Greg from The Talent Show sure drew a different lesson than I did from Kevin Mattson's Dissent article on the Left's Michael Moore problem.
With respect, I think it's more than just a matter of Moore's "sloppy and crude style," and confrontational methods. As Greg points out (and as I indicated in my post) there are celebri-pundits on the right who are just as in-your-face, just as offensive, just as vacuous, and there are many more of them. Why pick on him? And why is it that Moore's ideological brethren tie themselves up in knots worrying about the harm he does to their cause (or alternately trying to figure out a way to defend him or claim that he does no harm), while the right-leaning ideological machine seems to hum along just fine with nary a thought about the Michael Savages and Ann Coulters of the world? If, as Mattson suggests, Moore epitomizes, embodies and contributes to the Left's marginalization, why hasn't Michael Savage performed the same "service" for the right?
Interesting questions.
Now, I am no friend of the loony left. But that doesn't mean I don't want to see the issues associated with "progressivism," the interests they claim to represent, addressed credibly. Just because Moore and others of his ilk (broadly speaking, the inheritors of the excesses of the 1968/New Left spin on "social justice" and the Cold War) have cheapened the coin of progressive politics doesn't mean that the issues have disappeared. Regardless of taste, aesthetics, sympathies, whatever persuasions or attitudes we might have as individuals, no matter whom we vote for or which kind of philosophy we like to think we espouse, we all lose out when one "side" in an agonistic debate can't get its act together.
I believe what Mattson is saying is that Moore, in a more or less essential way, symbolizes and embodies the contemporary Left's defining weaknesses, its inability to get its act together. And I agree with him.
I quoted Mattson's final paragraph before, but here's a portion of it again:
[Moore's] political criticism signals problems faced by the left more generally: marginalization, a tendency to seek the purity of confrontation rather than to work for long-term political solutions, a cynicism about the possibilities of politics today, and questionable political judgments... Moore takes short-cuts when it comes to politics... That speaks to the state of the left; we are angry and sometimes vocal, but we have too little to offer those looking for or needing social change.
Of course, Moore has his fans. In such circles, everyone has a grand time congratulating themselves on how much smarter and more sophisticated they are than everyone else. But political mutual masturbation is like any other kind: fun for the participants, amusing for voyeurs, yet a bit gruesome and revolting for most passers-by. Anyway, the fans aren't the ones who need persuading. For many others, Moore and other public spokesmodels for Leftism/anti-Bushism who, rightly or wrongly, are associated with him, don't come off so well. I'm sure, at some level, Moore really is worried about the poor, the downtrodden, the disadvantaged, concerned about the economy, frightened of the risks of US policy and its potential effects on ordinary people. Despite the rhetoric, however, many get the impression that politics' chief appeal for Moore and the Moore-ians lies in the opportunity it affords them to look down their noses at others, to indulge in self-congratulatory cultural chauvinism at the expense of the less fortunate, to ridicule ordinary people for the pure fun of it and without offering them much beyond the opportunity to be the butt of urbane jokes at elite cocktail parties in Manhattan apartments for ever more.
Whether or not this characterization is justified, this impression appears to be shared by many among the people whose interests the Moore-ians purport to champion, e.g. the working class, the common man, etc. This lack of credibility outside of Manhattan, Hollywood and San Francisco constitutes a major challenge to the contemporary left's viability. It's not all Moore's fault, of course, but he certainly isn't doing his comrades any favors. Simply put, Moore is the worst kind of populist: a lousy one. His "common man" schtick is like Red Skelton's drunken hobo schtick-- kind of funny, but potentially alienating to drunks and hobos. Revolves around a funny little hat.
It might be argued that O'Reilly's populist routine may be just as phony and have as little to offer in the way of substance. Perhaps so. But at least he manages to avoid the impression that he is mocking his audience or constituents. Mockery, substituted for politics, will only get you so far. If the Left wants to de-marginalize itself, a good first step would be to distance itself from the perpetual alienation machine that Moore epitomizes. In the media war as in the culture war, a less condescending, less anti-American Left that didn't seem quite so "stuck-up" would actually have quite a bit going for it. In that regard, despite his Oscar and his regular guy hat, Michael Moore is more problem than solution.
Posted by Dr. Frank at May 31, 2003 01:38 PM | TrackBack