Testing Michael Moore

Andy Sullivan points to this ABC News interview with Michael Moore, indicating that here are "some tough questions to which our very own Leni Riefenstahl has no good answers."

Now, having seen Fahrenheit 911 last night, I'd agree that Moore's film is an exercise in propaganda and that he doesn't answer all of these questions completely. However, he does answer them, and he answers some of them to my satisfaction. I think what this disparity shows is that defenders of the war are not going to be satisfied with *any* answers Moore gives.

To me, it's inarguable that Moore's movie is propaganda. But to argue that it doesn't present a lot of truth--if sometimes through manipulative means--is another thing all together. For example, critics complain that Moore highlights the obvious, facts about war that have been true for centuries: that innocents die, that the military preys upon poor and minorities in order to fill its ranks. Well, timeless as these sad truths may be, as long as they are true, I think we ought to be highlighting them. Are we supposed to lose our sense of outrage simply because something has long been the status quo? Critics complain that about Moore's showing dead and injured soldier and civilians. Well, of course, defenders of the war--those who think we who were against it ignoble--of course, they'd prefer that images like these never be shown. Because those images have a tremendous impact. They're the reality of war. And we ought not be sending our young people into that reality unless we can justify it. And we've seen what happened to the primary arguments the Bush administration used to justify the war in Iraq. They evaporated.

I do wish someone more level-headed had come along and made a more balanced, though nonetheless damning, documentary about the Bush administration. Fahrenheit 911 does a great job of preaching to the converted--the viewing I went to here in Charlotte, NC (!) ended with heavy, sustained applause--and, hopefully, it'll appeal to some of the fence-sitters. But I won't pretend to tell you that I think Moore handles every detail honestly.

On the other hand, if any honest supporter of the Bush administration watches this film and is patient enough to sift through the facts, there's still enough in this two-hour long exercise in outrage to damn the Bush administration.

And one more thing: conservatives are rightfully outraged when people compare Bush with Adolph Hitler. So let's quit with the hypocrisy then: Moore may be a master propaganist, but he's outraged with what he believes to be bad policy. To compare him with Leni Riefenstahl is to pretend that Moore is popularizing evil, an inference that is inappropriate and also much aligned with that inane premise I tired of hearing long ago: "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists."