That most ardent spokesman of the Left, Michael Moore, is typical of them in many ways. Professing the truth, he lies -- allegedly to make a "point" -- but lies nonetheless. Whilst professing a vehemence towards "the rich", he makes millions of dollars for his own pocket off films which denounce those hwo make millions of dollars. Claiming intellectual superiority and political intelligence, he produces opinions and conclusions -- and films based upon them -- which rely not on audiences of intelligence, but upon audiences' most basic emotions; suspicion, fear, envy, and of course, the viewer's own desire to be decieved. While denouncing less liberal political figures -- such as George W. Bush -- as ignoramuses, and stumping for Democrats who have a supposedly more "refined" and "nuanced" politics, Moore -- like those he typifies -- is anything but nuanced, with a practiced manner of sloppiness and a tendency for twisting the truth and making outright lies on film.
Perhaps, as one speaker at the Republican National Convention joked, John Kerry -- the left's current champion -- speaks of "Two America's", because there are really two lefts: The left that exists, and the image crafted to cover it.
With regards to the left's interpretations of President Bush, they are just as split as the left's view of itself. On one hand, when it serves their purpose, the left accuses Bush of being a country bumpkin and an idiot. On the other hand, when things do not go their way, the left accuses Bush of being behind some sininster manipulation or conspiracy -- something an "idiot" would be unable to accomplish. Neither of these contradictory takes on the President, it turns out, are accurate, but that should not be a surprise, considering who has crafted them.
The conspiracy shop of the left has hung out its shingle again. It was closed during the Clinton years, when it denounced those on the other side the political spectrum as "conspiracy theorists" and "loonies", implying that any criticism of Clitnon was a lie. During this time, the left worked hard to appear "centrist" and "mainstream", while actually accomplishing goals much further to the left; strict gun control, enormously high taxation, radical environmentalist policy that would make the Unibomber proud, permissiveness with regard to comminust spying of our defense secrets, a total neglect of national defense. But that the government was inching ever further left under Clinton wasn't problematic for the Democrats, because they had developed a way to cast themselves as the mainstream party, the party of "normal" and "regular" Americans, yet the party of the educated -- with the implication being that any and all of their critics were ignorant backwoods bumpkins ranting about black helicopters or otherwise making up trouble where there was none.
The irony is that the Clintoneer's deliberately constructed appearence of mainstream America and centrism did not drive through the 1990's alone; hypocrisy rode shotgun with it, the ever-present irrationality of the hard core left, side by side with its mask of rationality and normalcy. Thus, while Democrats deridded their critics as extremists, they pursued goals which were themselves extremist; while the Democratis denounced any criticism of President Clinton as the ravings of conspiracy cranks, they simultaneously told the world that those cranks constituted a "vast right wing conspiracy", to quote Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton gives the "right" too much credit; given their fractured political state and their lack of an integrated philsophy, it is unlikely they'd have been able to organize a conspiracy as widespread as Clinton's critics were. The real reason Clinton had so many critics is, simply, that many of his policies were objectionable. Yet, the left gave us the absurd spectacle of denouncing its opponents as being irrational conspiracy theorists -- and then spinning unfounded conspiracies itself!
Mrs. Clinton's words summed up the irrationality the far left had kept hidden under a nice image during the Clinton years. But now, with President Bush in office, the left has allowed its openly radical radicals to take the wheel. There is no need to play the respected party any longer; their president is no longer in office. So they brazenly make up lies, fabricate events, throw around bogus accusations -- all the things they accused the "right" of doing during Clinton's term. The difference is, most of the accusations against Clinton were true.
The media, and the left, would have America believe Bush is either a country bumpkin -- or the leader of vast conspiracies. He obviously cannot be both. An idiot is not competant to lead vast conspiracies. The media then throws in lines like well, maybe his advisers are doing the conspiracies, and Bush is just the idiot. This conjecture, fabrication, and story-telling is pointless and in fact dangerous. Undermining a president in wartime based on lies is not anything that is going to help make for a "stronger America". Yet, that is what the left -- from Kerry to Dan Rather -- has been doing for nearly four years. Has it increased as the election draws nearer? Of course. But neither of the images painted of the president -- the fool, or the villain -- is correct. Who then is President Bush? Don't ask the media. They are too busy building more of their own virtual reality machines. You've probably seen prototypes of this device. You put a quarter in, and a newspaper describing an alternate reality pops out. Well, they admit some of it is fake -- like they admit Michael Moore lied in his movie. But they excuse the fakery because it helps their cause.
But this raises a question: Does America benefit by helping a "cause" that can only be successful at the expense of honesty and reason? Do we want a President who believes the real world -- or the Michael Moore abridged version?
The Democrats' attitude towards Moore -- and the treatment of Moore by the leftist media and those hapless souls it has hoodwinked -- shows desperate politicking. THAT is their SPOKESMAN? The reactions are similar to that of Moore's film on 9/11; the media is gushing praise about a film that is at best, agitprop, and contains lies that rival those of Moore's other films, such as "Bowling for Columbine" where he edited footage of an NRA speech to alter its message and portrayed it as accurate.
The use of Moore -- and his twin images of Bush the idiot and Bush the conspirator -- shows just how much the left has decided to dispense with its Clinton-era illusion of "centrism". A streetcorner bum has more class, and it would be easy to find a used car salesman or even a lawyer who is more honest. The fact that the left seems eager to put a Moore-style face on their campaign, rather than the mythical "centrism" of the Clinton years, says they have openly turned to their hate-America hard-core left voting base and abandoned the bulk of America.
America should return the favor.
back...
