Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Moore is beyond contradictory

Expand Messages
  • Lee Hall
    Nick Fredman wrote: Moore himself is contradictory. I d classify him as a radical liberal with a fairly strong working class orientation. ..I
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 22, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Nick Fredman <sra@...> wrote:

      "Moore himself is contradictory. I'd classify him as a radical liberal
      with a fairly strong working class orientation. ..I cover some of his
      contradictions in my Green Left review
      of "Dude, Where's My Country?"
      http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/561/561p21.htm"

      Nick, your review makes both of the following points:

      1. The ..."anyone but Bush" line advocated by Moore...fails to recognise
      that the willingness and ability of working people to struggle for their
      rights is the key limitation on any capitalist administration.... he
      supports what must be classed as a barely lesser-evil: General Wesley Clark,
      a Democrat who, although he bombed civilians in Serbia and Kosova as NATO
      commander in the 1990s, has, according to Moore, some progressive ideas...

      2. Despite his limitations, he comes down on our side more often than
      virtually anyone else with a perch in the corporate media. Moore's work is
      entertaining, accessible and has influenced millions - not bad achievements
      for the left to aspire to.

      I cannot see how you reconcile these two points, and don't understand why
      you try. I agree with the subscribers who have called out for the
      unequivocal recognition of such hypocrisy as we hear from Moore's forked
      tongue. It seems that Moore has accepted the dreary role of the safety
      valve that always seems to be available to the corporate elite when
      apologists for the status quo could face the most serious crises of
      credibility over their claims to support "democracy". Is this a model to
      which we ought to aspire?

      Lee Hall.
    • ozleft
      ... understand why you try. I agree with the subscribers who have called out for the unequivocal recognition of such hypocrisy as we hear from Moore s forked
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 22, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Lee Hall wrote:

        >>I cannot see how you reconcile these two points, and don't
        understand why you try. I agree with the subscribers who have called
        out for the unequivocal recognition of such hypocrisy as we hear from
        Moore's forked tongue. It seems that Moore has accepted the dreary
        role of the safety valve that always seems to be available to the
        corporate elite when apologists for the status quo could face the
        most serious crises of credibility over their claims to
        support "democracy". Is this a model to which we ought to aspire?>>

        I guess it depends whether you're interested in religion or politics:
        in other words has Moore committed original sin by making a wrong
        call on the US elections?

        As far as I'm concerned, I agree with Moore when he gets stuck into
        the US gun culture (Bowling for Columbine), I think Stupid White Men
        is pretty good, and Dude Where's My Country is mostly okay, and
        Moore's decision to back Clarke doesn't change any of that, although
        it's disappointing.

        Is Michael Moore a model? No, but who's looking for models, and why?

        Ed Lewis
      • john steppling
        Let me add regards Moore......i agree with Ed; of course Moore is confused and probably a hypocrite.....but he has his uses.....and he reaches people.......and
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 22, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Let me add regards Moore......i agree with Ed; of course Moore is confused and probably a hypocrite.....but he has his uses.....and he reaches people.......and the Columbine film at least allowed for an entry point to discuss poverty and imperialism and the destruction wrought by american foreign policy.
          He's not a real socialist......he's a confused left leaning liberal......but one works with what tools one has.......so while I find his support of a war criminal like Clark to be hugely dissapointing.......I am also not surprised. A safety valve? yeah, that analysis is about right......but that doesnt mean he should dismissed out of hand.
          I live in Poland and when Columbine opened here I sent a lot of students (Poles) to see it......and then we began discussing stuff that otherwise they would have never listened to at all......because most media here is hyper-right wing and in support of neo liberalism and the Empire......so Moore was useful.......and for that I am grateful.

          ozleft <ozleft@...> wrote:
          Lee Hall wrote:

          >>I cannot see how you reconcile these two points, and don't
          understand why you try. I agree with the subscribers who have called
          out for the unequivocal recognition of such hypocrisy as we hear from
          Moore's forked tongue. It seems that Moore has accepted the dreary
          role of the safety valve that always seems to be available to the
          corporate elite when apologists for the status quo could face the
          most serious crises of credibility over their claims to
          support "democracy". Is this a model to which we ought to aspire?>>

          I guess it depends whether you're interested in religion or politics:
          in other words has Moore committed original sin by making a wrong
          call on the US elections?

          As far as I'm concerned, I agree with Moore when he gets stuck into
          the US gun culture (Bowling for Columbine), I think Stupid White Men
          is pretty good, and Dude Where's My Country is mostly okay, and
          Moore's decision to back Clarke doesn't change any of that, although
          it's disappointing.

          Is Michael Moore a model? No, but who's looking for models, and why?

          Ed Lewis




          Visit http://www.greenleft.org.au




          Yahoo! Groups Links


          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

        • Simon Butler
          Here s another article on Mike Moore s politics from Resistance Mag #2. DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT By Katie Cherrington
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 22, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Here's another article on Mike Moore's politics from Resistance Mag #2.

            DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT
            By Katie Cherrington
            <www.resistance.org.au/res_mag/issue2/res2-mikemoore.shtm>

            Issue 3 of Resistance Mag is out now (and soon will be on the web). It has a
            more recent review/commentary piece on Michael Moore as well.

            cheers
            simon b

            _________________________________________________________________
            Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
            http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
          • stuartmunckton
            I think Nick F summed up the situation with Michael Moore best. It is important, I think, to recongise that his support for Wesley Clarke is a political
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 24, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I think Nick F summed up the situation with Michael Moore best.

              It is important, I think, to recongise that his support for Wesley
              Clarke is a political retreat from someone who was one of the highest
              profile backers of Ralhp Nader and has spoken out in the past about
              the need for an alterative to the two pro-corporate parties.

              We shouldn't let Moore off the hook over this - Clarke is a mass
              murdering war criminal. But we should also put it in perspective - it
              is NOT JUST MICHAEL MOORE.

              I think it is a bit silly to try and tie his political retreat in
              this issue to the fact he is now a multi-millionaire, that is a very
              crude economic argument that doesn't not really hold up. Moore has
              not actually dropped any of his support for reforms or other crimes
              of the capitalist system, unless some one can show what he has
              stopped supporting. He has retreated in his method of struggle -
              accepting the less evil arguments that he used to challenge. This is
              a product of his contradictions as a liberal.

              Moore is not alone in this 'Anyone But Bush' push. My understanding
              is that there are a lot of people in the anti-war movement and
              radical mileus more generally in the US who have also fallen for the
              same line, and they haven't all become mulit-millionaires all of a
              sudden. Michale Albert, Normom Soloman, and I had heard also Noam
              Chomsky, but I'd want that confirmed, had all taken an 'Anyone But
              Bush' line. What they share with Moore is not a similar bank balance
              but liberal contradictions.


              Stuart


              -- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Butler"
              <simongb@h...> wrote:
              > Here's another article on Mike Moore's politics from Resistance Mag
              #2.
              >
              > DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT
              > By Katie Cherrington
              > <www.resistance.org.au/res_mag/issue2/res2-mikemoore.shtm>
              >
              > Issue 3 of Resistance Mag is out now (and soon will be on the web).
              It has a
              > more recent review/commentary piece on Michael Moore as well.
              >
              > cheers
              > simon b
              >
              > _________________________________________________________________
              > Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
              > http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
            • john steppling
              Chomsky has said twice he feels getting rid of the neo-con extremists in the white house is important........but as an American (living abroad) I do understand
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 24, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Chomsky has said twice he feels getting rid of the neo-con extremists in the white house is important........but as an American (living abroad) I do understand the tendency.......if only on domestic issues where Ashcroft is the most extreme fanatic to ever hold office in the United States.....and the architect of the Patriot Act and other attacks on civil liberties.......not to mention the radically racist police state legislation now being pushed through........so for domestic issues there is at least an argument to be made.......albeit a somewhat specious one.
                Also, judicial appointments matter in a small way domestically.......and more Scalias is not something to look foward to......but again, I wont vote democratic.....but I sympathize for once with the argument.

                I think Nick F summed up the situation with Michael Moore best.

                It is important, I think, to recongise that his support for Wesley
                Clarke is a political retreat from someone who was one of the highest
                profile backers of Ralhp Nader and has spoken out in the past about
                the need for an alterative to the two pro-corporate parties.

                We shouldn't let Moore off the hook over this - Clarke is a mass
                murdering war criminal. But we should also put it in perspective - it
                is NOT JUST MICHAEL MOORE.

                I think it is a bit silly to try and tie his political retreat in
                this issue to the fact he is now a multi-millionaire, that is a very
                crude economic argument that doesn't not really hold up. Moore has
                not actually dropped any of his support for reforms or other crimes
                of the capitalist system, unless some one can show what he has
                stopped supporting. He has retreated in his method of struggle -
                accepting the less evil arguments that he used to challenge. This is
                a product of his contradictions as a liberal.

                Moore is not alone in this 'Anyone But Bush' push. My understanding
                is that there are a lot of people in the anti-war movement and
                radical mileus more generally in the US who have also fallen for the
                same line, and they haven't all become mulit-millionaires all of a
                sudden. Michale Albert, Normom Soloman, and I had heard also Noam
                Chomsky, but I'd want that confirmed, had all taken an 'Anyone But
                Bush' line. What they share with Moore is not a similar bank balance
                but liberal contradictions.


                Stuart


                -- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Butler"
                <simongb@h...> wrote:
                > Here's another article on Mike Moore's politics from Resistance Mag
                #2.
                >
                > DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT
                > By Katie Cherrington
                > <www.resistance.org.au/res_mag/issue2/res2-mikemoore.shtm>
                >
                > Issue 3 of Resistance Mag is out now (and soon will be on the web).
                It has a
                > more recent review/commentary piece on Michael Moore as well.
                >
                > cheers
                > simon b
                >
                > _________________________________________________________________
                > Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to 
                > http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp



                Visit http://www.greenleft.org.au



                Yahoo! Groups Links


                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

              • Connexions
                ... As an american not living abroad I regard the dictatorship as the only issue and I am not so much concerned about civil liberties as constitutional
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 25, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  :
                  >Chomsky has said twice he feels getting rid of the neo-con extremists in
                  >the white house is important........but as an American (living abroad) I
                  >do understand the tendency.......if only on domestic issues where Ashcroft
                  >is the most extreme fanatic to ever hold office in the United
                  >States.....and the architect of the Patriot Act and other attacks on civil
                  >liberties.......not to mention the radically racist police state
                  >legislation now being pushed through........so for domestic issues there
                  >is at least an argument to be made.......albeit a somewhat specious one.
                  >Also, judicial appointments matter in a small way domestically.......and
                  >more Scalias is not something to look foward to......but again, I wont
                  >vote democratic.....but I sympathize for once with the argument.
                  As an american not living abroad I regard the dictatorship as the only
                  issue and I am not so much concerned about civil liberties as
                  constitutional liberties. That the alternative to this mad dog on the
                  throne will be a lap dog is lamentable but those who can't tell the
                  difference lack a survival instinct.
                  CJ
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.