Thursday, 15 January 2004
Smells like cynicism - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER - The flash on the Drudge Report early Tuesday morning was that Michael Moore, Bush-hater supreme, anti-war monger and filmmaker, was set to endorse Wesley Clark as the Democratic presidential nominee. The choice is odd considering: that Clark came into the race late, has had no practical political experience, didn't know until his 57th year that he was a Democrat, and that prior to his entry into the Democratic sweepstakes, was seen as a Republican.
Moore, whose hatred for President Bush has become part of his appeal and notoriety, supported Ralph Nader and the Green Party in 2000. He was amongst those who were rightfully disenchanted with the Democratic Party, especially the direction taken by Al Gore, who moved the party away from the legacy of Bill Clinton. This shift in Democratic thinking is chronicled no better than in Danny Goldberg's Dispatches from the Culture Wars: How the Left Lost Teen Spirit. Goldberg, the head of Artemis Records, and a heavy within the American Civil Liberties Association, writes a treatise lambasting the direction taken by Democrats namely Al Gore and Joe Lieberman during the 2000 election campaign through to the 2002 midterm elections. Goldberg argues that the Democrats had become elitist and that they were alienating those progressive people who would traditionally vote Democrat, but were now espousing cultural elitism with Senator Lieberman's vendetta against violence in film and television, while Tipper Gore was railing against rap music. This, while George W. Bush and Republicans were making the effort gaining support from the American heartlands, rather than dismiss out of hand, their choices of entertainment. (Though Gore and Bush seemed rather lacklustre, it was pointed out that Bush spoke as if English was his second language, while Gore seemed to be talking to the American people as if English was their second tongue.) Those that supply the culture, namely Hollywood activists, were rather turned off by the Democrat's dismissal that a lot of them, like Michael Moore, decided to park their votes with the Greens and Ralph Nader.
As the primary season heats up in the United States, the nine contenders for the nomination scramble to usurp each other with endorsements and fierce campaigning. Howard Dean, the former governor from Vermont, is the frontrunner. Poll after poll, whether from Iowa or New Hampshire, puts Dean in the lead. He is positioning himself as the new face of the party; as he's not from the Beltway, as let's say long-time Senators Joe Lieberman and John Kerry, and fourteen-time Congressman Dick Gephardt. Dean is rightfully at the front of this race because of outstanding campaign efforts utilising the internet, getting millions of dollars of donations from average Americans, pledging tens of dollars or less. This election, as no other, will be remembered for the internet's influence. Sure, it was around in 1996, 2000 and 2002, but Dean's overwhelming success can be attributed to his message being extended throughout the internet thanks to dedicated supporters, who in turn bring in more and more supporters. The uniqueness of Dean's success is that he's bringing in people who have heretofore not been politically active. These are generally younger Americans who have not voted or participated politically, and so is a demographic that has no discernable loyalties except that which they pledge to Howard Dean. These Americans have not been Democrats prior to their support of Dean, and so have essentially taken the Democratic Party by surprise. Some Democrats naturally wonder if the outsider Dean is taking over their party, with outsiders.
And so, Michael Moore. Yes, the filmmaker with a conscience, the Mike Wallace for the regular bloke, wades into the debate with his own endorsement. Surprisingly it isn't for Howard Dean, though Dean seems to be espousing many of the ideas that Moore talks about in his films and commentary (Dean's support of the death penalty and condoning of the NRA aside). Moore writes in his recent bestseller Dude, Where Is My Country? that he's sick of having loser candidates like Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich. Rather, he'd like to be in the unenviable position that the Republicans and Karl Rove have, having a winning candidate, who seems to have nothing new to bring to the national debate. Yes, as the Democrats battle each other for a nomination that few want, and in a race that has barely ignited the imagination of the American voting populace; George W. Bush looks impossible to beat. Moore claims in his book that Democratic Party leaders have told him privately that they are writing 2004 off, wishing to focus on the 2008 campaign when someone like Hillary Clinton would run. This private revelation however, is not something they're flaunting publicly, lest Americans see right through their plot and see them for the power grubbers that they essentially are.
If the Drudge flash pans out, then Wesley Clark will benefit from an endorsement from Michael Moore. Moore's influence is not something to ignore. Considering his amazing book sales and the amount of people who do espouse his beliefs, Moore could deliver some votes to Clark, least of all bring back some of those traditional Democrats who were turned off by Al Gore.
One could say that Gore's endorsement of Dean, last month, probably did it for Moore. Gore, who in the 2000 election talked about social security, prescription drugs for seniors, and his ambiguous "lock box," was talking something foreign to young people who don't necessarily count those to be their priorities. However, if you read Moore's book, you'll read that short of Oprah Winfrey jumping into to run and become President, he's already been touting General Clark. Eight bulleted points made on pages 210-211, tout Clark as a winner who thinks the way Moore and his acolytes think. He's anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, and anti-unilateralist, not to mention pro-environment and more consensus and consultation than the conviction drive had by the current administration.
Besides all that, Moore thinks nothing would be better than seeing the draft dodging Commander-in-Chief, debating a former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, a man who was first in his class at West Point and a former Rhodes Scholar. Sure, it'd make compelling entertainment, but other than that, or the fact that he could possibly be the best man to defeat the President (according to Moore); it's a little too convenient. Political expediency has never been the best course of action. It is not honourable, especially for the idealists that you would suspect liberals and left-wingers to be. One like Moore may think Bush is the worst President ever, or as some think, 'scary'. However, as Democrats knew in 2000 and 2002, winning elections for the sake of winning elections is not the best course of action. Clearly, Americans didn't think the Democrats had anything new to offer in 2002, or else the midterm elections would have been a bust for the G.O.P.
Perhaps Wesley Clark is the best man for the job, either better than the eight others running, or even President Bush himself. However, one finds it astounding that Moore would rather discount the view of his fellow Americans and bypass their choice of Dean, for the fastest route to the White House. It is hard to believe left-wing liberals and Democrats like Michael Moore, could be so cynical. The hubris reeks.
- 30 -
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .