Brett Muller
Michael Moore's book, Stupid white men, describes the political situation of the United States of America midway through 2001. Moore takes a look at the circumstances surrounding the election of George W. Bush as President in 2000, over the Democrats' Al Gore and Greens' Ralph Nader. Moore uncloaks some of the underhand tactics used by the Bush camp in the State of Florida to help his presidential campaign, for example, the deregistration of thousands of African-American and Hispanic voters who were 'suspected' of committing a crime. The prison system, the environment, sexism and racism are all explored in determining how, as Moore describes it, "America got into this mess" (Moore, 2002, p 4).
Moore's interpretation of these issues, however, leads to contradictions. Moore believes that the USA needs reforms in both economic and political areas. These reforms, such as more women in the parliament or increased protection for the environment, will correct any mistakes that have been allowed to occur by those with power or 'stupid white men'. This view is not a new one however. Liberal ideas such as these are how the capitalist system survives. Moore has simply reworded the "bad apples" (Boyle 2002 p24) formula of corruption and abuse of power, into a more narrow definition that these 'apples' are all white men.
Moore clearly recognises the poor conditions of many Americans, and proposes improvements like an increase in the minimum wage, health care for all and affirmative action for oppressed groups. However, as Marxists would argue, these improvements, while important, would not fundamentally change the conditions of the poor of America. These improvements would simply redistribute resources a little more equitably, but not approach a point where the working class would be even close to enjoying the luxuries and influence of the capitalist class.
Moore describes the politicians and financial heads, of the United States of America as stupid white men. Stupid for the suffering these people cause to the majority of people both in and out of the USA. As for the white men component, Moore uses this term to generalise the people which the system continues to place in these positions of authority, pointing to the lack of diverse representation in these high paid positions.
Arguing for a change of personnel in these positions, Moore soon comes into conflict with other writers, especially those with a Marxist perspective. Moore asserts the situation for USA and the rest of the world would be much better if more women and 'non-white' people where elected to the Congress, Senate or as President. However, Marxists would argue that this approach would simply alter the people abusing power and not challenge the class differences which are resulting in profits being placed above people.
Moore does, however, refutes his own idea, by stating that the 'stupid white men virus' is communicable, with references to two members of Bush's staff, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice. Through this concession, Moore highlights his confusion about the nature of class conflict and its by-products, such as racism and sexism.
The author contrasts the policies of the two main parties of USA, the Republicans and the Democrats, highlighting the difference in form, but lack of notable difference in character. Moore argues that the Democrats will enthusiastically declare to the population that they are implementing policy for their good, while in reality they are attacking the masses. For example, swearing to protect the environment as they open up coastal areas for oil drilling. The Republicans, Moore argues, just come out and say it, for example, oil is more important than the environment, so let us start drilling.
Moore's position on this topic however, is not not entirely unbiased. Moore, in the 2000 election campaign was a public supporter of the Greens candidate Ralph Nader. But towards the end of the campaign, Moore urged voters to register a vote for Gore over Nader if it meant keeping Bush out of the White House. Again Moore's contradictions impede the arguments of the book.
Moore describes many Democrats as "Republicans in disguise" (Moore, 2002, p277). Cleverly, and humorously, Moore lists a raft of actions carried out by a president. After reading the list, one would be forgiven thinking that these were the 'accomplishments' of President George Bush, however, as Moore reveals, they are in fact 'achievements' of President Clinton during his two terms in office. Here, Moore is displaying the homogeneity of the two parties, and at one stage suggests merging the two for simplicity's sake.
Moore declares to a Florida University, in the Epilogue of Stupid white men, that he will be voting for Nader, but that he urges everyone there to carefully consider whether they should also vote Nader, or vote for Gore. Moore presents the option of voting principally for Nader, or voting for Gore and hoping that he won't be 'as bad' as Bush. Moore clearly expresses his petty bourgeois mentality on this occasion (Lenin, 1999: 38). This mentality of opportunism, in the form of sacrificing the longer-term struggle and settling for 'the lesser of two evils' Gore, and reformism, which run throughout this book, diminish any real argument Moore has.
Michael Moore's book, while entertaining and informative, lacks a certain clarity. This taints his thoughts about the solutions to these important issues. While Moore calls for more people to become involved in politics and fight for a real alternative, he also confuses the issue by calling for a vote for his opponents. Stupid white men is a revealing and motivating book, despite its shortcomings, and provides a basis for further thought and reflection.
Bibliography
Boyle, Peter. 2002 "Bad apples or a rotten system?" Green left weekly No. 502: pp. 16, 24
Lenin, V.I. . [1920] 1999. 'Left-Wing' Communism - an infantile disorder, Sydney Australia, El Faro Printing
Moore, Michael. 2002. Stupid white men, Sydney, Harper-Collins