July 30, 2004
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL has published an article, which I somehow missed, on “Michael Moore’s Truth Problem.”
And there you have the essential Moore — a worldview of America as a failed project and an abiding danger to the planet. No wonder they so love Moore abroad: His is a 1960s vision, hardened in the pre-NAFTA plant closings of the 1980s, of a nation hijacked by the suits, the very guys who for decades gave Moore’s father a good job at General Motors. It’s from this posture that all the Moorean invective flows.
Full of hateful fiction, Michael Moore’s work is the Turner Diaries of the left, and it’s likely to have a similar consequence. (Via ChicagoBoyz).
UPDATE: Read this, too. Maybe he’s more like a domestic Lord Haw-Haw?
ANOTHER UPDATE: With maybe a touch of Jayson Blair:
The (Bloomington) Pantagraph newspaper in central Illinois has sent a letter to Moore and his production company, Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., asking Moore to apologize for using what the newspaper says was a doctored front page in the film, the paper reported Friday.
Michael Moore — lying? Imagine that. Heck, even Der Spiegel is down on him for dishonesty, and says his words are “like bombs.” Indeed. Funny how the people who were denouncing “hate speech” in the 1990s aren’t after Moore’s 21st Century diatribes against the Zionist Occupation Government.
STILL MORE: A reader writes: “From reading you I thought you were a Constitutional law professor who would understand that people like Moore can criticize the USA without being labeled as one who hates it.”
Actually, the First Amendment provides no protection against being “labeled” as anything. Characterizing Moore’s speech as anti-American is free speech, too. And it’s accurate free speech, I think.
It’s funny that a lot of people seem to feel that the First Amendment embodies a substantive preference in favor of anti-American speech. But it doesn’t.