NationStates Jolt Archive

Democrats lost just a week and two days ago.

Examine with me the following story about Michael Moore's annoincement of another "9/11 documentary":
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Michael Moore plans a follow-up to Fahrenheit 9/11, his hit documentary that assails President Bush over the handling of the Sept. 11 attacks and the war on terrorism, according to a Hollywood trade paper.
Moore told Daily Variety that he and Harvey Weinstein, the Miramax boss who produced the film, hope to have Fahrenheit 9/11 ready in two to three years.

"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them," Moore was quoted in Thursday's edition of Variety. "They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."

A spokesman for Fellowship Adventure Group, formed by Weinstein and brother Bob to help distribute Fahrenheit 9/11, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Fahrenheit 9/11, which won top honors at May's Cannes Film Festival, became the first documentary to top $100 million at the domestic box office. Moore, who won the documentary Academy Award for Bowling for Columbine, is pushing Fahrenheit 9/11 in the best-picture category for the upcoming Oscars.

The issues for the follow-up film will remain the same, Iraq and terrorism, Moore said.

"The official mourning period is over today and there is a silver lining: George W. Bush is prohibited by law from running again," Moore said.

Duly noted, Mr. Moore is not a spokesperson for the Demoratic party and for no specific candidate who ran on the democratic ticket. However, because of his high profile and obvious leanings, it can be postulated that he is loosely associated with left-oriented movements, ideologies, and, unofficially, parties. Americans tend to perceive him, for better or worse, as a Democrat, a liberal, and a supporter of Democrats.

This being said, I would like to point out the hostile and, frankly, elitist tone of the following statement he made:

"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them," Moore was quoted in Thursday's edition of Variety. "They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."

Now, I'm not here to debate the validity or truthfulness of this statement--just it's tone. Is not the phrasing "[others] lacked information...[and need 'us' to] enlighten them" condescending?

Does this condescension make one of a differing viewpoint want to follow his reasoning, listen to his logic, or adopt his beliefs? Mr. Moore is certainly a passionate man. This is testified to by the zeal and tirelessness he wishes to vanquish his "oppostions". But does this exuberance, or, more importantly, his exuberance's expression, really bring others towards him? Or does it simply paint him as a distant elitist, who knows better than you because he has a more well-rounded education, more figures in his income, and a full-time limo driver?

I believe that this is an example of the expression of ideology that killed the Democrats' campaign in rural and even suburban areas in the election. You won't vote for, or side with those you can't relate to. And if you feel that someone thinks their better than you, is it possibe to relate to them?

Anyway, those're my thoughts. I hope the discussion goes well, as my participation will most likely be limited. And if there's no discussion, I hope the thread finds a happy resting place in that golden forum in the sky where all the other spent threads gather, awaiting the great mods and their sprinkling of divine forgiveness upon them...

Er...whatever.

Read the PIPA report, they were misinformed.

Note that Moore never said stupid, dumb, unintelligent, just misinformed.

Edit: Sorry, didn't read your post well enough.

And, with that, my point is proven.

It is sad that, after one movie, he would be labeled a distant elitist, after doing so much good in his other movies. Roger and Me was all about labor and how little corporations care about it. Bowling for Columbine was all about how corporations instill fear into middle class through the media. Unfortunately, he makes one movie, and people who disagree with him immediately tear him down.

And, with that, my point is proven.

Read:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

I admit that it may be condescending, but all those who get mad and inform themselves will actually agree.

Unofficial Motto for Americans: "God forbid we vote for somebody smarter than us."

It has been a running trend to reject intellectuals, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush 2. All of them played down their intelligence.

And, with that, my point is proven.
I agree that MM detracts from the Democrats in that he is perceived as an elitist, demagogue in the lower sense of the word.

However VO's point is not a slap at anybody. He is pointing at a truth regarding the perception of many of Bush's supporters regarding his policies and actions. I can understand the emotional aspect of their thinking.

Intellectuals, while generally despised, are not wrong for digging for truth rather than impulsively grabbing that which is expedient in immediately filling an emotional need. It is the difference between a big mac and a well prepared meal. Some people are satisfied with simpler, albeit unhealthful, fare. Some aren't.

I urge you to read the basis for the statement which VO suppiled you with at http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_14657.shtml

Read:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

I admit that it may be condescending, but all those who get mad and inform themselves will actually agree.

Well, that's exactly what I mean, too much presentation is condescending. You don't teach adults in the genreal population of the US by saying things like "you're wrong" or "this is the truth". Obviously, to function, they've already formed their opinions about truth and fiction, right and wrong. If Mr. Moore realy wanted to inform people, I think he'd do a better job if he tried to come across a little more "humble public servant"-like and less "harbringer or truth"-like. It's like comparing Moore to Richard Clark. Richard Clark, I believed. He was well-acquainted with the issues, balanced views and wasn't anxious to overstep the evidence to satisfy what he perceived as the "end conclusion". He followed cause to effect. He didn't use his conjured effect to find cause. At least, his presentation seemed to display that.

Michael Moore on the otherhand, because of his outspoken, eccentric, somewhat ridiculing presentation and personality, fails to convince me. I'm wary of his biases and try to understand that spin is a powerful tool to distort truth. I think his flamboyence in certain issues limits his effectiveness in reaching out to people as it makes those of like mind feast upon his media, and those finding themselves on the other side of the fence fast from it.

Now, I can't say that too much or the Moore-esque type of "I'm-convinced-I'm-right-ness" came directly from Democratic leadership, or even indirectly from it. But I can say that the fringe liberal groups becoming vocal over the past year or so definitely hurt the chances of Democrats grabbing a large porton of the moderate-center-right vote. It's more about perception of a Democrat elitism, than an actual sentiment.

It is sad that, after one movie, he would be labeled a distant elitist, after doing so much good in his other movies. Roger and Me was all about labor and how little corporations care about it. Bowling for Columbine was all about how corporations instill fear into middle class through the media. Unfortunately, he makes one movie, and people who disagree with him immediately tear him down.
*cough*bullshit*cough*

BFC was yet another editing masterpiece. http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.htm The whole movie is one staged scene and bit of misinformation after the other. Kinda like F9/11.

Well, that's exactly what I mean, too much presentation is condescending. You don't teach adults in the genreal population of the US by saying things like "you're wrong" or "this is the truth". Obviously, to function, they've already formed their opinions about truth and fiction, right and wrong. If Mr. Moore realy wanted to inform people, I think he'd do a better job if he tried to come across a little more "humble public servant"-like and less "harbringer or truth"-like. It's like comparing Moore to Richard Clark. Richard Clark, I believed. He was well-acquainted with the issues, balanced views and wasn't anxious to overstep the evidence to satisfy what he perceived as the "end conclusion". He followed cause to effect. He didn't use his conjured effect to find cause. At least, his presentation seemed to display that.

Michael Moore on the otherhand, because of his outspoken, eccentric, somewhat ridiculing presentation and personality, fails to convince me. I'm wary of his biases and try to understand that spin is a powerful tool to distort truth. I think his flamboyence in certain issues limits his effectiveness in reaching out to people as it makes those of like mind feast upon his media, and those finding themselves on the other side of the fence fast from it.

Now, I can't say that too much or the Moore-esque type of "I'm-convinced-I'm-right-ness" came directly from Democratic leadership, or even indirectly from it. But I can say that the fringe liberal groups becoming vocal over the past year or so definitely hurt the chances of Democrats grabbing a large porton of the moderate-center-right vote. It's more about perception of a Democrat elitism, than an actual sentiment.

I was unconvinced my Michael Moore also, if you are convinced by a major motion picture, you are lost to begin with.

However, most of Bush's supporters wrote off Clarke altogether, at least Moore got some attention.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

BFC was yet another editing masterpiece. http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.htm The whole movie is one staged scene and bit of misinformation after the other. Kinda like F9/11.

The information for this page was taken from Dave Kopel, who has been ripping on Moore ever since 9/11 came out. I will read it, however, and tell you what I think.

Well, that's exactly what I mean, too much presentation is condescending. You don't teach adults in the genreal population of the US by saying things like "you're wrong" or "this is the truth". Obviously, to function, they've already formed their opinions about truth and fiction, right and wrong. If Mr. Moore realy wanted to inform people, I think he'd do a better job if he tried to come across a little more "humble public servant"-like and less "harbringer or truth"-like. It's like comparing Moore to Richard Clark. Richard Clark, I believed. He was well-acquainted with the issues, balanced views and wasn't anxious to overstep the evidence to satisfy what he perceived as the "end conclusion". He followed cause to effect. He didn't use his conjured effect to find cause. At least, his presentation seemed to display that.

Michael Moore on the otherhand, because of his outspoken, eccentric, somewhat ridiculing presentation and personality, fails to convince me. I'm wary of his biases and try to understand that spin is a powerful tool to distort truth. I think his flamboyence in certain issues limits his effectiveness in reaching out to people as it makes those of like mind feast upon his media, and those finding themselves on the other side of the fence fast from it.

Now, I can't say that too much or the Moore-esque type of "I'm-convinced-I'm-right-ness" came directly from Democratic leadership, or even indirectly from it. But I can say that the fringe liberal groups becoming vocal over the past year or so definitely hurt the chances of Democrats grabbing a large porton of the moderate-center-right vote. It's more about perception of a Democrat elitism, than an actual sentiment.

I don't buy this for a second, and I'll tell you why: Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly.

Equal in their condescending nature if not more than Michael Moore. This is another Red Herring, an attempt at well meaning criticism that manages to control the discourse (such as 'beging the question' takes like "Is the Media Too Liberal?" The 'Liberal Bias' cry wolf still has legs to this day) and keep the 'otherside' from gaining any real foothold. I don't buy-but enough people will chase thier tails on this argument because, as this last election cycle has proven, the conservative machine is masterful at this technique.

It all went according to Karl Rove's diabolical plan. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ;)

This is a rather silly article that points out that one scene was staged, and manages to misinterpret the point of that scene.

The scene was meant to help point out our fascination with guns. The fact that a bank can offer guns instead of interest on a CD and have it be a smashing success is much more telling than the fact that a bank would be giving away guns to qualified gun owners.

Unofficial Motto for Americans: "God forbid we vote for somebody smarter than us."

Exactly. I think of comedians (another group which desperately needs their audiences to like them). One of the most oft used tool for a comedian is self-deprecation. It makes you accessible, makes the audience feel you know their troubles. People trust you more, in a way, if they think you're not a perfect person. Or, at least that you aren't convinced that you're a perfect person.

That's one thing I noticed in the Republican National Convention pretty heavily, as well as in the second debate. Bush made fun of his own english. He joked about Arnold Schwarzeneggar correcting hs grammar. He painted himself as a candidate that was an everyday person, fallible, imperfect, with quirks and foibles.

I don't think Kerry's efforts to be a more amiable candidate weren't fewer or less effective than Bush's, but he had the disadvantage of an overly wide and sometimes vocally extreme-elitist base. Kerry supporters that talked to Bush supporters in a better-than-you way (*cough* such as here, in the genreal forum *cough*) probably did more harm than good. They activated Bush's base for him. Now many people were "little Tommy" who knew all the answer in school. Most of us faced some academic hardship there. When we see the same shortcomings in our leaders, it makes us subconsciously feel more at ease. However, if this contrast hadn't been highlighted by some perceived Democrat spokespeople's elitist mentality, it probably wouldn't have been nearly as defined.

This is why I believe that Moore did good for Kerry only to a point. He stopped being useful when he turned to a demeaning, divisive mentality. I'm referring to his interview on "Fresh Air". That's the most exposure to him I have. But I believe it's sufficient to tell me that he thinks he knows more than I do. He probably does. But no one likes a know-it-all--just by reflex.

Exactly. I think of comedians (another group which desperately needs their audiences to like them). One of the most oft used tool for a comedian is self-deprecation. It makes you accessible, makes the audience feel you know their troubles. People trust you more, in a way, if they think you're not a perfect person. Or, at least that you aren't convinced that you're a perfect person.

That's one thing I noticed in the Republican National Convention pretty heavily, as well as in the second debate. Bush made fun of his own english. He joked about Arnold Schwarzeneggar correcting hs grammar. He painted himself as a candidate that was an everyday person, fallible, imperfect, with quirks and foibles.

I don't think Kerry's efforts to be a more amiable candidate weren't fewer or less effective than Bush's, but he had the disadvantage of an overly wide and sometimes vocally extreme-elitist base. Kerry supporters that talked to Bush supporters in a better-than-you way (*cough* such as here, in the genreal forum *cough*) probably did more harm than good. They activated Bush's base for him. Now many people were "little Tommy" who knew all the answer in school. Most of us faced some academic hardship there. When we see the same shortcomings in our leaders, it makes us subconsciously feel more at ease. However, if this contrast hadn't been highlighted by some perceived Democrat spokespeople's elitist mentality, it probably wouldn't have been nearly as defined.

This is why I believe that Moore did good for Kerry only to a point. He stopped being useful when he turned to a demeaning, divisive mentality. I'm referring to his interview on "Fresh Air". That's the most exposure to him I have. But I believe it's sufficient to tell me that he thinks he knows more than I do. He probably does. But no one likes a know-it-all--just by reflex.

It is very sad that you are so correct. However, it only seems to go one way, as describing Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh as arrogant is an understatement. The thing is that Michael Moore and the likes are not actually trying to be arrogant, although Michael Moore definitely has it in his nature. And when President Bush is blatantly arrogant (mandate, political capital, his constant smirking during the debates, calling people unpatriotic) the public brushes it off.

So elitism's a bad thing eh? I think Ted Rall's editorial, "CONFESSIONS OF A CULTURAL ELITIST" (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&e=1&u=/ucru/20041110/cm_ucru/confessionsofaculturalelitist) does a good job of spelling out how I feel about that.

I particularly like the last paragraph.

"So our guy lost the election. Why shouldn't those of us on the coasts feel superior? We eat better, travel more, dress better, watch cooler movies, earn better salaries, meet more interesting people, listen to better music and know more about what's going on in the world. If you voted for Bush, we accept that we have to share the country with you. We're adjusting to the possibility that there may be more of you than there are of us. But don't demand our respect. You lost it on November 2."

'nuff said.

Just another case of "Here's what I believe and why" versus "here's how you should think and why."

However, it only seems to go one way, as describing Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh as arrogant is an understatement. The thing is that Michael Moore and the likes are not actually trying to be arrogant, although Michael Moore definitely has it in his nature. And when President Bush is blatantly arrogant (mandate, political capital, his constant smirking during the debates, calling people unpatriotic) the public brushes it off.

Ah, but you are not brushing it off by bringing it up, now are you?

It goes both ways, all it takes is a stroll through the forums to see it. Whenever these characters are mentioned the tone tends to be rather uncivil if not downright hateful.

The reason the conservative public doesn't have a problem with them is because deep down, they believe the same things to an extent.

Take me and the fictional character Hannibal Lector for example. I kinda admire him for his chosen purpose...the weeding out of the rude and less savory among us. As such, I'm less inclined to actively attempt to stop him, but then again I'm not going to take up his means of disposing of rude people anytime soon since I have a pretty high regard for human life.


"So our guy lost the election. Why shouldn't those of us on the coasts feel superior? We eat better, travel more, dress better, watch cooler movies, earn better salaries, meet more interesting people, listen to better music and know more about what's going on in the world. If you voted for Bush, we accept that we have to share the country with you. We're adjusting to the possibility that there may be more of you than there are of us. But don't demand our respect. You lost it on November 2."

By this logic they had a chance to let the rest of the US go...oh somewhere in the 1860's. Anything that happens now is their ancestor's fault for being so "warlike" earlier.

Kinda makes me wonder how modern day Americans would react to a new "confederacy" of the heartland states. Somewhere where they can practice their religion in peace without being shoved into the confines of a privately owned church building.

Would the bleeding heart fellows plead their case, and let them go as they do at least verbally for quite a few militant religous groups across the world....or would they suddenly forget all about being peaceful for the "good of the union" and start another civil war?

Just another case of "Here's what I believe and why" versus "here's how you should think and why."

Ah, but you are not brushing it off by bringing it up, now are you?

It goes both ways, all it takes is a stroll through the forums to see it. Whenever these characters are mentioned the tone tends to be rather uncivil if not downright hateful.

The reason the conservative public doesn't have a problem with them is because deep down, they believe the same things to an extent.

Take me and the fictional character Hannibal Lector for example. I kinda admire him for his chosen purpose...the weeding out of the rude and less savory among us. As such, I'm less inclined to actively attempt to stop him, but then again I'm not going to take up his means of disposing of rude people anytime soon since I have a pretty high regard for human life.

"So our guy lost the election. Why shouldn't those of us on the coasts feel superior? We eat better, travel more, dress better, watch cooler movies, earn better salaries, meet more interesting people, listen to better music and know more about what's going on in the world. If you voted for Bush, we accept that we have to share the country with you. We're adjusting to the possibility that there may be more of you than there are of us. But don't demand our respect. You lost it on November 2."

By this logic they had a chance to let the rest of the US go...oh somewhere in the 1860's. Anything that happens now is their ancestor's fault for being so "warlike" earlier.

Kinda makes me wonder how modern day Americans would react to a new "confederacy" of the heartland states. Somewhere where they can practice their religion in peace without being shoved into the confines of a privately owned church building.

Would the bleeding heart fellows plead their case, and let them go as they do at least verbally for quite a few militant religous groups across the world....or would they suddenly forget all about being peaceful for the "good of the union" and start another civil war?

The point the individual is pushing does not change the level of condescending and arrogance, which was the topic of this discussion. Since neither side has a monopoly on arrogance, I don't see how it could be considered a factor in this election. No matter how you look at it, like every vote it comes down to personal values.

While I somewhat agree with Rall's statement, and I somewhat agree with your statement, I think both of you are slightly off. I don't believe the class division between blue and red states are near as great as he would like to believe. I also think that most Bible belters are quite happy with their current situation religion-wise.