Fahrenheit 9/11

So then; Fahrenheit 9/11. As pretty much anyone with in an interest in either films or politics will know, this is Michael Moore's latest documentary. His documentary films tend to get peoples attention; he won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, and he's won the Palme D'Or for this one, so his film are now pretty mainstream. They're certainly available for everyone to watch; I watched it last night at a multiplex cinema. It's not so long ago that Moore would have been dismissed as a cranky, left wing conspiracy theorist. Now he's an award winning documentary maker, so that accusation becomes a little difficult to justify.

Anyway, the basics for the film for anyone who for whatever reason hasn't heard much about it; it looks at the Dubya presidency from start to (hopefully) finish. It looks at how he stole the election (giving us numerous reasons to doubt the result), followed by a brief look at how Dubya spent the first part of his presidency (on holiday), then his reaction to 9/11. Aside from that, we are shown just how easy it is to link all the president's men to some VERY wealthy Saudi Arabians, to the extent that American interests come second to those of the multi-billionaire Saudis. And if that weren't enough, we're also treated to seeing the raw deal given to both the Iraqi's, and to the US soldiers who are being killed daily in order to secure the enormous amount of money being made by Dubya's friends in business.

That's a very rushed synopsis of what you can expect from Fahrenheit 9/1. What's that you say? It sounds incredibly biased? It sounds like Moore is gunning for Dubya and will throw absolutely anything and everything onscreen in order to besmirch his reputation and make him seem like an appalling President? Well...yeah. Yeah it is. Your point being?

Whilst the criticisms of this film emanating from the Right wing of the political spectrum (ranging from "it's unfair to show such a political film in the run-up to an election", to "Michael Moore is fat and ugly") are fairly predictable and easily dismissed, what has surprised me is the slew of anger emerging from the political Left about the film. The central criticism of the left seems to go as follows;

"The film is too sentimental and mawkish, and relies on an emotional connection when it should present the facts in a clearer manner and with more honesty. Not only that, but Moore comes across as partisan and biased"

This seems to be a very odd criticism to make. Relying on an emotional connection? Well, I thought that's what a film was meant to do; give the viewer a catharsis. Sentimental? A big part of the film's message is that Dubya is sending US troops to die unnecessarily. If we're going to show sentiment about something, a rich man sending poor people to die in order to make his friends richer seems like a pretty damned good reason to get more than sentimental; it's a reason to get angry. When a man responded to the worst attack on American soil in a way that was designed to keep a foreign interest happy, shouldn't we be biased against him?

So bearing in mind that this film is doing more to damage Dubya's re-election hopes than anything the Democrats have thrown at him, why are so many of the political Left (supposedly who the Democrats represent) heaping criticism on the film, and on Moore personally?

Probably because they suffer from the major handicap of the Left; they're not capable of relating to the average man on the street. I've debated with people on both sides of the political spectrum, and generally speaking I find those on the Left far more intellectually gifted than those on the Right. However, those on the Right seem to have a better sense of what will get a positive reaction from the group loosely termed "the people".

This is a cause of much frustration among the Left; they can present a clear argument with evidence supporting it that cannot be faulted intellectually speaking. Then a Right wing person makes a few rabble-rousing (and usually inaccurate) statements, and the majority of people tend to gravitate toward that point of view. Which is, understandably, annoying. However, generally no effort is made to make Left wing arguments accessible; another criticism of the Left is that, in general, they love to show off how clever they are (and I hold my hands up to this one as well...). If you're looking for long words (I almost wrote "polysyllabic words", which sorta proves my own point for me), and obscure cultural references, then the political Left is for you! If however you're looking for something that is simple, direct, and doesn't cause confusion, then look no further than the political Right.

Michael Moore is the first man to successfully break that mould; he presents Left-wing arguments, but he does it without showing off the extent of his vocabulary. He appeals to people on an emotional, gut level. And yes, he does this at the expense of giving a full explanation of all the issues involved (in other words, he keeps it simple and accessible). He doesn't tell lies, but he does present evidence in a way biased toward his point of view. This seems to be his great crime in the eyes of some on the Left; he's not being intellectually rigorous enough for their liking.

Maybe it's just me, but I find that to be an incredibly selfish criticism. Basically they're saying "Well, it's too simplistic for me personally, ergo it's wrong." What kind of ego must one have to have to demand that everything be pitched at your particular level? Isn't that as elitist as Dubya and his Neo-Conservative government are accused of being? This in itself is another point that is worth addressing; most of the Left have a habit of referring to the general public as "the mob", "the rabble", "the herd", etc. Of course, so do the Right, but at least they're sensible enough to do it in private. The Left, an altogether more honest bunch, tend not to be so shy about their disdain. The reason for this condescension? Well, because the public have been swayed time and time again by the lies and half-truths of the Right, and have failed to grasp the significance of the arguments of the Left. Therefore, any difficulties the world faces today that were caused by Dubya, are the fault of the people for being easily swayed and easily led (because it CAN'T be the fault of those on the Left for presenting a self-congratulatory and convoluted argument that plays brilliantly to anyone else immersed in Left wing politics, but reads like treacle to anyone who isn't). It's worth making clear that this attitude simply has to stop; would you vote for a group who look down on you and will treat you as morons if you cannot instantly grasp the thrust of what they are saying? No? Neither would I. No-one likes to be made to feel stupid, and the Left in general need to stop giving in to this sense of petulant unfairness that their arguments are not being accepted.

Also, the simple fact of political debate these days is that it's polarised; no effort is made by the Right wing to give a balanced argument. Yet some on the Left wing seem to think that an argument is only pure if gives absolutely all of the evidence both for and against it. Neither wonder the Right wing are in the ascendant in the US and UK; all they have to do is wait for the political Left to bore the senses out of the general public, then they come in with a handy scapegoat for all of life’s problems (usually some brand of foreigner or other) and a soundbite or two, and voila; the Right have popular support whilst the Left sit fuming impotently.

Moore has done nothing more than tailor the presentation of his arguments so that they're better received by the general public. For the first time, the left can be sure that the general public will actually give due consideration to their arguments. For too long, it has been easy to dismiss the Left as being preachy, whining, boring, dryly intellectual elitists. Michael Moore gives the Left a voice that appeals to the public, and they would be foolish in the extreme to try and silence it.