Well...
Maybe I'm not sufficiently cynical. I honestly believe Americans need to see movies like this and I think all the "intellectuals" out there who like to dismiss Moore's style, passion, emotional manipulation, whatever, don't get it. Yes, we 'smart people' already agree with him because we are so enlightened. Yes, some book can probably explain it with more economic, social, or political rigor. But c'mon, Moore is funny. Can we stop taking ourselves so seriously for just a couple of hours? Can we not be so cool that we forget that it's not necessarily "emotional manipulation" when the damn subject IS emotional? You wouldn't be so detached and academic if any of this stuff ever happened to you. I'm not saying that there is no place for dispassionate, objective articulation of the issue. I'm just saying that sometimes I am more annoyed at those who ostensibly agree with Moore's position, but like to appear too sophisticated for such populist mediums, than those who just outright disagree and think he's a commie. Oops, there I go again. Earnestness. Terrible, I know.
Anyway - to look at the film and the ongoing "debate" about it will be the subject of this post. And yes, I've made the mistake of reading some right wing commentary... so I'm a bit unbalanced right now...
Back to the ones who agree with Moore but want to appear to be oh-so-above it all. I think they forget that not everyone understands the issues like they do. You know, normal people. They might just need someone to give them a reason to give a damn. What is Moore supposed to do? A dissertation? I mean, yeah, Al Gore pulled it off...but he's a former VP, so we let him slide.
The ones who disagree with Moore - both those who just claim they don't like his documentary film "style" and those who openly disagree with his politics - bug me for a number of reasons.
First of all, they often claim that Moore doesn't take the other side of the arguments into account, when, at least in this film, even if they disagree with Moore's conclusions, they have to agree that he does. He did address the concerns over higher taxes, rationing and waits, doctor compensation, and all the horror stories that supposedly come out of countries with national healthcare systems. Ironically, they practice exactly what they accuse Moore of practicing to make their case for his supposedly "sloppy" or "biased" documentary journalism: the sin of ommission.
They also seem stuck on the idea that a "documentary" can be only one thing: that monotoned science film about photosynthesis that they saw in the 7th grade. How DARE a political documentary have a point of view! If I hear one more accusation of "bias" I will need a doctor myself. Repeat after me: you can make a documentary that holds a particular interpretation or viewpoint. Good. I knew ya could. Let's move on.
What's hilarious, is that they'll claim that Moore should not be trusted with this information (when even mainstream CNN found it pretty fact-check proof), because of his alleged socialist/big government/liberal 'bias', and then turn right around, sometimes in the same paragraph (I'm looking at you Kurt Loder!), and use the argument of an avowed Libertarian (free market bias much?) or industry group to make their "case" refuting Moore, as if their sources are unasailable! Fair? Logical? Who cares!
It's obvious that these attacks on his 'style' are attempts to distract from the fact that they usually have very little to attack him on his substance. Certainly not his overall arguments. And they know that the substance does resonate with the very people they claim to represent - so the con-radio types (always attempting to portray themselves as 'populists') can't risk appearing as if they are against "the people". Instead, they pretend to be upset simply over his "dishonesty", as they're only concerned with "truth", don't ya know.
But what really gets me is the attack on the messenger. Not the obvious attacks, e.g. Al Gore's a hypocrite, Michael Moore is...fat...or something...ad nauseum. No, it is the implication that they are the only ones making the argument! As if Al Gore isn't reporting the work of scientists around the world. Global Warming will just go away if Al Gore does. As if Michael Moore is the only loon talking about the problems in the U.S. system and the case for national healthcare. Their strategy seems to be that if they can only destroy that stupid (America-hating, liberal, traitorous, etc.) Michael Moore, then they win the whole healthcare debate. Well, is former British MP Tony Benn just "stupid"? Was Tommy Douglas "stupid"? Are almost all Europeans and Canadians just "stupid"? That's why, in my opinion, what I felt Moore did a particularly good job at, WAS to let other people make the case for him.
The single most important scenes in the whole film, in my mind, were the ones with Tony Benn explaining what true democracy is - turning how libertarians and free market ideologues view "freedom" completely on its head, and the one with the gentlemen from Canada in the golf cart - who himself was a "conservative", yet who didn't question for an instant why all members of a society should be willing to help their fellow citizens - turning American style conservative dogma (which has simply degenerated into a Darwinian 'every man for himself' excuse for selfishness) on its head.
Which brings me to the end (and you thought I'd never stop). This is an important film, not just for the obvious message that at this point only a true fool would be opposed to (the mental gymnastics one has to perform to be opposed to nationalized healthcare - unless you are among the top 5% economically - are truly mind boggling, at this point), but because Moore is making a much larger statement about what society and democracy and quality of life is really all about. What human dignity is. The detractors think they can just compete with the case for nationalized healthcare by telling stories about people in Canada or Belgium or wherever having to wait 16 months for a hip replacement, all while paying the dreaded higher taxes for what they liken to charity, welfare, "entitlement". The "competing horror stories" model, and the "it's too expensive" model. In the end, though, that's not what the argument is about. All systems have flaws. They are just details. Flaws can be fixed. A system like this is expensive, yes. The real issue is: what is the underlying value that the system is based on?
It reminds me of how slave owners used to argue in defense of slavery in the 1850's that their slaves were treated better than the "wage slaves" in the factories up north, thus their system was better. Probably in a few rare cases that may have even been true. Both sides could have argued this using anecdotal stories and competing economic points til the cows came home. But no amount of arguing over details could make slavery a better system. And not just because the northerners could eventually provide more horror stories coming out of slavery than the southerners could find in the factories. No. It was the value that underlay the system of free labor (even with all of its pre-New Deal flaws ), which was just simply morally superior to that which underlay the system of slavery. A moral no-brainer.
In the healthcare debate, we have two competing systems, which reflect two competing values. Both ration healthcare. One rations based on what a person can individually afford and what markets and corporate profit margins will allow, the other rations based on what the entire society, pooling its resouces and deciding through the democratic process, can afford. One literally lets profit motive and social class determine the value of human life, the other maintains that when it comes to healthcare, as with justice and education, and even though it is expensive, all should have equal human value. In the end, one says every man for himself, the other says one for all and all for one. It should also be a moral no-brainer. And that's "too bad", as Bono would say, "because it's not about charity, it's about justice." Because you can't have justice without equality. And what the detractors are really against in this debate, is equality.
Oh, and one other thing: move.
To FRANCE!
Just trust me on this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment