A Stupid White Movie

I have been defending Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 from the criticism in mainstream andconservative circles that the film is leftist propaganda. Nothing could be farther from the truth; there isvery little left critique in the movie. In fact, it's hard to find any coherent critique in the movie at all.

The sad truth is that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a bad movie, but not for the reasons it is beingattacked in the dominant culture. It's at times a racist movie. And the analysis that underlies thefilm's main political points is either dangerously incomplete or virtually incoherent.

But, most important, it's a conservative movie that ends with an endorsement of one of the central lies ofthe United States, which should warm the hearts of the right-wingers who condemn Moore. And the real problemis that many left/liberal/progressive people are singing the film's praises, which should tell us somethingabout the impoverished nature of the left in this country.

I say all this not to pick at small points or harp on minor flaws. These aren't minor points ofdisagreement but fundamental questions of analysis and integrity. But before elaborating on that, I want totalk about what the film does well.

The good stuff

First, Moore highlights the disenfranchisement of primarily black voters in Florida in the 2000 election, apolitical scandal that the mainstream commercial news media in the United States has largely ignored. Thefootage of a joint session of Congress in which Congressional Black Caucus members can't get a senator to signtheir letter to allow floor debate about the issue (a procedural requirement) is a powerful indictment notonly of the Republicans who perpetrated the fraud but the Democratic leadership that refused to challenge it.

Moore also provides a sharp critique of U.S. military recruiting practices, with some amazing footage ofrecruiters cynically at work scouring low-income areas for targets, who are disproportionately non-white. Thefilm also effectively takes apart the Bush administration's use of fear tactics after 9/11 to drive the publicto accept its war policies.

Fahrenheit 9/11 also does a good job of showing war's effects on U.S. soldiers; we see soldiersdead and maimed, and we see how contemporary warfare deforms many of them psychologically as well. And thefilm pays attention to the victims of U.S. wars, showing Iraqis both before the U.S. invasion and after in away that humanizes them rather than uses them as props.

The problem is that these positive elements don't add up to a good film. It's a shame that Moore's talentand flair for the dramatic aren't put in the service of a principled, clear analysis that could potentially beeffective at something beyond defeating George W. Bush in 2004.

Subtle racism

How dare I describe as racist a movie that highlights the disenfranchisement of black voters and goes afterthe way in which military recruiters chase low-income minority youth? My claim is not that Moore is an overtracist, but that the movie unconsciously replicates a more subtle racism, one that we all have to struggle toresist.

First, there is one segment that invokes the worst kind of ugly-American nativism, in which Moore mocks theBush administration's "coalition of the willing," the nations it lined up to support the invasion ofIraq. Aside from Great Britain there was no significant military support from other nations and no realcoalition, which Moore is right to point out. But when he lists the countries in the so-called coalition, heuses images that have racist undertones. 

To depict the Republic of Palau (a small Pacific island nation),Moore chooses an image of stereotypical "native" dancers, while a man riding on an animal-drawn cartrepresents Costa Rica. Pictures of monkeys running are on the screen during a discussion of Morocco's apparentoffer to send monkeys to clear landmines. To ridicule the Bush propaganda on this issue, Moore uses theseimages and an exaggerated voice-over in a fashion that says, in essence, "What kind of coalition is itthat has these backward countries?" Moore might argue that is not his intention, but intention is not theonly question; we all are responsible for how we tap into these kinds of stereotypes.

More subtle and important is Moore's invocation of a racism in which solidarity between dominant whites andnon-white groups domestically can be forged by demonizing the foreign "enemy," which these days hasan Arab and South Asian face. For example, in the segment about law-enforcement infiltration of peace groups,the camera pans the almost exclusively white faces (I noticed one Asian man in the scene) in the group PeaceFresno and asks how anyone could imagine these folks could be terrorists. There is no consideration of thefact that Arab and Muslim groups that are equally dedicated to peace have to endure routine harassment andconstantly prove that they weren't terrorists, precisely because they weren't white.

The other example of political repression that Fahrenheit 9/11 offers is the story of BarryReingold, who was visited by FBI agents after making critical remarks about Bush and the war while working outat a gym in Oakland. Reingold, a white retired phone worker, was not detained or charged with a crime; theagents questioned him and left. This is the poster child for repression? In a country where hundreds of Arab,South Asian and Muslim men were thrown into secret detention after 9/11, this is the case Moore chooses tohighlight? The only reference in the film to those detentions post-9/11 is in an interview with a former FBIagent about Saudis who were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11, in which it appears thatMoore mentions those detentions only to contrast the kid-gloves treatment that privileged Saudi nationalsallegedly received.

When I made this point to a friend, he defended Moore by saying the filmmaker was trying to reach a wideaudience that likely is mostly white and probably wanted to use examples that those people could connect with.So, it's acceptable to pander to the white audience members and over-dramatize their limited risks whileignoring the actual serious harm done to non-white people? Could not a skilled filmmaker tell the story of thepeople being seriously persecuted in a way that non-Arab, non-South Asian, non-Muslims could empathize with?

Bad analysis

Fahrenheit 9/11 is strong on tapping into emotions and raising questions about why the UnitedStates invaded Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, but it is extremely weak on answering those questions in evenmarginally coherent fashion. To the degree the film has a thesis, it appears to be that the wars were aproduct of the personal politics of a corrupt Bush dynasty. I agree the Bush dynasty is corrupt, but theanalysis the film offers is both internally inconsistent, extremely limited in historical understanding and,hence, misguided.

Is the administration of George W. Bush full of ideological fanatics? Yes. Have its actions since 9/11 beenreckless and put the world at risk? Yes. In the course of pursuing those policies, has it enriched fat-catfriends? Yes.

But it is a serious mistake to believe that these wars can be explained by focusing so exclusively on theBush administration and ignoring clear trends in U.S. foreign and military policy. In short, these wars arenot a sharp departure from the past but instead should be seen as an intensification of longstanding policies,affected by the confluence of this particular administration's ideology and the opportunities created by theevents of 9/11.

Look first at Moore's treatment of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. He uses a clip of formercounterterrorism official Richard Clarke complaining that the Bush administration's response to 9/11 inAfghanistan was "slow and small," implying that we should have attacked faster and bigger. The filmdoes nothing to question that assessment, leaving viewers to assume that Moore agrees. Does he think that abombing campaign that killed at least as many innocent Afghans as Americans who died on 9/11 was justified?Does he think that a military response was appropriate, and simply should have been more intense, which wouldhave guaranteed even more civilian casualties? Does he think that a military strategy, which many expertsbelieve made it difficult to pursue more routine and productive counterterrorism law-enforcement methods, wasa smart move?

Moore also suggests that the real motivation of the Bush administration in attacking Afghanistan was tosecure a gas pipeline route from the Caspian Basin to the sea. It's true that Unocal had sought such apipeline, and at one point Taliban officials were courted by the United States when it looked as if they couldmake such a deal happen. Moore points out that Taliban officials traveled to Texas in 1997 when Bush wasgovernor. He fails to point out that all this happened with the Clinton administration at the negotiatingtable. It is highly unlikely that policymakers would go to war for a single pipeline, but even if that wereplausible it is clear that both Democrats and Republicans alike have been mixed up in that particular scheme.

The centerpiece of Moore's analysis of U.S. policy in the Middle East is the relationship of the Bushfamily to the Saudis and the bin Laden family. The film appears to argue that those business interests,primarily through the Carlyle Group, led the administration to favor the Saudis to the point of ignoringpotential Saudi complicity in the attacks of 9/11. After laying out the nature of those business dealings,Moore implies that the Bushes are literally on the take.

It is certainly true that the Bush family and its cronies have a relationship with Saudi Arabia that hasled officials to overlook Saudi human-rights abuses and the support that many Saudis give to movements such asal Qaeda. That is true of the Bushes, just as it was of the Clinton administration and, in fact, everypost-World War II president. Ever since FDR cut a deal with the House of Saud giving U.S. support in exchangefor cooperation on the flow of oil and oil profits, U.S. administrations have been playing ball with theSaudis. The relationship is sometimes tense but has continued through ups and downs, with both sides gettingat least part of what they need from the other. Concentrating on Bush family business connections ignores thathistory and encourages viewers to see the problem as specific to Bush. Would a Gore administration havetreated the Saudis differently after 9/11? There's no reason to think so, and Moore offers no evidence orargument why it would have.

But that's only part of the story of U.S. policy in the Middle East, in which the Saudis play a role butare not the only players. The United States cuts deals with other governments in the region that are willingto support the U.S. aim of control over those energy resources. The Saudis are crucial in that system, but notalone. Egypt, Jordan and the other Gulf emirates have played a role, as did Iran under the Shah. As does,crucially, Israel. But there is no mention of Israel in the film. To raise questions about U.S. policy in theMiddle East without addressing the role of Israel as a U.S. proxy is, to say the least, a significantomission. It's unclear whether Moore actually backs Israeli crimes and U.S. support for them, or simplydoesn't understand the issue.

And what of the analysis of Iraq? Moore is correct in pointing out that U.S. support for Iraq during the1980s, when Saddam Hussein's war on Iran was looked upon favorably by U.S. policymakers, was a central part ofReagan and Bush I policy up to the Gulf War. And he's correct in pointing out that Bush II's invasion andoccupation have caused great suffering in Iraq. What is missing is the intervening eight years in which theClinton administration used the harshest economic embargo in modern history and regular bombing to furtherdevastate an already devastated country. He fails to point out that Clinton killed more Iraqis through thatpolicy than either of the Bush presidents. He fails to mention the 1998 Clinton cruise missile attack on Iraq,which was every bit as illegal as the 2003 invasion.

It's not difficult to articulate what much of the rest of the world understands about U.S. policy in Iraqand the Middle East: Since the end of WWII, the United States has been the dominant power in the Middle East,constructing a system that tries to keep the Arab states weak and controllable (and, as a result,undemocratic) and undermine any pan-Arab nationalism, and uses allies as platforms and surrogates for U.S.power (such as Israel and Iran under the Shah). The goal is control over (not ownership of, but control over)the strategically crucial energy resources of the region and the profits that flow from them, which in anindustrial world that runs on oil is a source of incredible leverage over competitors such as the EuropeanUnion, Japan and China.

The Iraq invasion, however incompetently planned and executed by the Bush administration, is consistentwith that policy. That's the most plausible explanation for the war (by this time, we need no longer botherwith the long-ago forgotten rationalizations of weapons of mass destruction and the alleged threat Iraq posedto the United States). The war was a gamble on the part of the Bush gang. Many in the foreign-policyestablishment, including Bush I stalwarts such as Brent Scowcroft, spoke out publicly against war plans theythought were reckless. Whether Bush's gamble, in pure power terms, will pay off or not is yet to bedetermined.

When the film addresses this question directly, what analysis does Moore offer of the reasons for the Iraqwar? A family member of a soldier who died asks, "for what?" and Moore cuts to the subject of warprofiteering. That segment appropriately highlights the vulture-like nature of businesses that benefit fromwar. But does Moore really want us to believe that a major war was launched so that Halliburton and othercompanies could increase its profits for a few years? Yes, war profiteering happens, but it is not the reasonnations go to war. This kind of distorted analysis helps keep viewers' attention focused on the Bushadministration, by noting the close ties between Bush officials and these companies, not the routine way inwhich corporate America makes money off the misnamed Department of Defense, no matter who is in the WhiteHouse.

All this is summed up when Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a son killed in the war, visits the White House ina final, emotional scene and says that she now has somewhere to put all her pain and anger. This is themessage of the film: It's all about the Bush administration. If that's the case, the obvious conclusion is toget Bush out of the White House so that things can get back to . to what? I'll return to questions ofpolitical strategy at the end, but for now it's important to realize how this attempt to construct Bush aspursuing some radically different policy is bad analysis and leads to a misunderstanding of the threat theUnited States poses to the world. Yes, Moore throws in a couple of jabs at the Democrats in Congress for notstopping the mad rush to war in Iraq, but the focus is always on the singular crimes of George W. Bush and hisgang.

A conservative movie

The claim that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a conservative movie may strike some as ludicrous. But thefilm endorses one of the central lies that Americans tell themselves, that the U.S. military fights for ourfreedom. This construction of the military as a defensive force obscures the harsh reality that the militaryis used to project U.S. power around the world to ensure dominance, not to defend anyone's freedom, at home orabroad.

Instead of confronting this mythology, Moore ends the film with it. He points out, accurately, the ironythat those who benefit the least from the U.S. system -- the chronically poor and members of minority groups-- are the very people who sign up for the military. "They offer to give up their lives so we can befree," Moore says, and all they ask in return is that we not send them in harm's way unless it'snecessary. After the Iraq War, he wonders, "Will they ever trust us again?"

It is no doubt true that many who join the military believe they will be fighting for freedom. But we mustdistinguish between the mythology that many internalize and may truly believe, from the reality of the role ofthe U.S. military. The film includes some comments by soldiers questioning that very claim, but Moore'snarration implies that somehow a glorious tradition of U.S. military endeavors to protect freedom has now beensullied by the Iraq War.

The problem is not just that the Iraq War was fundamentally illegal and immoral. The whole rotten projectof empire building has been illegal and immoral -- and every bit as much a Democratic as a Republican project.The millions of dead around the world -- in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia -- as aresult of U.S. military actions and proxy wars don't care which U.S. party was pulling the strings and pullingthe trigger when they were killed. It's true that much of the world hates Bush. It's also true that much ofthe world has hated every post-WWII U.S. president. And for good reasons.

It is one thing to express solidarity for people forced into the military by economic conditions. It isquite another to pander to the lies this country tells itself about the military. It is not disrespectful tothose who join up to tell the truth. It is our obligation to try to prevent future wars in which people aresent to die not for freedom but for power and profit. It's hard to understand how we can do that by repeatingthe lies of the people who plan, and benefit from, those wars.

Political strategy

The most common defense I have heard from liberals and progressives to these criticisms of Fahrenheit9/11 is that, whatever its flaws, the movie sparks people to political action. One response is obvious:There is no reason a film can't spark people to political action with intelligent and defensible analysis, andwithout subtle racism.

But beyond that, it's not entirely clear the political action that this film will spark goes much beyondvoting against Bush. The "what can I do now?" link on Moore's website suggests four actions, all ofwhich are about turning out the vote. These resources about voting are well organized and helpful. But thereare no links to grassroots groups organizing against not only the Bush regime but the American empire moregenerally.

I agree that Bush should be kicked out of the White House, and if I lived in a swing state I would considervoting Democratic. But I don't believe that will be meaningful unless there emerges in the United States asignificant anti-empire movement. In other words, if we beat Bush and go back to "normal," we're allin trouble. Normal is empire building. Normal is U.S. domination, economic and military, and the sufferingthat vulnerable people around the world experience as a result.