Snarky Behavior

Yeah it’s late, but some quick thoughts on why I like Michael Moore:

1.) The Power of Persuasion: I read a book review today of Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgement written by my former UCLA professor Andrew Sabl (the review, not the book… the book is by Yale’s Bryan Garsten). On the subject of rhetoric, he writes: “While the trend in democratic theory is to sideline rhetoric in favor of rationalistic ‘deliberation,’ Garsten explores and defends an older tradition of republican rhetoric that disavows manipulation and pandering but differs with contemporary rationalism in practicing respect for citizens’ actual opinions and for the arts of appealing to them.”

Now, I’ve written before about my distaste for the inaccessibility of important research. The same principles apply to policy decisions. Not everyone in a democracy should be an informed wonk to have an opinion on how we should choose to govern ourselves, nor should they be expected to. The wonks are the people we select to hammer out the details. Michael Moore “gets” this better than anyone.

Moore is a provocateur. He understands that our political system can be manipulated by shouting heads who, as “experts,” can intimidate the uninformed masses from voicing their conscience and utilizing their facilities of reason. He understands that in our current form of democracy, the pot must be sufficiently stirred to turn a confused murmer of discontent into a roaring din of outrage.

2) The Mission Statement- In the book Made to Stick, the Heath brothers explore what made Southwest Airlines a profitable company during a time when the rest of the industry was taking it in shorts. The complicated reasons, of course, fall into the nitty-gritty of their business model. But the over-arching reason is the company’s mission statement: to be “the low cost airline.” Every decision is therefore made with this guiding principle in mind.

Moore tries to make this point in the context of health-care. By exploring the systems of France, Canada, Britain and Cuba, he explains that these societies choose to guarantee universal health-care for themselves. To do otherwise would be unthinkable. And although Canada and Cuba are fairly homogenous societies, France and the UK face the same immigration tensions as the United States, and they still provide universal access and quality care. Why? Because that’s the mission of their government: to take care of its citizens and workers when they get sick.

3) Keep It Simple, Stupid- As Ezra Klein points out, the media reacted very suspiciously to Moore’s film– discrediting him in an underminded fashion by “fact-checking” the movie to death. And most liberal pundits were quick to disassociate themselves from Moore, even if they too believe in his core messages. The more blatant smears on Moore included attacks on his weight (fat), his politics (socialist), and his veracity (suspect).

Why must the media qualify their support of Moore’s film? I’m not sure if I buy fully into Moore’s allegation that CNN, et. al have to walk on egg-shells since their corporate sponsors include HMOs and Pharmaceutical companies. But I do think that members of the media feel constrained to take what they consider to be an extreme position (extreme because it is so anti-establishment). You could say the same thing about the issue of withdrawal in Iraq.

So the media is perfectly comfortable discussing the red-herring argument of whether Moore’s film is factually accuracte, or the nature of his political motivations, or the size of his waist-line. What the media rarely does is consider Moore’s simple argument at face-value:

• a) whether or not it is moral to base our system of health care on a for-profit model
• b) whether a publicly managed system constrains our individual liberties more or less than a private system (considering the extreme risks of being denied coverage in a privately managed system)
• c) whether a publicly managed system can provide the same quality of care we have come to expect (or at least, assume we have), or at least be worth the tradeoffs of universality

Those are the issues, folks. And I’m inclined to believe: no, less and yes. It’s not hard.

I just want Tim Gunn to take these issues to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and say, “make it work.”