I guess my problem is summed up in this observation: while I watched the movie, there were probably 20 or 30 times when a clever juxtoposition or bald-faced lie elicited laughter from the audience, and I was just thinking “this isn’t funny, this is our country.” It’s all well and good to find humor in national tribulations, but at some point in any work alleged to be Important I’d like to see outrage resolve itself seriously.

It’s not all Moore’s fault; as you noted above, KF, in some ways the Left needs this kind of overblown, extreme mouthpiece to balance out its conservative counterpart. What I find discomfiting, I suppose, is that so many people see it as gospel, as accurate, as fair and balanced, when it isn’t.

And, on a personal, gut level, I’ve got to say that Moore really rubs me the wrong way. He shares the characteristics of those he pillories–he’s smug, condescending, and opportunistic–but I’m supposed to overlook that because I agree with him about Iraq? Not bloody likely.

And that is for other audiences deeply disturbing. See Lizzie Borden’s faux-documentary “Born in Flames” for a very different set of relations to audience empowerment. That film depicts a variety of modes of organizing.  The audience can not only identify with some but also resist with others. The options are not dichotomous.

A while ago there was a thread on Jason Rhody’s blog about apocalyptic narratives. Not all postmodern narratives are apocalyptic. What is unapocalyptic about Moore’s film making? Perhaps the detachable moments that play well independently (from Fahrenheit 9/11 one can think of the scene of confronting members of Congress with request that their children enlist). In a sense Moore’s films are commercials for the Brechtian gems embedded in them. As cultural interventions in a postmodern era they are perhaps not meant to provide a modernist whole and hence the scattershot form which in and of itself is not a reflection of unmangeable contradictions or paradox. Jameson’s work on Weber here might be apposite. The reaction to Moore’s demonizing of Bush et al. may also be a reaction to the charisma of Moore himself. Will Moore cross the line between art and life and run for office?

Jake:  I dunno.  I’d love it if we on what passes for the left in this country were able to keep to the moral high ground.  But I fear that such high ground is utterly invisible in contemporary culture.  Lord knows the right is going to keep using the same cheap-shot demagogic tactics it’s been using so effectively for the last two decades; if the left disavows such tactics, it’s all but ceding the entirety of the media to the right.

I’m not suggesting, by any means, that the intellectual or artistic heart of the left should follow Moore in this mode of discourse.  But we do have to acknowledge that, for better or for worse, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter serve several serious purposes for the right:  by leading the charge out into the wingnut extreme, they not only give the true-believers a rhetorical line to repeat whenever necessary, but they also make the mainstream intellectuals of the Republican party seem moderate and sober by comparison.  We desperately need a Rush on the left; until there’s somebody that public and that far out there, somebody whom at least some subset of the U.S. will listen to, then the pundits on the right are going to continue to be able to treat the John Kerrys as if they’re the extreme.  I’m growing increasingly to believe that we need a sacrificial Michael Moore if we’re ever going to be able to elect a John Kerry.

So as far as I’m concerned, more power to him.  And more power to Al Franken, and Janeane Garofalo, and Bill Maher.  There’s a reason, I think, that the pundits on the left are coming out of comedy: the real political battles of the twenty-first century aren’t being fought in the capital; they’re being fought in the media.

My concern is mainly that I ought to wholeheartedly love Moore. I’m solidly in his demographic, and generally speaking I agree with his sentiments. But they’re couched in such a repellent way that I have a lot of trouble cheering his success. If we’re trying to convince the “undecided” to side with the Dems, maybe we should show a bit of restraint. Not a ton, but enough to distinguish us from those on the right willing to imply a connection between Hitler and Kerry.

Moore’s inability to put all of the pieces together might be understood as reflecting all of the contradictions in Bush’s America (the lack of accountability in Congress, the exploitation of working class people, the lack of media pressure on Bush, etc). 

But as a rhetorical effect, it is a problem precisely for the reasons you describe.  2 or 3 of my students came into class after seeing the film and felt that Moore’s argument failed becaues of the lack of connections.

I’m still having trouble making this idea work, so I’m starting to think that I’ve talked myself into a corner.  But does this explanation make more sense?

That may perhaps be the weirdest bunch of mixed metaphors I’ve ever produced.

That being said, it’s still a flawed film, and those flaws seem more manifest as a result of the rhetorical approach of the film (”connecting the dots”).  Like you, I’ve got little problem with the cheap shots at Wolfie, Rummy, and Bush.