Mo(o)re Demogoguery

[Pangloss]

Latest diatribe from Michael Moore, who is apparently planning to make a movie about Hurricane Katrina:

 

There is much to be said and done about the man-made annihilation of New Orleans, caused not by a hurricane but by the very specific decisions made by the Bush administration in the past four and a half years. Do not listen to anyone who says we can discuss all this later. No, we can't. Our country is in an immediate state of vulnerability.

 

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2005-09-12/celeb/2

 

And yet, it was Moore and the far left that INSISTED that we implement ALL of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report, which is why FEMA was rolled into DHS. Unbelievable.

[john5746]

What a jerk. People like him and Sharpton make anyone who complains about problems in New Orleans look like a crazy person. They actually detract from solutions to any existing problems, or even removing their "enemies" from office, since most people realize their garbage is untrue.

 

Will anyone of any importance that isn't a left-wing nut talk to this guy anymore?

[Pangloss]

The odd thing is that the most recent interviews I've seen with Sharpton and even with Howard Dean seem tame and even reasonable for the most part. I didn't agree with Sharpton's defense of Kanye West, but in general he had a valid point the fact that West was just giving his opinion (which NBC had a right to censor). Sharpton made it clear in his Bill O'Reilly interview that he didn't condone what West said, that he did not feel the authorities were shooting black people because they were black, and did not condone looting.

 

Same deal with Howard Dean, whom I saw in an interview yesterday on a local political show here in Florida. Dean, of all people, surprised me by saying that now is not the time to pass judgement, and that he felt the president does care about those people. Of course he went on to blame the whole thing on the Bush administration, but that's to be expected.

 

I guess my point being that things could be worse in the post-Katrina demogogery department. But Moore and the Moveon.org crowd totally cross the line with some of their ridiculous statements.

[Douglas]

but in general he had a valid point the fact that West was just giving his opinion

It's interesting, when Trent Lott gave his humorous opinion about Strom Thurmond being a potentially good president, he got fired.

[swansont]

And yet, it was Moore and the far left that INSISTED that we implement ALL of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report, which is why FEMA was rolled into DHS. Unbelievable.

 

 

And you feel that rolling FEMA into DHS adequately explains what happened?

[Pangloss]

On the contrary. I think it unlikely that rolling FEMA into DHS had much to do with the Katrina failures.

 

But there's only one way we're going to find that out, and it's the exact opposite of what Michael Moore wants us to do. Note that he's actually saying, in the quote I posted above, that we should NOT investigate further, that we should NOT dig deeper, that we should NOT listen to various points of view.

 

I've seen few statements from him that are more indicative of what a rabble rouser he really is. There are probably very few people in the world who are less interested in the truth than Michael Moore.

[swansont]

On the contrary. I think it unlikely that rolling FEMA into DHS had much to do with the Katrina failures.

 

But there's only one way we're going to find that out' date=' and it's the exact opposite of what Michael Moore wants us to do. Note that he's actually saying, in the quote I posted above, that we should NOT investigate further, that we should NOT dig deeper, that we should NOT listen to various points of view.

 

I've seen few statements from him that are more indicative of what a rabble rouser he really is. There are probably very few people in the world who are less interested in the truth than Michael Moore.[/quote']

 

So what you posted about FEMA made it sound exactly the opposite of what you claim to have meant, just in a way that it made the democrats be as much at fault.

 

And point out, please, where he's saying that we should not investigate further, nor dig deeper?

[Pangloss]

So what you posted about FEMA made it sound exactly the opposite of what you claim to have meant, just in a way that it made the democrats be as much at fault.

 

I don't see how. If you interpreted above and beyond what I actually said, that's hardly my fault.

 

 

You seem to be really struggling with this. Why don't you just say what you want to say?

 

I've already pointed out where he's saying that we should not investigate further. I'll post the quote again:

 

Do not listen to anyone who says we can discuss all this later. No, we can't.

 

How much more unequivocal can he possibly be?

 

 

Say what you mean and mean what you say, please. I do. Which is why you're finding it so hard to spin me right now.

[AL]

I've already pointed out where he's saying that we should not investigate further. I'll post the quote again:

Do not listen to anyone who says we can discuss all this later. No' date=' we can't.

[/quote']

 

I don't think that means we shouldn't investigate further. Moore is complaining, and he anticipates that there will be some who will respond to his complaints with "now is not the appropriate time to complain." So he's responding with "do not listen to [those] who say we can discuss all this later."

[Pangloss]

Well I respect your position, Al, even though I don't think that's what Moore is doing. There is certainly a point to be made for the position that the White House spin doctors are in full swing over Katrina, and part of their "swing" is to defray and deflect. I'm totally on board with that being a bad thing. But the opposite -- saying we should render full judgement NOW -- isn't any better. What the situation calls for, as I've said elsewhere, is a full, objective, bi-partisan investigation, along the lines of the 9/11 Commission.

 

What I'm really objecting to is the demogogery more than the message itself. Reving up the mindless hordes to do his bidding. That just irks me. You don't solve problems by inflaming and/or terrifying people. You solve problems through reasoned discussion, logical and objective analysis, drawing conclusions and implementing them. Michael Moore contributes nothing to that process in any way, shape or form.

 

(Uh oh, there goes my extremist-moderate streak kicking in.)

[swansont]

I don't see how. If you interpreted above and beyond what I actually said' date=' that's hardly my fault.

 

 

You seem to be really struggling with this. Why don't you just say what you want to say?

 

I've already pointed out where he's saying that we should not investigate further. I'll post the quote again:

 

 

 

How much more unequivocal can he possibly be?

 

 

Say what you mean and mean what you say, please. I do. Which is why you're finding it so hard to spin me right now.[/quote']

 

And yet, it was Moore and the far left that INSISTED that we implement ALL of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report, which is why FEMA was rolled into DHS. Unbelievable. implies that it was the move under DHS, at the insistence of democrats, that caused the problems. If that's not what you meant, then why bother saying it? I don't think I misinterpreted what you said, I think you didn't state your position clearly, if it's as you later clarified.

 

Do not listen to anyone who says we can discuss all this later. No, we can't. Our country is in an immediate state of vulnerability.

 

The last sentence gives the contex. We can't wait until later to talk about/fix the problems, because we're vulnerable now. We have to act now. I suspect he's referring to the president delaying on agreeing to investigate 9/11.

 

You don't like Moore? No big deal; he's a zealot. A lot of what he says makes me cringe. You're entitled to your opinion about him, but you're not entitled to your own facts. You shouldn't put words in his mouth.

[Phi for All]

I respect Michael Moore for being willing to hang his butt out there on the edge, but I think he has lost his objectivity and that really hurts his credibility. Ideas, great ideas, world changing ideas, can come from the far left but it's necessary to avoid the "whacko" label, and to do that you need facts, not fiction.

 

And when is someone going to tell Michael that Bush's approval rating goes up when Michael calls a press conference?

[Douglas]

And when is someone going to tell Michael that Bush's approval rating goes up when Michael calls a press conference?

Good one Phi.

[Pangloss]

Yah, well put.

[Hellbender]

And when is someone going to tell Michael that Bush's approval rating goes up when Michael calls a press conference?

Exactly. He seems like he gives the Right ammunition for saying "see, if you are not one of us, then you are like this bozo!" Although I am pretty far Left, I resent the opportunism coming from both sides, but mainly the far Left with the Katrina issue. Natural disasters are bad no matter who is president.

[Phi for All]

Many people are upset at the way money has been diverted away from practical, real concerns in favor of possible, so far imaginary concerns. Like the fact that NY state got a little over $1M from the federal government to fight heart disease, the leading killer in NY, yet they also received something like $34M for bioterrorism preparedness. Every state can tell the same story.

 

Even when the far right hears about stuff like this they shake their heads and Bush's approval goes down. But then Michael Moore jumps in and starts ranting and the far right feels the need to defend the president, the same guy they were muttering about yesterday, possibly wondering about how much the Carlysle Group is into fighting bioterrorism, and how much of those federally allotted funds will end up in their coffers. But those suspicions disappear as soon as Mike grabs the mike and they leap to Bush's defense.

[Ophiolite]

None of which, by itself, necessarily invalidates what Moore is saying. And Pangloss declared that "What I'm really objecting to is the demogogery more than the message itself."

I suggest PanGloss, that you stop listening to him. And if you are going to attack the style not the content, then please make that clear. I've always thought the most effective way to approach any message is to ignore the style, focus on the content. (In other words **** McLuhan.)

[Phi for All]

None of which' date=' by itself, necessarily invalidates what Moore is saying. And Pangloss declared that "What I'm really objecting to is the demogogery more than the message itself."

I suggest PanGloss, that you stop listening to him. And if you are going to attack the style not the content, then please make that clear. I've always thought the most effective way to approach any message is to ignore the style, focus on the content. (In other words **** McLuhan.)[/quote']Very true, but if Moore isn't convincing anyone right of center of his convictions using that style, then he's preaching to the choir and actually beefing up resistance from the right to listen to the facts. I'm not sure what the solution is, seeing as how the US is divided and the right hand doesn't believe what the left hand is gesturing about, and vice versa. Even when a centrist lends credence to what one side or the other is saying, they earn themselves a "leaning" label to discredit them.

[Pangloss]

I think that's a fair point, Ophiolite, but I also see value in fighting demogogery itself. I think it would be a useful lesson for Americans to be educated on the concept and to learn to recognize it.

 

There is a school of thought that believes that the Roman republic was destroyed by demogogery. The general perception exists that America is immune to such a method of destruction because of the Constitution. But in fact I think that history has shown that any piece of paper can be subverted by a sufficiently determined leadership effort and a sufficiently ignorant and unconcerned populace. After all, that has to be what Jefferson ment by "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

 

What I'm hoping is that the lesson that future historians will remember from the "American Experiment" is that a representative government can work, rather than the lesson that such efforts are always undermined by demogogery in the end (so why bother).