It's been a long time since I've posted anything from the world press. Although progressive writers skillfully skewer the perpetrations of this Administration, nobody has said anything lately that's been unique enough for me to draw attention to it. Until now.

Robert Jensen is a giant whom I have posted before. (If you search o­n http://theconversation.org/archive/fivestar.html you'll find three of his pieces.) I'd love to see him help Michael Moore make his next film — to show how the Bush Administration's policies are the latest chapter in a larger drama concerning American empire building with which we urgently need to be grappling.  In the meantime, we must not be lolled into the false confidence Michael Moore is giving us that we've got a bead o­n the enemy.

This Moore frenzy is scary in that it is so impelling. A reaction I got to saying I found the film disappointing was a suggestion that I needed to deal with my “fear, judgment, and anger”:

“If you let some of this go and just be grateful that Moore has done a piece that gets the gist across and has the 'charisma' the guts to walk in the face of fierce resistance, you can give up o­n the 'facts' part. You already have the facts. This is for 'energizing our base.'”

I don't think so. Let's not be a non-discriminating cult in our zeal to right the horrors that Bush is so culpable for.

Here's a little sampling from “Stupid White Movie,” below:

“…if we beat Bush and go back to 'normal,' we're all in trouble. Normal is empire building. Normal is U.S. domination, economic and military, and the suffering that vulnerable people around the world experience as a result…the film's analysis, unfortunately, doesn't go much beyond the feeling: It's all Bush's fault. That may be appealing to people, but it's wrong. And it is hard to imagine how a successful anti-empire movement can be built o­n this film's analysis unless it is challenged. Hence, the reason for this essay. The potential value of Moore's film will be realized o­nly if it is discussed and critiqued, honestly…The focus of debate should be o­n the issues raised, with an eye toward the question of how to build an anti-empire movement. Rallying around the film can too easily lead to rallying around bad analysis. Let's instead rally around the struggle for a better world, the struggle to dismantle the American empire.”

Stupid White Movie: What Michael Moore Misses About the Empire

By ROBERT JENSEN

I have been defending Michael Moore's “Fahrenheit 9/11” from the criticism in mainstream and conservative circles that the film is leftist propaganda. Nothing could be further from the truth; there is very 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 being attacked in the dominant culture. It's at times a racist movie. And the analysis that underlies the film'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 of the United States, which should warm the hearts of the right-wingers who condemn Moore. And the real problem is that many left/liberal/progressive people are singing the film's praises, which should tell us something about 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 of disagreement but fundamental questions of analysis and integrity. But before elaborating o­n that, I want to talk about what the film does well.

The good stuff

First, Moore highlights the disenfranchisement of primarily black voters in Florida in the 2000 election, a political scandal that the mainstream commercial news media in the United States has largely ignored. The footage of a joint session of Congress in which Congressional Black Caucus members can't get a senator to sign their letter to allow floor debate about the issue (a procedural requirement) is a powerful indictment not o­nly 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 of recruiters cynically at work scouring low-income areas for targets, whom are disproportionately non-white. The film also effectively takes apart the Bush administration's use of fear tactics after 9/11 to drive the public to accept its war policies.

“Fahrenheit 9/11” also does a good job of showing war's effects o­n U.S. soldiers; we see soldiers dead and maimed, and we see how contemporary warfare deforms many of them psychologically as well. And the film pays attention to the victims of U.S. wars, showing Iraqis both before the U.S. invasion and after in a way 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 talent and flair for the dramatic aren't put in the service of a principled, clear analysis that could potentially be effective 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 after the way in which military recruiters chase low-income minority youth? My claim is not that Moore is an overt racist, but that the movie unconsciously replicates a more subtle racism, o­ne that we all have to struggle to resist.

First, there is o­ne segment that invokes the worst kind of ugly-American nativism, in which Moore mocks the Bush administration's “coalition of the willing,” the nations it lined up to support the invasion of Iraq. Aside from Great Britain there was no significant military support from other nations and no real coalition, which Moore is right to point out. But when he lists the countries in the so-called coalition, he uses 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 cart represents Costa Rica. Pictures of monkeys running are o­n the screen during a discussion of Morocco's apparent offer to send monkeys to clear landmines. To ridicule the Bush propaganda o­n this issue, Moore uses these images and an exaggerated voice-over in a fashion that says, in essence, “What kind of coalition is it that has these backward countries?” Moore might argue that is not his intention, but intention is not the o­nly 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 and non-white groups domestically can be forged by demonizing the foreign “enemy,” which these days has an 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 Peace Fresno and asks how anyone could imagine these folks could be terrorists. There is no consideration of the fact that Arab and Muslim groups that are equally dedicated to peace have to endure routine harassment and constantly 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 Barry Reingold, who was visited by FBI agents after making critical remarks about Bush and the war while working out at a gym in Oakland. Reingold, a white retired phone worker, was not detained or charged with a crime; the agents 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 to highlight? The o­nly reference in the film to those detentions post-9/11 is in an interview with a former FBI agent about Saudis who were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11, in which it appears that Moore mentions those detentions o­nly to contrast the kid-gloves treatment that privileged Saudi nationals allegedly received.

When I made this point to a friend, he defended Moore by saying the filmmaker was trying to reach a wide audience 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 while ignoring the actual serious harm done to non-white people? Could not a skilled filmmaker tell the story of the people 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 United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, but it is extremely weak o­n answering those questions in even marginally coherent fashion. To the degree the film has a thesis, it appears to be that the wars were a product of the personal politics of a corrupt Bush dynasty. I agree the Bush dynasty is corrupt, but the analysis 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 been reckless and put the world at risk? Yes. In the course of pursuing those policies, has it enriched fat-cat friends? Yes.

But it is a serious mistake to believe that these wars can be explained by focusing so exclusively o­n the Bush administration and ignoring clear trends in U.S. foreign and military policy. In short, these wars are not 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 the events of 9/11.

Look first at Moore's treatment of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. He uses a clip of former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke complaining that the Bush administration's response to 9/11 in Afghanistan was “slow and small,” implying that we should have attacked faster and bigger. The film does nothing to question that assessment, leaving viewers to assume that Moore agrees. Does he think that a bombing 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 would have guaranteed even more civilian casualties? Does he think that a military strategy, which many experts believe made it difficult to pursue more routine and productive counterterrorism law-enforcement methods, was a smart move?

Moore also suggests that the real motivation of the Bush administration in attacking Afghanistan was to secure a gas pipeline route from the Caspian Basin to the sea. It's true that Unocal had sought such a pipeline, and at o­ne point Taliban officials were courted by the United States when it looked as if they could make such a deal happen. Moore points out that Taliban officials traveled to Texas in 1997 when Bush was governor. He fails to point out that all this happened with the Clinton administration at the negotiating table. It is highly unlikely that policymakers would go to war for a single pipeline, but even if that were plausible 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 Bush family 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 ignoring potential 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 has led officials to overlook Saudi human-rights abuses and the support that many Saudis give to movements such as al Qaeda. That is true of the Bushes, just as it was of the Clinton administration and, in fact, every post-World War II president. Ever since FDR cut a deal with the House of Saud giving U.S. support in exchange for cooperation o­n the flow of oil and oil profits, U.S. administrations have been playing ball with the Saudis. The relationship is sometimes tense but has continued through ups and downs, with both sides getting at least part of what they need from the other. Concentrating o­n Bush family business connections ignores that history and encourages viewers to see the problem as specific to Bush. Would a Gore administration have treated the Saudis differently after 9/11? There's no reason to think so, and Moore offers no evidence or argument 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 but are not the o­nly players. The United States cuts deals with other governments in the region that are willing to support the U.S. aim of control over those energy resources. The Saudis are crucial in that system, but not alone. 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 the Middle East without addressing the role of Israel as a U.S. proxy is, to say the least, a significant omission. It's unclear whether Moore actually backs Israeli crimes and U.S. support for them, or simply doesn't understand the issue.

And what of the analysis of Iraq? Moore is correct in pointing out that U.S. support for Iraq during the 1980s, when Saddam Hussein's war o­n Iran was looked upon favorably by U.S. policymakers, was a central part of Reagan and Bush I policy up to the Gulf War. And he's correct in pointing out that Bush II's invasion and occupation have caused great suffering in Iraq. What is missing is the intervening eight years in which the Clinton administration used the harshest economic embargo in modern history and regular bombing to further devastate an already devastated country. He fails to point out that Clinton killed more Iraqis through that policy 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 Iraq and 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 an industrial world that runs o­n oil is a source of incredible leverage over competitors such as the European Union, Japan and China.

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

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

All this is summed up when Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a son killed in the war, visits the White House in a final, emotional scene and says that she now has somewhere to put all her pain and anger. This is the message of the film: It's all about the Bush administration. If that's the case, the obvious conclusion is to get Bush out of the White House so that things can get back to to what? I'll return to questions of political strategy at the end, but for now it's important to realize how this attempt to construct Bush as pursuing some radically different policy is bad analysis and leads to a misunderstanding of the threat the United States poses to the world. Yes, Moore throws in a couple of jabs at the Democrats in Congress for not stopping the mad rush to war in Iraq, but the focus is always o­n the singular crimes of George W. Bush and his gang.

A conservative movie

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

Instead of confronting this mythology, Moore ends the film with it. He points out, accurately, the irony that 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 be free,” Moore says, and all they ask in return is that we not send them in harm's way unless it's necessary. 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 must distinguish between the mythology that many internalize and may truly believe, from the reality of the role of the U.S. military. The film includes some comments by soldiers questioning that very claim, but Moore's narration implies that somehow a glorious tradition of U.S. military endeavors to protect freedom has now been sullied by the Iraq War.

The problem is not just that the Iraq War was fundamentally illegal and immoral. The whole rotten project of 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 a result of U.S. military actions and proxy wars don't care which U.S. party was pulling the strings and pulling the trigger when they were killed. It's true that much of the world hates Bush. It's also true that much of the 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 is quite another to pander to the lies this country tells itself about the military. It is not disrespectful to those who join up to tell the truth. It is our obligation to try to prevent future wars in which people are sent to die not for freedom but for power and profit. It's hard to understand how we can do that by repeating the 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 “Fahrenheit 9/11” 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, and without subtle racism.

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

I agree that Bush should be kicked out of the White House, and if I lived in a swing state I would consider voting Democratic. But I don't believe that will be meaningful unless there emerges in the United States a significant anti-empire movement. In other words, if we beat Bush and go back to “normal,” we're all in trouble. Normal is empire building. Normal is U.S. domination, economic and military, and the suffering that vulnerable people around the world experience as a result. This doesn't mean voters can't judge o­ne particular empire-building politician more dangerous than another. It doesn't mean we shouldn't sometimes make strategic choices to vote for o­ne over the other. It simply means we should make such choices with eyes open and no illusions. This seems particularly important when the likely Democratic presidential candidate tries to out-hawk Bush o­n support for Israel, pledges to continue the occupation of Iraq, and says nothing about reversing the basic trends in foreign policy.

In this sentiment, I am not alone. Ironically, Barry Reingold — the Oakland man who was visited by the FBI — is critical of what he sees as the main message of the film. He was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle saying: “I think Michael Moore's agenda is to get Bush out, but I think it (should be) about more than Bush. I think it's about the capitalist system, which is inequitable.” He went o­n to critique Bush and Kerry: “I think both of them are bad. I think Kerry is actually worse because he gives the illusion that he's going to do a lot more. Bush has never given that illusion. People know that he's a friend of big business.”

Nothing I have said here is an argument against reaching out to a wider audience and trying to politicize more people. That's what I try to do in my own writing and local organizing work, as do countless other activists. The question isn't whether to reach out, but with what kind of analysis and arguments. Emotional appeals and humor have their place; the activists I work with use them. The question is, where do such appeals lead people?

It is obvious that “Fahrenheit 9/11” taps into many Americans' fear and/or hatred of Bush and his gang of thugs. Such feelings are understandable, and I share them. But feelings are not analysis, and the film's analysis, unfortunately, doesn't go much beyond the feeling: It's all Bush's fault. That may be appealing to people, but it's wrong. And it is hard to imagine how a successful anti-empire movement can be built o­n this film's analysis unless it is challenged. Hence, the reason for this essay.

The potential value of Moore's film will be realized o­nly if it is discussed and critiqued, honestly. Yes, the film is under attack from the right, for very different reasons than I have raised. But those attacks shouldn't stop those who consider themselves left, progressive, liberal, anti-war, anti-empire or just plain pissed-off from criticizing the film's flaws and limitations. I think my critique of the film is accurate and relevant. Others may disagree. The focus of debate should be o­n the issues raised, with an eye toward the question of how to build an anti-empire movement. Rallying around the film can too easily lead to rallying around bad analysis. Let's instead rally around the struggle for a better world, the struggle to dismantle the American empire.

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of “Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity” from City Lights Books. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.

Thanks for the note and the kind words about my piece. I think we all can find some contribution at the local level trying to promote public education and organizing. In Austin I work with this group http://thirdcoastactivist.org/

If you are interested, other things I have written are o­nline at: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/freelance.htm

I also just published a book about post-9/11 politics in the U.S. There's a blurb about it o­nline at: http://www.citylights.com/CLpubRE.html#citizens

in solidarity, bob jensen

http://nowarcollective.com
http://www.underthesamesun.org
http://www.empirenotes.org

From Allen Branson [allen@socalecofuel.org]

Good piece. I especially appreciate how he points out that American imperialism has been a joint effort of Republicans and Democrats. That quote about not solving a problem with the same mindset that created it seems appropriate. The mindset in which this problem was created was o­ne of focusing o­n leaders and getting “our guy” into the White House. All our energy goes into winning the election as if it were a sporting event (every four years, just like the Olympics). Yet, as he says, “…if we beat Bush and go back to 'normal,' we're all in trouble. Normal is empire building. Normal is U.S. domination, economic and military, and the suffering that vulnerable people around the world experience as a result.”

From listmember Danny Schechter's blog [I read this daily…ST]:

Tanya C. Hsu, of the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy says Michael Moore is “making common cause with Richard Perle who wants to invade Saudi Arabia”:

Michael Moore's new film “Fahrenheit 9/11” has done a tremendous favor for some proponents of a war upon the Arabian Peninsula. The film achieves what endless pages of conservative think-tank studies and panel discussions, hours of PR time and books can not: spill gasoline o­n the anti-Saudi sparks already ignited within the United States. Moore's film lambastes the Saudis not o­nly for their business relationships but also for leaving the US after the attacks of September 11th 2001 as did other non-Saudi officials o­n the same day when specific flights were permitted. The overwhelming popularity of this documentary takes the anti-Saudi message to a whole new market. It is the latest manifestation of a rationale for war that could finally execute a long-term plan to invade and occupy the Kingdom. In spite of its progressive producer and target audience, “Fahrenheit 9/11” falls lock-step in line with the stated agenda of neoconservative hawks: rid Arabia of the House of Saud thereby granting the US and allies full access to the Middle East's biggest prize.

From Robert White [robertarc1@msn.com]

Brilliant thinking, brilliant writing. Compelling!

Much thanks for bringing Jensen's piece to my attention. This is the kind of progressive/liberal thought that I want to see. It gets me thinking.

Suzanne to Robert

Responses have surprised me. People mostly are defending the film. What Jensen says is too important to be dismissed, yet by and large this doesn't get mentioned.

From Elihu Edelson [bothsidesnow@prodigy.net]

One problem is that people do not criticize the movie o­n its own terms, but rather o­n the kind of movie they would have made or would like to have seen made. The general public would likely not have been moved by a movie with politically correct analysis. Actually, there is a leftist element here as Moore clearly shows a class divide. Also, he did the basic job of “speaking truth to power.” … As a movie maker, you know that cinema works at a gut level. (Mel Gibson certainly knows it, but grossly overplayed his hand o­n the last go-round.) F 9/11 should be judged as the propaganda it is, which is to show the thorough corruption of the present administration and the banality of the people in it. The movie is energizing a base, and people here are organizing to defeat Bush. The weakness, as noted, is that this is an ad hoc effort. There is a need to build o­n this for the long-haul work of (re?)building democracy. Still, we can't expect to pack all that into o­ne movie. I think Moore himself must be aware of all this, and has set up a site for follow-up. We should not just wait & see, but become part of the solution, as the extract you quoted indicated. … I personally think Moore did a damn good job of putting across his intended message.

P.S. – If any of you are old enough to remember to remember “archy and mehitabel” (archy was a cockroach who wrote poetry o­n an old typewriter in lower case because he couldn't work the shift key) here is a line that has stuck in my head over the years:

coarse jocosity catches the crowd
shakespeare and i are often lowbrowed

From Suzanne to Elihu

Given the attention Moore gets, I appreciated Jensen trying to open people's minds beyond where they will be from seeing the film. I hope Jensen has enough influence to float this in popular perception. We're at such a critical time that we can't dawdle with stop gap measures. We need huge overhaul. The real point now would not be to debate whether Jensen is justified in his critique, but to pay attention to his call of alarm and not let the movie be the last word.

From Elihu to Suzanne

You're right about o­ne thing. We shouldn't put all our eggs in o­ne basket and expect Moore–or a Moore-based movement–to pull our chestnuts out of the fire. Jensen would appeal to o­ne element, but he does not have the popular touch of Moore, so we again need a broad spectrum movement, and especially need feminist input.

From Steve Gray [stevebg@adelphia.net]

Jensen criticizes the film for not doing something it did not try to do. He criticizes it for not being calm and reasoned. A calm and reasoned film would get very little attention. Voters are political idiots; they vote for personalities and need to be hit o­n the head. He thinks the movie's goals should be much broader, when there is virtually no chance of achieving those broad goals. The film's purpose, a highly worthy o­ne, is to get rid of the liar, crook, failure, and imbecile in the White House. That goal at this time is more important than anything else the voters could possibly do.

Jensen gives it all away when he reveals he's a Republican. I am a single-issue voter. That issue is detestation of Republican policy and practice. If you take away corporate greed and religious self-righteousness, there is nothing left. Democrats are culpable of promoting the US empire, as he says, but it's false to claim there is parity between the two parties. Republicans are much more greedy, much more selfish, and much less interested in the welfare of the people. Republicans have a long history of selecting morons such as Reagan and Bush. They care nothing for reason or knowledge in the service of the citizens. To hell with them.

From Suzanne to Steve

Have you read the other things of Jensen's? I don't think you'd want to send him to hell:

WHAT DO WE MAKE OF OURSELVES AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001? FIVE STAR PIECES:

Why I Will Not Rally Around the President, Robert Jensen

An anti war paean. “We must also agree not to give in to the urge to value the lives of innocent Americans over the lives of innocent people in other countries…I am o­n the side of the people – no matter where they live – who will suffer the violence, not the leaders…I am o­n the side of peace, not war. I am o­n the side of justice, not vengeance.” Jensen's stirring call was so widely circulated that Bill O'Reilly had him o­n his show. I saw it. Jensen was heroically polite as Drain-the-Swamp O'Reilly didn't let him finish a sentence.

America's Unlimited War, Rahul Mahajan & Robert Jensen

Chilling pointing of fingers at the power elite, who gain from this war, and who sacrifice lives as they preach a self-serving humanitarianism. And a call for action: “The next step is for us to build a movement that can change our government’s barbaric and self-destructive policy…George Bush said we are not at war with the Afghan people…The hundreds of thousands of Afghans who fled the cities knew better…This war is about the extension of U.S. power. It has little to do with bringing the terrorists to justice, or with vengeance.”

War of Lies, Rahul Mahajan & Robert Jensen

More outrage and expose about the folly of our just war. “But, [Bush] told us, 'Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.' God has signed o­n with us, and so difficult questions need not be asked…It is justice by the sword. It ends in victory not peace…the existing political leadership of this country is bankrupt…Ordinary Americans are beginning to see that we are connected more to Afghan peasants, in our shared vulnerability, than to any of the people with the fingers o­n the triggers – the terrorists or the man in the White House.”

From Steve to Suzanne

No, I have not read other things by Jensen. I should not have implied or said that Republicans do nothing worthwhile. A conservative editorial writer in Florida, I think it was, has totally rejected Bush and given o­ne of the best summaries of his failed policies and corruption that I've read.

From Suzanne to Steve

Glad to have a chink in such absoluteness, but why don't you read those Jensen pieces? They were great.

From Steve to Suzanne

Thanks for alerting me to these pieces. I'll read them as soon as I can, with a mind that's as open as I can force it, using a crowbar if necessary.

From Suzanne to Steve

I discovered at the last minute that Robert Jensen was in town and I went to hear him speak last night. I thought you knew something I didn't know about him being a Republican. He's a Green! As far from Republican as he could be. He was a fantastic speaker, and handled himself wonderfully in fielding all the challenges of Moore devotees. The best thing that could happen with the film parallels what's good about the Bush administration, which has to do with provoking the kind of dialogue we really need that goes beyond our focus o­n personality, where we tend to thing our elections are all about electing the right candidate. We need a much more mature understanding of the forces that are running this country, and the grossness of this administration has brought to light what has not been popularly understood about our longstanding imperialist proclivities. If we are lucky, the film will be the provocation for talking about this. We will radically short change ourselves if all we do is argue about whether we like Michael Moore's work or not, and ignore the points Jensen raises that we so need to be dealing with.

From Sheila Laffey [echoprod@adelphia.net] [Sheila is the producer of the award winning documentary 
“The Last Stand: The Struggle for the Ballona Wetlands”]

Since you sent the Jensen piece attacking Moore I thought you might want to read what Gary Rhine says. (I have met Gary who is a very fine filmmaker of a recent doc shown o­n Native Americans. I think he makes some good points about F9/11. I personally thing it is a fantastic film (one in which the many pluses far outweigh a couple of minuses) and made a point o taking three people from my family to it o­n opening day to make a statement. I told my 13 year old niece that she helped make history buy seeing that film, particularly opening weekend. (She has watched o­n of the beheadings o­n the Internet with her friends, unfortunately. The “R” rating o­n the film is a scandal. She and her friends see all kinds of heavier things than what is in the film, which at least is presented in some form of analysis and is not heavier than what they unfortunately see regularly o­n the evening news.)

RHINO HERE:

The Rhino's sure that Mr. Moore knew he'd be getting hit with mega criticism from the right when “Fahrenheit 911” came out. I'm not so sure he would have expected it from the left. Today's RHINO'S BOTTOM LINE, entitled, “Stupid White Movie” is by Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin & author of “Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity.”

While the Rhino has many of the same concerns that Mr. Jensen cites in his piece, concerning the history of U.S. war making & imperialism, I respectfully disagree with him in his final analysis of “Fahrenheit 911” o­n the importance of voting Democratic this year. Moore's doc was made with the specific purpose of inspiring as many Americans as possible to vote against the shrub, a goal I believe the doc will accomplish. Mr. Jensen seems to think, as many other left leaners do, that since former Democratic Presidential administrations have been involved in dirty dealing regarding war & imperialism (& I don't dispute that), that Moore's focus o­n Bush is wrong-headed, as is his statements that the US should not send our troops into war unless absolutely necessary. In the latter, Jensen thinks Moore has missed the point that the majority of US involved wars were empire building projects. Jensen thinks Moore has missed the most important points, or he's capitulated in order to reach the masses who probably wouldn't understand or believe the true analysis of US history. As a filmmaker, I know the hours, weeks & months of research it takes to make a documentary. I know that for Michael Moore to have created this doc, gotten it into film festivals and more importantly into theatres in such a short amount of time, pushing to have it seen in time to make a difference in the election, was a monumental task. Could he have more deeply explored some of the issues, and done so more with a higher level of intellectual analysis? Yes, but it would have been difficult in such a short time and it might have threatened the attraction it now has to so many non-intellectual and even non-politically minded people. That's the Rhino's 2 hooves, but in spite of my disagreements with Jensen's piece, I thought it relevant to call it to your attention to it.

From Suzanne to Sheila

Thanks for sending the Rhino post. Nitpicking the film and coming to bottom lines about its rightness or its wrongness I hope doesn't eclipse the need to deal with this issue of American empire. If we get goosed by Moore's work to take o­n serious dealing with that subject, it will have performed even more service than just helping get Bush out of there.

From Maireid Sullivan [lyrebirdmedia@optusnet.com.au]

To my surprise, Robert Jensen wrote to thank me for my review of his review :), which o­ne of my/his friends forwarded to him. I hadn't heard of him before this. Excellent mind!

From Suzanne to Maireid

Very controversial piece from feedback I'm getting — and I saw you got some flack for your post. I think this is an important conversation. Interestingly, you are the o­nly person who sent the piece around, although other pieces of Jensen's have circulated widely. I wonder if this is being ignored because the usual progressives voices are Moore enthusiasts who don’t want to promote what Jensen is saying.

From Maireid to Suzanne

I don't understand how any serious thinking person could fault Jensen for pointing out that there is a bigger picture. The fact is, the vast majority of people who have become politicized over the past 3 or 4 years are o­nly now waking up to what the US government has been doing o­n behalf of big business, and, by the response to Jensen's review of Moore's film, it seems they are not aware that Capitalism has been taking this route for as long as the USA has been a Republic. North America started out as a Feudal system and that did not change when the Declaration of Independence was signed. It had been gradually increasing in momentum and really took off after WW2. Now it is peaking out of control and the people will lose all that they have struggled to achieve in terms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if they do not pay attention, take the time to become deeply informed, and then make their voices heard. Watching TV for 4 or 5 hours a night is not how to become informed. It is a guaranteed way to stay ignorant. The majority of politicians are asleep at the wheel, when it come to the real needs of the people. Until Michael Moore's film, I did not know that not o­ne Senator stood by the African-Americans in Florida. That is a huge disgrace. I have received an excellent commentary o­n the dire straits of the US working class, which I'll send o­n to you.

From Rick Stoff [rickprogressiveresources@yahoo.com]

All the Jensen points are well taken, but I do think that this movie will contribute to at least getting the press to do their job. It emboldens dissenters and that's a plus. Yes, Bush is o­nly the beginning of a much larger problem that we all agree exists, but unless he is ousted so many will directly suffer over the next four years. As I have mentioned before, activism must be initially focused o­n a cause that is agreeable and clear and then more activism grows out of that. Bush is a gift to that thinking.

What I loved about going to “9/11” was the camaraderie of all the people there, doing what they thought was a small activist thing by adding to the box office numbers…sort of like voting.

Now, Michael Moore, and Moveon.org, and the others have identified and expanded their base and these disorganized cadres can be rallied around issues like gay rights, campaign finance reform, etc.

Follow