BehindTheNet.org killin ur penalties

Blogules/Political Footballs, 7 January 2004 »« Bowl Game Mirrors Season, or Hope You Took The Over

L/D Sideline: Michael Moore and Internationalism


WARNING: HIGH FLAME CONTENT.

SERIOUSLY. YOU SHOULD PROBABLY GO AWAY.

OK, you asked for it…

No American has done more to screw his countrymen abroad recently than Michael Moore.

This trip was the third time I’ve had to deal with the impression that clown has created of American conservatism. A Canadian au pair, a South African working in Britain, a (former) pharmacology student from New Zealand doing a post-graduation world tour, all got most of their ‘education’ on American conservatism from that lying @#$-clown. So I don’t get any time to articulate my own positions, I instead have to get back to zero by refuting all the crapflooding he’s done.

The world’s superficial understanding of America does really bad things for our world image already — how could it not, when most of their knowledge of American culture comes from Hollywood? Moore has capitalized on that superficial familiarity to make his fortune and gain fame selling distilled hyper-leftism and fomenting what often transforms into hatred of America at the international level. He’s got the right to do it (and as a capitalist, he’s quite good at marketing his product), but that doesn’t make it any less of a disgrace.

Furthermore, if the world expects America to respect its opinion, engage in reasoned, honest debate, and not resort to juvenile bullcrap like the Freedom Fries fiasco, it is about darned time that it accord us the same courtesy.

By this point, the reflexive and inflexible nature of much of the world’s anti-Americanism is crystal clear to anyone paying attention — it’s just like baseball fans hating the New York Yankees, purely because they’re on top. (As a confirmed Yankee-hater myself, it hurts to admit that. But much of what the Yankees do as a franchise, including Steinbrenner’s antics, would be mildly amusing at best if they were the Kansas City Royals.) Rational critiques of our foreign policy (and there are good ones out there) are being overwhelmed by the masses that spout off about “AmeriKKKa” or the “Nazipublicans”, not unlike when I go off about the Detroit Red Wings being spawn of Satan. The thing is, I’m not taking myself seriously then, but they are deadly serious.

It’s about time to get some give-and-take back into the equation, and for people outside the States to acknowledge the basic facts about why America does what it does. (A good start comes in the 21 January 2004 (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) The Age: They like Bush, and they are not stupid. (Hat tip: Tim Blair.)

American liberals have their own role to play in this, by not proclaiming unquestioning deference to foreign opinion (as most of the Democratic presidential front-runners have done, by promising they will get approval from the UN before using the American military). Because of our limited experience as a nation with foreign travel and foreign culture, we tend to fetishize the foreign — shoot, one look at the rack of soccer jerseys in my closet would convict me of this as much as anyone. They’re cool because they’re foreign, not unlike the people who wear T-shirts with Japanese kanji characters on them and think those are cool because they’re foreign. But that’s not a rational method for constructing foreign policy, and all it does is encourage those who wish America ill.

“I warned you, but did you listen? Noooooo!”

This article is dated as of the time I actually finished writing it (other than one addition), not its posting time, partially so it stays off the front page. Commenters: be civil, or I will zap you without mercy. This is my house, I’m the only one who gets to do things like this here.

30 December 2003 / 4 Comments / Tags: politics, media, travel

Comments on “L/D Sideline: Michael Moore and Internationalism”

  1. Of course we didn’t listen! Would you?! :)

    Sounds like the three girls just saw Bowling for Columbine, and are psyched. I don’t blame them, as it’s a film that asks lots of questions, and answers very few…one reason I like it. I would suggest, however, that although that’s the picture that’s in their head right now, they more than likely got most of their education on American policies from their local media throughout their entire lives.

    As far as screwing up the view of Americans abroad, I’d suggest that if you took a random poll of anti-American non-Americans all over the world, many of those folks wouldn’t even know who Michael Moore is. Remember that the wide majority of non-Americans are not native English-speakers, and therefore most of them haven’t been reached by MM’s books and movies.

    So no, I don’t think that Michael Moore is the leading cause of anti-Americanism abroad. US foreign policy is. Blame that on who you want, I guess.

    Also, I honestly believe that the average person abroad (speaking from my spot in Europe, of course, not claiming omniscience) engages in a lot more rational discussion of American foreign policy than “America=Evil” talk…and dare I say a lot more discussion of American foreign policy than the average American?

    And finally, remember that it’s always hard to argue with someone who’s just been freshly immersed into a one-opinion world via book or film…as these three girls may have been. And besides that, there is a limit to arguing with folks whose opinions are so far from your own.

    After a while it’s sort of like teaching a pig to sing. “It wastes your time and annoys the pig.” :)

    amy on January 21st, 2004 at 6:15 am
  2. Yeah, Michael Moore’s biggest fault in my mind is really that he exacerbates a problem brought on by years of getting your news from a state broadcasting monoculture and your in-depth research from Hollywood. (FYI, the South African was a guy.)

    People abroad think they know a lot more about the USA than they do, but what they really have (at least in my experience) is a very shallow understanding. (Give me an hour with a stereotypical “average American” who’s interested in learning, and I could very easily get him or her up to a similar level of knowledge for 2 or 3 European countries. Two hours, and they’d be ahead.) MM just gives people who are already leaning that way a convenient set of talking points, a small push further to the left, and, again, the false impression that they know more about the subject (in this case, American conservatism) than we do.

    From some of the crap I see floating around the international media, it’s a wonder that things aren’t worse than they are.

    Josh on January 21st, 2004 at 8:05 am
  3. Well, like Amy, I just couldn’t stay away. Of course, this is why I read your blog in the first place, for political completeness. (that way my so-called “lefty bias” doesn’t take control)

    As for MM, I haven’t seen the movie, but I have read several of the responses to it and who could forget his um, “enlightened” speech at the Oscars. Personally I think Steve Martin said it best.

    But, MM aside, I agree with Amy. The first year a president is in office he names 3 countries an “axis of evil.” You don’t make friends internationally by doing things like that. MM doesn’t make our foreign policy, like the rest of us who are not president, we can only comment it (good/bad).

    However, the real reason I responded was for the “t-shirts with kanji symbols on them.” As you know I’m starting up my blog and one of elements on my web page’s visual design our 8 kanji symbols. (7 virtues of bushido, plus harmony) Like MM, there are those that use symbols merely as taglines, but there are those intellectuals among us who delve into other cultures, because they’re different. Foreign is another word for different and yet, I feel like the [stereo-typical American conservative] use it like its a four-letter word.

    In that respect they’re similar to MM. Instead of seeking to understand that which is different, they flog it and seek to demonize it. Granted, I do not feel the writers of this blog fall into the category of [stereo-typical American conservative], see remark related to soccer jerseys. And its why I feel comforted knowing that you were the one explaining to these 3 what American conservatism really is. (and what it will hopefully return to one day)

    I agree that the United States should maintain its sovereignty, but I think it should do it while exploring the world around it and attempting to understand it, not ignoring it. (read, not wearing random symbols whose meaning we don’t know, not labeling other sovereign nations as “evil” in the most visible speech on the political calendar, etc.) And to me, this is the most effective weapon in the war on terrorism.

    capt.taco on January 21st, 2004 at 10:48 am
  4. Yeah, I didn’t really expect you guys to stay away, but I had to say it anyway.

    Rob, I have no problem whatsoever with people like you who use kanji both artistically and to convey meaning. (I hope you explain the symbols you’re using somewhere on your blog — that’s exactly the kind of thing I like to learn about.) I’m just using the “it’s foreign, it must be good” superficiality of some people, similar to the Japanese kids who wear T-shirts with nonsense English phrases, as an example, and comparing that to what I feel the left sometimes does in foreign policy.

    You’re correct about some US right-wingers demonizing the foreign. The left side’s counterweight to that is a see no evil, hear no evil approach (Jimmy Carter’s adventures with Castro, the “it’s all about OIL!” crowd completely ignoring the HUGE option contracts on Iraqi oilfields that TotalFinaElf signed with Saddam and was holding until the sanctions got lifted, etc.). Both of those ideas suck, but I feel that idea on the left is both (a) more prevalent on its side than the opposing extreme is on the right (I’m sure you’ll disagree with me on that one) and (b) far more dangerous in a world that, whether we like it or not, does have some truly evil folks in it. That they hide behind the borders of sovereign nations doesn’t change their evil, just like it didn’t when the Soviet Union closed Eastern Europe off behind the Iron Curtain.

    This administration gets a C+ at best for diplomacy (we did have quite a few allies, just not the “right” ones), but a solid A- for honesty.

    Josh on January 21st, 2004 at 12:16 pm