Culture Warrior (19 page)

Moore made his reputation attacking General Motors in a film called
Roger and Me.
He espouses a fuzzy type of socialism where workers should be “nurtured” and big corporations should be kicked to the curb. In keeping with his message, Moore's public image is that of a working guy not much interested in material things. Typically unshaven and wearing a cheap cap, Moore presents himself as a working-class hero. But the truth is much different.

Michael Moore, the clown prince of the secular-progressive movement.

Like many S-P showbiz types, Moore enjoys his wealth and comfort. According to reporting done by Peter Schweizer in his book
Do as I Say
(
Not as I Do
), Moore owns two lavish homes, holds stock in some of the corporations he claims to despise, and, in 2003, just before he'd hit it big with his anti-Bush movie, switched his primary residence from New York to Michigan, thereby saving himself a bundle on income taxes.

And do you know what? I don't care. Moore can do whatever he wants with his money; that's no concern of mine. Everyone has inconsistencies in his or her life. If you think Moore is a phony, you may be right. But on the culture war battlefield, that is not what really counts.

That's because Michael Moore has terminally marginalized himself. He now preaches solely to a far-left, devoutly S-P choir. His outrageous assertions after 9/11 were largely discredited by reasonable people on all sides. For instance, that the Bush family intervened to protect questionable Saudis in the days after the attack. Check out his Web site and you might agree that the man has blasted off into outer space. Moore used to be entertaining, and once in a while he actually made some good points. But somewhere between the moon and New York City, as Christopher Cross once sang, Moore became a bitter anti-American extremist. As a further sign of decline, he now routinely attacks people personally. There's a niche market for that kind of thing, but little more (sorry).

Before 9/11, I enjoyed having Michael Moore on
The Factor;
he was funny without being mean-spirited. But the last time we sparred, it was a different experience, a sad disappointment.

Since Moore had been accessible to
The Factor
in the past, we were surprised when he ducked us while promoting
Fahrenheit 9/11,
his hate-Bush movie. His publicist simply would not confirm any appearance with us. But while Moore can run, anyone who dresses like that can't hide. In July 2004, I spotted Moore on the street outside of the Fleet Center in Boston, where the Democratic Convention was in progress.

I jumped out of my car and yelled: “Hey, Moore! You're ducking me.”

Luckily, a cameraman from the Fox affiliate in Boston was shooting on the street nearby and realized that an entertaining confrontation might ensue. So he started rolling as I strode over to greet Moore, who looked like somebody had just upchucked on his sneakers.

“You're running, Moore,” I vamped to the camera. “You're not man enough to face me.”

Moore is no fool about publicity and knew this was lead-story material for every Fox news program in the country. So he agreed almost at once to come on
The Factor
that night! It was great.

But, unfortunately, the interview wasn't great, at least not for me. Moore didn't debate, he filibustered. He repeated the same anti–Iraq war mantra over and over: “Would you send your son to Fallujah?” It was boring.

Dissenting from the Iraq war was not the problem. Millions, perhaps most, Americans have come to believe that the Iraq fight might not have been worth it. But on this occasion, I had a ton of questions about how Moore had handled his 9/11 film, and he simply didn't want to have a conversation. He wanted to vent against Bush. For me it was headache-inducing, although many viewers wrote saying they loved the shoot-out.

As I stated, I truly believe Michael Moore is no longer a factor (again, my apologies) in the culture war. Unwittingly, he has staked out Ralph Nader–like territory. As it stands now, he is not powerful enough to make a difference in American culture, not rational and persuasive enough to change minds. He'll talk his trash, make his money, and keep the baseball cap business in the black. But he's become a sideshow to the main event. George Soros wouldn't touch him.

         

Susan Sarandon:
The actress and her common-law husband, Tim Robbins, epitomize the secular-progressive showbiz crowd. They are always on the S-P side, always touting the antitraditionalist vision. But I have some respect for Ms. Sarandon, because she does put her money where her mouth is: She donates major dollars to help the poor.

As I explain in more detail in my book
The No Spin Zone,
the one appearance on
The Factor
by this fine actress came in the wake of a police shooting in New York City. An unarmed African immigrant, Amadou Diallo, was slain after some cops who were hunting for a rapist panicked after the lead officer fell down while attempting to question Mr. Diallo in a darkened hallway. This was an awful situation, but after all the evidence was presented, a twelve-person jury, including four African Americans, acquitted the police officers of any wrongdoing.

Now, it is Ms. Sarandon's view of America that minorities consistently have their rights violated by a system that is overly suspicious of them and callous in regard to their needs. She believes the United States is not “nurturing” the poor and disadvantaged; by this reasoning, high ghetto crime rates are basically society's fault. This is classic S-P thinking, of course, straight down the party line.

I once interviewed Susan Sarandon pre-
Factor
in the 1970s: Who has better hair?

Remember, the Yoda of the S-P movement, George Lakoff, lists the lack of “broad prosperity” among the nation's poor as one of the major secular-progressive issues. By the term “broad prosperity,” Lakoff means that the federal government should be obliged to provide poor Americans with just about everything middle-class Americans have. His word “provide” means giving money and material things to citizens. Thus, Lakoff's “broad prosperity” theory is really socialism. No other word for it. And S-P enthusiasts like Susan Sarandon buy into it.

Immediately after the Diallo shooting (that is, before any facts were established), Ms. Sarandon and other committed S-P foot soldiers organized antipolice rallies. That rankled me. I believe in giving the police the benefit of the doubt; in addition to the grandfather I mentioned earlier, I have friends who are cops. I know firsthand that most American law-enforcement officials are good people doing a tough job for relatively low pay. Most traditionalists, including me, give the cops the presumption of innocence. Susan Sarandon does not.

Surprisingly, on September 25, 2000, Ms. Sarandon agreed to come on
The Factor
to discuss the Diallo case. It was her first and last appearance. White-hot angry that the young man had been killed, she chalked the tragedy up to institutional racism and unabashedly despised my opposing point of view.

For example, when I pointed out that aggressive police work had caused a historic drop in black crime rates, especially in the inner city, she huffed and snapped back: “At what cost?”

Actually, the cost-benefit ratio is pretty obvious, if you take into account the drastic drop in the murder rate in many poor neighborhoods across the country. But we are obviously not talking rationality here. I mean, what I don't get about Susan Sarandon and her fellow S-P travelers is the constant anger. I actually found her opinions on the Diallo matter interesting, if wrongheaded. I wasn't upset that she disagreed with me—that's what I want on
The Factor.

But she detested all of my rebuttals. After the interview in the greenroom (where
Factor
guests wait before going on the show), she blurted out: “What's
his
problem?”

I think it's safe to say that I will not be vacationing in the south of France with Susan and Tim anytime soon. It is a fact of life in the culture war that the S-P side is usually furious with the traditional opposition. And that fury hurts the S-P forces, as it clouds judgment and thinking. You lose the debate if you get mad without cause.

However, it is true that honest anger, when properly aimed at a legitimate target, can be a useful tool in the culture war. For example, the last time I appeared on Jon Stewart's program he asked me why I was (in his opinion) “constantly teed off.” I replied that I have to deal with a massive amount of social injustice and chicanery on a daily basis and it takes a healthy amount of agita to deal with it all efficiently and effectively. Trying to right wrongs in this country will wear you down, but anger can keep you going when everybody else is exhausted. So, it's a tough situation for the traditional culture warrior: You need to keep the fires of indignation lighted but avoid the backdrafts.

I do understand—and it is absolutely true, by the way—that some traditionalists are captive to the same degree of irrational anger that many in the S-P crew are; you can hear that traditional rage daily on talk radio. But, for the most part, if you compare the S-P Web sites with the traditional ones, there is no doubt: S-P anger is far more intense and personal. Check it out, at the risk of your own mental well-being.

                  

                  

Alec Baldwin:
And while we're on the subject of angry S-P guys, Mr. Baldwin stands front and center. Once again, the actor is primarily interested in politics, but there is always that progressive crossover: because he is a liberal Democrat, the S-P forces support his philosophy.

Like Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin is a first-rate actor who can convincingly bring to life a variety of characters. Check out his performance in
Glengarry Glen Ross.
It's brilliant. Yet Baldwin has not achieved the leading-man fame that was once predicted for him, and some believe his strident politics (calling Dick Cheney a madman, generally overreacting to conservative thought) have damaged him in the marketplace because some right-leaning Americans abhor his politics.

And it might be true. Alec Baldwin is a wounded S-P warrior, and I believe he knows it. After years of my trying to get an interview with him, Baldwin finally entered the No Spin Zone on August 9, 2004.

         

O'Reilly: “You haven't been as outspoken the past three years as you were before. Is there a reason for that?”

         

Baldwin: “Most Americans are choosing to get their predigested news information and opinion from folks like you and other commentators on this network [Fox Newschannel] and on other cable networks, and so forth, less so than on the networks. And I realized that the celebrity-activist thing was kind of a waste of time.”

         

O'Reilly: “I've followed your career closely and I think your past activism hurt your career. Would I be wrong?”