Who Is to Blame for Michael Moore’s Success?

That’s the question posed by Matt d’Ancona in the Daily Telegraph. His answer, briefly, is the hawks: “[Moore] has identified the feebleness of the campaign to persuade the public that the war on terror is necessary and exploited that weakness to the hilt.” D’Ancona’s conclusion:

[I]t isn’t enough to say that Moore manipulates the facts, or that he is a charlatan, or that his arguments are glib. The reality is that his methods are working, and working for a reason. He is the grizzled face of a culture in denial, the contrarian voice of the millions who would rather hate Dubya than confront the awesome threat that stalks our age. His success is an urgent warning to those who support the war, who grasp its importance, to raise their game, and fast. Nitpicking is not the answer. It’s the big issues that count. And it’s there that Michael Moore has no answers. If he is so visionary, why is his objective – to run Bush out of the White House – so parochial? What would he do about the new horrors of our time? Dude, where’s your sense of history?

Via Real Clear Politics

Responses

Books to read from Power Line