Thomas Paine, Michael Moore, and the End of America
73
"These are the times that try men's souls."
Those words may sound like a salient commentary on the 21st century American political and economic landscape, but they were actually penned in 1776 by revolutionary writer Thomas Paine.
Paine was a polemicist and a pamphleteer: a propagandist for the American Revolution, a virulent anti-religionist, and a champion of the common man.
In a seminal pamphlet entitled The Crisis, Paine talked about the need for colonial unity in the face of oppression. Paine was even invited by General George Washington to read his words aloud to the colonial troops to spur them on.
The passage as written continues:
"...The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value."
It's weird to see Paine's work appropriated by the Libertarian minority and various extremist militia movements and right-wing fringe groups at a time when it would seem that the American masses could glean much more inspiration from them.
Polemic is nothing if not elastic though: Stirring words can, unfortunately, be used to stir almost anything, especially when used out of context, but I'm pretty sure Paine would be shocked at how his rhetorical efforts have morphed into sound-bytes and threatening placards promoting mob rule, guns, and profiteering.
That wasn't quite what he had in mind when he wrote them.
Capitalism: A Love Story
Enter Michael Moore, modern day polemicist and arguably the closest thing America has to a postmodern Thomas Paine.
Moore's new movie Capitalism: A Love Story opens Friday, October 4th in theaters across America, and Moore is promoting his latest effort as the second "shot heard round the world."
This time, the gunfire is coming from the left, but what is most striking (and most frustrating) is how similar the root complaints are all around: Left, right, Libertarian, and center, we are all getting financially raped by the unholy alliance of government and corporatism, and we all know it.
Still, we'd rather yell at each other than take effective united action. At the outermost edges, right and left are almost indistinguishable in America, and yet the suffering middle just keeps grumbling quietly and eating popcorn.
Moore hopes his latest effort will energize the left and get EVERYONE screaming and shouting in the streets for the same cause once and for all.
Will it happen? The bigger question is, "Why hasn't it already happened?"
As literature, polemic has had a bad name for generations. Academics duly note that polemic tends to be all hat and no cattle (though maybe not in those words); devoid of thoughtful content and heavy on rhetorical devices. But at certain historical moments polemic not only has its place, it is set in the hall of legend and revered by entire populaces.
Such was the case with Paine, who said nothing new but said it in a rousing, direct way that cut right to the meat of the matter. He is widely credited with energizing the American Revolution and is now looked upon as a national hero.
Yet Paine was not always so revered. As anyone who has tried to debate any political issue in the current climate knows, a polemicist, like a prophet, is often hated in his own country. Having any opinion at all can get you shot during some eras (and this is fast becoming one of them). For all his fame and influence, only six people attended Thomas Paine's funeral.
Plenty of revolutionary Americans despised this Founding Father.
Moore and Paine share much more than the capacity to make enemies:
Both came from working class backgrounds, (Paine's father was a stay-maker, Moore's father a UAW assembly worker); both came from religious backgrounds that stressed tolerance and compassion for the poor and the suffering over dogma, (Paine's family were Quakers, Moore was brought up Irish Catholic and entered the seminary for a time); both lived during times when working class debt was widespread, crushing and nearly inescapable--times when the richest of the rich controlled both the government and almost all the assets.
|
Sicko (Special Edition)
Price: $3.93
List Price: $14.95 |
|
Fahrenheit 9/11
Price: $8.31
List Price: $14.95 |
|
The Awful Truth - The Complete DVD Set (Seasons 1 & 2)
Price: $19.39
List Price: $39.95 |
|
Bowling for Columbine
Price: $2.98
List Price: $14.98 |
The Moore Things Stay the Same
Today, the top 1% of Americans are richer than the bottom 95% and are getting even richer by the minute.
Yet about 30% of Americans still passionately defend the right of corporate finance to suck up ALL the money on political principle.
What principal would that be? An American one?
I don't think so.
In Paine's time, a man could go bankrupt for briefly missing work even if he had a compelling reason. (Sound familiar?)
Like so many of the earliest Americans, many of whom came to the U.S. to escape crushing usury in Britain, Paine came to America broke, disgraced, and hopeful. In 1774 Paine sold all his worldly goods to avoid debtor's prison and emigrated to America shortly thereafter at the urging of Benjamin Franklin.
I find it ironic that in the 200 years since Paine produced his polemical screeds, the United States has managed to replicate the adverse financial conditions that caused so many of the working poor and indigent to flee Britain for America in the first place. All we are missing is debtor's prisons, but even that is open to argument. (It costs more to incarcerate one pot smoker for a year than it would to send him to Harvard.)
We have even managed to reinstate our own version of oppressive, intolerant religious practice, which frequently (if not usually) allies itself with the corporate-loving, profiteering political right.
Advance reviews of Capitalism: A Love Story are calling it Moore's magnum opus, the work of a lifetime. Even critics who were less than impressed with his earlier movies are raving about this one, but then, if ever a time called for a pointed call to action, this is that time.
Successful polemic is all about timing after all; and Moore definitely has timing on his side if not time. (If only the U.S. did too.)
Michael and Me
Believe it or not, I am not a rabid fan of Michael Moore's work.
I think that Michael Moore is at his best when his message is simple and righteous. I think when he departs from that basic formula he tends to lose his way, and at other times he's just a dick. (Like when he was making fun of the 'for meat or pets' bunny lady in Roger and Me.)
I grew up east of Gary and just south of Detroit and I absolutely loved Roger and Me.
I still do. Living at ground zero during the inital carnage and
immediate aftermath of the outsourcing of American industry--the recent
and rapid transformation of the steel belt into the rust belt--I was
glad to see that travesty exposed on the silver screen. The Big One, another outsourcing movie, was pretty good too, though not as good as the first.
I thought Bowling for Columbine
suffered badly from lack of focus. Simply because Moore made it, his
enemies (he's a guy the right just loves to hate) automatically assumed
the movie was a lefty cry for gun control, but if you actually watch it
you see that the film is way messier than that.
Bowling for Columbine is a confused and rambling examination of America's even more confusing personal relationship with firearms. The movie combines disconnected factoids about our gun obsessions and fetishes with a sideline snark at the quirky and often bizarre gun control lobby. But Moore's attempts at 'subtle' come off as 'muddle' and it's hard to understand his point.
Illuminating complexity is outside the scope of Moore's talent.
As a result, few people really 'got' Bowling for Columbine, maybe because Moore himself wasn't really saying much beyond "WTF?": an understandable but not very useful sentiment.
Fahrenheit 9/11
suffered from the same handwringing overreach and lack of coherent
message. Moore really needs to be able to say what he means in a single
sentence that blows you out of your seat. When he starts with that simple testament, he can then go on to relentlessly illustrate his sentence
better than almost anyone else on earth.
That's when he's at his very best.
In Sicko,
Moore got back to that killer polemical formula and blew even his worst
critics out of the water. The single sentence message of that movie
was, "Health insurance in America doesn't work," and by the end of that
film he had his audience reeling with recognition and rage.
I'm definitely looking forward to seeing Capitalism: A Love Story.
Will it unite or energize Americans? Will it become the second shot heard round the world as Moore hopes?
Probably not.
I
read just yesterday that the F.D.I.C. is about to run out of money, and
that over 400 banks are on the verge of going belly up in the coming
couple of years. Trust me, you don't even want to hear the options
being floated for how to restore the federal insurance that protects
your bank deposits (such as they are). To paraphrase Paine, what we
have now, we have obtained too cheap, and we are about to pay for that
dearly.
My point is, the 'call to action' train probably left
the station a couple of years ago, and now what we are facing is the
'killing each other over BS' phase during the all-but-inevitable
decline of empire that will rapidly follow. I dearly hope I'm wrong. It would be nice if
somebody could get us all on the same page.
Even if that somebody is Michael Moore.
My
worst fear though, is that we'll just kill the messenger. As Moore
remarked on a recent promotional interview at CNBC, here we are in the
21st century having a fight to the death over a 16th century economic
theory versus an 18th century economic theory while Wall Street gaily
chugs Cristal and ignores our plebe asses. Can't we do better than this?
Isn't it time for a 21st century economy?
In
the meantime, we entertain ourselves with celluloid rage over our own
decline. We may leave the theater energized and cathartically enhanced,
but we'll still be screwed.
Popcorn anyone?
Check Out Ralph Deeds Review of Moore's Latest
Our own Ralph Deeds recently attended Capitalism: A Love Story. Check out his review and view clips of the film and other reviews at:
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Hi William--I agree. What bothers me about present-day conservatism is that most of it is not really about conserving anything original to the Constitution or the revolutionaries who started this country--it's more of a hybrid blend of militant theocracy and a vague, pro-corporate economic agenda that is always couched in the rhetoric of extreme individualism and weirdly, a sort of harsh conformity. Extreme individuals who all adhere to exactly the same values, thoughts, and beliefs.
That doesn't really resemble the thinking of the Founding Fathers, nor does it really 'conserve' those original principles and ideas--in fact it runs contrary to many of them.
Paine was far, far to the left of even today's left, never mind the right--and he absolutely detested religionists and considered them a great social evil. Hence his small funeral.
Moore gets his ideas out there, and then... nothing happens. I think it isn't bad enough yet. People still feel they have the luxury of blaming each other and bickering. Really, no one is coming forward with any serious solutions to the mess we are in. I'd like to think the movie will kick something off but I'm not holding my breath. I don't want to be disappointed. Still going to see it though.
America claims to be this great individualistic nation but has a strong conformist streak. Often more so that some of the far eastern countries like Japan and China, or even India.
Moore's "The Rights of Man" is still worth reading, and he had his hand in the French Revolution as well.
Why don't you start the solutions ball rolling, Pam. How about a hub on Stationary-State Economics that Mill's suggested? Have a read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_economy
That'll be 2,000 words by Thursday, please.
Great as usual! I wonder if Moore doesn't announce his opinions but digs up all the dirt he can and allows us to decide for ourselves. Why aren't elementary students made to study and write a report on 'Common Sense'? Maybe too many parents would call it propaganda today...hmmmm. Heck, I haven't even read that one yet, but it's now on my loooong list (better move it up to the front, eh)
I'm about to start reading John Stuart Mill's essays - namely 'On Liberty' and 'The Subjection of Women'. I like his written thoughts on each human taking complete responsibility for EVERYthing in his/her own life - to the core.
LOL! Mike, I couldn't even handle my crappy CSR job at the bank phone center, never mind figure out how to flush and rebuild THIS mess!
I think you are right though about the conformist streak in the U.S. It's really kind of two countries in one--One country is very rigid and intolerant, the other very diverse and open to new things. Probably what happens next is we all kill each other again.
That's what happened the last time things got this ugly. Thanks for the link and for stopping by. :)
Cathy--Funny true story: I had a friend who quoted part of the Bill of Rights in an opinion piece she wrote, and this conservative guy from Texas (and he was an auto worker too), said, "Where did you get that piece of commie BS?" and he wasn't kidding either.
We need real education in this country, but so much of it depends on what parents model. If parents don't value reading and thinking for themselves, their kids won't either.
PG, Great article and I'm happy to see you treading the political waters of individualism...The complacent behavior better wake up and take a stand. I believe the only thing that will move them is when they are directly affected by a greater loss of freedoms, rights and livelihood; God forbid!
Michael Moore Rocks! He is one smart individual and has his facts on vital issues firmly in place. I love his movies and look forward to seeing this new one…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXfXuk6aWJc
The news is run all day every day at my husband's workplace for the customers in the waiting area (an auto dealership). To help it feel a bit more positive and even relaxing in the room I suggested he change the TV to something lighter, at least not the news, maybe even I Love Lucy or something. Well, I guess gross minds are pretty addicted to the stuff - there were grumbles, complaints and one customer demanded to see the manager, my husband, and called the dealership a bunch of commies amongst a few other accusations of socialistic behaviors - not very nice nor deserved. Hubby complied, lest there be a riot.
Thanks Nancy! I'm really looking forward to the film too. I hope it does get people up and involved. I guess we'll find out soon!
Cathy--Cable news gets addictive doesn't it? I'm with you--I think it's not in a good way. It's like World Federation Wrestling. Picking up a book or a good newspaper (before they're all gone) would be a better option, but yeah, people are hooked on that crap. It's all he said-she said too. I can hardly watch it anymore. It literally makes me feel kinda sick.
We'll pass on the popcorn (since the neighbors and HOA tried to have Bill arrested for feeding the birds) but we'll be off to see the movie. You pretty much mirrored my sentiments on the topic and Michael Moore. At this point I sadly don't think anyone is listening or they think it's someone else's job to change things.
The statistic yesterday that has Bill in an uproar is why no one is not screaming over the fact that 56% of males in that golden age group of 20-35 are currently unemployed. Reported all over, but no one talking about it? Then I came across a federal government report that seems to say if you are over 55 and unemployed you aren't counted in the figures (because you are close to retirement)??
:) You are the reason I don't write political hubs because you can do it so much better than I ever could. Thanks for the great read.
Jerilee--That is the nicest thing anybody has said to me in a long time. I HATE writing political hubs. I get disgusted, swear off of it, then drift back. I am so grateful somebody appreciates them because I often feel like I'm just talking to the wall (or worse) and I question the value of doing it--I question that constantly.
I know what you mean about those statistics. My son is 23 now. He dropped out of high school seven years ago--the drop out rate was around 60% at his school and is worse now--and NOTHING could make him stay, nothing. Nor did anyone at the school seem to care if he stayed. His feeling was, the hairnet will fit as well now as it will after graduation.
He now makes more than either of my college-graduate daughters (without the student loan debt) as a cook at a local restaurant. It took him four years to move up from $6.75 an hour to the $9 per hour he earns now. Yesterday he went in to work---with Swine Flu. He's a cook. Why did he do this? He had to. He'd lose his job otherwise for being sick an entire week, and you cannot lose a job in the midwest right now, not where we live.
My girls both have 5 figure student loan debts. One is employed at a nominal wage, one is still looking. At 55 in Michigan I am out of the employment loop for good--having nothing to lose I say what I want these days. Even going by the official figures, unemployment is at Depression era levels up here, and we know those figures are cooked.
I agree with you though--I don't think anyone is listening anymore, and those who are, don't know what to do about any of it. I don't see a revolution coming, but I do see one hell of a mess and I don't know how to fix any of it. I don't think our government does either.
Excellent review and a lot of depth background on this movie. I'll have to see some of these movies. I keep reading about them but then don't actually see movies very often.
I love the comparison - Paine and Moore. It's perfectly obvious now that you put it out there. Very nice job.
I'm glad you drift back after you swear off. Your (our) frustration does not mask your purpose.
I'm in Michigan myself. There is a Circling The Drain mentality all around. I can't imagine how we're going to get through this.
Thanks robert. I hope you get a chance to go, or can see it on DVD or cable later. Movies are my legal drug of choice. I'd be lost without them.
wyanjen--I know what you mean about the Circling the Drain mentality. I think partly it comes from not seeing solutions on the horizon or real effort in Washington. I like Carl Levin though and I think Granholm is doing what she can. I wonder if they'll have a budget this week or if the state will shutdown again. They're $3.5 BILLION short. Yikes.
It's a number I can't get my mind around. I'm a Granholm supporter. She gets a lot of heat over here in Wayne County, but I can't think that any politician from either party could handle what is going on in MI. I hope we hit bottom soon - I think the call to action got missed because the problems are too overwhelming. (It could just be that I myself am too overwhelmed.)
I've done campaign work for Levin here and there. Lots of respect for him. Bart Stupak too, from the northern districts. Real good guy.
I do see a great difference between the message of Moore and the message of Paine.
Paine was using his message to advocate for personal liberty which was very radical in the time of The American Revolution.
Moore is using his message to advocate for the tyrany of the totalitarian state. The fundamental change advocated by the left is the exact message previousy discredited by Mao, Stalin, et al throughout the history of the World.
I too dispise the tyrany of the big corporation, but changing from one form of tyrany to another seem to be a less than ideal solution to our problems.
I agree--I think anyone governor would be taking it in the neck right now, but Granholm has done a lot to get ahead of the mess. She lured Hollywood to MI instead of Canada, went to Scandanavia to learn about green energy and get some of those companies to come here and retool the auto plants, and she is working hard to get battery production going and windmills and so forth, but there's just no way all of that combined is going to even approach the employment created by the dying auto industry. I honestly don't think it has really sunk in for people outside MI how damaging the loss of manufacturing is going to be for the country.
Hopefully a good surprise will happen. Sometimes unexpected good things can come along. (A miracle?)
Hi Tom--I don't see Moore advocating that but I know that's the way the right sees him. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your opinion. The goodcop/badcop thing we have going on where corporations are bad on the left and government is bad on the right is just them pitting us against each other. They're the same thing really. Moore says that, the right says that. To my mind it's like fighting over Pepsi versus Coke--a diversion.
I would like to see a pundit and a politician the like of trust busting Teddy Roosevelt. That's a cause I could really get behind. Then "Too big to fail" would not exist.
The progressiveness of Teddy I could fully support.
The current leftist today are saying not buying health care should be a one year in prison and/or $25,000 offense.
I havn't heard Moore offer any solution in a positive manner.
Right on about the movie industry - they have been filming in Allen Park for some time now.
Thanks for the Granholm highlights too - I'm so adjusted to GRIM that I overlook those positive things lol.
All we can do is continue working our butts off. (Those aren't the exact words we use in Detroit but the concept is the same) ;-)
Thanks again for the hub - it raises come great comparisons. Take care.
Tom Whitworth: LOL.
Tom--I'm all for some trust busting too. Sadly the 'too big to fail' banks and corporations are just getting bigger. As to the right versus left, conservative/liberal thing, it's a device. They're just jerking our chains. Also, I don't really believe you've read Chairman Mao or Stalin. If you have, I apologize.
Thanks to you too wyangen! Michigan, Michigan, yay Michigan! lol!
My LOL was about Tom's comment re: Michael Moore and totalitarianism. Trust busting I'm all for.
Seriously, Tom, do you really think that about Moore? What do you think about Bush destroying our economy in the name of the National Security State?
Hi Pam. I'm greatly looking forward to Moore's newest, and am reminded that I have yet to see Sicko, which I must do pronto. In spite of Moore's blundering across the American landscape in "Columbine," there were many shocking and frightful moments for me, but I thought his Kamikaze attack on Charlton Heston uncomfortable and unfair. Not that I agreed with Heston on anything, but it just seemed dirty and sad, and that doesn't help.
Another Great Hub, Pam. I, too, am a fan of Michael Moore. I was working in GM central office during the reign of Roger B. Smith. "Roger and Me" was a big hit among many of us who had the misfortune of working under Roger. He had the reputation of being mean spirited and vindictive and was not well liked by many who came in contact with him. Here's a true story recounted to me by on of the managers at GM's plant in Belgium: Roger brought his wife along on a trip to GM's European operations and was assigned a car and driver while he was in Antwerp for couple of days. After the Smiths left the all the driver said was "Not a nice man. Not a nice man."
Have you read anything by Naomi Klein? She's seems to be pretty much on the same wavelength as you. Sometimes she writes for "The Nation," and she appears occasionally on a radio or television interview or panel. Her most recent book is "The Shock Doctrine." Here's a link to some reviews of the book.
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews
And here's a piece about her from the New Yorker
William, I agree. I actually don't like the current health care bill but that's another hub. The comparison of the Moore to Mao is, um, a bit over the top. Plus, like I said, I don't think Tom has really read Mao--he's just being dramatic. Moore is an entertainer. He has a point of view, sure, but he makes movies. Paine wrote pamphlets and lots of his contemporaries called him an a**hole, and Moore makes movies and gets the same response. There's a parallel--I'm not saying it's set in stone, but it's there.
Christoph--'Sicko' is really good. You should rent it asap. I agree about Moore's penchant for humiliating others. It can go really wrong really fast. When it works it works (like when he was chasing down Congressmen in Fahrenheit 9/11 to ask if their kids would sign up to fight in Iraq) but when it doesn't it's really uncomfortable and he just looks like a jerk.
Hi Ralph--Yes I thought "The Shock Doctrine" was very good and she put her finger on something real. Scare us bad, them sell us crap, repeat as necessary.
Moore previewed 'Capitalism: A Love Story" in Flint and there were so many standing ovations people missed much of the film. I guess it got pretty rowdy--in a good way. :)
Thanks for the link!
I really think Moore is a capitalist which makes his commentary very hypocrital. I haven't seen him sharing his wealth.
My comparison to Mao and Stalin were to the left in government not to Moore.
That's a broad statement--the left is just like Mao and Stalin. I mean, it's so broad it loses its meaning, really. Bernie Sanders is just like Stalin? Edward Kennedy was just like Mao? I think that's a very extreme thing to suggest.
I don't think supporting a liberal agenda obligates anyone to give away what they've earned. That's also a misrepresentation of what is needed. It's just an attempt to smear the character of the person instead of addressing the issues. We've had so much of that, I really don't think that's helpful anymore.
Just the TARP money we gave to Wall Street would pay for health care for everyone for decades. We're so busy attacking each other personally we let the real criminals off scot free.
Let's not forget that the left brought us the 40 hour workweek, sick time, paid vacation, overtime pay, the interstate, public libraries, the space program, the Civil Rights act, and clean water and clean air. Hardly the actions of communist dictators.
Thank you William--That is all true. I would so like to see real discussion of real issues in this country instead of the cartoon WFW food-fight that passes for political discourse these days. Ironically, my main beef with Moore is his penchant for hyperbole. Paine was fond of that too, as all polemicists are.
But at some point the revolution ends or it never starts at all, and there are the same problems staring all of us in the face. The greatest success of our 21st century corporate oligarchy is inventing right/left boogeymen for our amusement and pitting them against each other in the ring of corporate-owned media. We place our bets on Pepsi or Coke, right or left, and cuss and disrespect each other--and they get to go on robbing and controlling us. It works! People VOLUNTEER for that fight and it's not even the right fight! The phrase 'rearranging the deck chairs' springs to mind.
I grew up in a generation when unions were strong, wages were good, there were lots of government-funded social programs, and the U.S. was the model of freedom and opportunity for the whole world. So I see this current food-fight as really nuts. It doesn't speak to my experience at all. I think it's totally manufactured by the powers that be out of public fear and ignorance. The cure then I guess would be bravery and education. Maybe actually watch Moore's films, read Paine's pamphlets, learn the history of China and Russia, and learn to have real discussions.
It's just a thought.
Also, I want to know where Bernie Sanders has stacked the bodies of the millions he has killed in his Vermont Kmer Rouge campaign. It's a pretty small state.
Pam,
Another brilliant hub, thank you for drifting off to the dark side again. I find it a shame you haven't been found by a national syndicate yet. You are spot on to remind everyone that this right/left crap is just a device. It is all about power, and money is only a tool in that game. You are also laser accurate on the realities of our current economic situation, and that during the years leading up to the revolution. It is exactly the same.
TMG
Speaking of political polemicists, my favorite is Lewis H. Lapham, immediate past editor of Harper's. He has the sharpest and most elegant blade of all since H.L. Mencken. I'll try to find a couple of quotations to illustrate.
Here's a link to an article about Lapham in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/05/usa.ir
Lapham interviewed on "Political Discourse"
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people6/Lapham/la
On Political Discourse
These insights, and your comments on those insights, seem to me to be a path into understand our present political situation, because our people in charge these days in Washington seem to be very attuned to manipulating these differences in print and the media, and in essence they're better at packaging their lies than anybody else.
Yes, they're very good at it. They approach politics in the manner of the advertising business, and the time allowances are very short. I once did a six-part television documentary on the history of American foreign policy in the twentieth century and you would think that six hours was a lot of time but it's not. I had something like 73 words in 43 seconds, or 43 words in 73 seconds, I can't remember which, in which to explain or account for the outbreak of World War II! Not only did I have to fit it to that time and those words but I also had to connect still photographs of the Munich conference in September of 1938 with the bombing of Warsaw in September of 1939. That's the kind of medium that it is.
We have this wonderful toy, but I'm not sure we've yet developed a language that can use it as analog. McLuhan makes that point too, that movable type comes along at the end of the fifteenth century, I think, but it's another hundred years before you get to Cervantes and Shakespeare and Montaigne. So, it takes time before we can learn how to use these forms.
That's one of the confusions that we see happening today: what is the media and newspapers and internet? It's almost the more we know, the less we know, and how do we know what we know? These are epistemological problems.
Your book is a collection of essays which you wrote over a period from 2002 to the present, and at the time that you were writing these essays what you were saying wasn't as apparent to a broad audience. Now everything is hitting the fan, the Bush order is unraveling day by day, and so on. So, I think our audience should go and read your book, but what I want to pull out of you is your insights, because there are many, about structural things that are at work. One of them is what we just talked about, the way the media has changed. He who controls the media, this new kind of narrative, is the one who can have political power.
Another insight that you draw on -- you talk about a seminar you go to, to hear a discussion of Thorsten Veblen's writing, and you go back and do some reading, the good historian that you are, and you were taken by his insights -- I believe he was writing about land developers and the need to sell the land and fool the people, and there would be a pot of gold, and the Emerald City, and so on. So, this is another theme in America that brings us to the present -- the nature of our capitalism and the forms it's taken.
Veblen is an extraordinary, sharp-eyed, and witty observer of the American scene. He is, of course, the man who invented the term "conspicuous consumption," and the theory of the leisure class, and the spending of money in order to prove one's state of grace, really -- not for a utilitarian purpose, but for a display purpose. In that essay what I was talking about was Veblen talking about the economy of a small town in the Middle West in the 1890s, but I used his essay to try to show that there really wasn't that much of a difference between the red state and the blue state. The red state/blue state division that the Republicans make so much of is an advertiser's demographic. It doesn't accurately reflect the way people think in different parts of the country. In other words, in order to assign somebody an attitude simply because of their dress is -- you know, that's the way you would try to sell them a watch but it's really not the way you would try to find out what was in their mind. I was using the essay that way.
As the editor of Harper's for three decades you had a seat to see the changing currents in the literary scene and in our culture. Was being an editor in the seventies different from being an editor in the eighties and the nineties, and into the present? How did the writing change? How did the selection of pieces that you could run change? What were the different constraints, if any? Did America change in that period and did you see it from your position at Harper's?
Yes. When I become editor -- I become managing editor in 1971 and I became the editor in 1975 -- and during the period in the seventies, I was still trying to think of the magazine as the marketplace of ideas. Right? I was trying to think of it in terms of debate. I would publish pieces written by individuals who were on the left and individuals who were also on the right, and during that period of the seventies some of the leading political arguments were on the side of the right -- the early writings of people like William Kristol and David Horowitz who subsequently congealed into hard-shelled neoconservatives. But in the seventies a lot of people of that kind of persuasion were making good points about some of the weaknesses in the American liberal empirium.
Late thirties, forties, fifties, you could say that almost the entire American intellectual landscape was liberal, whether you're talking about the democratic control of the Congress or the attitude in place in the school system, and the foundation in most of the publications. The conservative side of the argument, or what has become the conservative side of the argument, was really "irritable twitching." That's not my phrase; I think it's Galbraith's. But in the seventies, it was possible you could come into arguments and have a real engagement with people on different sides of the question. People could go so far as to say that they were wrong, or that they could learn something, and there was a conversation.
After the Reagan election in the eighties, what had been a more fluid exchange of ideas hardened into more polemical positions, you're either with us or against us, and if you're with us you're going to be writing for either The Nation on the one hand, or National Review on the other. There was a tendency for people to stop talking to each other and to be using words instead of as means of expression as blunt instruments with which to belabor their enemies.
There's also the loss of vocabulary, which is something else that McLuhan points out. [In] 1941 the average vocabulary of a high school senior was something like 9000 or 10,000 words, and four or five years ago when I last saw the statistic it was down to 5000 words. That's a result of television, of the broadcast discourse. Again, when you find that you're writing for television it's hard to use long words, you can't really back into sentences with participial clauses, it has to start: subject, verb, object. It's a kind of Dick and Jane language, and that has an effect. You begin to lose the devices of irony and we now have. I think it's a very big number that the Department of Health and Education places on the illiteracy of the American public. I don't know the number but it's something like twenty or thirty million, or maybe even forty.
I have the quote from Orwell's Politics and the English Language, that "One ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end." Do you think we're not teaching our students to write anymore, and that is part of the solution to this problem of restoring the democratic [discourse]? I sense that you believe strongly that you can't have citizens who are active and engaged and thinking unless they can write and talk and have the skills that we used to learn.
I agree with you; yes,
This is a great hub - loved the information on Paine and the comparison between Paine and Moore. I'm a fan of Moore although I recognize the flaws - but, he is so full of heart I just forgive them and enjoy the ride. I like Sicko the best, too. And, can't wait to see the new film. Moore often comments that the death squads are after him - he really has to watch his back - as you say, we hope they don't kill the messenger!
Hi Money Guy! Thank you for your kind words. I don't think very many people get *real* jobs writing anymore, at least not around here, but that's OK. I try to stay away from the dark side but I think it really IS my father! LOL!
Yes I think we are headed right for the same old mess all countries in decline get. Yikes. And that FDIC crap----I mean, WTF????? At some point you just have throw up your hands and say, oh hell, let it fall. It's unsalvageable.
Ralph--Wonderful Latham interview and quotes, thank you for posting all of that! I think he is right when he says of TV & the internet that it's almost like the more we information we have the less we know. I love his comparison of the news to advertising. EVERYTHING is advertising anymore.
My partner Bill is reading Margaret Atwood's 'Oryx and Crake' and 'The Year of the Flood' which both deal with this sort of dystopian world in which there are actually two kinds of human beings--corporate ones and drop outs, and because of genetic engineering they actually are different life forms. (I think that's close to the plot--I may have misstated it or garbled it up.) Anyway I'm looking forward to reading them both and writing about them as they deal with some of these issues, I think.
kartika--I do agree that Moore's heart is in the right place, and when he's on his game he's brilliant. I am really looking forward to the movie too. My disappointment is more with our situation, which seems to me to be deteriorating while we watch. Yet I don't really know what to do about it myself. At least Moore is out there TRYING to tell the truth. That's more that can be said for our press and most of our politicians.
Well, pgrundy, I thought I didn't agree with you until about the middle of the hub. I really DON'T like Michael Moore. However, "what we bought to cheap, we are going to pay for dearly", that got me, and the fact we aren't looking to pull together. And, what is known elsewhere as, the "95 cent rule". In a capitalist society, 1 to 3% of the people end up with 95 cents out of every dollar available. The rest of us hassle over the remaining 5 cents.
Whatever your point of view, your hubs are always well-written and worth reading. You've got the gift, for sure.
Thanks Paradise 7. I think sometimes that we probably have way more in common than we think, but the internet just isn't the best place to discover that.
Pam:
I have not read all of the above posts but read the discourse between Tom and you. I think you are confusing the neo-conservatism of Bush, Cheney, et. al with conservatism. Conservatives are more appalled by government support of corporations than are liberals. Liberals seem to just want to support the right corporations (subsidies to wind farms and solar panel makers?) Conservatives believe in education, personal responsibility and market decisions. While I agree that the market of free ideas may have been co-opted by corporatists with their own agendas, that doesn't mean we have to give up on the individual.
I assure you that Thomas Paine would not be in favor of the government taking over health care or the auto industry or banks.
Mugwump--I agree with you. That's what I mean when I say we have more in common than not. If you read my hub here you know that I'm NOT in favor of giving all this money to corporations and that I don't like the current health plan, yet here in your comment you say "liberals want to support the right corporations," as though liberalism and corporatism are in bed with each other.
I think the old right/left, conservative/liberal labels don't apply very well anymore, and when we insist on squaring off over them we muddy the waters and don't see what is really happening. If we could frame the debate around certain issues--like the huge bailouts and lack of decent education--I think we'd find we are more on the same page than we think.
I also agree that conservatism has morphed into something it never was in the past. William F. Buckley would not be appalled by the neocons. Thanks for your excellent comment.
HI Pam-- boy am I glad I stopped by-- as always, love the hub and this time am blown away by the meaty comment thread as well. I'm not going to add much except to say that you and I are definitely on the same page ( but that's nothing new :-))
I too have not always been a big Moore fan for the reasons you cite..and I also think Sicko was his best so far and am licking my chops at the prospect of " Capitalism" which I intend to actually spend money to go see in a theatre( rare for me)
Where is Thomas Paine when we need him? They probably don't even teach him in school anymore. You are right, today is not unlike what the founding fathers were trying to escape-- and when someone like Sarah Palin can become a serious candidate for anything, it seems like ignorance is overcoming enlightenment. I'm thinking that the current stranglehold of the golbal corporations on humankind is more like the Dark Ages and what we need is a Renaissance. 2012 anyone?
Ah well I still have plenty of Little Friskies and you and Bill are still invited to stop in any time
Hi robie! We may still end up taking you up on that Little Friskies dinner! I've been thinking about the Dark Ages comparison lately too. It does feel like something is falling apart and we're into some kind of descent into ugliness, but on the upside, the comments here are really awesome--I wasn't expecting that. I think people on all sides of the debate are getting tired of the hate and coming close to being willing to find common ground. Maybe we aren't there yet, but I sense a 'fed-up-ness' creeping in that might not be a bad thing.
When I'm really down I go to an in-theater movie. It's a treat for me too, but at least it's one that doesn't make me fat or drunk so I allow myself that. We'll have to come back and talk about what we thought of this latest movie. Thanks for stopping by. :)
The vitriol does seem to have died down a bit. Or maybe it's just in the things I'm looking at.
And anyway, it's true: we are all getting screwed, Republicans, Democrats, independents, young, old, union, non-union.
So now, we must figure out: who's screwing us? And how do we stop them from doing it?
Something needs to change, I agree with the teabaggers and Glenn Beck on that. Let's just be sure we're changing the right thing, and not unintentionally giving away our libery for a little temporary safety.
I too believe government should be of the people,by the people, for the people. I am no fan of bailouts for "to big to fail" corporations. I do wish existing governments would do their duty in enforcing existing laws against illegal trusts.
Doing so requires no fundamental transformation of the structure of government. It does require non-corrupt politicians. I for one would be willing to vote each and every incumbant out of office for over a twenty year period as an attempt to return government to the people.
I did like Moore in "Roger and Me".
"We might as Well all stand together for we all shall hang together."
Don't remember who said, but I like it.
TMG
Hi William--I agree! Rage can get addictive but it's also exhausting. I mean, eventually it gets back to the trash has to be set out, the dishes washed, and so forth. Common focus on areas of agreement would help a lot. I hope that happens.
Tom--I know we agree on more things than we disagree on. I know that for sure. It's just so many of us are really riled up now and it's hard to discuss things on the internet. If we were face to face I think it would be different. :)
Hey TMG--That was Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He said:
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Now I guess we just need to agree on what exactly we need to declare independence FROM in 2009 and we'll be on some kinda right track I guess. :)
Ahhh....no popcorn for me; thanks just the same, pgrundy.
An excellent hub from start to finish, including the last phrase, "we'll still be screwed", 'cause frankly, we're in BIG trouble.
Thank you for this hub, pgrundy.
"... and sometimes he's just a dick." LOL! Best phrase of the whole bloody brilliant hub! He's always a dick, but you have to be to do what he does, don't you think?
I worry that Michael Moore has becomethe boy who cried wolf so that people have tuned out to what are legit findings. Not me, of course. I can't get enough!
Great hub as always. It will be interesting to see how our Constitutionalist contingent here on HP reacts :-). MM
Thanks Tina Irene--That popcorn is REALLY bad for you anyway. I mean seriously, do they use motor oil on that stuff or what? lol! Thanks for stopping by. :)
MM--I agree about having to be dick to do what he does. When it works it's brilliant. When he's just being a dick it kind of makes me wince. But I'm with you, overall the movies of his that I like I REALLY like.
What bothers me most is not so much that he might be the little boy who cried wolf but rather that we now just turn everything into entertainment and don't really think we can change anything. I fear people will go, he'll make some money, we'll all feel better for an hour, then nothing will change. In fact, I'm almost sure that's what will happen, but I'm still looking forward to the movie. :)
Excellent hub, as usual.
In my opinion, discussing Paine or Moore in the liberal-conservative context (which I don't believe you are) is missing the point. The effect of each man was to poke at the number one enemy affecting both the right and the left, namely, comfort. We talk but we do not act because we are addicted to our comfort. That is how the people on top who couldn't care less what party is in power control us: we'll talk but we won't take action as long as they keep giving us McDonalds.
Paine and Moore represent a threat to those with hostile philosophies, but they cause even more discomfort to those in agreement with them because their work raises the question: "If you know these men are on to something, how can you continue to just sit there?"
And until something threatens to deprive us of all our comforts (which I believe the coming hyperinflation may do even more than the present recession), we will not take action. I believe history supports this. Neither Paine's call nor even the occasional murder of colonists provoked our revolution: it was ultimately the substantial effect of a number of silly tax laws on the pocketbooks of key Americans that made us willing to risk all. In other words, their comfortable lifestyle (not only money but freedom to live their lives the way they wanted without interference) was being taken away, and for that they would fight.
The things I dislike about Moore -- the hyperbole, the character assassination, the disregard for accuracy -- are the very things that make him valuable and impossible to ignore.
Pam,
I think we could declare the exact same independance as before, as the Declaration was essentially a notice to creditors telling them to kiss it, because we ain't gonna pay it anymore.
TMG
Steve--I think you are so right about comfort. The way I think of it is, people have to get to the point where they feel they have nothing to lose by doing the right thing. It's too bad it has to come to that, but I believe that's human nature. Winston Churchill said, "You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing...after they've exhausted every other possibility." Right now I think we are witnessing the systematic exhaustion of every other possibility. When those are gone and comfort is gone and there's CLEARLY nothing left to lose, people will stand up. But not one day sooner. Thanks for your always thoughtful comments.
TMG--By God, you're right! How could I have missed it? It's like Steve said though--people won't declare that kind of independence until they realize the comforts provided by usury are an illusion. Too many still feel safe because they did all the 'right' things. When they see how little that matters if someone bigger wants their money and property, they'll be ready to sign that declaration. :)
Another amazingly-written, thoughtful and thought-provoking hub, Pam.
Pam,
Yep you gotta give it to Steve on that point. Only then will we sign that document.
TMG
this was extremely helpful. i've heard a little about the movie and know of Michael Moore's controversial nature but this put it into better focus. living on a college campus kinda alienates you to what's going on in the real world - except of course that no one has any money. thanks pam, always a pleasure to read your hubs.
It would almost seem, pgrundy, that you're having some success in applying the precepts of Dropout Nation here at HP.
Some of the "opposition" would appear to be on the verge of engaging in rational discussion.
Congratulations!
Another vote for your syndication.
Hi Pam, Thomas Paine lived in Lewes (a small town on the Sussex Downs, not far from Brighton) for a while, and his portrait is featured on the Lewes Pound which was issued by the town's inhabitants as a means to keep money local, and to boost trade amongst the many independant shops and businesses in Lewes.
I love your comparison between Paine and Moore. It's not about presentation, it's about message, and the means of delivery. I've seen only snatches of Moore's work (most notably 'Sicko') and he can come across as a bumbling buffoon at points, but realistically he's like a human cartoon, he's looking for laughs, but he's doing it by making a joke out of really painful, difficult situations, that desparately need sorting.
Are those figures that Jerilee quoted for unemployment correct BTW? 56% of males at peak employment age? That's a terrifying statistic.
Thanks livelonger!
TMG--Yep. We can keep slowly collecting signatures though. :)
Steve--Thanks so much. That would be cool.
Elliot--Thanks for reading this. I appreciate you stopping by. I remember being a student and living on oatmeal, popcorn and macaroni and cheese. :)
CWB--I do think if this keeps up we'll reach critical mass at some point. I'm letting myself feel semi-optimistic today. Thanks for the boost!
Amanda--That is so cool about Paine being on the new money in Lewes! I trust Jerilee on the statistics--Here in Michigan, the overall rate is between 15 and 27% depending on where you are, and it's higher for some groups. It's pretty bad here and doing something about it isn't even on the table. As of today Michigan has no budget. We're on a temporary emergency budget because we're billions underwater. About 19 cities are expected to go bankrupt in the coming year. I've never seen it this bad in my entire life, so I doubt Jerilee's figure is in error.
This was a great hub,..never disappointed when I read yours. I like Moore personally, because he's passionate about how he feels and he does have heart. I hope more people get the oppertunity to read this, definatly something to be learned here.
I've started reading Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" and from what I've read so far his take on religion is exactly what I've always believed, being raised as a Catholic. I'll finish reading it of course but I felt inclined to see what he thought on other issues.
On Wikipedia it says that he also believes in progressive taxation and a safety net. Well, that goes against my current belief systems of fair taxation and theft, but after reading his logical arguments on religion, I am looking forward to hearing him out.
Your readers who still believe largely in "liberals" vs. "conservatives" may find value in this video.
Pam, please never stop writing your political hubs. Without them, I would feel so alone. Of course that is what they want, a sense of isolation for the people who still foolishly believe in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The irony is how so many folks on the lower end of the economic spectrum fall for the corporate hogwash that paints the justice movement as some kind of evil entity.
Hi Army Infantry Mom--Thanks! I appreciate you stopping by.
Just For Fun--Interesting video, thanks. I agree with him about the false dichotomies and how they are used to distort reality to preserve the status quo, but he loses me when he starts 'explaining' how various social policies are evil and how the Founding Fathers were Libertarians. Practically EVERY political party says they are what the Founding Fathers had in mind! That's why I thought it was so funny (as in ironic, not funny as in hilarious) that Paine was not that well-liked or well-treated in his lifetime. Still, if any of us today can agree on 50% of anything, I say that's a start! Thanks again.
Dolores--Thank you, I think you are right that the whole point of the ugly rhetoric is to stop people from voicing any political views at all. This is technically a film review with lots of thoughts on political rhetoric thrown in, but I guess it could count as a political hub. I filed it under 'entertainment'. LOL!
Thanks for replying pgrundy. And to every comment, wow. Your energy is inspiring. Yes, I'm trying to understand practical libertarian policies. To do so, I know I'll need to learn a lot more about economics (even though that is partisan as well). I've only read a few of your hubs but am sure I'll read more. Thanks.
Hi Just for Fun--I don't always respond to every comment, but this hub has been fun because everyone has been fairly decent to each other. I've thought of writing about Libertarianism but I know that would be less fun and I would soon not enjoy the conversation. I agree with some of it but disagree passionately with most of the rest of the platform, and haven't read a Libertarian author I enjoyed or found inspirational. It's not for me.
Maybe I've just not met the right Libertarians. The folks I've met here are surprisingly insistent on pushing their views even after I've said, "No thank you I know I disagree on that." See to me, that's the end of it. People won't agree on everything. Democrats, Independents, even lots of conservatives here respect that, but not the Libertarians. Conversations are supposed to end. At some point you get to the point of, "OK we agree on these six things but not on the other 9." It's especially ironic because the Libertarian Party supposedly celebrates the individual--so long as all the individuals concerned think exactly alike about politics and economics!
I get accused of being a big lefty but I think I'm kind of conservative on some things, very left on others, and middle of the road on most. I get tired of all the labeling. Thanks for your thoughts and for taking the time to share them. :)
Pam, I feel the same way. Some things about libertarianism are quite attractive--their belief in keeping the government out of our personal lives, drug policy, right to choose, right to privacy, etc. However, I don't think their economic policies and international policies are viable in the modern world. I sometimes call myself a liberal, but that doesn't evoke an accurate picture of my beliefs in the minds of others here on HubPages or elsewhere.
Hi Ralph--Yes, it seems like the economic portion of it is based on a kind of romanticized recreation of the 19th century, but the 19th century America remembered by Libertarianism is a heavily edited, very rosy sort of place where the gold standard solved everything and, as Ron Paul himself said on Jon Stewart the other night, huge monopolies like the railroads and the coal companies earned their profits legitimately by providing a better product.
Um, OK. That's one way of framing it I guess. I always want to like Ron Paul because he seems like such a decent person on a one-to-one level, but then he starts talking and keeps talking. I also have not much enjoyed my dialogues with the major Libertarian voices here at HP. If I get tired of arguing out of sheer exasperated boredom with the imaginary nature of it all, it could be construed as them 'winning'. Or, alternatively, it could just mean I'm done.
Yep.
Take a look at the poem Hubs by MFB III. I think he's quite good. Haven't read them all yet.
Well, I should be reading instead of commenting more, but I like your attitudes here. Libertarianism makes sense to me as a philosophy. To me, in a perfect utopia (we can all dream, right?), people would be highly educated and moral. In such a fantasy, there is no need for most, if not all, government. If education and morality were every individual's goal and we achieved that goal gradually, wouldn't libertarianism become the natural product?
It seems to me that the human race as a whole doesn't deserve libertarianism (maybe said in a better way, we would screw it up). But at least it should be our goal (I'm assuming most people would agree that totalitarianism should never be an end goal). That's probably my utopian idealistic naivety on display, but it seems logical to me. All right, enough from me!
Ralph--That IS amazing poetry. That's kind of where I'm at with it too, only I can't write beautiful poetry about it. Awesome stuff.
Just For Fun--I think for such a society to happen and to work, everyone would have to have equal opportunity and have their basic needs met. The way I see it, the problem is that not everyone gets a fair start. When a political philosophy makes property rights and rugged individualism/personal responsibility more important than compassion and social service, what gets obscured is the brutality of privilege and inherited wealth. Capitalist systems end up funneling money to the top. Not that communism is the answer either, or even socialism. All of these political models are centuries old. I think we need to think outside the box and address real need and real problems, not spin theory while Rome burns.
But I totally understand why people are mad at the government right now. I'm pretty disgusted with it myself. Thanks for all your insightful posts.
I hope will watch movie about war America's history.
The forces that have usurped our wealth are adept at dividing us and setting us against each other. I fear things will have to get much, much worse before people react the way they need to in order to truly effect change.
Thanks so much for this excellent comparison and review of two significant Americans.
Thank you Jess Killnenow--What a cool screen name! It took me a minute but once it hit me it cracked me up! I think you are right about things not being bad enough yet for people to stop the nonsense. We're going to the movie this weekend. I'm looking forward to it. Thanks for your thoughts. :)
Pgrundy you are such an amazing an inspiring writer. I cannot agree with you more that M.M. is best when simple and righteous, He is a voice that is too often un-heeded because he comes off as a "Dick" sometimes and that is tragic. Thomas Paine he is, and one day I hope that the 30% that defend the 1% take a moment to extract their craniums from rectal deflate to listen.
Pam;
This is a powerful piece. Brilliant. As I read it, I realized not only what a masterful writer you are, but what a consummate researcher. The information and the presentation is highly professorial, and that is meant in a positive sense.
There two problems with polemic. The first is we hope that the speaker is not speaking just to show how bright he is.
The other is that polemic not only needs a listener but an actor as well, a motivator.
You've heard the old saw about all talk and no action. What we need are auditors who have the intestinal fortitude and the balls to do something about it.
You have those quakities, yet I have heard you say, on other occasions. that you were thinking about quitting political writing because of the abuse you've taken.
You've already dispatched the Cristal drinking corporate thieves and their Republican co=conspirators.
So whom does it leave?
It was because of times like this, because of tyrannical central government, that we fought our first revolution.
As the commies used too say, "Come the Revolution."
We need a new revolution.
In the 1770's, we had Paine and Jefferson and Franklin and all the rest of the boys. They were the instigators, the rabble rousers, the agents provocateurs. But it took the rabble themselves to fire that "shot heard round the world" and stand at Lexington and Concord.
True, Moore may be a pudgy Paine. But the question is, who is going to actually man the barricades?
J
Hi Trooper22--Thanks! I have the sense that a feeling of 'enough' is growing recently with regard to the all the hate speech and wrong-headed rabble rousing. Some people will always be easily used, but I think the folks in the middle are about sick of it. I hope so. Thanks for your comments!
jerrylayton--Thank you for your kind words. I can tolerate abuse if it's for a good purpose, I just question sometimes whether my political ramblings online really have any positive effect on anything whatsoever, and if they don't, then why take the abuse? But I always seem to drift back to it so I shouldn't complain.
You are right about the need for another revolution, but what troubles me is, revolution just for the sake of revolution usually leads to something much worse. I think we need to get back to the original principles of liberty and justice for all, not just for a few. We have a good Constitution and good founding principles, we've just let big money blow them apart and take over the country.
Some people talk as if the U.S. was founded to promote capitalism, as if that is the primary reason the U.S. exists. What about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? None of those have a thing to do with capitalism. I don't think communism is the opposite of capitalism. I think both communism and capitalism are 19th century economic systems that have run their course. We need an economy that gives everyone a chance. Thanks for your thoughts. :)
Just a brief aside to jerrylayton. It was more about a tyrannical central BANK.
Capitalism has managed to restore the very economic conditions which prompted the split from england in the first place.
A privately owned central bank that controls the currency.
A guaranteed recipe for disaster.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild
It seems we never learn from our mistakes.
I thought Bowling for Columbine was a great movie as movies go. But I come with the Bias of being anti-gun & from Australia with very few guns comparable to the US. I thought the often left field antic's of Micheal Moore in this film(doco) brought home the absurdity that is the case! That of the love affair that Americans have even in modern times with the right to possess and use guns. I expect the new movie to bring out hilarious laughter with more than a grain of truth at the present day socialized bailout of corporate America. Something that corporate America despises paying for when it comes to bailing out it's citizens...
Hi barryrutherford--Thanks for your thoughts! We do have an insane relationship with guns here--that is undeniable. I do believe in 2nd amendment rights, but I think the gun lobby takes it to an insane level. Now we have people taking guns into bars and to Presidential events. That's just nuts, there's no other way to say it. We're going to "Capitalism: A Love Story" today. I'm really looking forward to it!
This article is everything I've come to associate with your name -- common sense, great writing, well-thought out and presented. Needless to say, I'm in general agreement with your views. You touch on so much here; I had to read it over several times to get it all.
Hope you enjoy Capitalism: A Love Story. I too, enjoy Michael Moore's films, though there are times where he tries too hard for our heart strings and only seems maudlin (ie. I grew tired of the grieving mother of the slain soldier in F. 911) but over all, consider him a great voice in a time of the trite, pre-processed messages out there.
Keep on writing, pgundy. This one fan, at least, waits on your next words of wisdom.
Hi Immartin--Thanks for the kind words. It's weird, I get kind words and hate mail side by side. This hub has so far not attracted any of the hateful stuff I usually get. I think the people who love love love to hate me are tired or busy or something and that's OK with me. The internet is not the friendliest playground sometimes.
I'm with you on the 9/11 widow and the maudlin stuff. But also that, overall, he has a lot of heart and thank god SOMEBODY is saying what he says. Thanks again. :)
This is the best piece of writing I've read for some time. Damn, I've missed HubPages! I admire your Paine/Moore parallels, and am eager to hear what you think of Moore's latest movie.
Thanks Teresa! I've really missed you around here too! I hope your internet is back for awhile :)
We just got back from the movie. It was very, very good, but also disturbing. Yet there were parts that were laugh out loud funny. Good thing too, because it would have been almost unbearably depressing without the comedic relief. Thank God someone is making movies like that.
Enjoyed the writing! Speaking of the extreme Right's misappropriation of our great thinkers, I often think of the "tree of liberty" letter written, in part, by Jefferson referring to the federal government's successfully putting down a rebellion. As he said, "The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them." http://bit.ly/27ghkx
Does anybody know if Michael Moore will pocket the profits (or absorb the losses) from "Capitalism: A Love Story"?
Thank you for that link John in Cincy--It always helps to read a thing in context. ;)
PeeDeeWildcat--Why wouldn't he keep his earnings from that film? I do know he does not invest them in the stock market though. Whatever he keeps or doesn't, it's clear he doesn't buy clothes with that money. Do you think if someone expresses views contrary to Wall Street they should give all their money away? I hear that a lot, but I don't think it is a rational expectation.
Nice hub, Pam. I've actually never bothered watching a single Michael Moore film, but you got me interested. I'll have to check out Capitalism: A Love Story. Oddly, I always thought Moore was a libertarian, which is why I haven't been terribly interested up to now.
Cheers!
One of the principal failures of conservatism has been the advocating the "Greed is Good" mantra. From that we got Enron and lately Bernie Maddoff and the Wall street mess. The anti-regulation mind set, and let Wall Street/The free market take care of the economy that even Alan Greenspan favored has been a colossal failure.
The most important thing that conservatism should have protected was the country, but the last 9 years show what a let down that has been. Pearl Harbor wasn't supposed to happen again but it did (9/11); the depression wasn't supposed to happen, but we are in an economic recession where almost 10% are unemployed, maybe as high as 15%. If you take into the different size of the population in the 30's and now, we have more people unemployed now than were unemployed in the country then.
Capitalism didn't fail. Our government leaders did. Conservatism did not fail, but not acting to protect the country did, which is what conservatism was supposed to provide guidance for.
Moore said he'll use the profits from "Capitalism: A Love Story" to make more films.
Hi Arthur--Moore is definitely not a Libertarian. Thanks for stopping by. I hope you enjoy is films, should you decide to check them out.
GGarza--I don't think what we've seen the past 20 years or so is really conservatism--at least, not the economic end of it. Definitely the neocons took it way out into left field. Now it's so extreme that even moderates look like raving lefties. It would be good to see mainstream conservatism resurrect itself.
Ralph--Thanks. I think it's fairly obvious Moore isn't rolling in money for all his efforts, but his detractors always bring up the thing about, "Yeah well does he KEEP his money?" It's something somebody has to always say whenever his name comes up.
pg
Sorry, I can't agree with you on this one.Its not Capitalism that is the problem, it is bad politics.
I think when you thak about debters prison, you should rethink it. It is still alive and well. I was at my stepdaughters house one day when the county cops came to take her to jail over a seven doller debt. She was baby sitting about six or seven kids. the charge, contempt of court, the hospital had turned her in and she had missed a payment. The total bill was seven dollars.
Hi James--That doesn't surprise me. Prison has gone private and is now big business. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world--higher even than Russia and 7 times higher than China.
Hi, everybody, just passing by...
Lucky, I am not in Russia, China, America...
We gotta keep that prison occupancy rate up! Give the judges stock in the prisons like they did in Pennsylvania and they'll keep 'em full.
Ralph, the one that shocked and confused me was the corporations taking out life insurance policies on low level employees without their knowledge--the "Dead Peasant Policies." I thought it was illegal to take a life insurance policy out on another person and make yourself the beneficiary. Do you understand how they get around this and get away with it?
That would make a good hub, that one topic. It really shocked and disturbed me. It seems we are worth most in prison or dead--until they figure out how to do both. Imprison the dead maybe? I don't know...it's so depressing.
I'd never heard of "dead peasant policies" until I Michael Moore's movie. Maybe I'll do a little research on the subject. I'd heard of key employee life insurance in small companies, but not what Michael's talking about. Yes, the depths to which some employers will go is depressing.
Here's a link which sheds some light on your question. It's illegal to take out a policy on your next door neighbor because you don't have an insurable interest in him or her. Employers are considered to have an "insurable interest" in each of their employees and, therefor, can legally insure the lives of rank and file employees without their knowledge, and if this article is correct WalMart took out 350,000 such policies between 1993 and 1996. Incredible!
http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2009/10/03
From ABC News:
Dozens of blue chip companies have these policies, according to Myers. But only banks are forced to reveal them, and several have billions of dollars worth of policies.
"The driving force behind it is the tax deductions," he said.
The life insurance policies were designed to allow companies to insure a few crucial executives. Savvy companies then realized they could also get a tax break by insuring many lower-level employees.
The financial scheme doesn't actually cost the employees anything, except, some say, their trust.
Betina Tillman felt shocked and deceived when a reporter from The Wall Street Journal told her that her brother, a music store cashier, was insured by his employer for $339,000 when he died, despite the fact that he no longer worked at the store.
"We were just in disbelief they were able to do it, and actually cash the policy and cash in on the policy," Tillman said.
Ralph--Thank you for that link and the info. I'm going to do some more research and see what I can put together. I also read--I'm sure this is unrelated--that Wall Street is now securitizing life insurance policies, which is disturbing for another set of reasons.
What bothers me about the dead peasant policies is, they may be doing it for the tax breaks now--or say they are--but how big of step is it from that to solving a downsizing problem by creating toxic conditions that increase the chances a low level employee will die? It seems to me there are about a dozen potential conflict of interest situations here, all of them horrifying. Thanks again.
Great Hub with lots of info and some thought provoking insights. The West seems to be sliding into terminal financial decline. Is it the fact that so many of us have had it good for so long and have never really known any true hardship that is holding us back from pressing for real change? Will it be a combination of head in the sand/fear of change that will do for us in the end?
Hi CM Hypno--Thanks for your comment. Not all of us are in decline though. Statistically, about 5% of us are doing really well at the expense of the other 95% of us. But I know what you mean--it does look grim.
america has changed cycles,the coming years will be more difficult.
I hope will watch movie about war America's history.
Why do all the kapitalist apologists refuse to acknowledge the fact the our "government" is a wholly owned subsidiary of the korporatocracy?
There is no government to speak of in amerika. It has been privatized along with everything else.
It's only purpose is to ensure that the profit machine keeps running.
When it breaks down, provide welfare for the rich, socialize their losses and make the working class pay the bill.
Just make sure the "profits" are kept privatized so that only the moneyed elite reap any benefit.
Hi CWB--A lot of people will say, well, we need free markets so we can work hard and move up, but I've been questioning whether that happens in America. Downward mobility is more the rule lately. If I can put together enough statistics I'll write that hub too--not like it will convince anyone. I think politics has become like religion. People decide what to believe and then just repeat the mantra over and over again no matter what. Facts? Who needs facts!?
Pam, I think its all about the comparative 'weight' of words. Shakespeare said that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, which is certainly true, but some words come with a ton of leaden associations which blind people as to their true meanings. If you prefix any phrase with the word 'socialized' for example, whole swathes of people automatically associate with Communist Russia, heavy handed Government intervention, higher taxes etc. etc., yet in itself 'socialised' is only a word, and a relatively benign one at that.
And you're right, politics has become like religion. It's not about facts any more. It's about blind faith.
Hi Amanda--Yes, you are so right. Politicians hire specialists to 'frame' issues a particular way. They carefully select the words to push the meaning they favor and the result they want. For example, here in the U.S there used to be a tax on inherited wealth over a certain amount--and it was a lot, I mean this was RICH people inheriting wealth. Anyway, it used to be called the Inheritance tax and no one had much of an issue with it because it only applied to the richest of the rich, and even then, only to children inheriting money they didn't earn anyway. Then, when Bush came to office and they wanted to cut rich people lots of slack, giving them tax breaks and so on, they started calling it the Death Tax, implying that anyone, rich or poor, would be taxed just for dying. Predictably, people who had no money and no reason to call for the repeal of the Inheritance Tax suddenly were outraged about the Death Tax.
It's kind of disgusting really, these word games. But they work--that's why they do it.
Hi Pam…Thomas Paine has always been my hero. Paine wasn’t anti-God, he was anti-bible and its content. He describes and defines the pathetic thing as fraud and lies which anyone can see if they actually read it. thanks for the informative well written hub.
Thanks pylos26 and thank you for clarifying that! BTW I love your pic. :)
Everyone need facts pg. Everyone.
As far as I'm concerned, that's a top priority; a fully informed and educated population.
A world full of people who have all the FACTS at their disposal. An informed society.
Educated, not indoctrinated.
So, Obama gets the Nobel.
I can't take it much longer.
Hi CWB--Agreed. But I guess that would mean teaching people to read and to think first, and many don't want to be bothered with that. We've got the internet, TV, movies, video games, we don't need to think or read or any of that, just need to learn to hurl insults and develop good hand-eye coordination.
It's very depressing.
pgrundy:---I think that Moore should keep any profits or earnings from his film ( your comment on my comment from a week ago ). He can criticize Wall Street all that he wants, but criticism from Hollywood types comes across as quite hypocritical much of the time. Perhaps he should spend any earnings on some soap down at K-Mart. My point was that while Moore and his ilk frequently b---h about the American lifestyle, they certainly don't mind picking up some of the fruit of that lifestyle for themselves. I don't blame them. They're just blatant hypocrites about the subject of capitalism!
Hi PeeDee--Thanks for reading and sharing your opinion. All the best to you. :)
Really.
I wonder how many of Michael Moore's movies PeeDee has actually seen?
It doesn't matter Ralph. He already "knows" the "truth".
… “they must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority”
… G. Massey, Egyptologist …
ColdWarBaby:----Do I know the truth or do you? I choose not to walk in lock-step to anybody! Not the government, not Wall Street and not to anybody who talks out of both sides of their mouth!
Michael Moore talks out of only one side of his mouth. And he usually has something worthwhile to say. He's a polemicist so it's unrealistic to expect him to present both sides on any issue.
Ralph:---Pgrundy, yourself and me are polemicists. Michael Moore is a hypocrite and a fraud!
Well, I don't agree. The fraudsters are on Wall Street, health care insurance companies, credit card companies, mortgage brokers, et al.
PeeDee, by the way you didn't respond to my query about how many Michael Moore films you've seen.
Ralph:---Honestly, I haven't seen any Michael Moore movies. I've shown up at the movie theater a couple of times flat broke after hearing of Mr. Moore's charity. Unfortunately, I was told that Mr. Moore required cash to view his work. There was some nice gentleman who offered to pass his hat ( eerily similar to yours, by the way ) around to the egalitarian comrades present, but they were a stingy lot. Evidently, they were nearly as broke as myself. Also, be sure to include various chairmen and chairwomen in the United States Senate and House on your list of fraudsters.
I agree with Ralph. I stated what I see as some of Moore's weaknesses as a filmmaker, but to condemn him for not donating his money to the poor or whatever seems completely over the top. I think that attacking people instead of evaluating their works and their ideas is not a helpful strategy. We all can be attacked as persons. We're all a**holes in one way or another. But an a**hole can have a good idea, or be a good artist or filmmaker. In fact, often the brightest most talented people in the world are less than likable. I don't expect Michael Moore to be saint or even all that consistent. The question is, are his films good? Does he make useful points in them? I think they do have merit. What kind of human being he is or isn't personally has nothing to do with it.
pgrundy:---I don't think that I ever condemned Moore for not donating his money to the poor. If I did do that, please point out the chapter and verse so that I can recollect. Whether or not Michael Moore is an a**hole or not is not my concern. He may have some good points here and there. People such as Moore come across to me as having attained their material needs but are reluctant for others to enjoy the same fruit. By the way, there have been a couple of times in my comments and rebuttals that people have put words into my mouth that I did not say! I think that you noted in one of your prior Hubs that we should all be more civil to one another. It's fine if anybody disagrees with me, but I do ask to be correctly quoted.
PeeDee: He can criticize Wall Street all that he wants, but criticism from Hollywood types comes across as quite hypocritical much of the time.
Michael Moore is hardly a "Hollywood type." He's sui generis.
Ralph:---I disagree. Is he one of a kind? Hardly. He may not have the personal glamour of many of the "Hollywood types" but he fits as neatly as a glove into their philosophy.
PeeDee--I'm sorry if I misrepresented your words. You did say though, "Honestly, I haven't seen any Michael Moore movies."
So all I'm saying is, you can't really critique Michael Moore's movies effectively if you haven't even seem them. You can only criticize the man himself.
I think we might we agree about some aspects of his movies, but you'd have to actually see them in order for us to discuss it. I don't know Michael Moore personally and I don't think you do either. He might be a jerk, he might be a great guy--neither one of us really knows.
PD - I don't understand how you can criticize Moore, call him a hypocrite and a fraud, yet you've never seen one of his movies? The fact that you had to pay money to do so is not a defense, that's just a lame excuse.
And it's obvious that you haven't seen any of his films, because you say:
"having attained their material needs but are reluctant for others to enjoy the same fruit. "
Um, Michael Moore makes movies about people who get screwed by the system. That's what he does! The whole purpose of his movies is for people to see injustice so that injustice can be fixed.
Just because he makes a living at it doesn't make him a hypocrite, any more than it makes Limbaugh one, or any other pundit a hypocrite.
Your entire argument is invalid.
Sorry for simultaneously feeding the troll and pointing out the obvious...
William--That's OK. It's always good to see you. I think PD is someone from HP with one of those multiple identities. I don't know why people do that. But I agree--it's hard to critique movies if you refuse to see them!
The pizazz in your writing style is a breathe of fresh air I must say. I've been here for a few weeks still checking out the landscape. A good deal of hubbers feign depth and understanding on much, but upon closer inspection you find their waters to be somewhat shallow. Maybe not the greatest way to make an entrance here... I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's good to come upon some of the more serious writers/hubbers. So major kudos to you.
Regarding Mr. Moore's recent projects, its like you said: I think that Michael Moore is at his best when his message is simple and righteous. TRUE! He may not understand how corporations today employ the nuanced mechanics of accounting fraud to leverage the economy in their favor under the pretense of free marketing practices to serve on some brain trust;but, he doesn't have to. In his area of expertise, what he does packs a serious punch and with each film, he seems to have improved his craft.
I however, would not go so far as to compare him with Thomas Paine. Paine like many of his contemporaries were far more conscious and aware of their surroundings in a very personal way. Ironically, in the age of instantaneous information, too many of us prefer others to do the thinking. The real work for us - even beyond writing - is engaging the populace at large vis-à-vis the corporations who own the white house. Forums, presentations, and concerted action (not necessarily protesting) lest we die a slow but sure death.
Hi theleftflank--Thank you for your generous words and welcome to Hub Pages! You make a good point about the age of instant information and Thomas Paine. Probably what scares me more than anything is the way the internet and cable news kind of numbs people out and dumbs them down. Everything is set up to make it easy to not care simply BECAUSE everything is so impersonal--or more accurately, fake-personal. If Moore can break through the apathy even a little, he's accomplished something. Thanks for stopping by.
pg
I see it differently, the corporations are not the problem but the offspring of the real problem, government.
The government is built like Michael Moore, obese and promising us things that never happen. Democrats nor Republicans have helped the country in the last 60 years. The size of the government is twice the size it needs to be. The government and its workers play by their own rules, while the rest of us are force to play their game.
Government workers are expensive and each one of them is a tax liability. The government workers even generate a liability when they retire. They retire at least ten years earlier than those on Social Security and they have much more money for retirement. I won't go into detail but the government worker and the benefits that they receive are far worse than the Social Security and Medicare liability to this country.
My point is that the two party system is ineffective and filled with failures. They promise much but tell me what they have accomplished. We are not doing any better under Democratic run government than when it was a Republican run government. The common denominator is the government itself. Sure Corporations suck but they exist because they were created by government.
Solution is a new lean and effective government. This is impossible because the old government stands in the way of the needed changes to government.
Obama didn't give the country a new Washington, he just gave it a Democratic run government stocked with ex Clinton administration flunkies.
my opinion.... but the results are in my favor.
Well, in a way the government and the corporations have become the same entity. That's how I see it. I don't see it as a choice between the two but rather that they've both gotten rotten. They work together to promote the interests of a few at the expense of the many. The Democrat/Republican split is just WFW wresting--it's a big put-on show, a distraction. I'm not a Libertarian though. If we HAVE another election I'll be going with a third party but not Ron Paul. Thanks for your thoughts.
PG
Hard to believe, but I agree with you.
Also to make a viable third party, some high profile people have to leave the D or R. Another way it could work is if the people would lose their party loyalty and replace it with a vote for the best candidate.
I know the problem there is that most of the time it would be a vote for the lesser of two evils.
I also think that every one should re-register as independent voters. The parties cash in on registration loyalty and your vote is proxied. The party then puts all of their efforts into independent voters.
Thanks for your repsone/
William R. Wilson says:
3 months ago
Great hub as always. I love Thom Paine. For someone who is quoted so often by the right, he was pretty far to the left, with many ideas that seem like classical Anarchism. Turns out he was too radical for the founding fathers, too.
Michael Moore is good at giving us things to think about. Too bad he has become a polarizing figure in America, because he has very important things to say.