A permanent feature of democracy, always and everywhere,is a tendency to suppress the claims of any kind of superiority, conventional or natural, essentially by denying that there is superiority, particularly with respect to ruling.– Allan Bloom – The Closing of the American Mind
I have recently been engaged in an exchange of emails with two friends – first initiated by me, I have no else to blame – concerning the blockbuster and critically acclaimed Palme D’Or winning movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. I have not seen the movie, but I have read at least a dozen reviews of the film from a cross section of both conservative and liberal publications, which in combination have touched upon every major episode in the movie. I have also discussed many details of the movie with some who have seen it including one of my correspondents.
It seems clear that ever since the November 2000 US election Michael Moore has been burning with a special indignation against the claims of George W. Bush to be the legitimate head of state. His latest movie is the product of that indignation and he has an unbridled hatred for his political rulers. As a friend put it “Moore is the typical aggressive liberal, restless and driven in his search for conservative hate objects of his own colour and culture – when they don’t adequately exist it is necessary for him to invent them.”
I have concluded it is not necessary for me to see the movie to have a valid, intellectually sound opinion with regard to its merits as a political and social commentary. My criticisms of the movie have nothing to do with its technical merits and I offer no commentary on those aspects of the movie. I have no quarrel with Moore the artist, only with Moore the propagandist masquerading as artist.
In defense of my right to have a valid and strongly held negative opinion of the movie and its maker without benefit of having viewed it, I offer these arguments:
• My principal objection to the movie concerns the many factual distortions and inaccuracies presented by Moore in order to score his politically motivated points, which if accepted by viewers would lead them to conclude that George Bush is ignorant (the many clips of his garbled syntax), corrupt (he stole the election from Al Gore, his links to Saudi oil money), incompetent (his 7 minute hiatus during the reading of My Pet Goat) , surrounded by incompetents (Wolfwitz’s spit job on his comb and Tom Ridge’s singing); perhaps even treasonous (the innuendo regarding the Bin-Laden family ties), and morally bankrupt (all of the above and more).
• The most likely result of Moore’s movie is to foster contempt and even hatred for George Bush, and his administration and even toward those like me who think Bush is badly and unfairly maligned for everything from his supposed low intellect to his faith. The agitated anti-Bush reaction of movie goers has been well documented.
• In a free country such as the US, Michael Moore enjoys the privilege of being able to hold and express a personal opinion concerning his President, which if held concerning an ordinary citizen would likely subject him to a libel and slander suit. Those who disagree with Moore need to exercise their same freedoms just as vigourously.
• I am confident that if I did see the movie I would indeed laugh at some of the comedic moments – the above ground bomb shelter, the parachute for people in tall buildings. I just don’t feel the need to spend $12 for the comic relief. I would also be moved by the scenes of death and maiming and the horrors of war. I hate war and have no need to be reminded of the terrible consequences of it in the form of human suffering, whether on the part of the soldiers, the innocent civilians or the anguished mothers and fathers of the victims.
• I am certain I would also feel anger at the skillful and manipulative manner in which Moore presents his argument using factual distortions, unfair innuendo, and outright lies; and I don’t need any anger in my life.
• To ask me to see this film in order to be able to justify my criticism of it as a propaganda piece, is like telling me I need to see a pornographic film in order to have an opinion of how degrading and damaging pornography is to both viewers and participants.
One of my correspondents offers that in Fahrenheit 9/11“Moore takes a set of serious issues and, by adding humor, makes them more accessible to people who do not get their news from the NY Times, 60 Minutes, or Meet the Press.”
Surely this proposition would be more believable if the serious issues were conveyed to the otherwise uninformed in a more even-handed, less mendacious way, thus encouraging them to think for themselves about these “serious issues”. Instead, Moore feeds on the already rampant bias of the popular press and Hollywood against George Bush and his administration, and presents a port-a-pret solution for them – Bush is a fool, a crook and he led his country into a terrible war for his own benefit. This hardly engenders serious discussion about such an important issue as how to respond to a clear and present threat by terrorist fanatics against the United States and its democratic allies, or how to bring to a conclusion an armed conflict that may well have been initiated too precipitously and based on flawed intelligence.
Of course serious issues should be made more accessible to the public, particularly during an election year. Fresh food and medication also should be accessible to all Americans, but if you deliver them open in the back of a filthy garbage truck in 90 degree heat, you should expect to be questioned about the efficacy of your assistance.
Rather than nurture a reflective response to what I concede to be serious issues, Moore’s approach sows the seeds of further ignorance and prejudice. Moore’s movies and his books are even more highly subscribed to in Europe than in the US. Studies are showing that the opinions of many European’s toward the United States are being shaped by Moore’s propaganda. Surely this is hardly a laughing matter.
My correspondent may be right. The dumbing-down of America may have made humour and satire the only means by which to get the attention of large numbers of Americans and Moore is tapping into his knowledge of current culture for serious purposes. I am less than sanguine about that proposition since Moore does not appear to offer any alternative solutions to the serious issues, which raises doubt as to his credibility as a satirist. He must not be a pacifist since he endorsed General Clark in his attempt to gain the Democratic nomination, and he criticizes the Bush administration for not sending enough troops into Afghanistan.
So I am left convinced that Moore is no more than a propagandist and a dangerous one because he hides behind his artistic licence to avoid criticism and he seeks to have his propaganda affect the outcome of a national election. This appears to me to be not unlike Albert Speer arguing he was merely exercising his architectural talents when he designed the elaborate settings for the Nuremberg rallies.
If those of us who are in the unpopular position of being voices of conservative reason remain silent – the product of the commercial and artistic success of Fahrenheit 9/11will not be reasoned debate but rather a miasma of ignorance, hatred, and prejudice.
And finally, in response to the comment from my correspondents that the vehemence of my opposition to what I call the Mooreing of America is disproportionate to the offence – after all no one will die as a result of Moore’s mendacity - I can only remind my readers of the slippery slope of accommodation and appeasement on the part of our intellectual elites beginning in the 1960’s with their capitulation to the anarchist incited student movements. Operating under the cover of legitimate protests against an unpopular war the anarchists succeeded in opening a fault line in much of the academic integrity of US and subsequently Canadian universities. Thus began the slide into the bondage of moral nihilism which is our present reality in Canada as well as the US. (Read Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind if you won’t take my word for it.)
Moore seems to me to be a new incarnation of the 60’s campus radical and I for one would rather stand up, resist him and tear down his Potemkin village of political propaganda posing as art, than stand idly by.
I have recently been engaged in an exchange of emails with two friends – first initiated by me, I have no else to blame – concerning the blockbuster and critically acclaimed Palme D’Or winning movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. I have not seen the movie, but I have read at least a dozen reviews of the film from a cross section of both conservative and liberal publications, which in combination have touched upon every major episode in the movie. I have also discussed many details of the movie with some who have seen it including one of my correspondents.
It seems clear that ever since the November 2000 US election Michael Moore has been burning with a special indignation against the claims of George W. Bush to be the legitimate head of state. His latest movie is the product of that indignation and he has an unbridled hatred for his political rulers. As a friend put it “Moore is the typical aggressive liberal, restless and driven in his search for conservative hate objects of his own colour and culture – when they don’t adequately exist it is necessary for him to invent them.”
I have concluded it is not necessary for me to see the movie to have a valid, intellectually sound opinion with regard to its merits as a political and social commentary. My criticisms of the movie have nothing to do with its technical merits and I offer no commentary on those aspects of the movie. I have no quarrel with Moore the artist, only with Moore the propagandist masquerading as artist.
In defense of my right to have a valid and strongly held negative opinion of the movie and its maker without benefit of having viewed it, I offer these arguments:
• My principal objection to the movie concerns the many factual distortions and inaccuracies presented by Moore in order to score his politically motivated points, which if accepted by viewers would lead them to conclude that George Bush is ignorant (the many clips of his garbled syntax), corrupt (he stole the election from Al Gore, his links to Saudi oil money), incompetent (his 7 minute hiatus during the reading of My Pet Goat) , surrounded by incompetents (Wolfwitz’s spit job on his comb and Tom Ridge’s singing); perhaps even treasonous (the innuendo regarding the Bin-Laden family ties), and morally bankrupt (all of the above and more).
• The most likely result of Moore’s movie is to foster contempt and even hatred for George Bush, and his administration and even toward those like me who think Bush is badly and unfairly maligned for everything from his supposed low intellect to his faith. The agitated anti-Bush reaction of movie goers has been well documented.
• In a free country such as the US, Michael Moore enjoys the privilege of being able to hold and express a personal opinion concerning his President, which if held concerning an ordinary citizen would likely subject him to a libel and slander suit. Those who disagree with Moore need to exercise their same freedoms just as vigourously.
• I am confident that if I did see the movie I would indeed laugh at some of the comedic moments – the above ground bomb shelter, the parachute for people in tall buildings. I just don’t feel the need to spend $12 for the comic relief. I would also be moved by the scenes of death and maiming and the horrors of war. I hate war and have no need to be reminded of the terrible consequences of it in the form of human suffering, whether on the part of the soldiers, the innocent civilians or the anguished mothers and fathers of the victims.
• I am certain I would also feel anger at the skillful and manipulative manner in which Moore presents his argument using factual distortions, unfair innuendo, and outright lies; and I don’t need any anger in my life.
• To ask me to see this film in order to be able to justify my criticism of it as a propaganda piece, is like telling me I need to see a pornographic film in order to have an opinion of how degrading and damaging pornography is to both viewers and participants.
One of my correspondents offers that in Fahrenheit 9/11“Moore takes a set of serious issues and, by adding humor, makes them more accessible to people who do not get their news from the NY Times, 60 Minutes, or Meet the Press.”
Surely this proposition would be more believable if the serious issues were conveyed to the otherwise uninformed in a more even-handed, less mendacious way, thus encouraging them to think for themselves about these “serious issues”. Instead, Moore feeds on the already rampant bias of the popular press and Hollywood against George Bush and his administration, and presents a port-a-pret solution for them – Bush is a fool, a crook and he led his country into a terrible war for his own benefit. This hardly engenders serious discussion about such an important issue as how to respond to a clear and present threat by terrorist fanatics against the United States and its democratic allies, or how to bring to a conclusion an armed conflict that may well have been initiated too precipitously and based on flawed intelligence.
Of course serious issues should be made more accessible to the public, particularly during an election year. Fresh food and medication also should be accessible to all Americans, but if you deliver them open in the back of a filthy garbage truck in 90 degree heat, you should expect to be questioned about the efficacy of your assistance.
Rather than nurture a reflective response to what I concede to be serious issues, Moore’s approach sows the seeds of further ignorance and prejudice. Moore’s movies and his books are even more highly subscribed to in Europe than in the US. Studies are showing that the opinions of many European’s toward the United States are being shaped by Moore’s propaganda. Surely this is hardly a laughing matter.
My correspondent may be right. The dumbing-down of America may have made humour and satire the only means by which to get the attention of large numbers of Americans and Moore is tapping into his knowledge of current culture for serious purposes. I am less than sanguine about that proposition since Moore does not appear to offer any alternative solutions to the serious issues, which raises doubt as to his credibility as a satirist. He must not be a pacifist since he endorsed General Clark in his attempt to gain the Democratic nomination, and he criticizes the Bush administration for not sending enough troops into Afghanistan.
So I am left convinced that Moore is no more than a propagandist and a dangerous one because he hides behind his artistic licence to avoid criticism and he seeks to have his propaganda affect the outcome of a national election. This appears to me to be not unlike Albert Speer arguing he was merely exercising his architectural talents when he designed the elaborate settings for the Nuremberg rallies.
If those of us who are in the unpopular position of being voices of conservative reason remain silent – the product of the commercial and artistic success of Fahrenheit 9/11will not be reasoned debate but rather a miasma of ignorance, hatred, and prejudice.
And finally, in response to the comment from my correspondents that the vehemence of my opposition to what I call the Mooreing of America is disproportionate to the offence – after all no one will die as a result of Moore’s mendacity - I can only remind my readers of the slippery slope of accommodation and appeasement on the part of our intellectual elites beginning in the 1960’s with their capitulation to the anarchist incited student movements. Operating under the cover of legitimate protests against an unpopular war the anarchists succeeded in opening a fault line in much of the academic integrity of US and subsequently Canadian universities. Thus began the slide into the bondage of moral nihilism which is our present reality in Canada as well as the US. (Read Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind if you won’t take my word for it.)
Moore seems to me to be a new incarnation of the 60’s campus radical and I for one would rather stand up, resist him and tear down his Potemkin village of political propaganda posing as art, than stand idly by.
posted by Ben Buan | 6:50 p.m.
<< Home