WASHINGTON, 3 July 2004 — Michael Moore is brilliant at marketing and short on getting his facts correct. His film, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” is, in just three days, the largest grossing documentary of all time. Some reviewers predict that the film will gross over $100 million which will put in the category of one of the top 300 moneymaking films in history. This is unheard of in the documentary film business. However, Michael Moore, the great liberal-progressive, is guilty of extensive ethnic stereotyping which borders on racism in his movie.
Moore states that his intent with Fahrenheit 9/11 is to stimulate a movement to defeat George W. Bush in his bid to be re-elected to the presidency this year. When accused of only “preaching to the choir,” Moore states that the choir needs a song to sing. In other words, Moore would rally the forces to help create a solid grass roots effort to defeat George Bush. Moore cleverly uses out-takes throughout the film to present Bush and his key aides in a very negative light. The Bush gang must have forgotten that satellite TV feeds are recording their subjects for some time before the broadcast begins. In these out-takes, we see Paul Wolfowitz spitting in his comb before slicking back his hair and Bush himself making faces in front of the camera before a live broadcast begins.
Moore also captures many Bush aides bragging about the “Coalition of the Willing” which supports the US in Iraq. Here Moore begins to show his “liberal-progressive” blind side. As he lists countries that joined Bush’s Coalition (Palau, Costa Rica, Iceland, Romania and the Netherlands are a few mentioned), he accompanies his monologue with ludicrous stock footage of people in costumes of different lands, including people in jungle garb. Here Moore clearly lowers the bar as the audiences laugh at these “buffoons” from other countries. And this comes from the same guy who defends African-Americans as being treated as second-class citizens earlier in the film. Moore never once in the film gives Saudis and, by implication, Arabs a break. As Moore reminds us that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, he shows us picture after picture of Saudis in their headdresses focusing on their dark, swarthy faces. Moore actually implies in the movie that Saudis own 6-7 percent of America. It is as if all Saudis are part of an Arabian Mafia and have no redeeming virtues. This ethnic stereotyping is the saddest part of the film, particularly coming from Moore who historically has made significant efforts to humanize many peoples including the Palestinians.
Moore’s last book is titled “Dude, Where’s My Country,” and is dedicated in part to Rachel Corrie, the young American woman who was bulldozed to death by the Israelis while defending Palestinians. After Moore’s first film, “Roger and Me” a film done in 1989 which defended the little guy against big bad General Motors, Moore stated that his next big film project was to defend the Palestinians who, he said, were “being treated like dirt”. In his early promotional days, Moore was even hosted by the Arab-American community and called a “very special friend” by this group. When Moore left Mother Jones Magazine in the 1980’s he complained to the press about the “Jewish” and “Zionist” influence at the magazine. That was then. Moore recently was interviewed and asked about how the special relationship that Washington has with Israel differs from their relationship with Saudi Arabia. He answered that Israel is a democracy and they don’t chop people’s heads off. This is now. Michael Moore and George Bush have one thing in common. They are both consistently guilty of oversimplification. Bush was quoted at the recent NATO summit in Turkey as saying, “If justice is the goal, then democracy is the answer.” Democracy might be a great form of government, George, but it’s not the only system where justice is served. Moore oversimplifies issues around 9/11 throughout his movie. Will most of the public see this common oversimplification or will the movie cause people to defend either the Moore perspective or the Bush perspective more vehemently?
This movie makes a strong case for the defeat of George Bush. It has been suggested that the Democratic party should use just one cut from the movie in all of their political advertising. At a black tie event, Bush looks out over the affluent crowd that he is addressing, his base constituents and says, “My people, the haves and the have-mores”. The biggest problem with that cut, however, is it is almost the same base group of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.
So what effect will this movie have on the electoral process? Ronald Reagan often said that there is a thin line between entertainment and politics. Fahrenheit 9/11 might show us if that line can be broken.
(Dr. Michael Saba is the author of “The Armageddon Network” and is an international relations consultant.)
