It's safe to say that a lot of people on both Left and Right will be irritated by Forgive Us Our Spins, Jesse Larner's biography of Michael Moore. The film maker's fans won't like seeing their hero's reputation taken to the cleaners by a writer who's every bit as left-wing as the big man himself. (I was pleasantly surprised to find that Guardian columnist George Monbiot was willing to supply a glowing blurb on the cover.) And Larner offers no end of incendiary comments about American conservatism in general and George W. Bush in particular. I don't go along with many of his observations on the American scene: for instance, we've just had an e-mail disagreement about Joe Lieberman, whose political demise has brought a smile to Jesse's face. But what I admire about his work is his willingness to face up to some of the myth-making on his own side. As he explained in our first interview last year, he generally agrees with Dave Kopel's detailed, must-read critique of Fahrenheit 9/11 and David Hardy's debunking of Bowling for Columbine.
Jesse agreed to do a follow-up Q&A by e-mail. If you haven't read our earlier - and much longer - interview, pegged to UK publication of the book, it starts here and continues here. If you feel I've missed any important questions, drop me a line by Saturday morning, and I'll see if Jesse is willing to respond.
Q: Did Moore or his spokesmen make any response after the UK edition of your book was published? I assume he never agreed to give you an interview, but did you try to speak to him at any public functions?
A: Never heard a word from them about the UK edition. I tried very hard to get an interview with him, but never did. There's really no percentage for him in talking to someone like me: I can't offer him national exposure and I won't let him control the interview.
I did speak with him very briefly at a private event at the end of 2004. He was perfectly polite as I described the project and asked for an interview; I did tell him that the book was "not uncritical." He seemed to be fine with that -- "Of course, one must be critical!" but in retrospect it was probably a mistake. He referred me to his assistant, who gave me his card, which had nothing on it but an email address, one I recognized. I said, "I've e-mailed this address about 20 times, with no response." "Oh, but now I know who you are, and I'll be SURE to respond!" said Mr. Assistant. Another 20 emails later, I was starting to get the picture.
Q: What is the most important new piece of information in the new edition?
A: I think I figured out something very important about the 2000 election (see the answer to your fourth question for why that's in the book.) I think I did a much better job on the whole problem of Moore's approach to terrorism, and on the manipulations by Right and Left of the American populist tradition. I filled in a lot of details from people who've worked with him... Oh, sorry, you said THE most important information.
Q: Do you think Moore has passed his peak as a media luminary, or will he be a king/queenmaker in the next presidential election? Who would be his choice for Democratic candidate?
A. I think Moore probably has passed his peak, unless he does something really extraordinary with his new film. He invested a lot of political capital, if you will, in getting Bush out of office in 2004. Since that didn't happen he's kept a low profile.
Who would be Moore's choice for the Democratic candidate? That's easy to answer, because he's stated his preference often: Oprah Winfrey. If not her, Tom Hanks. He insists he's serious: if Republicans can win with cowboys and killer robots from the future, so can Democrats. Which, to my mind, just shows how much Moore has sincerely conflated the show business of elections with the serious business of government. As your wonderful British writer Saki had his character Clovis put it: "There is a difference, you know, but I've forgotten what it is." (Clovis was referring to the difference between right and wrong... which may also be appropriate...)
Q: Some people may well be puzzled that you devote so much space to analysing the election results of 2000 and 2004. Why did you feel you obliged to do that? Was it simply a way of establishing your credibility with the Left?
A: Well, from your question, I can only conclude that I've failed to convince you that the 2000 election was stolen. That's too bad, because I think the evidence is compelling, and I think I presented it well. Oh well, if you don't believe it, you don't believe it. But if I had convinced you, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have asked that question.
No, it wasn't a ploy to establish my credibility with the Left. I'm on the Left, but I don't particularly care where others place me on the political spectrum (and since the UK edition came out I've been called a stooge of both Left and Right.) That stuff is there both because it is tremendously important for its own sake, and because it's impossible to understand Moore's appeal in certain quarters without understanding what happened in 2000.
Pretend for a moment that I could convince you that Bush stole the election, as he in fact did - knowingly, intentionally, and according to a preconceived plan. Wouldn't it infuriate you, as someone who believes in democracy - no matter what you think of Bush's policies or abilities? Wouldn't that fact alone de-legitimize all of his actions, even those you agreed with?
But the point, in terms of why the election is in the book, is this: there are good reasons to hate Bush -- good, patriotic, traditional American reasons, hatred of tyranny and love or freedom and all that -- and it's understandable if not excusable that some people look to even unfair attacks on Bush as a relief. This is a big part of the reason for Moore's success.
I would urge you to try the thought experiment I propose in the book: imagine that the 2000 election went exactly as it actually did, but in reverse: the Gore team did what Bush did, and got away with it. Would you have accepted Gore as the legitimate president? Would Tom DeLay have accepted him? Really?
If you can't answer 'Yes' to that question, you're on the way to understanding why people hate Bush so much, and why so many were willing to embrace Moore's sloppy attacks.
Q: Have you had a chance to see any footage from Moore's new project? Has there been any word-of-mouth so far?
A: No and no. He's kept it pretty well under wraps so far.
Q: Conservatives will be surprised, I think, by your assertion that the "extreme Right" sets the agenda for the American media. If that were the case, wouldn't "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" have been torn to shreds in primetime? And would there ever have been a need for Fox News?
A: I question your assumption that there's a "need" for Fox News. Look, as Moore's success shows, there's a market for his point of view, and he's the only mass purveyor. "F/911" and "Columbine" raked in a lot of money for Moore and for the studios that produced them, but did they get a lot of great press? Really? Sure, no doubt the Pacifica network thought them important films, and any number of local alternative weeklies hailed them.
I don't think the extreme Right sets the agenda for the respectable mainstream media - the NYT, CNN, etc, which generally present a neutral point of view, at least in their news stories - but there is a huge intimidation factor. I have a lot of respect for the Wall Street Journal, which has a reactionary editorial board but is scrupulous about keeping its politics on its editorial pages and out of its reporting. Contrast that policy with the New York Post, the Washington Times, the New York Sun, or Fox News, which make no distinction between news and opinion.
But the extreme Right certainly dominates the public discussion. For many years it has been developing political "think tanks" and pet media outlets whose only function is to infiltrate propaganda into the news. It's insidious, it's massively funded by people like Richard Mellon Scaife -- as I documented -- and it's very well organized. It has succeeded in changing the American political agenda. If that weren't true -- if the right-wing media like Fox and the rest of the Murdoch empire hadn't convinced ordinary Americans that the millionaire elites behind Bush have their interests at heart, as I discuss in the chapter on populism -- could Bush ever have come close enough to steal the election?
And as for the Right's constant charges that the "mainstream media" leans to the Left: how so? When was the last time you saw a major American news organization calling for higher, progressive taxes as a matter of principle, for national health care? How often does the "mainstream media" point out the obvious truth that Bush and Rumsfeld have completely lost touch with reality in regard to Iraq? In what, exactly, does the liberalism of the mainstream media consist? Try this: Watch CNN for a week, and note the most radical left-wing thing that is said. Now watch FOX for a week and note the most radical right-wing thing that is said. Hmmmm.
Q. At the end of "Forgive Us Our Spins" you challenge conservatives to subject the likes of Ann Coulter to the same kind of critical scrutiny that you apply to Moore. Are you encouraged by the fact that Coulter has been disowned by some commentators and bloggers in the wake of her 9/11 widows comments?
A: Indeed I am encouraged by that, and I can only say, it's about time! But good on those conservative readers who have asked that her column be pulled from their local papers. And that's not censorship, by the way: Coulter is free to publish her nasty tripe wherever she can sell it. She only has to convince people it's worth publishing, and I'm glad she's starting to not be able to do that. Her latest book is now at #58 on Amazon a few weeks after it was published; much higher than it should be, but her books used to be in the top five for months after they came out.
The plagiarism revelations, I think, also played a role in her fall from grace. But note that Coulter had to go so far as to insult 9/11 victims before people really got upset with her. As I mentioned to you before, I have a theory that in ten years Coulter will confess to being a far-left radical. "Hey, people, that was PERFORMANCE ART! I was just trying to see how outrageous I could be in parodying a right-wing zealot before anyone would notice that it was too bizarre to be true..." Either that, or she's got a major personality disorder.
