The Michael Moore Conservatives (some British Conservatives are as anti-American as their Left)

The Weekly Standard ^ | 21 May 2004 | by Adrian Wooldridge

[NZerFromHK]

THERE ARE MANY THINGS that can be said against Michael Moore. An odd combination of Howard Stern and Paul Krugman, Moore is the king of all left-wing media, from films to books, who specializes in trashing everything that conservative America holds dear. For Moore, businessmen are always trampling on the faces of the poor, Republicans are always the tools of sinister vested interests, and America is always up to no good in the world. But say this for the pudgy auteur, he has his uses as a timesaver at dinner parties in hyper-partisan America. If the woman next to you admires Moore, she probably dated Dean and is now firmly married to Kerry; if she regards Moore as a bilious blowhard, then she is probably going to vote for George W. Bush.

[NZerFromHK]

But the question has to be whether these American conservatives are even allowed to be fairly reported in the first place. This has not happened even in America's establishment media (the Washington Times is still much less famous than its liberal counterpart, and FOX's rise is only the matter of the last few years) and often the journalists in these establishments don't even bother reporting their ideas at all. By what chance will these conservatives' stands get reported in the likes of Le Monde or The Spectator in ways other than dog poop?

This has led to an interesting observation: many more Americans (in proportion) also get news info from the net to compare with the networks news and newspapers, something which seems to be much rarer among the average British according to your observation. That's how many Americans come to the conservative stand - they don't complete trust the likes of New York Times, ABC News, NPR et al! Sadly this has not happened to most British people (yet).

I don't think the issue is whether American conservatives have seriously attempted to explain their positions to Britain and Europe - I have seen Jonah Goldberg, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, etc written articles on the international edition of Time, London Times, and Daily Telegraph and articulated eloquently about the American conservative position. It is whether British and Europeans are willing to treat them, and their ideas, seriously at all. If they still adopt the current position of outright dismissal without consideration, it is their own faults, not the American conservatives'.

[Katya]

It seems, and continues to seem, that the Tories adopted anti-war views for the same reason as the Democrats - crass political considerations

Exactly....support or non-support is entirely political. This is why the left in this country can't explain it's support for the Kosovo war as opposed to Iraq.

[NZerFromHK]

And even weirder is that both the NZ and European Left oppose both wars, but the American left never quoted these fellows' opinions on Kosovo but do so extensively on Iraq.

[ohioman]

Some of us Real Americans wish we could have another Civil War. At least then, you wouldn't go to jail for shooting the leftwing traitors in our midst.

[ohioman]

Moore is a traitor. He deserves that ole English practice...The Traitor's Death. I actually mean that.

[okie01]

Thanks for the ping. This was another illuminating post on the state of relations between Albion and its largest offspring.

That the Tories would actually adopt Michael Moore as a totem is, shall we say, embarrassing? It certainly makes a statement about their probable irrelevance, long-term. When you've got a dominant Labor party that kisses Moore's feet, there is no need for a Conservative party that kisses another part of his anatomy.

Your characterization of Kerry as "[t]he type that you often see in British Colonial administrations in India, Malaya, or East Africa circa 1935" is crystalline. Kerry in a pith helmet, wearing shorts and sensible shoes, riding a sedan chair through the dusty streets of Delhi, then taking an evening gin & tonic in the garden is no stretch to imagine. I can even see the riding crop...

I also agree with swilhelm's observation that the anti-war views of both the Tories and the Democrats might be borne more of political opportunism than conviction. By the same token, both parties strike me as "wannabes" -- wanting to assume a leadership role in their nation's defense, out of mere jealousy and envy, but fundamentally incapable of undertaking such a demanding task.

To say that I'm disappointed in the sclerotic strain of socialism that seems to animate Britain nowadays would be an understatement. Perhaps, this too shall pass. But, given the evident state of the Tories and the inclinations of a post-Blair Labor, I've no idea where any change for the better might come from.

I still shiver at the prospect of a Great Britain forever submerged in the socialist swamps of the EU. What a loss to the world that would be...

[tjwmason]

I believe Britian can be divided into two camps.

You characterisation is misleading, or rather, it perhaps reflects the middle-class. The working-classes in the cities, for example, are the main source of the British military, these are the people who recently deafeated a mob in southern Iraq using their bayonets whilst outnumbered 5-1; they are not sissies.

I was on the Liberty and Livelihood March (and a great event it was too), there was the most socially diverse crowd one could imagine. You are right in your view that the countryside is the heart of the true Britain.

[RightWingAtheist]

Osawald Moseley would be proud.

[Ed Thomas]

Would he? I get the impression that he'd be asbolutely disgusted at Blair's abilty to tackle the problems of unemployment- http://www.oswaldmosley.com/policies/crisis.html . It's all rather 'New Labour', is't it? Hoorah for the 'New Deal' ;)

[pau1f0rd]

I don't think the issue is whether American conservatives have seriously attempted to explain their positions to Britain and Europe...It is whether British and Europeans are willing to treat them, and their ideas, seriously at all.

Fine - that's the most common attitude to Europe on FR. If Europe won't listen, forget it. All I'm saying is that the Democrats and the US Left don't have that attitude. They will push and push and push to get on TV, in the press and in the bookshops. They don't give up, and they wouldn't give up even if the whole of the media was closed to them.

The US conservative message fails in Europe because where it does occasionally appear it comes across as clumsy, ignorant, simplistic and oppressive. A message packaged like this isn't going to appeal to European conservatives, let alone the left-leaning.

[pau1f0rd]

the Tories would actually adopt Michael Moore as a totem is, shall we say, embarrassing?

They haven't. The title is deliberately misleading.

[pau1f0rd]

the countryside is the heart of the true Britain

Is it? Why?

[NZerFromHK]

The problem with your approach is that it is incredibly naive. The reasons the American Left gets listened in European/British Left and Right is not because they are more persistent in getting their views across - hardly, considering that these same poeple can't handle any slightest oppositions on the domestic scene, but because the European/British Left and Right share their ideas and thoughts.

It is precisely American conservatives see that establishment media outlets are closed and no matter how sincerely you try they just won't bother listening to you newer media outlets are emerging (FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, Washington Times, to name a few).

[pau1f0rd]

NZerFromHK, there are mainstream outlets in the UK that would be receptive to hearing the ideas of clever, funny, intelligent or attractive American conservatives who want to spread their message. Even the BBC is not that overtly biased. You're making out that people have tried and failed. Who? Why? It's so easy to get into the papers or onto the box here if you have a little persistence and a good PR agent that I can't believe that they find it difficult.

[okie01]

"The US conservative message fails in Europe because where it does occasionally appear it comes across as clumsy, ignorant, simplistic and oppressive."

"Clumsy", perhaps. Polemics have never been a conservative strength.

But if the conservative message -- individual liberty, self-reliance, free markets, freedom of religion, et al -- is also perceived as "ignorant", "simplistic" and "oppressive", there is something seriously deficient within the audience.

[pau1f0rd]

Failure of communication is often a fault of the communicator. In this case it definitely is. The message is great (actually exactly the same message that the UK Conservatives presently claim to be pushing), but the way it's told isn't. It's not getting through. I'd love to do a European poll on what phrases come to mind when someone says 'conservative American'. I'm sure none of your descriptors - 'individual liberty, self-reliance, free markets, freedom of religion' will appear.

[okie01]

I'd love to do a European poll on what phrases come to mind when someone says 'conservative American'. I'm sure none of your descriptors - 'individual liberty, self-reliance, free markets, freedom of religion' will appear.

Those descriptors don't appear in the dispatches of the American mainstream media, either. In those media, we remain "racist, sexist, homophobic bigots and religious zealots". So far as I can tell, the same seems to be the case in the European media.

For the most part, the left controls the conventional media on both sides of the Atlantic -- and has a vested interest in suppressing conservative ideas.

Think how many years it took for conservatives to find a voice in America. It will take even longer to gain a footing in Europe. Especially as the continent is drifting steadily toward socialism, drawn there by the entrenched bureaucracies and in the thrall of the leftist media and academic elite.

In so-called "old Europe", I believe it will get worse before it gets better. Eastern Europe might yet save Europe from itself...

[The_Royal_Navy]

OMG! do u have "any" idea how log it's taken me to read thru all this?

well anyway's, that is all i have to say...
ecept for one confusion,...

((( 2. The Germans were toe to toe with the Warsaw Pact. I know missiles and planes can cross a channel with no problem but foot soldiers can't. It gives a sense of protection similiar to a moat.
3. The Brits know we will be there for them in a heartbeat if asked. The Germans knew they were a trip wire. They were there to just slow the forces. )))

The above statemet is confusing me, are we talking past or present?, because if it presant then i asume it means as if to say that some other force attacks germany on way to moving to briatn, Britain would then be a "Trip wire" for American intervnting before the force were to move thru Britain an then later on to America,...

'OR'
Were you refuring to the 'PAST'..?
Because if so, then America was 'NOT' there for Britain in WW2 Even tho Chirchill was desparatly calling for American help.


There is no dout thta the currunt america of today would be here for us, or indeed for anyone 'including france' if needed...

But back then things were a different story,....

I am how ever confused, and you were probebly talking about the 'Present' or indeed the 'Future' in witch America i'm sure would be 'hole-heartedly' comitted to standing by her closest friend ,...

I'm not exsactly fireing on all thrusters at this minuet because of the fact that i have been up "All day and Night and Day....."

but infact the more my brain thinks (and thus warms up) i belve u meat that germany were a 'trip wire' to any hostilitys from an invading force, and America would be here to stand by britan in the fight to push 'BACK' that hostile foe, while germany 'Slowed them down' in readying for our 2 or 3 pronged assult.