Showing posts with label Michael Moore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Moore. Show all posts

Why America Doesn’t Embrace The Left

Lefties at are wondering why their quest to fundamentally transform America has been so difficult.

I suspect that the global failures of communism and socialism of the past 100 years have made an indelible impression on most Americans, but Van Deven and Kazin are looking for less obvious answers (i.e., ones not necessarily based on reality). Their discussion is an interesting example of willful blindness:
…most Americans accept the basic ground rules of capitalist society. The ideas are that if you work hard you can get ahead and that it’s better to be self-employed than employed by the people. They believe that the basics of a capitalist society are just or can be made just with small alterations. Americans want capitalism to work well for everybody, which is somewhat of a contradiction in terms since capitalism is about people competing with each other to get ahead, and everyone’s not going to be able to do well at the same time. That’s simply not possible.
That is possible, actually, and we owe our 21st century standard of living to the fact that it’s possible. Fortunately, a great number of Americans have an intuitive understanding of the trader principle, harmony of interests, comparative advantage, etc. In short, we know why capitalism works because we’re immersed in it.

We know that life doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game and we know from experience that in the effort to create wealth, preserve wealth and spread wealth around, free-market capitalism can’t be beaten.

Surprisingly, Kazin seems to come perilously close to admitting that the left has failed to sell its economic agenda because their ideas don’t work:
When the economic crisis hit in the 2008, Americans were already primed to believe the government couldn’t do anything right because it hasn’t been doing anything right for years. Ironically, the conservatives were proved right when the stimulus didn’t do what the Obama administration hoped it would do, and clearly the Tea Party has been able to grow on that policy mistake.
On the other hand, Kazin thinks that one of the great successes of the left is in their approach individual freedom, er, social equality:
The left has promoted a lot of the important changes that have occurred in American society, especially in expanding the meaning of “individual freedoms” to include African-Americans, women and homosexuals. The United States says it is committed to individual freedoms, but in practice those freedoms have been either betrayed or not fully realized. The left in this country has always been the vanguard of calling for complete equal rights and social equality.
Folks like Kazin seem to be incapable of accepting the fact that most Americans apparently have no trouble distinguishing “individual freedom” from the left’s dreadful substitute for individual freedom, i.e., “social equality.”

Why is collectivist egalitarianism unpopular in America? Kazin has an explanation for that:
The myth of the self-made man that emerged in the 19th century wasn’t entirely a myth. There were people who came to America and did very well for themselves.
So Kazin is prepared to admit that an exceptionalism of rugged individualism is a cherished part of the fabric of our culture, but he goes on to declare that our exceptionalism is actually one ofexceptional oppression, exceptional destruction and exceptional bloodthirst.

Isn’t it amazing that the left even has to ask why the rest of America doesn’t approach them with warm and fuzzy hugs?

Related: “A progressive laments how they have taken over our culture, yet Americans have still failed to embrace their destructive economic policies. If only we were more like Europe, we’d have found utopia!” Read the rest at the Lonely Conservative.

Discussion: Memeorandum

More From the Buffoonish Moore

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Hear ye Hear ye, the sage of the progressive (and delusional) left has spoken out on the justified bin Laden extermination. It is the opinion of the great oracle Micheal Moore, and his self anointed superior intellect, that bin Laden should have been captured alive and brought to trial.

Wait. Is the oh-so-wise-one taking issue with his leader on the left? Do I detect a splintering of the hopium coalition? But I digress.

Mr. Moore, oops, I mean the Progressive Oracle had this to say:
“We’ve lost something of our soul here in this country,” he said of the mission to kill the al Qaeda leader rather than capture him and try him in court…
Only you Mr. Moore {and I use the Mr. loosely in your case} would come out with such reprehensible and irrational drivel. Even our progressive President got this one right. Perhaps you ought to move to Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or perhaps Iran. Wherever. Just do this nation a favor and leave. The quicker the better.

More from the extremist Muslim sympathizer:
The liberal filmmaker ripped Americans’ disregard for a trial and their support of an assassination. “The second you say that, you’re saying that you hate being an American,” he huffed. “You hate what we stand for, you hate what our constitution stands for….We should be standing up and saying ‘listen, damn it, we’re Americans. This is the way we do it. You commit a crime, we put you on trial.'”

As for the Americans who would not want a terrorist trial to take place in civilian courts in New York City? They are “wusses,” according to Moore. “You hear stuff like that and it’s like, what are we? A bunch of wusses….We’re afraid to even put out and have a trial because somebody might get hurt or they might get mad in some other part of the world and plan to hurt us?”

Is it just me or is this guy living in some kind of surreal dream world?

Osama bin Laden was not an American citizen. He plotted and successfully executed the mass murder of American citizens on our shores. And he proudly accepted responsibility for his heinous actions. What else did President Obama need?

Perhaps those of us who consider ourselves fiscal conservatives ought to hope Obama appoints Moore his campaign manger for his 2012 reelection effort. Just wishful thinking.

Read more here.

Cross posted to Rational Nation USA

Discussions @ Memeorandum

Michael Moore: Dear President Obama – Afghanistan

by the Left Coast Rebel

I was thinking today while driving to work and listening to talk radio. I was pondering a few things. Michael Moore came up during the airwave-discussion, his plea to Obama to send the troops home from Afghanistan. Of course this will not happen as Obama has made His mind up already, however it made me think of George W. Bush and limited government fiscal conservatism, a personal note of thinking back.

I thought that the Code Pink crowd that loved and supported the Obamanation so much must feel so betrayed and disgusted by his decision to escalate the theater; to turn 180 degrees from His campaign rhetoric.

The anti-war young progressives and nutroots that supported ‘O’ must feel absolutely disgusted. They must now feel like politics sucks.

They must feel just like fiscal conservatives felt about George W Bush.

The funny thing is, I can see some of Moore’s points occasionally here. I agree that the war in Afghanistan was a large part of the undoing of the USSR. I agree that Afghanistan may be incredibly damaging to the U.S. simply because we do not seem to have the will to win. Of course I agree on some points for the exact opposite reasons that he comes to his conclusions. I simply agree because I think that Obama thinks that he can have it both ways. Moore simply and merely hates the military.

Segments that stood out to me taken from Michael Moore’s open letter to Obama:

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president.

So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea — “Let’s invade Afghanistan!” Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin……

With our economic collapse still in full swing and our precious young men and women being sacrificed on the altar of arrogance and greed, the breakdown of this great civilization we call America will head, full throttle, into oblivion if you become the “war president.”
Now listen to this:

Choose carefully, Mr. President. Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president, (editor’s note, we can hope) and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning.

Don’t be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor….

Read the rest here

Via Memeorandum

UPDATE: Chris W at My Thoughts On Freedom has a great post on this same topic. A left/right dissafection with the Chosen One? You decide.

UPDATE II: h/t BBCW, War Pig Obama, the 2007 Promise edition:

Michael Moore – Congratulations on the Nobel, Now Earn it

by the Left Coast Rebel

Get a load of this – I actually agree with Michael Moore. I’ll say it again, I actually agree with Michael Moore.

At least a little….

The irony that you have been awarded this prize on the 2nd day of the ninth year of what is quickly becoming your War in Afghanistan is not lost on anyone. You are truly at a crossroads now. You can listen to the generals and expand the war (only to result in a far-too-predictable defeat) or you can declare Bush’s Wars over, and bring all the troops home. Now. That’s what a true man of peace would do……There are those who say you’ve done nothing yet to deserve this award.
It is irony……

So now that we’ve gotten through that, get a load of this –

The Taliban is another matter. That is a problem for the people of Afghanistan to resolve — just as we did in 1776, the French did in 1789, the Cubans did in 1959, the Nicaraguans did in 1979 and the people of East Berlin did in 1989. One thing is certain through all revolutions by people who wish to be free — they ultimately have to bring about that freedom themselves. Others can be supportive, but freedom can not be delivered from the front seat of someone else’s Humvee……

Oh man, the Taliban is engaged in a battle for freedom, just as America in 1776? And wait, didn’t the Marxist dictator-thug Castro murder his way into totality in 1959? Why does the fringe-left love communists?

UPDATE: Interestingly, a bit of a retractment from Moore today, (Saturday), on his previous statement. It seems, (at least I am guessing), that the lefties gave him a bit of heat on his take. From his blog today

Last night my wife asked me if I thought I was a little too hard on Obama in
my letter yesterday congratulating him on his Nobel Prize. “No, I don’t think
so,” I replied. I thought it was important to remind him he’s now conducting the
two wars he’s inherited. “Yeah,” she said, “but to tell him, ‘Now earn it!’?
Give the guy a break — this is a great day for him and for all of us.”

I went back and re-read what I had written. And I listened for far too long
yesterday to the right wing hate machine who did what they could to crap all over Barack’s big day
. Did I — and others on the left — do the same?

Instead of waiting to see what the president is going to do, we all need to
be pro-active and push the agenda that we want to see enacted. What keeps us
from forming the same local groups we put together to get out the vote last
November? C’mon! We’re the majority now — the majority by a significant margin!
We call the shots — and we need to tell this wimpy Congress to get busy and do
what we say — or else.

Read the rest here.

Via Memeorandum

Michael Moore “Capitalism A Love Story” – Fail

by the Left Coast Rebel

Remember when I wrote this,(referencing the pic @ right), last week?

Capitalism breeds the need for psychotherapy? Oh the horror of competition. A promotional picture taken from Moore’s website……

Well I hate to be the bearer of good news but I am reading here and here that Moore’s latest excrement tossing-diatribe excuse for documentary is a complete, unabated, runaway freight-train off the tracks – Flop.

Moore’s need now for psychotherapy, oh the horror of competition. Dozens of cheeseburgers, mountains of deep-fried onions rings, barrels of beer to cry in, will suffice.

The same economic system that pseudo-intellectuals,useful-idiot, communist entertainers and communists and the far-left in the Democrat party hate so much has spoken and walked away. All those evil middle-class cash-clingers have voted with their dollars.


From BigHollywood today

B]ut the biggest disappointment of the weekend is Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story (Overture). After a $57K per theatre average on 4 screens last weekend, the picture broke to a wider 962 locations with terrible results. The “documentary” only sold an estimated $1.3M in tickets to start the weekend, and it will finish at about $3.9M for a PTA of less than $4,000. That soft opening will almost certainly make Capitalism Moore’s weakest-grossing movie since 2002’s Bowling for Columbine ($21.5M domestic gross).
And oh yah, remember last week that I opined that Moore’s film was anything but a critique of capitalism

Moore is saying in his movie, the essence of his thinking and reasoning; that capitalism is a failed system and is evil. What Moore actually points to as failed and evil is anything but capitalism. It is cronyism,bailouts, a big-government/big-business incestuous relationship bordering on the criminal. It is corporatism. As I said in the comment section here, my beef is not that he point out the fallacy of the bailout nation culture, (which I actually agree), it is that he defines that as capitalism, which it is
clearly not.

via Memeorandum

h/t to Saberpoint for his photoshop-wizardry @ top left

h/t to Another Black Conservative for likewise @ bottom right

UPDATE: Via Memeorandun, Ann Althouse has a great, simple and consice review of the movie this morning. She attended a viewing and has a unique take on what she saw. Anti-capitalist – check, she lists why. She even throws in the possibility of Moore’s anti-semitism. Listen to these excerpts from her post

My favorite thing in the movie was the trashing of young math and science graduates who, instead of applying their talents to the benefit of humanity, went to Wall Street to design the complicated derivative securities that almost destroyed the economy.

— but it came across that Moore wants a revolution. He kept advising the workers — and the evictees — of the world to unite and shake off their chains.

With this theme, I found it unsettling that in attacking the banking system, Moore presented quite a parade of Jewish names and faces. He never says the word “Jewish,” but I think the anti-Semitic theme is there. We receive long lectures about how capitalism is inconsistent with Christianity, followed a heavy-handed array of — it’s up to you to see that they are — Jewish villains.

Michael Moore – Capitalism

by the Left Coast Rebel

A teachable moment –

First off a quote from Ayn Rand –

“Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of
individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.”

Now a quote from Moore –

“At one point…capitalism wasn’t a bad idea because it allowed people to invest in things that they wanted to support…..we’re way beyond on that now, down on Wall Street, they’re not making anything, they’re just moving money around…..we suffer as a society as a result of that….instead of finding a cure for cancer….it, (Wall Street, capitalism), is highly destructive to our society.”

Ok dear reader, I get it, do you? Note the disjointed reasoning, that it is one or the other; that either our best and brightest are pursuing greed via. capitalism or they are searching for the cure for cancer. See how emotionalism is inherent in leftism, those that drink of the murky goblet of progressivism? Capitalism is evil, it is mean. It’s a zero-sum game. For one to win, another must lose. A system of ‘greed’ that must be torn down.

Dismantling capitalism is a zero-sum game, as it will need a replacement.Think of that. And with this replacement will come a system not of rules and law but of men.

So in this spirit, I have a few questions for the Moores of the world, being that they inhabit the Oval Office and Congress. Also, read C-gen’s piece that is the inspiration for this post here.

  • If capitalism is as evil and destructive as your mentor Moore claims, then explain to me how a country built on capitalism, free enterprise and individual rights came to be the most successful country in the history of the world?

  • If our free-market system is destructive then what do you deem should take it’s place? Communism? Fascism? Socialism? What makes you think that central planning works? Give me historical examples.

  • Capitalism is a system of individual rights. Are you willing to give up your individual rights to jettison capitalism? Are you willing to forgo 100% of your paycheck?

Pictures –

Democrats, Moore is your man, after all he was seated next to an ex-president during the 2004 DNC. Coincidence? Not quite, @ right.

Capitalism breeds the need for psychotherapy. Oh the horror of competition. A promotional picture taken from Moore’s website, right next to a story about Roseanne Barr standing with ACORN to stop the rightwing. I kid you not.

Head over to Landshark 5150 and read this piece that he put up – it ties into my them here…..

Update : Reader CJ, a left/libertarian kind of guy, (that I like to hear from), called me out on presenting a false dichotomy in this post and I thought that I would clarify a bit. Moore is saying in his movie, the essence of his thinking and reasoning; that capitalism is a failed system and is evil. What Moore actually points to as failed and evil is anything but capitalism. It is cronyism, bailouts, a big-government/big-business incestuous relationship bordering on the criminal. It is corporatism. As I said in the comment section here, my beef is not that he point out the fallacy of the bailout nation culture, (which I actually agree), it is that he defines that as capitalism, which it is clearly not. I should have been clearer on that. Also, here’s an older video of Ron Paul pointing to the same theme –