Michael Moore: Agent of the Right (Wing)

The problem with Michael Moore, is that he tries to pass himself off as Liberal. This is unfortunate, because if he truly was one, he’d either shut his mouth, or take some more time to explain his reasoning.

For the few that don’t know, Michael Moore is one of the most famous documentary filmmakers in the world. Starting with his big hit Roger & Me, Moore went on to gain international attention with his award winning documentary Bowling for Columbine, where he looked at American culture’s obsession with guns. With the momentum from this film, he went on to create the controversial films Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko. So with a résumé like that how could he possibly fail at helping a liberal agenda?

Michael Moore once claimed that he was able to make films because “the greed of the higher ups was so large, that they didn’t care what was being sold, as long as it made a profit.”* I disagree with Moore’s statement. The reason that he is able to make these movies, is because his documentaries are done using right wing tactics, so it’s easy for the right wing to disprove his arguments.

Instead of giving you full facts thanks to well researched efforts and a provocative presentation on it, Moore just wants to amuse you, spending his time ambushing unprepared candidates, giving conservatives hard hitting questions, while allowing liberals an easy interview. He adds upbeat music to keep you entertained, while he patronizes the audience with his deep friendly voice, making the matters at hand seem much simpler than they really are. And while he does this to bring attention to important subjects, he rarely allows for a reasonable counterpoint to be shown in his movies, making his arguments seem easy to disprove.

In Sicko, Moore likes to look at the world as a bipolar place; everything that America does is messed up, everything Canada does is utopian. While it’s true that the UN has recognized that Canada’s health care system is superior to America’s, and that America’s hospital system is one of the harshest in the industrialized nations, it is also true that Canada’s systems still have major problems that should be mentioned.

Canada has a doctor shortage, doesn’t cover experimental healthcare, has huge waiting times, and a ton of other inconveniences that aren’t as prominent in America. And while it is true that almost no Canadians would want to trade their heath card for an American’s, the flaws in our system should also be brought up along with the strengths in it, so that American’s can make a more informed decision about making changes to their hospitals.

Another reason that withholding the flaws in other countries’ systems is problematic for people who want change, is because it makes it easier for the opposition to go against him. With Obama’s campaign to renovate health care, I’ve lost track of how many opponents point out the flaws of the Canadian system and cite those as proof of its inferiority. I’ve also lost track of how the average (non-expert) proponent for change seems to mainly use the information in Moore’s movie Sicko to back their positions up.

The sad truth is that Michael Moore targets the people who wouldn’t usually do research on his subjects and talks down to them, as he gives them simple reasons why his movement to make change will work. Once these people hear these facts, they may believe themselves temporally more knowledgeable to the alternatives available to them. Unfortunately, because Moore doesn’t look beyond the surface of a problem, many of his points are immediately contradicted, causing people who may have took him at face value to think that their previous view was more defendable, it also allows people who never sided with him to sit back and act more confident in their beliefs.

In Sicko, he doesn’t even try and hide his illusion, with the UN’s top quality for healthcare Moore holds up at the beginning of the film, Cuba is clearly seen ranking two spots below America, but in the film, Cuba is implied to be more capable of delivering healthcare than it’s mainland neighbour. Looking at this, it’s clear that Moore is either picking facts for his own agenda, or that he hasn’t done enough research and allowed himself to be taken for a fool. Again, this hurts supporters of his cause.

But if what I claim is accurate, why then is Michael Moore so popular in the United States? Surely the right wing advisers would go against these inaccuracies? Right? Well, surprisingly, Michael Moore has never had to endure the media pounding that others like him (ex. Bill Meyer,) have faced for making similar or mis-truths. Well, likely the truth is simple; the people Michael Moore is campaigning against, want him to continue. Why? Because he’s helps maintain the status quo, instead of bringing real change to it. So, while he is drumming up some anger among the average citizen, he’s also directing it in a way that plays into the upper classes’ advantage.

If you have Michael Moore giving out half-assed arguments, and half truths why things should be changed, it’s easier to get people to listen to him and become a symbol of the left’s voice. The bigger he gets, the less chance that someone educated and charismatic could replace him and pose a real threat to the establishments. The more his movies are played as entertainment, the less pressing the matters will seem. The more they allow his films onto the screen, the more people feel that the left has had its say, and will be less pressed to get the left’s side of the story out.

During the Bush administration, he seemed to be one of the major voices to speak up on America’s current situation, but whenever the media quoted him, the President’s approval ratings raised slightly. While filming Fahrenheit 9/11, he admitted to knowing about Guantanamo Bay, but never mentioned it in the film. He also looked at the 9/11 attacks and why they brought Bush more power, but never looked at why those attacks where caused in the first place. He also ignored the suspicious collapse of the WTC7 building, instead focussing on the basic changes the Bush administration did, and not the more sinister long term changes the administration was proposing.

In retrospect, Michael Moore’s career seems a lot like someone getting you to look at their left hand while they pat their “enemy” with their right. Whether intentional or not, this has been the effects of his work. If Moore honestly wants to help the left’s cause, it would be best done by realizing his effects on the road to change, and either fixing them, or promoting someone else more capable of championing the causes he brings attention to.

Michael Moore has a new movie coming out, Capitalism: A Love Story. In it, he will no doubt mention how the credit system is revolving around the banks, and how most of the current bailout bills give taxpayers dollars back to the people who caused the economic situation in the first place. In it, he will most likely give you no more information than CNN or MBC would, but he will get several CEO’s into an interview and get them to make fools of themselves. Chances are that he will then do a minor attack against President Obama's actions, and how he hasn’t made the changes he promised during the election. If he’s feeling courageous, he might even mention how Income Tax was never successfully put into federal law and that most of the money goes to pay off the reserve’s debts. Throughout this whole movie, he’ll compare the government and banking system in Canada (and other well-to-do countries) to his own, but he’ll then go back to focussing on how the right wing CEO’s got us into the crisis, and get you mad about what’s happening. A week after this film is released, Banks, Republicans, CEO’s and Conservatives everywhere will come and mention everything wrong with Canada’s systems, and the cycle will start all over again.

Of course, since I have no knowledge of the movie beyond it’s title, this is all speculation based off of Moore’s past work. Only time will tell if the previous paragraph’s predictions were accurate or not. But I think it best to end this article with a quote Mr. Moore said himself, which helps to prove my theory: “I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do.”

The Quotes can be found here:
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/michael_moore/2.html
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/michael_moore/3.html

* The actual quote is: “I'm going to do damage with it. I'll make sure that my work gets out. That no publisher will ever be able to tell me to take things out. Because I'll put it out myself. The more money I earn, the less they can stop me. Where I come from it's called fuck you money because I don't have to take an ounce of shit from anybody.”-Moore

Moore has made similar quotes throughout his more recent career.
It can be found at this site (among others)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1865774