Much has been said over the past week about the final collapse of the Russian Left-opposition. Even a neo-con like Michael McFaul publicly lamented (through crocodile tears) the weekend split of the Russian Communist Party opposition, charging that "democracy as a result has suffered."
Marc Cooper's a closet Buckley fan
But the fact is that the Russian Left died a long time ago -- in the mid-1990s, when they agreed to collaborate with the powers-that-be, and to destroy anyone within their ranks who tried breaking free from their sleazy arrangement with Yeltsin and the oligarchy. The Communists didn't want to win power, in fact they were terrified of taking power -- they were safer, and better-off, as a toothless, fake opposition, which served Yeltsin well because he could whip up Return of the Red Scare fever any time he needed more IMF funds or any time Clinton's people threatened to make a stink about the corruption and genocide that Yeltsin was responsible for.
This is roughly the same wretched story of the American Left ever since Reagan quashed it. For years now, America's Leftists have been flogging themselves to death wondering why it is that they remain so weak and disenfranchised. Most Leftists agree that it's all the fault of the right-wing dominated media, and the Republican-infested corporate conglomerates that control the major media outlets. Others blame religion, or advertising, or popular culture, or something inherently base within the genus americanus. Sometimes they even blame themselves, though only in a safe, disingenuous, fake-self-loathing way: we're out-of-touch, too serious, too high-fallutin', we need to get with the times, etc.
In fact, the main cause for the demise of the American Left is much more sinister than that. The American Left is responsible for destroying the American Left. I don't mean that metaphorically. I mean quite literally that anytime the Left starts to get somewhere, you can be sure that a vigilante mob of other Leftists will rise to the occasion to crush it, to make sure they stay as marginalized and ineffective as always. It's a kind of ghetto envy endemic to the Left - the Right is always rooting for its heroes to succeed. Not the Left. The key for them is to sound Virtuous - and oftentimes that means eating their own in order to promote themselves.
Nowhere is this more clear than in the American Left's envy-fueled lynching of Michael Moore, the only Leftist to make it out of the ghetto. I cannot think of a single American Leftist in my lifetime as effective as Michael Moore, and if Fahrenheit 9/11 is objectively anything at all, it is objectively effective. Bravery is fairly cheap on the Left exchange -- you have to be brave to be Left in this Reptilian Age -- but to actually get out of the Left's ghetto, into the debate, and to strike and strike hard...only one managed that, without going soft or becoming "balanced" and "realistic."
Consider this recent interview over the Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy between Moore and former sports correspondent-turned-CBS Early Show anchor Hannah Storm on June 25th.
- Storm: "So this is satire and not documentary? We shouldn't see this as-"
- Moore: "It's a satirical documentary."
- Storm: "Some have said propaganda, do you buy that? Op-ed?"
- Moore: "No, I consider the CBS Evening News propaganda. What I do is -- "
- Storm: "We'll move beyond on that."
- Moore: "Why? Let's not move beyond that."
- Storm: "You know what?"
- Moore: "Seriously."
- Storm: "No, let's talk about your movie."
- Moore: "But why don't we talk about the Evening News on this network and the other networks that didn't do the job they should have done at the beginning of this war?"
- Storm: "You know what?"
- Moore: "Demanded the evidence, ask the hard questions-"
- Storm: "Okay."
- Moore: "-we may not of even gone into this war had these networks done their job. I mean, it was a great disservice to the American people because we depend on people who work here and the other networks to go after those in power and say 'Hey, wait a minute. You want to send our kids off to war, we want to know where those weapons of mass destruction are. Let's see the proof. Let's see the proof that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.'"
- Storm: "But-"
- Moore: "There was no proof and everybody just got embedded and everybody rolled over and everybody knows that now."
- Storm: "Michael, the one thing that journalists try to do is to present both sides of the story. And it could be argued that you did not do that in this movie."
- Moore: "I certainly didn't. I presented my side-"
- Storm: "You presented your side of the story."
- Moore: "Because my side, that's the side of millions of Americans, rarely gets told. And so, all I'm, look, this is just a humble plea on my behalf and not to you personally, Hannah. But I'm just saying to journalists in general that instead of working so hard to tell both sides of the story, why don't you just tell that one side, which is the administration, why don't you ask them the hard questions-"
- Storm: "Which I think is something that we all try to do."
- Moore: "Well, I think it was a lot of cheerleading going on at the beginning of this war-"
- Storm: "Alright."
- Moore: "A lot of cheerleading and it didn't do the public any good to have journalists standing in front of the camera going 'whoop-dee-do, let's all go to war'. And, and it's not their kids going to war. It's not the children of the news executives going to war-"
- Storm: "Michael, why don't you do you next movie about networks news, okay? Because this movie-"
- Moore: "I know, I think I should do that movie."
- Storm: "-because this movie is an attack on the president and his policies."
- Moore: "Well, and it also points out how the networks failed us at the beginning of this war and didn't do their job."