MICHAEL MOORE--THE LIMBAUGH OF THE LEFT?

Ellen Goodman writes an op-ed piece in the WashPost today saying that the left doesn't need an equivalent to Rush Limbaugh. Her proposition is that Liberals will agree with much of what Michael Moore says in Fahrenheit 9/11, but there is much more that is over-the-top and too conspiratorial. I have not seen F9/11, but I do know from past Moore films that I generally find his arguments too overwrought, too polarized, and too radical to do a lot of good. Moore often uses images as suggestion and innuendo without expressly stating a particular opinion. Often, to me, it is these images and the way he throws them together that cause his arguments to sound contrived. What I hear about F9/11 is that he has tried to put TOO MANY arguments on the screen; he sees conspiracy at every turn. It is just this type of propaganda that the right-wing has seized upon to paint Kerry and the Dems as "wild-eyed."

I am glad that Michael Moore made this movie, and I am glad that it is being seen by so many people. With that said, it also demonstrates to me that this type of discourse further polarizes America. That is what Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage do to the country from the right. The liberal counter to right-wing tripe should not be tripe of our own, but reasoned arguments with evidence and quotations to back up the arguments. That is why I like the new web organizations like Media Matters for America and the Center for American Progress. They present a reasoned reply to the right-wing media machine.

From the Goodman column:

More to the point -- or Moore to the point -- I agreed with the filmmaker that Bush didn't exactly win the 2000 election, that we were misled into Iraq and that the White House has used the terrorism alerts as a political toy.
[...]
But at some point, I also began to feel just a touch out of harmony. Not even this [member of the choir] believes that the Iraq war was brought to us courtesy of the Bush-Saudi oil-money connection. Not even the rosiest pair of my retro-spectacles sees prewar Iraq as a happy valley where little children flew kites.

There were a few too many cheap shots among the direct hits, conspiracy theories among the solid facts, and tidbits of propaganda in the documentary. Going for the jugular, he sometimes went over the top.
[...]
Moore described his movie as an "op-ed piece," not a documentary. Well, I know something about op-ed pieces. Over the long run, you don't get anywhere just whacking your audience upside the head; you try to change the mind within it. You don't just go for the gut. You try, gulp, reason.

I actually agree with P.J. O'Rourke, a conservative who writes in the Atlantic that he tunes out Rush because there's no room for measured debate: "Arguing, in the sense of attempting to convince others, has gone out of fashion with conservatives." But now liberals are trudging purposefully down the same low road.

So my final thoughts on F9/11 are to go see the movie, but to do so with an open mind. Don't believe everything you see or hear without first doing some checking. {There is evidence that the Bush family and the Saud family have a close personal and economic relationship; but, does that mean we went to Iraq for oil? Not in and of itself. There is evidence that Hamid Karzai worked (or works) for Unocal; does that mean that we went to Afghanistan because of the pipeline? Certainly not! A reading of Richard Clarke's book will show that Afghanistan was a first priority as far back as 1998 when it came to dealing with bin Laden.} Enjoy the movie for what it is...a humorous look at GWBush, and a serious look at an emotionally scarred mother, but do not buy into all the conspiracy!