Write your comment in the form below. Be sure to 'Preview' your comment to make sure that it will appear as you want it to.
You Are Replying To This Comment:
No offense, but...
By JR
Aug 14th 2007
at 11:11 pm EDT
...if I ever run for political office I want you as far away from my campaign strategy sessions as possible.
"Michael Moore's goal should have been to convince people that were not already set on the idea of universal health care coverage. Instead he further polarized the situation." When you're trying to get the fence-sitters down, polarizing is essential.
"If history is any indication, compromises need to be reached unless tyranny is to reign." This is pablum. Of course compromise is necessary if you aren't in a tyrannical system where opposing viewpoints aren't tolerated. The trick is to get that compromise on the most favorable terms possible, meaning each side should try to present a compelling argument and debate the merits of each position.
Two polarized sides are better than a mush of people in the middle with no idea what they want to work towards, because nothing gets done without a push or pull. And once there are polarized factions it's easier to discern the respective merits of each side. But if nobody is taking a clear and identifiable stand on one side, while the other screams "socialism!" at the top of its lungs, there's neither a hope for action nor a basis for developing a strategy once action is taken. Calling Moore stupid because he polarized is stupid, and belies a horrible misunderstanding of how political issues are framed and political compromises reached.
What exactly were you expecting the impact of "Sicko" to be? "Bowling for Columbine" started a short-lived conversation on American gun culture. "Fahrenheit 9/11" preceded a re-election. Hell, if "Sicko" got us two or three months' worth of press coverage for the ongoing health care crisis then it's a win.
And, by the way, as an observer of cinema, do you REALLY think the impact of going to Europe to get health care would be the same as going to Cuba in the American psyche?
This reads like a criticism written for the sake of writing a criticism of Moore.
The basis for E.H. Carr's international relations classic, The Twenty Years' Crisis: 1919-1939 An Introduction to International Relations, is based on the quest for equilibrium that must be maintained in order to achieve the most in the international arena. There is constant conflict between Utopian fantasy and cynical realism. It's a matter of the bureaucrat versus the intellectual. Both need to compromise.
What does this have to do with Michael Moore? Michael Moore makes good documentaries. His latest, Sicko, is the fourth-most successful documentary in history. However, because of the way he presents his materials it cannot be a useful tool to enact policy.
I discussed earlier the need for a balance between Utopianism and realism, but in convincing people of policy there's a need for good information, passion, but also restraint and good journalism. Michael Moore's goal should have been to convince people that were not already set on the idea of universal health care coverage. Instead he further polarized the situation. First, let's look at one of his choice of subjects: a single mother who volunteered to clean up after 9/11 who now needs an expensive inhaler each month that she can barely afford. By choosing her Moore set himself up to be charged with almost insulting manipulation. He took one of the greatest tragedies in American history and made it a central feature of his film. To further compound his error, he takes her on a boat to Cuba where they receive immediate medical attention and she receives the expensive inhaler for five cents. Once again, if he wanted to prove his point he could have taken her to any European country with socialized health care. Once again, he choose to have her treated in a country that is bitterly antagonistic to America. He can do better. The rest of his examples are far more indicative of the health care crisis in American than the 9/11 volunteers and less insulting to the viewer's intelligence.
If history is any indication, compromises need to be reached unless tyranny is to reign. If Moore had chosen to present Sicko in a less polarizing way, more would be done. As those who want a more just society, we need to behave respectfully to those who disagree with us and convince through solid argument and representative examples, not blatant manipulation.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
"Michael Moore's goal should have been to convince people that were not already set on the idea of universal health care coverage. Instead he further polarized the situation." When you're trying to get the fence-sitters down, polarizing is essential.
"If history is any indication, compromises need to be reached unless tyranny is to reign." This is pablum. Of course compromise is necessary if you aren't in a tyrannical system where opposing viewpoints aren't tolerated. The trick is to get that compromise on the most favorable terms possible, meaning each side should try to present a compelling argument and debate the merits of each position.
Two polarized sides are better than a mush of people in the middle with no idea what they want to work towards, because nothing gets done without a push or pull. And once there are polarized factions it's easier to discern the respective merits of each side. But if nobody is taking a clear and identifiable stand on one side, while the other screams "socialism!" at the top of its lungs, there's neither a hope for action nor a basis for developing a strategy once action is taken. Calling Moore stupid because he polarized is stupid, and belies a horrible misunderstanding of how political issues are framed and political compromises reached.
What exactly were you expecting the impact of "Sicko" to be? "Bowling for Columbine" started a short-lived conversation on American gun culture. "Fahrenheit 9/11" preceded a re-election. Hell, if "Sicko" got us two or three months' worth of press coverage for the ongoing health care crisis then it's a win.
And, by the way, as an observer of cinema, do you REALLY think the impact of going to Europe to get health care would be the same as going to Cuba in the American psyche?
This reads like a criticism written for the sake of writing a criticism of Moore.