Opinion
Michael Moore sells out
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Christopher Dols:
- Michael Moore sells out (October 19, 2004)
- Troops should pull out of Iraq, now (September 30, 2004)
- Fight for your right to choose (September 16, 2004)
- Kerry as bad as Bush; vote Nader! (September 1, 2004)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Michael Moore has sold out.
In 2000, Moore was among the bold few to take a stand against the two-party system. Ralph Nader’s 2000 campaign, with Moore’s endorsement, prompted thousands to abandon the Democratic Party in favor of movement activism. Further, Moore helped deliver an ideological blow to the establishment — empowering millions of voters with the confidence to reject the Republicans and Democrats.
Like in 2000, the primary roadblock — barricade rather — to progress is the two-party system that thrives on its miniscule spectrum. As long as slight differences keep us voting for the slightly less evil, the spectrum only shifts rightward.
As Moore said at a Nader rally in 2000, “We are at the place we are at now because we have settled for so less for so long. If we keep settling, it is only going to get worse. [With] the lesser of two evils, you still wind up with evil. We are being asked to choose the second-worst candidate.”
Yet Moore, like dozens of former Nader supporters, changed his mind this year, thus setting back his own progressive platform.
John Kerry on the Iraq occupation: “I’m not talking about leaving; I’m talking about winning.”
Saturday night, instead of opposing Kerry’s position, Moore offered excuses for Kerry: To paraphrase Moore, ‘Bush started this, and it won’t be Kerry’s fault when more people die when Kerry tries to fix it.’
So Moore has preemptively apologized away the tens of thousands of deaths Kerry could inflict by trying to “win” in Iraq. Moore opposed Clinton’s persistent bombings of Iraq and the UN sanctions that killed more than a million Iraqis. Moore should know that Democrats, like Republicans, are incapable of helping Iraqis. Unfortunately, campaign contributors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and yes, Halliburton come first.
Saturday night, Moore made strong calls for gay marriage and abortion rights. Yet he also called for voting for Kerry. Moore forgets what he once knew about the American political system. When the right wing wants to ban gay marriage, this is what they do: they get Republicans to push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Democrats exclaim “No! We can’t write bigotry into the Constitution! Let states decide.” And then the Democrats, as Kerry is doing, lead the charge to ban gay marriage one state at a time.
The right wing gets their way thanks to Kerry, not in spite of him. This is the logic of Lesser Evilism.
Abortion? Republicans: “Overturn Roe vs. Wade!” Democrats: “No! We’re a friend of women! Just refuse federal funding of abortions for the poor, require parental consent and ban late-term abortions.” Thanks to Democrats, the right wing gets its way.
Corporate tax cuts? Republicans: “20 percent tax break for corporations!” Democrats: “No! We’re a friend of labor! Only 10 percent cuts.” Thanks to the “Lesser Evil” the corporations get their way.
Just as you oppose the wolf, you must oppose the wolf in sheep’s clothing leading the true sheep directly into the sheep-processing machine.
Moore attacked Republicans for scaring us into voting for Bush. Yet Moore scares us into voting for Kerry. Without trumpeting Kerry’s conservative positions, Moore reminds us how bloodcurdling Bush is. To counter, consider Hitler’s rise to power — a much more extreme case of the Lesser Evil receiving left-wing support. In 1932 the German left ‘got out the vote’ for right-winger Von Hindenburg (the Lesser Evil) to defeat Hitler. Hindenburg won. Victory for the left, right? Wrong. Hindenburg in turn appointed Hitler to the Chancellorship of Germany and the Nazis started taking power.
The Nazis succeeded because the left politically neutered itself by lining up with Hindenburg. To be clear, 2004 America is not 1932 Germany. The claim that Bush is approaching Hitler is as ridiculous as the Republicans say it is. Rather, the Hitler example makes my point, in the negative. American Socialist Hal Draper explains: “The stakes were extreme. This is exactly why 1932 is the classic case of the Lesser Evil, because even when the stakes were this high, even then voting for the Lesser Evil meant historic disaster … when the stakes are not so high, the Lesser Evil policy makes even less sense.”
Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
King wasn’t trying to convince racists. King’s audience was the ‘realistic’ liberals resisting his radical platform.
In 1999 Michael Moore understood all of this when he chastised liberals’ supporting Clinton’s bombing of Kosovo.
“It is amazing to watch all these ‘liberal’ congress members line up behind the president. In a way, I’m glad it’s happening, if only to show the American people there is little difference between the Democrats and the usually war-loving Republicans.”
Yes Mike. Truly, truly amazing.
Chris Dols (cdols@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in civil engineering and a member of the International Socialist Organization.
24 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
You either settle for lesser evil....or you will get the Bush. Maybe Nader is the best candidate....but a vote for him is like a vote for Bush in this election.
Politics, by nature, is "lesser evilism"....in fact....anything that isn't perfect is "lesser evilism". Nader may be the lesser evil of both Kerry and Bush...but that doesn't make him perfect.
The Right wing gets its away because there have been vast forces attempting to change public opinion on these subjects, as well as a nation just less willing to trust liberal cultural values after the 1960s. Scaife and other billionaires have been funding think tanks and media efforts long before anyone heard of George Soros.
If you think a viable progressive movement to counteract this can be built behind Ralph Nader, you're sadly mistaken. George Soros has done more for the movement in the past year than Nader has done with any of his campaigning. The man has shown little or no interest in building Progressive movements at the lower levels of government, where his efforts might be more effective. Part of the genius of his consumer movements was they counteracted the conservative message in a meaningful way. These campaigns, however, are simply the extension of his ego.
What a bunch of BS! First of all, President Kerry will be stuck with Iraq whether he wants it or not. To pull out now would be disaster and civil war- no one disputes that. Kerry is 100% behind a womans right to choose- no buts. As for gay marriage, and speaking as a lesbian who wants to get "married" one day, we can call it whatever the fuck we want, as long as I get my civil rights. A civil union would be just fine with me, and Kerry supports civil unions. If youre sooo concerned about the state of the Democratic party, there is such a thing as working within the system- you should give it a try sometime. And must I remind you that this election is not about the next 4 years- its about the next 40! Which would you rather have, 3 "liberal" Supreme court appointees, or 3 Bush appointees? Two more weeks baby!
Simply put, we cannot take four more years of Bush. I absolutely would vote for the Green Party in any other circumstance but this is too important for me to be greedy about voting MY conscience. My vote for Kerry is for the greater good. I will vote Green in local/state elections but for President it MUST be Kerry.
Anyone else notice how our campus right wing newspaper loudly supports Nader?
The American voting system itself is to blame for the inability for third parties to sufficiently compete. That is, the "winner takes all" or "majority rules" style of voting stacks the cards against having more than two parties. In fact, if you go to other democracies in Europe, for example, you find that not only do they have third parties, but sometimes four or more!
Instant Runoff Voting is the style many 1st world countries have. How it works is like this: In the 2000 election, liberal voters would have been able to put a '1' next to Nader, and a '2' next to Gore. If Nader received the smallest amount of '1' votes, all the votes of the people who picked him first would go to their second choice: Gore.
Another voter could have voted for say, oh I don't know, Pat Buchanan first, Nader second and Gore third. If Buchanan had the least amount of 1st picks, all his votes would move to the voter's second choice, and etc....
Gone would be the feeling of "wasting your vote" when voting for a third party. Other countries do it, why don't we?
You aren't succeeding by trying to make changes from the top down, are you?
Aw, poor liberals. When will you realize that people in this country are fed up with your whining? You know, you babies have been making yourselves look bad over the several weeks, even though Kerry "won" the debates, but that's only according to polls, which are not scientific. All you have to do is logon somewhere and keep voting for Kerry. Let's just wait until election day and see who wins. Now go back to bed!
Is it sexually gratifing to make love to money? Or do you just masterbate to the thought of your money becuase it's too much of a hassle to pay your parents' servants to clean it off?
Michael Moore is.
HOMECOMIGN ROCKS
"As for gay marriage, and speaking as a lesbian who wants to get "married" one day..."
Honey, if a president as liberal as Bill Clinton won't legalize gay marriage, then it doesn't look like anyone will. The only hope you have is if the federal government decides to leave it up to the states. Not very likely that it will happen, so just give it up.
"As for gay marriage, and speaking as a lesbian who wants to get "married" one day..."
Honey, if a president as liberal as Bill Clinton won't support gay marriage, no one will. The only hope you and your, um, lover have is if the federal government decides to leave it up to the states. How likely is that to happen? Hopefully, not very likely. So quit your bitchin' and stop bashing men for all your personal problems!
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush! A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bin Laden!
Making love to money??? Masturbating because of something to do with servants?
Does George Soros make love to his money? How about John Edwards (Mr. I'm going to take every tax exemption I can - including a loophole that means I don't pay $600,000 in Medicare taxes), does he masturbate to the picture of Ben Franklin? I bet Teresa Heinz gets some sweet, sweet action from her collection of five dollar bills.
YOU ARE A DUMBASS!!!
To the less-than-a-quarter-wit misogynist who said to the lesbian:
"So quit your bitchin' and stop bashing men for all your personal problems!"
Are you f*cking ILLITERATE?!?! Who feeds you if you are too stupid to do it yourself??? Christ, since when is supporting a MALE presidential candidate and asserting the right to basic human/civil rights an instance of 'men-bashing'? Or complaining about personal problems? Never, you useless dolt.
Before any other homophobic 'tards reading this label me as another 'angry dyke' or something like that, I'm a married woman (to a heterosexual man), and I won't stand by while some neo-caveman with a hurting ego, jealous that a woman would choose a woman as a partner rather than a hairy dim ape such as himself, deliberately takes words out of context, misinterprets them, and lies. Leave that to the Bush regime, mofos!
I hope one day Darwinism will be the victor when it comes to your kind.
"...some neo-caveman with a hurting ego, jealous that a woman would choose a woman as a partner rather than a hairy dim ape..."
Yeah, I can see that your marriage to the guy probably won't last much longer after he reads what you said about him and every other man. OK, maybe gay marriage should be legalized. That way, man-hating bitches like you can marry each other so we men won't run the risk of-ugh!-getting stuck with one of you! My mind has changed. Support gay and lesbian marriage, so we can keep the man-haters together. Let Alaska be the one state. Hey, how many of us actually go to Alaska anyway? Then we can sell it back to the Russians so it'll be their problem. Ha-ha!
"Before any other homophobic 'tards reading this label me as another 'angry dyke' or something like that, I'm a married woman (to a heterosexual man), and I won't stand by while some neo-caveman with a hurting ego, jealous that a woman would choose a woman as a partner rather than a hairy dim ape such as himself, deliberately takes words out of context, misinterprets them, and lies. Leave that to the Bush regime, mofos!"
Gosh, maybe we should re-elect Bush. If this is how the LGBT community is when they're discriminated against, then I'd hate see what they're like if they're totally equal! Yep kiddo, you are certainly dykes now.
You. Are. Dumb. VERY dumb. My comments were directed solely at the homophobic idiot who attacked the lesbian for no reason. It was not directed at men in general (duh). I take it more than a few people on this campus need help from reading tutors. You're extremely ignorant if you think my husband wouldn't support gay marriage either. I'm not a "man-hating bitch"-- there is a world of difference between hating all men and hating all people, male and female, who are blazing IDIOTS, like you! I'm SOOOO sick of dicks who are quick to put a woman down and make lame jokes just for expressing a strong opinion, especially such an opinion (like supporting gay marriage) which brings no harm to anyone else.
Obviously dimwit, the man I married and love is NOT one of the idiots I was writing about- it's not possible for me to be a man-hater. I'm a civil-rights and justice-lover. Maybe if you got off your self-righteous high horse for a moment you'd be able to see your computer monitor a little more clearly and UNDERSTAND what is being written. "Honey".
"Gosh, maybe we should re-elect Bush. If this is how the LGBT community is when they're discriminated against, then I'd hate see what they're like if they're totally equal! Yep kiddo, you are certainly dykes now."
You know, I give up. Why don't you do us all a favor and kill yourselves right now, okay? The world really doesn't need anymore self-righteous, ignorant, illiterate bastards than it already has now. Whatever anyone REASONABLE says or writes, no matter how rational it may be, you are just going to warp, twist, and spin it into a way for you to insult people who are different. So seriously, just kill yourself immediately. Humanity thanks you.
um, hello? rational dyke from comment #3 here. I'm not exactly sure how anything I said could be taken as man-bashing, nor did i realize that i mentioned any "personal problems." and thanks to the married woman for pointing that out, we need more allies like you.
but to the "less-than-a-quarter-wit misogynist" if i may... you may not like it, but the US is steadily growing more liberal. there were days when interracial marriage was illegal, and before that only white male property-owners could vote. just face it, you're fighting battle you can't win.
also: "If this is how the LGBT community is when they're discriminated against, then I'd hate see what they're like if they're totally equal!"
-errr, yeah. we would definitely be MORE pissed off if we were treated equally. riiight.
look, i'm a pragmatist. i do realize that the sorry state of our nation today does not make it likely that gay marriage/civil unions will become legal anytime soon. but within my lifetime, i believe they will be. in the meantime, i'm willing to settle for a guy who says he supports my rights to see my partner in a hospital, have joint custody of the kids, own our property jointly without jumping through a bunch of hoops, and other inconsequential things like that. especially since the other option happens to be a guy who is ACTIVELY trying to suppress those rights. mkay?
whew! mention the word "lesbian" at the BH and all hell breaks loose!
|[ Yeah, I can see that your marriage to the guy probably won't last much longer after he reads what you said about him and every other man. ]|
Once again another example of you taking my wife's words out of context. Since I do know how to read -- it's a skill I learned in elementary school, I recommend you try learning how to do it some time -- I know the comment was directed no where near me nor ALL men. It was directed at stupid shits like yourself. By no means will I be divorcing my lovely wife ever!
|[ OK, maybe gay marriage should be legalized. That way, man-hating bitches like you can marry each other so we men won't run the risk of-ugh!-getting stuck with one of you! ]|
Marriage is about choice NOT getting stuck with someone. The movement to make Gay & Lesbian acceptable by local, State, and federal governments is movement about making certain choices available for those who wish to pursue them.
Don't worry though with the attitude you posses I'm sure you're chances of getting anywhere -- or even STUCK -- with any woman is zero to none.
|[ My mind has changed. Support gay and lesbian marriage, so we can keep the man-haters together. Let Alaska be the one state. Hey, how many of us actually go to Alaska anyway? Then we can sell it back to the Russians so it'll be their problem. Ha-ha! ]|
While we're at it why not sell Texas back to the assholes? Perhaps then we would for sure be safe from likes of the Bushs.
|| Lady Liberty trim the bush 2004 ||
|[ Instant Runoff Voting is the style many 1st world countries have. How it works is like this: In the 2000 election, liberal voters would have been able to put a '1' next to Nader, and a '2' next to Gore. If Nader received the smallest amount of '1' votes, all the votes of the people who picked him first would go to their second choice: Gore.
Another voter could have voted for say, oh I don't know, Pat Buchanan first, Nader second and Gore third. If Buchanan had the least amount of 1st picks, all his votes would move to the voter's second choice, and etc.... ]|
Excellent idea. I would also like to see the removal of the electoral college as it doesn't really seem to serve any good purpose other than pretentiousness for higher population states.
|| Uncle Sam trim the bush 2004 ||
Ralph Nader was once a selfless freedom fighter, crusading for consumer rights and higher standards of living. Now he is self involved ego-maniac, hungry for the spotlight. It all boils down to one simple question, "Do you want Presidnet Bush in the White House?" If yes, you go to the wrong school.