Saturday, July 10, 2004

David Brooks evaluates Michael Moore

All Hail Michael Moore
by David Brooks

In years past, American liberals have had to settle for intellectual and moral leadership from the likes of John Dewey, Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King Jr. But now, a grander beacon has appeared on the mountaintop, and from sea to shining sea, tens of thousands have joined in the adulation.

So it is worth taking a moment to study the metaphysics of Michael Moore. For Moore is not only a filmmaker; he is a man of ideas, and his work is based on an actual worldview.

Like Hemingway, Moore does his boldest thinking while abroad. For example, it was during an interview with the British paper The Mirror that Moore unfurled what is perhaps the central insight of his oeuvre, that Americans are kind of crappy.

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]," Moore intoned. "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

It transpires that Europeans are quite excited to hear this supple description of the American mind. And Moore has been kind enough to crisscross the continent, speaking to packed lecture halls, explicating the general vapidity and crassness of his countrymen. "That's why we're smiling all the time," he told a rapturous throng in Munich. "You can see us coming down the street. You know, `Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

Naturally, the people from the continent that brought us Descartes, Kant and Goethe are fascinated by these insights. Moore's books have sold faster there than at home. No American intellectual is taken so seriously in Europe, save perhaps the great Chomsky.

Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: "You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe." In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: "It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."

In the days after Sept. 11, while others were disoriented, Moore was able to see clearly: "We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants."

This leads to Michael Moore's global plan of action. "Don't be like us," he told a crowd in Berlin. "You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave."

In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, "Should such an ignorant people lead the world?" Then he began to reflect on things economic. His central insight here is that the American economy, like its people, is pretty crappy, too: "Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way."

In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: "The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."

But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win." Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere.

So we have our Sartre. And the liberal grandees Arthur Schlesinger, Ted Sorenson, Tom Harkin and Barbara Boxer flock to his openings. In Washington, a Senate vote was delayed because so many Democrats wanted to see his movie.

The standards of socially acceptable liberal opinion have shifted. We're a long way from John Dewey.

Perhaps inspired by Moore, I got a fact wrong in my previous column. Bill Clinton did not win the evangelical vote in 1992 and 1996. I had relied on a report that was later corrected.

Friday, July 09, 2004

Sowell evaluates Kerry's campaign

Thomas Sowell writes about John Kerry's political malpractice.

Thursday, July 08, 2004

Kansas Versus the American Left

George Will writes that, Thomas Frank's book (What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America) asks the wrong question. The correct question is: What's the matter with the American left.

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

Could Bush Lose to Kerry?

With about four months remaining in the 2004 Presidential race, it's time to evaluate the odds. A Kerry victory is certainly possible, but the odds favor President Bush's reelection.

The issues that will determine the outcome of the race fall into two categories: (1) The war on terror, including the struggle for stability in Iraq and (2) domestic issues such as taxes, health care, education and the strength or weakness of the economy.

Bush has remained about even with Kerry in the polls over the past several months despite the steady stream of bad news coming out of Iraq. And voters continue to believe that Bush is better able to wage the war on terror than Kerry. This Republican advantage on national security issues has existed for the past 30 years and when John Kerry's voting record in the US Senate becomes more widely known among voters, Bush's advantage on these issues is likely to increase.

Voters tend to view the economy through their partisan lenses. During the Reagan boom, most Democrats didn't think inflation had declined. In 1996, when President Clinton ran for reelection while the economy was growing, most Republicans told pollsters that the economy was in recession.

But, with consumer confidence rising, home ownership at an all time high and over one million jobs created in just the past six months, the crucial independent voters will likely view the economy in a more positive light as the countdown to November continues.

There is one other factor that could cause a Kerry victory: The overall predilections of the electorate. One could make a case that American voters have become more European in their attitudes regarding cultural and economic issues over the past several decades. If the mid-point of the electorate has moved several degrees to the left, even an improving economy and the threat of terrorism might not be enough to prevent the election of a typical Democrat pitted against a typical Republican.

But, if the 2002 mid-term elections can be any guide to this year's elections, voters are not automatically prepared to vote left. The 2002 vote for the US House of Represenatives was 51 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat. I expect a similar outcome this November. Bush: 52, Kerry: 46. And, thus, I believe a Republican Presidential candidate will win the popular vote for the first time since a guy named Bush beat a Massachusetts liberal Democrat (Michael Dukakis) in 1988.

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

John Kerry chooses Edwards

Here's where I evaluate John Kerry's selection of North Carolina's senior US Senator, John Edwards, to be his running mate against the Bush-Cheney ticket. John Kerry made a mistake. North Carolina's natural conservatism (it preferred Bush over Gore in the 2000 race by more than 10 percent) means Edwards will not be able to help Kerry win North Carolina's 15 electoral votes.

And Kerry passed up the opportunity to pick a running mate that could help him win Florida (Bill Nelson or Bob Graham) or Missouri (Richard Gephardt). And the business community is already upset about the Edwards selection because he made a fortune throwing lawsuits at businesses. Add in the fact that a few months ago John Kerry himself said that John Edwards would need on the job training because of his lack of experience and the only positive about Kerry's pick is a running mate who is comfortable in front of the television cameras.

The National Journal has rated Edwards the US Senate's 4th most liberal Senator, which places him a bit to the left of John Kerry who ranked 1st. I'd say the Bush-Cheney campaign team had a better day than Kerry's campaign team did.

Monday, July 05, 2004

Democracy in Egypt is Going Nowhere

Here's an interesting article from the New Yorker by David Remnick. An excerpt

When I asked Kassem his opinion of the American invasion of Iraq and the chaos that followed, he said, “When you look at the intervention itself, you look at the people who will die as a result. Well, a great many more would have died from sanctions and from Saddam than from any intervention. All those arguments about how you can’t bring democracy in on the wings of a B-52 are garbage. The only thing that can bring about a change here is American foreign policy. Egyptian brutality will not change and neither will the apathy of the people. Change in the Middle East will be slow, but we needed the air cover. There was no way we could have done this on our own. We were going nowhere.”

The article doesn't entirely endorse Operation Iraqi Freedom. In fact, parts of the article argue that the cause of liberalization in Egypt and in the Middle East in general have been set back by it. But, there has been much more discussion about democracy and freedom in the Middle East since Operation Iraqi Freedom and that region was going nowhere before Iraq's liberation.

Sunday, July 04, 2004

John Kerry's Mistake

Debra Sauders writes about John Kerry's mistake.

Democrats and Michael Moore by Michael Barone

Michael Barone explains why the Democrats have made a mistake in associating their party with Michael Moore's movie.