Tuesday, October 12, 2004

A Reply to Michael Moore

By Don Gurewitz

Read full article...

Posted 10/12 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. When this sort of thing happens - as neoliberals are already fearing - heightened democratic expectations due to Kerry winning, we will see - if Moore takes his responsiblity seriously, heightened anger among those who are just “awakening” to problems in America.  That is the only positive thing I can see in this mostly negative picture. 

    Springsteen is out talking about Kerry supporting a living wage.  Workers won’t get it, as anyone knows.  Are Springsteen and Moore acting for the system, or raising expectations, knowing full well that these things won’t come to fruition, in order to heigten public awareness?  Both - the rabbit and the duck, so to speak...but if their hearts are in the right place then they can be counted on to be initiators, propagandists for a sort of first-level awakening.  Their own singularities are transcended by the impermeable message they send if taken correctly and followed, passed contradictions to logical conclusions. 

    Zizek makes this comment about left-campaigns, and he thinks it is a good thing.  There can be a symbiotic relationship between the left and “liberals” who are actually radical, but want their followers to adopt such values in a manner that doesn’t backfire.  I think that Moore, Sean Penn, Bruce Springsteen, etc. can be counted on to oppose Kerry if he stays the same course, which he will.  As opposed to attacking such folks now, they may well (as I truly think Moore was with Clark) know what they’re doing in terms of infiltrationism.  It is like you start with Springsteen, then you get into Van Zandt, who is a lifelong socialist.

    Rock music was surely part of my radicalization process, as hip-hop was for others.  I am not sure if I could have been transformed by people calling for total systemic change.  Like Freemasonry, radicalism often contradicts itself as people become more aware.  These contradictions and contra-distinctions are important factors.  Moore, Springsteen and followers could be an embryonic base for a third party.  I really think that they can be forced to do so.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  10/13  at  01:01 PM

  2. Jesus, Jordy. You’re doing way more than giving these celebrities the benefit of the doubt. You’re endorsing --indirectly-- their worse instincts/actions. There’s a world of difference between Bruce and Michael. The former means well, but is simply ignorant about the factors involved in bringing about change for the people he genuinely cares for, and would not sell out for the sake of limelight...ever, I think. With Moore though, you’ve got someone who’s very much into being a Star with Influence.  Aside from the fact that we should know better respecting the time we have to fiddle around with pure speculation regarding what might evolve from this or that, no one is going to confront Kerry down the road who isn’t confronting him now. I submit that none of the celebrities mentioned here have done so with acute confrontation. This notion about nursing people along, looking forward to the day when they have grown enough to come around holds parallel with what was fed Afro-Americans --and still is-- respecting being able to rise in the ranks...if only they’d be patient.  We see where that got The Group...with the likes of Obama now leading The Pack.  Pack it in, please. If Van Zandt is being labeled something positive here, please let me know if you’re talking about the filmmaker.  If so, please explain what socially redeemable value that ELEPHANT thing had for us all.  The distictions/contradictions you speak of are important only for the purposes of talk. They...along with delusional hopes regarding Third Parties down the road --with no action taking place to restore “democracy” first, to speak of-- do not appear to have much value vis-a-vis the significant change needed. Freemasonry talk will not take the place of truly confronting a Moore for supporting a Clark...without inventing “excuses"/rationales for his doing so. His Clark support gave him as much personal PR as putting down Mumia did, as Madonna got for embracing The Kabala...and that Billy Bob --thanks for the kudos-- got for denigrating Shakespeare in public.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/13  at  01:45 PM

  3. I don’t see Michael Moore as a propagandist for a first-level awakening. He’s a propagandist for a first-level gloss over. His mission is to keep “liberals” in the DP. I was a strong Kucinich supporter. I now feel his campaign was a sham from the outset meant to keep people in the DP. This was probably all orchestrated by the DLC/DNC.

    Talk of holding Kerry’s feet to the fire if he is elected is nonsense. There will be even less pressure on him to move left than there is now. The GOP certainly will not try to force him in that direction. Most ABBs will believe we once again have a man of the people as President. Clinton was arguably one of the worst Presidents in history for the average American. The further down the pecking order you were, the harder you got screwed. But tell 98% of the Democrats that and you take your life in your hands.

    Posted by Gregory Stricherz from Minneapolis, MN  on  10/13  at  03:21 PM

  4. I didn’t intend to suggest that motives are a factor, but credibility is.  Rage Against the Machine would have lost their audience if they pulled a Hitchens, so to speak.  Liberal-left cultural figures sell their “selves” and part of that image is maintaining their narccistic radicalism.  This is well and good - and can be healthy for the population, in comparison with other examples.  And an awakened “liberal” masses who sees Kerry as Bush with Botox will be mad as hell, and hopefully Moore will help them not take it anymore.  I am optimistic, if only because it is in their interests.

    Even if Kucinich, Moore and others are structurally meant to move people “back into” the system, I think the in/out dichotomy is like the rabbit and the duck.  It is nonsense.  It is not who you vote for, but what your values happen to be.  America seems to have a lack of good values.  Certainly spreading those values, even mildly is a healthy thing.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  10/14  at  12:26 AM

  5. The Van Zandt I meant was Steven, Springsteen guitarist and singer/songwriter- also a pretty good actor.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  10/14  at  12:37 AM
    6. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Botox, BoSox and Indigenous Blocks in the Bush Leagues: Predictions

    Previous entry: Pro-Capitalist, Pro-Investment and Fiscally Conservative

    [ads]

    Support Press Action