I refuse to watch Farenheit 9/11. I know I might be beating a dead horse a little here, and I know the movie is supposed to be moving, intelligent, funny, etc., etc., but Michael Moore makes me nervous. Whether I agree with his politics or not (it’s kinda hard not to agree with the whole “fuck Bush” position), propaganda makes me nervous and, like it or not, Michael Moore is a propagandist.
The fact that Michael Moore plays fast and loose with the “truth” (i.e. his adventures in Roger & Me, etc.) has been pretty well documented, and Moore himself is fairly open about this issue. So, what’s the point in writing an article about it? The amount of intellectual/cultural purchase that Moore’s name and work carries within the university community is a good example of something very wrong about political views held by most of the people one encounters within young academia. The fact that Moore’s work is so admired by the 18-25, liberal, leftist demographic points to a certain amount of hypocrisy within the upcoming generation of university-bred intelligentsia.
What I’m talking about here is best illustrated by the two standard defences of Moore that I’m confronted with whenever I voice my misgivings about him. The first response I usually hear is: “I know Moore fudges the truth now and then, but it’s good to know that someone’s making propaganda that matches my own politics.” The second response usually points out that my fear of propaganda is, when pushed to its logical conclusion, anti-free speech.
The argument runs that the softness of Moore’s journalistic rigor (i.e. he lies) is “okay” because Moore is an anti-establishment underdog taking on Big Bad Corporate America, but this is an utter cop-out. When did we stop expecting people to behave at a higher ethical standard than Big Bad Corporate America, just because they happen to agree with our politics? This “by any means necessary” agit-prop kind of attitude forcefully flips the current power paradigm, allowing us to dictate our truths to the establishment. This kind of viewpoint has simply taken McCarthyism and stood it on its head.
The other objection is that within a society committed to freedom of speech and expression Moore’s voice has a right to be heard. This is a little trickier. Are my fears concerning Michael Moore a tacit approval of censorship? Would I approve of censoring Moore and any other pulpit-preaching blowhard with a “message” to spread (for example: CNN or Rosie O’Donnell)? The answer to that question is: yes. We all would. I haven’t met a single person who is really committed (like, Salman Rushdie-committed) to free speech. Most people generally pay lip-service to the concept of free speech only until it begins to allow people to contradict whatever ideological standpoint that they take. Hate literature is a good example of this kind of attitude. People are generally willing to allow for free speech for everyone except neo-nazis (or rappers, dancehall MC’s, etc.). The ideal of free speech that’s so “universally accepted” is actually just another example of the dogmatic character that so-called “liberal” viewpoints can take.
Now, does this mean that censorship is just plain wrong? No, what’s wrong is the dogmatic “holier-than-thou” attitude taken by young people on the political left. The closed-minded attitude applies to people of all races, creeds, and religions. It is a sure-fire way of preventing any dialogue between people of different political camps from getting under way.
Am I saying that it’s wrong to have strong political beliefs? No. All I’m saying is that the political right, or the establishment, or whatever blanket term we’re using to call those “evil” people who don’t agree with us, don’t have the market cornered on intolerance after all.
