Michael Moore: Freedom Fighter or Detractor?

Michael MooreThis article — Michael Moore and Freedom — by The Mises Institute is worth a read:

[…] Moore’s film strikes a universal chord within the consciousness of people from all cultures, classes, and ideologies: the fear of power and the love of freedom. The single greatest asset, and indeed only legitimate premise, of Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” is that it publicizes the coercive, grim face of the inevitable impoverishment that is the result of warfare. It investigates the rapid growth of the United States government and its trend of trampling the rights of individuals, and the corporatism that is spawned out of the close ties between big government and big business, especially in wartime.

However, these undeniable strengths of the film are also its greatest weaknesses, for Moore focuses his efforts on the conservative Bush administration instead of addressing the crux of the matter: the institution of government itself. Also, given the passionate disgust that the filmmaker has for the current authority at the helm of the United States government, and the equally passionate fondness he has for an alternative dictator, one may rightly question whether Moore’s motives are sincerely rooted in liberty or merely in detraction. [emphasis added]

It’s also interesting that Moore could have gone the distance with F911, but dropped the ball and hopped aboard the Kerry/Edwards campaign train. That says a lot about Moore’s loyalty to truth and freedom.

Michael Moore and Freedom [Mises Institute]

1 Comment
  1. I read that article and thought it was rather odd. He starts off complimenting the impact and effectiveness of the film and then lists the scope of the film as a weakness. I have no doubt that Moore, if he so desired, could make a 90 minute comedy centered on the nature of governance itself. But that is not would be an entirely different movie.

    He then goes off on a rant regarding socialism, communism, and capitalism. This part seems to be the meat of the article and Moore is just being used as a lead in. If I understand his point correctly, Moore, due his championing the welfare of our citizenry in the face of abuses by oligarchial influences, is a socialist and a communist in the mode of failed political structures that have depended totally on these forms of government. He argues around the point that no good can ever come of those types of ideas because their mechanics are coercive by nature versus capitalism where all relationships are consensual.

    Apart from some of the failed logic, my impression is that he is setting up a straw man to knock down.

%d bloggers like this: