The author of this piece says of Michael Moore........."His biggest failure, however, is his inability to articulate a plausible alternative to the system he loathes."
Propose alternative remedies for at least two of the simplicities illustrated by Michael Moore in his film.
For example, the author claims that "He (Michael Moore) talks fuzzily of more democracy, but it is not clear what he means......" What would more democracy mean to you? OR the author claims that Michael Moore believes that ....."The $700 billion bail-out after Lehman’s collapse was no genuine attempt to stave off depression, but a financial coup d’état, staged by big banks." Was it? Did the big banks intentionally stage the collapse in an attempt to steal taxpayers' money?
Monday, October 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, more democracy means more government intervention and control, so relating it back to today, it would mean government supported healthcare for more than just senior citizens on social security.
ReplyDeleteI'd have to agree with what Christina says how more democracy would actually lead to more government control, but i would like to extrapolate on what I think the meaning of this is. More democracy, in all likelihood, would just reset to capitalism or remain under a facade of democracy. Realistically, if you have the American people (of which the majority are uneducated and unknowledgeable in economic and politics) having more influence on votes on what happens in our country, then you will have even more government propaganda. You will see the media try even harder to influence 9and effectively brainwash) the American opinion.
ReplyDelete-Garrett
As a positive though, if multiple viewpoints and conflicting opinions remain in government, it would not simply be a matter of "brainwashing" the voters, but also make political debates among people within politics even more heated than they are now.
Personally, I'm not familiar with Moore's films nor (in detail) his differing economic and political points of view, nor am i educated or informed on the Lehman brother's incedent so I would feel out of place commenting and criticizing either of them.
-Garrett Mabel
I think Michael Moore's intention in the movie was that democracy would give power back to the people. However, that brings up an interesting question: Are today's politicians serving the will of the people? Are there instances when politicians should not serve the will of the people?
ReplyDeleteYes, people are VERY easily persuaded to follow the most absurd ideas. Media slants, political rhetoric, mixed with a plethora of arrogant self-righteousness all contribute to the masses being assembled in an orderly manner. But, isn't it the right of ALL citizens (not just the educated and wealthy) to have a vote in how they live?
ReplyDeleteCertainly it is the right of all citizens to have a say in how they live, but what I'm saying is that politicians use political rhetoric and the media to form and persuade the public's perception of how they should be living, thus making it the way people want to live, and furthermore making it count towards a vote for the politician who persuaded the best.
ReplyDelete-Garrett
More democracy? Does this mean more freedom for the Americans or more control for the government? If it means more control by the government it means more expectations of Americans to do as the government wants. Regarding what Garrett said people do have the right to say how they want to live, but with less freedom of Americans means more persuassion by politicians. Thus, causing for more people to have less votes of how they want things to be run, but more of how they are told too.
ReplyDeleteConsider this, with less freedom, Americans are restricted and then they have less voting power; that's a given! But really think about if we were given more freedom within the context of democracy, this means we are given more voting power. But we have no idea who to vote for! So we inadvertently let the politicians persuade us. So to answer you question directly. more democracy DOES mean more control for the government, just in a more discreet way. The added freedoms would just roll into government control, and this control would mainly be of the public opinion. To simplify this, think of rednecks who won't vote for a candidate just because that candidtate would "take their gun away," and you know that this message is spread by the candidate's opponent to the rednecks. Viola! Government control of public opinion. Now picture thi being implemented on our entire nation!
ReplyDelete-Garrett Mabel
I am going to agree with Christina, it is my belief that with more government interventions and control it will lead to better government supported healthcare for everyone. More democracy would mean that power to the people would be greater, which in return will mean a better outcome in the votes for government supported healthcare. Although some people might not agree with me, this being only because of the way that they view political figures in the media in today's society and not on what the real issue is.
ReplyDelete- Felipe Maldonado
I am extremely troubled by the rhetoric that it being expressed by both the despicable man Mr. Michael Moore, and by these comments. More democracy would not mean more government intervention. Democracy gives the power to the people, not the government. Free-enterprise gives the power to the people, not the government. You must not confuse today's "democracy" led by Mr. Obama, because simply he is transforming this great land into a socialistic nation. More of Mr. Obama's democracy will lead to total government control, because that is what he believes in. Also under President George W. Bush democracy took a huge hit and government grew to an uncontrollable level. We need to rein in the government, limit the powers it mow has over our daily lives, stand up to the politicians who dismiss the people as "Un-American" or "Nazis" like Mrs. Pelosi has. Mr. Moore has no solutions, no logical thoughts, and I must add he is an extreme hypocrite. How does he make his money? Free-Market. How does he promote his view? Free-Market. And what does he attack? Free-Market. That is all you need to know when dealing with a tyranny filled man.
ReplyDeleteI do not think (in response to Ms. Meachum's first post)politicians need to be responding completely to the wants or wills of the American people. The fact of the matter is that most Americans know nothing of economics, politics, or any social standing issue. We elect experts on these topics to govern and make decisions for us. They need to do what's best for our country, not what the American people want, which isn't necessarily best. For instance, everyone hears "raises taxes" and immediately doesn't want it. Just tax someone else, just print more money, just do whatever you have to do so that 12 cents aren't taken out of MY paycheck. It is sometimes necessary to raise taxes, but nobody wants to vote for it. Giving the American people more decision-making abilities (if that is what Michael Moore meant by more democracy) won't help anyone. Capitalism must be allowed to thrive on its own for our system to work. If we call ourselves capitalists but then swarm around our desire for a socialist regime to take all of our troubles away with "solutions" like universal health care, we won't be able to sustain any economic prowess in the world. Committing to capitalism, the core idea that founded this nation, or committing to communism, the greatest fear of this nation, are our only two options.
ReplyDeleteThe government should not be given anymore power...and I don't think that we really "vote." So many Americans, like me, are very uneducated about politics and the politicians. We see them on TV, they call our house, and send us letters, to get us to vote for them and they promise us all this great stuff and we swing to that side, or the side that promises us the most stuff. But really, we don't know what's going on, and I feel like they trick us into doing what they want us to. I just don't think that "they" need anymore power to screw up
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Ryan. Unfortunately I wouldn't consider myself educated on politics or politicians, and I believe that in order to run an effective democracy the masses need to be educated. Hence, I fear more democracy while the people (for the most part) are still uneducated.
ReplyDeleteI agree that to some degree, more democracy would lead to more government intervention. And I agree with Christina about democracy meaning more government supported health care. Ms. Meachum, you're right though, EVERYONE is entitled to have a say in how their lives are lived.
ReplyDeleteThe government will obviously be involved either way, but people should have a say in things- these decisions regard each and every one of us. But then another question comes into play: Do we trust anyone else to make informed decisions? Too much of anything can be dangerous.
More Democracy could affect many well set systems already in place. Though the citizens would earn a little more power in government, I must say that the population might not always know what is best because they do not always understand or else they underestimate certain issues and their consequences. Was the bailout a fraud? I think the plan allows for doubts to rise and people to question it's genuity, and claims such as this make people all the more skeptical/paranoid. Though the government might not always be reliable, I do not believe the stimulus plan could have been completely planned out for the personal gain of the banks nor that the banks would go to such lenghts of federal thievery.
ReplyDeleteMore democracy would be a disaster. Most citizens are not politically educated, which means when voting they would think about what is in their best convenience.
ReplyDeleteTHIS IS WHERE I WILL DISAGREE, with Steve.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is supposed to have the government protect the people's rights, and in a perfect world the government fears and listens to the people.
But people are too uneducated and ignorant to make decisions and understand politics and economics, so where the people lack, the government takes control. People may have the power, but they're like children with hammers,
they have absolutely no idea what they're doing and cause a lot of damage. Of anything the government is protecting the people from their irrational selves.
This "great land" isn't being turned into a socialistic nation if we have had socialistic practices going on for years on end. I think you enjoy getting a free education. I think 'retired' [=] people appreciate their social security. I think people like driving on roads that the government pays for.
If democracy does not mean more government intervention, as you said, how exactly is "Mr. Obama's democracy" going to "lead to total government control". Note, I'm quoting you, so you might want to stop contradicting yourself, as you continue to do when you say "under President George W. Bush democracy took a huge hit and government grew to an uncontrollable level." Isn't Bush a Republican?..
Although I do agree with you when you get something straight, that the people need to have their epiphanies and take back control from the government. Though you lose me when you say politicians dismiss people as being unamerican and nazis. I mean, I think a person would notice an insult like that when directed at them. Politicians can't call people nazis, otherwise they won't get their votes at re-election.
Moore may not have the answers, but you can't deny that there is definitely a lot of corruption in a capitalistic society.
Christina,
ReplyDeleteNazi Comment:
During her[Nancy Pelosi] recent visit to a San Francisco hospital, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter asked her whether there is "legitimate grass-roots opposition" to the Democrats' healthcare plan.
"I think they are Astroturf," she responded.
Then she referred to hecklers at a town hall meeting: "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."
-http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pelosi_limbaush_swastikas/2009/08/07/245316.html
Contradicting Myself?
Yes George Bush is a Republican, that does not mean I believe everything he did was right. Like I said, He grew government. Obama is doubling down on Bush's mistakes.
Um-American Comment:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, insisting at the start of a long and politically heated summer congressional recess that healthcare reform can be achieved this fall, today are calling the disruption of "town-hall'' meetings by vocal protesters "simply un-American.''
They go on....
"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.''
-http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/08/pelosi_hoyer_unamerican_protes.html
I believe Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are politicians.
Now I'll quote you...
ReplyDelete"I think you enjoy getting a free education. I think 'retired' [=] people appreciate their social security. I think people like driving on roads that the government pays for."
WOW. Yeah you are right, I would also love if the Government gave me a Million Dollars!!!! And a great big house with a pool and a nice car and cell phone and hot dogs and play stations!!!
Would you support that? Of course people are going to enjoy "free" education and social security. But I have a little secret for you Christina...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. The government does not "pay" for anything. They just spend OUR (tax payers) money on whatever the hell they feel like spending it on. The past two administrations (Bush, Obama) have been like a 15 year old girl that just got a new credit card.