[Reader-list] Michael Moore's Populist Politics & the American Left

[Isaac souweine]

Naeem -

I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I couldn't tell you if
Moore is playing dumb or if he really is just a crass, frumpy, goofball, but
either way the entire act is clearly a performance of populist leftism "for
the people". And I also grant that this maneuver is worth considering as an
aesthetic and political gesture.

As to whether it promises some deliverance from the supposed isolation of
the American left, my answer is no on two levels. The first level is that
the package just doesn't work. Left/progressive politics are about
sincerity, compassion and rationality. These are noble attitudes, but they
do not make good street theater. Turning them in that directionis a double
failure, for neither is the product viscerally entertaining, nor is it still
really connected to its parent tradition. Consider the failure of Air
America radio as exhibit number one. I listened a few times and it was
brutal stuff. Square peg and round hole. Of course Moore can be
entertaining, but I think his success is mostly a factor of his very bizarre
cult of personality. Though I can't stand him or his films, he has a certain
something and it works on screen. But the template is not generalizable.

At a more general level, I think the answer is no because we don't actually
need deliverance. Democratic registration far outpaces Republican. And
public opinion vastly favors democratic policies, including fairly liberal
ones. Moreover, the vast political middle, especially in the emerging
American West, is increasingly non-ideological. So, as we are seeing now,
continued adherence to core political values combined with a bit of
cutthroat Clintonian triangulation on wedge issues should return Democrats
to control of house, senate, the presidency and a majority of state houses.
This will be a depressingly centrist left politics of course, but this is
national electoral politics we are talking about after all.  If the
political cards are played well, the right thought machine could fulminate
its way back to irrelevance, especially as it becomes harder and harder to
hold the evangelicals in the coalition (look at the cost incurred by McCain
for using Palin to do the this job).

But even with all of this going on, I think people fighting the good fights
get fazed by all the name calling and hand waving etc. and feel a bit
inadequate - like "when do we get to talk some shit?" So I guess my moral is
- liberals aren't so good at talking shit. But they're definitely better at
governing, and even in the messed up world of American politics, they should
have enough sauce to get elected.

Best,
Isaac

PS - As a final footnote, it seems to me that it might be interesting to
compare the political theater of Moore with the fringe left performances art
of a group like Billionaires for Bush. The latter group of course has no
real national profile, but it seems to me that their  knowing, farcical take
on political speech is at once politically authentic and aesthetically
appealing. Not sure my point here exactly but the comparison just jumped out
at me for some reason. . .


On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Naeem Mohaiemen
<naeem.mohaiemen at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Madhumita Lahiri <ml49 at duke.edu> wrote:
> > I seriously doubt if Michael Moore aims to win over the undecided
> American middle, as opposed to people who already agree with him for the
> most part. But perhaps that's just my perspective from the South, where he
> is seen as a crazy, anti-God, anti-American radical.
>
> Madhumita/Isaac
> Just to digress from $700B (that's a shitload of pocket change), to
> analyze Michael Moore for a second ...
>
> I don't doubt that people in the South think he's utterly bonkers, but
> I also think that is an impression the American Right has worked on
> thoroughly to establish. I remember when FAHRENHEIT 911 and going to
> screenings in NY (which of course super welcoming) and then monitoring
> right wing radio and finding them in an utter utter froth about MM.
> And I think it's precisely because they feared his potential as
> somebody who could appeal to middle america, or another population,
> the one that exasperates Frank in "What's The Matter With Kansas"--
> one that votes against their own economic interests (GOP that
> bankrupts them) because of culture politics (Ok I may not have a job,
> but GOP will keep me safe from gay, abortion having, gun-toting
> terrorists).
>
> I look at MM and I think he's in the middle of his own frenzied
> version of image politics. I keep thinking that he deliberately
> continues to cultivate this aw shucks, I'm just an average guy, look
> at my clothes, and my haircut is still the same as in ROGER & ME, and
> no I didn't get gucci glasses after the oscar, and I'm still a slob.
>
> I think all this is deliberate because he's very aware that the
> problem for the American Left is that they are easily stereotyped as
> effete upper crust (Katrina Vanden Heuvel), tenured Radical (Noam
> Chomsky), nutty spoiler (Ralph Nader), timewarped guru (Bob Avakian),
> ice cream hippy (Ben Cohen/Ben & Jerry's), etc etc (I know I am
> leaving out 100 flavors). Of course all these caricatures are unfair,
> but they exist and are used.
>
> I think MMbeing kind of corny is actually interesting because lot of
> middle America resonates with that if you look at culture consumption
> (I know I know, massive over simplification). He wants to get the
> NASCAR crowd more than the latte crowd. It's the same reason Al
> Franken flying-tackled a heckler at a convention, because he wanted to
> prove he was the Vince McMahon/World Wrestling Federation of the left,
> consciously fighting the pinky-uplifted stereotype.
>
> I don't know is MM's experiment to be the Rush Limbaugh of the left)
> is working, but I think it at least has a chance and is worth
> studying.
>
> Just look at what happened here on sarai. I FWDed Moore's piece
> because I have a sense of who is on his list, and it is definitely
> more middle america (or middle anything) than sarai, leftturn,
> nettime, foil, etc etc mailing lists, and I found it interesting that
> soccer moms/pitbulls may be reading this prose. But as soon as I faced
> a little bit of dismissal of MM, I retreated and brought out the, as I
> put it ironically but without the quotes) the heavy Hitters. I'll see
> your Economist and counter with five economists.
>
> The fact that I was just for a second defensive about having sent
> Moore to Sarai, tells me that something interesting could be going on
> here. He's over the top to us, and embarrassing to me, but he may be
> appealing (or could appeal) to a whole other audience.  Maybe...?
>