest movie -- provided you have other adequate sources of information


Agreed. If you're holding Moore to a standard as low as Anne Caulter or Rush Limbaugh, he doesn't look too bad. But my impression is that most defenders of Moore don't merely claim that he is better than these two. They seem to be claiming that Moore is to be taken seriously in the political debate. But this is a standard Moore fails to meet. No, he probably doesn't make up things -- but if you shoot 100 hours worth of footage and than cut out the 98 hours that don't fit your message, this is just as effective propaganda as making things up directly. Moore himself makes this point in the "South Central LA" scene of "Bowling for Columbine". (More precisely, he lets the author of 'Culture of Fear' make the point for him.)


Judging by the rest of this thread, I get the impression that LW is calling everybody's hand on it who denies that Moore is the greatest. Would you say he's correct about the others too?


Finally, a point on which we agree.


I disagree. In my opinion, the true believers in the environmental movement who endorsed crank books like "Limits to Growth", or the true believer in the anti-globalization crowd, are just as dangerous as True Believer Republicans. I'd hate to see a president Nader about as much as I hate to see a president Bush.


I agree. And so are Noam Chomsky's, Naomi Klein's, and Ralph Naders, none of whom have ever changed their opinion in response to facts.

thomas said


What political debate do you refer to, Thomas? The 'proper' one which might be played out in journals of economic theory or foreign affairs matters? Perhaps in the newsletters and emails punched out daily by Bill Kristol and sent to republican politicos and agents advising on the precise wording (garnered through surveys and focus groups) to use when talking about Bush or Moore? Perhaps the debates one might hear in a thousand evangelical church basements this week on how best to fund and determine legislation and political action so as to overturn Roe v Wade and outlaw gay marriage and make the US a really Christian nation without causing a big ruckus or losing tax exempt status? Or perhaps a discussion between Grover Norquist and Tom Delay on how to defund the left so as to gain permanent control of both house and the presidency or on how to bankrupt the government so that it can no longer afford any programs that their ideology deems unAmerican (which is pretty much everything except those important government activities which produce a paycheck for them)?

You suggest that coulter and Limbaugh ought not to be taken seriously in the political debate. You are way too late...they already are, and by millions. How do you suggest this ought to be countered? On a number of previous occasions, you have said that you are hoping that the 'grownups' in the Republican party will regain influence. I'm afraid your hope is rather romantic. Those folks have been purposefully stripped of power, incrementally and purposefuly, over the last two decades by a cadre of very bright, and very extreme, generation of ideologues. If Bush wins another term, and if the houses remain under their control, they will go very much further than what we've seen so far. Roe v Wade will be gone and court appointments will follow the pattern we are seeing now, including the SC if they can manage it. Social programs will be increasingly defunded, privacy protections will be eviscerated, the gap between the wealthy and the not wealthy will continue to grow, military adventures will likely blossom, and international agreements (indeed, any sense of America being a member of some community larger than itself) will continue the present trend. Ought I to mention renewed nuke testing? There's a fun one right around the corner.

I'm out of town and have no access to a computer for a while (in town today on business).

Received this bit of satire in today's E-Mail

Floyd Hake, Dairy Farmer, Reviews 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

France, 1944 and His Brother's Memory Still a Bitter Pill
Hake's the name. Floyd Hake. Folks say I'm the last dairy farmer in these parts. Maybe so, maybe not. Mostly do-gooders say that.

Went to see that "Fahrenheit" movie. Strange name. Wasn't about temperature at all. Twas all about this fat boy wanderin' around talkin' to people. He's a bit on the obnoxious side, though not as bad as some of them real estate swindlers comin' around wantin' to turn this here farm into houses.

I would say this. If you're gonna grow a beard, then grow a beard. Grow it out. Trim it up. Keep it neat. Otherwise, get a shave every day. Don't go around lookin' like a bum. Big ol' fat bum in a baseball hat. Wear a proper hat. Me, I shave every day. Started at 15 and never missed a day. Reckon I've shaved more than 25,000 times.

Neighbors took me to see the fat boy's movie. They're weekenders, from New York City. Real nice folks. She's a do-gooder. A professional do-gooder, if you can imagine that. She just insisted I had to go. One of the most important movies ever made. Wouldn't let me pay for my ticket.

I'll say this about that movie. That there ticket cost $10. Can you believe that? Back before the Second World War, my little brother Eddie and me paid a nickel to go to the movies. Wish the price of milk had gone up like that. How do they get away with chargin' that much for a movie?

The fat boy should lose some weight. In my opinion. Get some exercise. Throw some hay bales. Lug some milk cans. Shovel manure. It's a shame to let yourself go like that.

There was a woman in the movie - on the screen, not in the audience - who just cried and cried because her son was killed over in Iraq. Right there on the sidewalk in front of the Capitol in Washington. Crying her eyes out.

I started to cry, too. Had to choke it back and cut it off. Folks get upset if they see an 85-year-old man cryin'. Makes 'em real uncomfortable. Couldn't help it. Reminded me of Eddie.

I was a grown man when the telegram come about Eddie. Must've been about 1944. After we got Mamma settled down that day and she finally fell asleep, I climbed up in the hayloft. Went way in the back and just sobbed. Eddie and me was real close. It's been 60 some years now since Eddie run his Jeep into that ditch over in France. I can still see him, still hear his voice like he's standin' here beside me. Soldierin' is right dangerous work.

That poor woman. She'll cry in her heart every day the rest of her life.

Seems to me that every time we get into a war, they tell us there's plenty of good reasons for it. It's only later, after everybody's been killed, that we figure out whether or not the reasons were good ones. The Second World War was plumb necessary, I think. Ever one since then, not so sure. I ain't smart enough to have the answer.

Now, the fat boy, he thinks he's got the answer. And the other guys, the ones the fat boy's after, they've got the answer, too. The rest of us, seems to me, we're sorta stuck. What can you do about it? Nobody listens to us little people.

I'll say this. I just can't get over that it costs $10 to go to the movies.

I think here's one of our fundamental disagreements, blatham. You somehow seem to suggest that a polemic zealot on the left and a polemic zealot on the right cancel each other out, justifying Mr.Moore's follies on account of balance, if not on account of substance. And that's a logical stand to take when you think the relevant distinction is between the right and the left.

Well, I disagree with your distinction. In my opinion, the relevant distinction is the grown-ups versus the true believers, whatever side they may be on. Given that opinion, I see reasonable people like Gregory Mankiw, John McCain, and Paul Krugman as a collective "us", and I see well-meaning cranks like Michael Moore, Ralf Nader, and Grover Norquist as part of a collective "them". I currently donate substantial amounts of money to the Kerry campaign. But if the race was John McCain against Kucinic, I would support Mr. McCain just as decisively as I now support Kerry. I support Kerry because he seems like a grown-up to me, not because he's a Democrat.

To phrase it differently, when Moore scores a success after Grover Norquist, the score goes from 0:1 to 0:2 against my team, which is why I consider Moore a bad thing on balance. From your point of view, Moore's success turns a 0:1 against your team into a 1:1 par, which is why you consider Moore a good thing on balance.

I think that's the essence of our disagreement.

Moore is on a distinctively higher plane than either Limbaugh or Coulter because he can make artistically effective movies. They would have no idea of how to do anything other than rant in print, on radio or TV. None of Moore's interviews stoop to this level and, if fact, I was astonished at his self-deprecating and unpretentious manner. Limbaugh and Coulter have the corner of the market for pretentious, vitriolic rhetoric. It's simply not true that anyone can judge this film by anything Moore has done before. Nobody here is convincing enough to change my opinion of the film even though Moore's populist and polemic techniques may rub me the wrong way in some instances. I get the total message -- Bush has done enough damage and should not be rewarded with a second term. If he is, it will be four years riddled with scandal.

If logic alone were the only force motivating human beings, Thomas, I would agree with you. But thank the Devil himself we are more than thinking and good manners. The human brain governs both thoughts and emotions, thus the power of advertising and all other forms of influence.......including your own arguments.

The world would be a truly dull place if we had only being "grown up" to help us make decisions..... I agree with you that a level head, fair play and good intentions are necessary assets for any world leader, advertiser or movie maker. But as LW says, the ability to make a good, persuasive and factually correct movie that will effectively influence the voters to dispose of Bush and his ilk is a far better asset than the pig headed and monotonous rantings of either Coulter or Limbaugh.

I also agree LW, that F9/11 is the best movie Moore has ever made and a better movie than almost any fundamentalist I've ever met could make if their party or their life depended on it. The cornerstone of fundamentalist belief is concrete thinking........and this and creativity are mutually exclusive.

I must say, Thomas that I would vote for McCain over Kucinic as well. Not that Kucinic's ideas are bad or outrageous, but rather because I believe change has to take place at a rate the people can emotionally and intellectually bear and I think McCain has a better handle on this apparent truth than do most far left wing candidates.

Nadar.........as far as I'm concerned, would have done well to have passed after his good work on consumer advocacy, etc and before he turned the loser George Bush into the President of the US. I haven't a good thing to say for Nadar's behavior in the last 4 or 5 years. I agree, he's as pathological a fundamentalist as is Bush, Bin Laden or Jerry Falwell.

Actually, Thomas, I agree with most of what you've said about being a grown up. But I disagree that this is all that's required. A grown up leader must also have superior creative and influential abilities in order to be effective......and influencing others to behave in such a way as to improve the lives of us all is the only legitimate purpose for any of us. More power to Michael Moore for his efforts in this regard and he gets high marks from me for doing it very well.

BTW, did anyone see the statistics on CNN about people who have seen or plan to see F9/11? It was absolutely remarkable! I'll look to see if I can find them. But off the top of my head, only 7% of American voters have seen the movie so far. But another large percentage plans to see it before it leaves theaters and even more plan to see it when it comes out on video around the Republican Convention time.......hurray for excellent timing, I'll say too. Even more than this, 45% of those identifying themselves a Republicans have seen or plan to see the movie.
And a large percentage of those saying they were planning to vote for Bush will do the same. This tickles me pink! Oh dear........I'm turning all rosy.

hear, hear Thomas!

Exactly.

Spoke my heart with that last post.

Gee Whiz.........you Europeans are so keen on rationality. Where's the heart in all this?

Rational and heart aren't mutually exclusive unless "heart" is used as a euphemism for "irrational".

Lola, As if all of their politics is grown up! LOL

Of course it's not all grown up over here. In fact, one reason I consider staying in the United States once I get there is because American politicians have a lot less influence on their society than European politicians have on theirs. That said, I would invite any interested participant to surf to www.cspan.org, check out Tony Blair's reaction to the Hutton report on WMDs, watch the debate in the House of Commons, and contrast this with the American president's reaction.

Perhaps this will cause the Americans here to reconsider the merits of grown-up-ness in politics.

I am extremely passionate about my exasperation with silly, overboard and downright deceptive populism and rhetorics, as you may have noticed. I am just not as selective in my passion as you would like, seeing how I get annoyed when leftists do it too.

Perhaps thats a result of our multi-party-system (to cite another of my hobbyhorses): I'm used to arguing my "current's" point of view both with right-wing and with left-wing opponents. And per subject the alliances of who agrees with whom and who is to my mind the most annoying differs. I've been very passionate about the Yugoslav war, and found the most shortsighted and irrational opponents to be those of the right-wing VVD - and those of the far-left Socialists. Thats got nothing to do with being centrist - and everything to do with what Thomas describes as just who you consider your opponents to be - right-wingers or reckless (OK: stupid) populists from both sides? To my mind, its both ... <shrugs>

Thomas' quote, " In fact, one reason I consider staying in the United States once I get there is because American politicians have a lot less influence on their society than European politicians have on theirs." This statement raises a couple of questions - for me anyways. 1) Is politics the only reason you're considering the move to the US? 2) Have you been approved for immigration to the US? And 3) When and where will you be moving?

1) No -- I've just been loving the country ever since I stayed in California as a child for a year and a half. Politics enters the picture only insofar as American politicians have less power to mess up the country than they do in Germany. But the good things America has going for it aren't the work of its politicians, so politics isn't the major factor. I may start an extra thread about just what these good things are in my opinon, but not now. It's past 11pm here in Germany.

2) Yes. I received my Green Card in late February. Otherwise it wouldn't be legal for me to donate to the Kerry campaign.

3) I originally planned to move in autumn/winter 2004. But the IT industry I'm working in still has a lot of slack to pick up, so it's hard to get a job that's at least as good as my current one. This means I'm probably moving in the first half of 2005, after the economy has picked up a little more. I haven't yet decided where to go, but given my background, the likeliest candidates are the Bay Area and Greater Boston. Less likely choices would include Raleigh NC, Dallas TX, Princeton NJ, and Boulder CO. The Bay Area is my favorite for sentimental reasons, but I'm trying to keep an open mind about other places.