Michael Moore is Wrong

On Friday, Michael Moore wrote a commentary explaining the difference between how Democrats paint Rush Limbaugh's relationship to the Republican Party, and Republicans previously trying to pin Democrats as the "Party of Michael Moore." And in making his analysis, he was wrong.

Mind you, he wasn't completely wrong. In fact, pretty much everything he wrote was spot-on accurate. And most accurate of all was his point: the difference is "The American people agree with me, not Rush." Agree with him about Iraq, health care, global warming, Wall Street excess, and on and on. All of which ultimately increased his popularity. Where he was wrong is that in explaining these things as his reasons, he left out one other significant difference -

Republicans are terrified to criticize Rush Limbaugh, and will quickly apologize if they mistakenly do so, which is what has given fodder to the charge that Mr. Limbaugh has become de facto leader of the Republican Party.

Democrats, on the other hand, have never had a problem arguing with Michael Moore. Because Democrats never have a problem arguing with anyone, even amongst themselves. That's why no Democrat has ever felt a sense that they had to check with Michael Moore first before voicing an opinion - something, if they did, Mr. Moore would likely have been aghast by.

Democrats always have had plenty of leaders, pushing the party's direction. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama. Some pushed with more success than others, but those were the party leaders. It wasn't Michael Moore. He was just a very outspoken voice - sometimes pushing on the fringes, sometimes smack in middle of the mainstream.

That's the hole that Republicans find themselves. They've had their leaders, as well, of course. But George Bush and Dick Cheney ended up so wildly unpopular that the Republican Party ran away from them. And John McCain was a party leader, but only by default, deeply unpopular to the untrusting Republican far-right base.

And so the GOP was left with an empty hole. And nature abhors a vacuum.

Rush Limbaugh isn't the actual, true "leader" of the Republican Party, of course. That position belongs to...well, nobody. Which is the real problem the Republican Party faces. Nature abhors a vacuum, so in the absence of anybody, after decades of cultivating an intolerant far-right base, all that remains is the bellowing voice That No One Dares Criticize.

It's not so much that Rush Limbaugh is a leader, it's that everyone else in the Republican Party are followers.

And so, you end up with a Republican Party where virtually no one dare criticize Rush Limbaugh (or, okay, sorry, criticize him without apologizing) no matter how reprehensible his words. Like saying that the feminist movement was created by ugly women. Demeaning them as "feminazis." Slamming Michael J. Fox for supposedly faking his degenerative disease. Hoping the President of the United States failed. Yet not even a whimper of indignation from what should be the actual, but non-existent Republican leadership.

That's the difference between Rush Limbaugh's relationship to the Republican Party and Michael Moore's to Democrats. The difference that Mr. Moore left out.

Agree with him or disagree (or both), Michael Moore has reveled in being the outside agitator - the very opposite of a Party Leader. His whole public career had been standing on a soapbox trying to get Democratic leaders to lead. If they haven't, he's called them out on it. If they have, he's promoted it. And if Democrats have disagreed with him, they've had no problem saying so. And Michael Moore relished the debate.

Compare this to Rush Limbaugh who skewered the chairman of the Republican National Committee for daring to call himself - the head of the party, not Rush Limbaugh. And the very next day, the chairman of the Republican National Committee apologized. To Rush Limbaugh.

In the end, this isn't about Rush Limbaugh, and it isn't about Michael Moore. It's about the parties themselves. Democrats are united behind President Obama. And Republicans have abolished all sense of party leadership and worshiped instead at the temple of a radio entertainer, afraid to take a position he wouldn't approve of, terrified to say he's wrong about anything, no matter how repellent it may be. All the while trying to convince the country that they should be the party to lead the nation. Lead? They can't even stand up to a radio host!

And that's what Michael Moore was wrong to leave out of his commentary.

And if he disagrees with me...I don't apologize.

But he's probably fine with that.

Comments

[anniemcu]

Finally got around to reading this. Absolutely right!!

[Robert Turner]

When you shout into a vacuum, the sound disappears.
How apt, GOP! How apt!

[CanisLatrans]

["Democrats, on the other hand, have never had a problem arguing with Michael Moore. Because Democrats never have a problem arguing with anyone, even amongst themselves. That's why no Democrat has ever felt a sense that they had to check with Michael Moore first before voicing an opinion - something, if they did, Mr. Moore would likely have been aghast by. "]

That's because for Democrats, the Party isn't a zero-sum game. We've been accused of being a herd of cats, a disorganized party, etc, compared to the "more unified" GOP that is able to "package a message and push it" together. Now we see the flaw in the plan-- it is also inflexible and brittle, especially when one or more people pop up espousing an untenable message to "unite" behind.

In the Democratic Party, I don't feel the need to agree 100% with any one leader or speaker; I can reconcile the fact that I agree with Michael Moore on some things and disagree with him completely on others-- and this won't make me any less devoted than before. The GOP, however, have pushed this "my way or the highway" mentality that leaves small-gove­rnment/sta­tes-rights types being led by the nose as the Religious Right drags them into Terry Schiavo's hospital room, for example...

The inflexibility of the GOP has led to this; now they're fracturing under the strain. Long past time!

[6waysplit]

My first visit to the "Huffington" has moved me to reply. I regret the the evidence of some of these "Party" values point to a myopic point of view. I've been around the block a few times and it appears to me that,since the 70's my living standard has dropped considerately under both parties. Both parties embarked down the road of Deregulation with a high point being Reagan's firing of the Air Traffic Controllers. The watering down of Labor laws and Union Busting began in earnest. The level of corruption at the top raised it's head once again with the outing of the Savings and Loan scandals. If we as citizens continue to engage in this farce of the difference between the two parties pretending to fight we will continue to believe Government bought by corporations can really package Democracy and deliver it to whom ever we will, with deadly Military force! It's not the parties we should be concerned with as much as the policies. It's not what they say! It's what they do!! With our taxes. With our youth.

[Athena123]

This would be funny if it weren't so sad and very, very sick. This repulsive, under-educated dimwit (who has probably never cracked open a book in his entire life), a RADIO PERSONALITY, and the repubs are running scared. I thought they'd hit rock bottom with Bush/Cheney. Then they upped the ante with Palin - truly another arrogant and uninformed half-wit who delighted in her lack of knowledge - and now Limbaugh?????? Any respect or dignity of that party is so, so gone. I still cringe thinking about Steele's apology. Amazing, the lack of b*lls among the "guns & war" party.

[bayside]

I believe you hit the nail on the head.. Loved this (and if michael doesnt agree with me I apologize).

[karmatt77]

Who cares who is the leader of the GOP? All of these guys voted for all the mess we are in and people still take them seriously? These guys are traitors just like Bush and should be tried. Yet, half of America still believes that McPalin would have done a great job. Hilarious. We go down in flames to a standing ovation.

[Economike]

A descriptive comparison of these two men is almost like a defining Democracy and Fascism.

[taikan]

"Democrats are united behind President Obama." If that is the case, please explain why Obama was forced to accept a budget bill passed by a Congress that is controlled by the Democrats that contains many provisions with which Obama says he disagrees. Or, for that matter, why numerous Democratic members of the House and Senate have opposed various aspects of Obama's proposals for dealing with the crisis in the financial industry, or for reforming health care.

The truth is that most Democratic elected officials are unwilling to allow any person, whether it is the President, the Speaker of the House, or the Senate Majority Leader to dictate what they must do. Republicans in Congress, on the other hand, have demonstrated time and time again over the past 8-10 years that they will do whatever their leaders tell them to do, regardless of whether it is good or bad for the country.

[Tomlastliberalleft]

You can call Rush whatever you want. The truth is he is the voice of the far-right and regardless of the polls that 20% of Americans who somehow can come to the conclusion that Bush was a “good” President also think Rush is dead right. Those few Republicans I do know have no problem with the childish intolerance he spews everyday. They like it! The Republicans do have leaders they admire as great leaders. They are all dead. The current batch are as clueless a bunch of adults as any of us are ever likely to experience. I keep thinking of RFK’s take on them, “One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.”

[Skua]

Elisberg is wrong :-) And here's why: Actually, the Republican party has a LOT of leaders, but not national leaders. They are leaders and organizers on the local and state level. They are the people whom congressmen and senators need on their side during the primary campaigns and the elections. And the disproportionate majority of THOSE local leaders are far to the right. Remember the embarrassing state and city leaders who, during the last campaign, would pop up connecting Obama with Osama or with racist flyers on their bulletin boards? These are the backbone of the Republican Party outside of Washington. And whether or not these people are LED by Rush, they like Rush. So the real problem that moderate Republican politicians have is not that they are scared to offend Rush. It's that they are (reasonably!) scared to offend the activists who raise the money and get out the vote in their own towns and districts and states.

[dkuz09]

Therein lies the problem with the republican party. Too many of their 'leaders' are stuck in the 60s.

[Economike]

I keep telling people the fifties. Their still fighting the cold war.

[BlackWidowPilot]

You mean leaders and fundraisers like these:

http://www.armchairsubversive.org

Hypocrisy, thy name remains GOP.

Yeeeach.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[DaneAZ]

I checked this link.
I find it very disturbing.
B.W.P. is correct.

[blaqntelligence]

I checked this link.
I need a long hot shower. NOW!

[Gordon]

"Democrats, on the other hand, have never had a problem arguing with Michael Moore."

Examples? Oh, I see. The writer provided NONE.

[SouthernBlueBelle]

Do we have to list everything for you. Not all Democrats are quoted for examples you know. Many of us rank and file just disagree and go on our way. Not needing to have a spotlight on us.

[chromodynamics]

Oh...were are your example that the Democratic Party always agrees with Michael Moore?

Examples? Oh, that's right, you provided NONE!

[BCubedReg]

I'll give you two examples of how the Demcrats and Michael Moore disagree right off the top of my head.

Michael Moore was against the war in Iraq (as was I) from the outset whereas the Democrats voted for the war.

Michael Moore has advocated for universal healthcare. Only now are the dems (and even some repubs) realizing that the notion of universal healthcare has merit. That is why no one supported Bill and Hillary Clinton's universal healthcare plan in the 90s.

[1LESSUV]

C'mon, get real here. Lots of Dems took exception to Moore's portrayal of healthcare in Cuba, and at Gitmo....

[timm0]

Semantics. I can't find any REAL differences between the two statements.

Specifically, the semantic tussle here is what a "leader" is. In the Democratic party, leaders operate, elevate, and diminish in totally different ways than they do in the repugs.

Tomato - tomahto.

[deke4]

I wish people would leave Rush alone. He makes my political decisions rater easy to act upon. If Rush is for something, than i am against it, If Rush is against something than I am for it. No fuss, no muss, no loss of time and effort. I became firmly convinced Rush was off his rocker when he said on one of his radio shows "that all users of illegal drugs (I would also suspect he meant also all illegally gotten drugs) should be thrown in jail and the key be thrown away". Ah, how I wish our politicians had heeded the Rush diatribe.

[Economike]

He expects you to know that it doesn't apply to him.

[propitiousmoment]

I am beginning to think the republican party has characteristics of a cult - if you disagree, you are severely chastised, and if you continue to disagree, you are excommunicated and excoriated. While it raised my hackles to read the headline and the first part of the article, I think the point that it successfully makes in the end is that democrats don't engage in that kind of punishment of contrary thinking within the ranks. Yay for that or we truly would be without hope.

[Acid Monkey]

Cult? Well, isn't the Republican base the religious far right? Do I need to say any more?

[RobinSeattle]

Not to mention the influence of the Reverend Moon in that party.

[realpolitic]

The GOP is a party of followers. That fact is why it is so out of ideas. The party is a very top-down, hierarchical structure that views information coming from the bottom-up as impertience. They favor a military command structure where one old guy makes decisions and everyone then falls in line. It is neat and efficient, but makes for abhorent policy. Also, they do not listen or seek alternative views. In fact, alternative views are shunned. The GOP by its nature is not ideas driven, but it is almost a cult that follows unworkable policies based on ideologies that rarely change.

[discourse jockey]

Yep, the right-wing dislike of civilized, "scien-y" discourse --which long worked as its sole recipe for success-- is now the engine of its demise.

The beauty of it is that there are exactly two ways forwar for the GOP: To change and shift to the mainstream, thus becoming a more open-minded, liberal party -- or, insisting on this bad part of their self-determined identity and walking the walk towards political and social oblivion.

[realpolitic]

Well said!