Alterman Defends Moore

Read it here.

Alterman's not really pro-Moore so much as anti-anti-Moore. I've never been a big supporter of anti-anti-movements myself, mostly because they pretty much by definition attack the anti-s (perhaps accurately) without addressing the anti-s' criticisms.

Basically, Alterman thinks that the media are foolish to concentrate on alleged innaccuracies in F9/11, after having failed to take the Bushies to task for their own lies and distortions. "Take it easy fellas," Alterman seems to be saying. "It's just a movie; it's not like 'a fictitious war for fictitious purposes' [nice referencing of Moore's Oscar acceptance speech--ed.]."

The trouble with Alterman's argument, being true to the anti-anti-genre, is that he weasles his way out of having to take a position on F9/11. For Alterman, "Perhaps not all of Moore's contentions are equally valid; perhaps some are even wrong." Well, which is it, Eric? Since you've already criticized Gwen Ifill for not being able to "come up with a single factual claim that Moore did not support," perhaps you're prepared to inform us which contentions are "less" valid than others [odd for statements of fact to attain degrees of validity, no?--ed.], and which, if any, are "even wrong."

Something I posted on this site a few days ago seems relevant to discussing Alterman's piece:

...there are exactly infinity false claims that one could make about George W. Bush. And infinitely many of them could result in his public image being tarnished. Does that mean it's okay to say anything at all that could be damaging to the president? Back in the day when David Brock was a right-wing liar, and Rush Limbaugh &co. accused Bill Clinton of murdering Vincent Foster, Democrats tended to be opposed to baseless and injurious smear campaigns. What happened?

Now I realize that liberals are going to have an uneasy time with any movie built on calculated untruths whose thesis is that George W. Bush is a bastard. The (honest) liberal wants that to be true, and it may even be true, but his integrity won't allow him to endorse either an obvious slander campaign (i.e. the movie itself) or the ends-justifying-means logic which less scrupulous ideological comrades are sure to resort to. Alterman is flirting both with an acknowledgement that Moore is a liar and fraud on the one hand, and an ABB rationale for defending Moore on the other.

In addition to having it both ways on Moore's truthfulness, Alterman is having it both ways on how the film should be judged. The "it's just a movie, let's not get our panties in a bunch" defense isn't exactly helpful when the movie in question is deliberately designed to affect the outcome of a national election. Alterman doesn't even bother addressing Moore's own view of the film's importance, just as he doesn't bother addressing the veracity of its accusations.

Alterman refers to "alleged America-hater Michael Moore" in a move that typifies his piece. The interesting thing to note here is that under most circumstances, such an appellation would be an ironic and back-handed way of saying, "of course so-and-so doesn't hate America." But with Moore, the best one can do is suspend judgement. His public statements in this country play to the soft feelings among "progressives" for an imagined, lost Golden Age of liberalism in which FDR and the Black Panthers created a full employment economy and abolished poverty, sexual or racial discrimination, until they were reinstated somewhere between 1969 and 1983. It's an almost touching kind of sentimentality, but it doesn't quite square with Moore's statements outside these United States or on his website, as David Brooks amply demonstrates here.

How does Alterman feel about this little gem: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."? I know I feel a patriotic duty to be revolted by it.

Either this film is "epoch-making," another of Alterman's ironic usages, or it's "relax, just a movie after all." Either it's a truthful examination of the Bush presidency, or it's a tissue of lies. I report, Eric, and you decide.