Last Saturday night, filmmaker and left-wing advocate Michael Moore came to UW-Madison and publicly exercised his First Amendment rights. He championed mostly liberal causes, including universal health care for Americans, women's reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, and pulling American troops out of Iraq. He criticized President Bush and his Cabinet for promoting policies that favor the wealthy and alienate the poor and middle-class. He told the spectators \President Kerry"" sounds much better than ""President Bush.""
Yes, Michael Moore told the crowd of thousands exactly what they wanted to hear and it sounded pretty great, for the most part. So how come it wasn't entirely believable? Was it his use of scare tactics, similar to those used by proclaimed foe Dick Cheney? Or was it his incredibly hostile and infantile taunting of the College Republicans?
It's true they interrupted Moore's speech by waving signs and chanting ""Four more years!"" Yes, sometimes we want to call the College Republicans ""assholes"" in front of that many people. But did it ever cross Moore's mind that the College Republicans have (gasp!) the same right to express themselves freely as he does? His insulting the ""other side"" is no different from Chris Matthews' rants on Hardball. Both lose credibility by not articulating their views clearly or thoughtfully. Moore's speech on the Terrace was neither the time nor the place to do it. Name-calling retracts any integrity or goodwill that he had, and someone of such international prominence should know better. It was completely inappropriate for the occasion.
Moore's passionate insinuation that the draft will be reinstated if Bush is re-elected is parallel to Dick Cheney's implication that the country will be attacked again if John Kerry becomes president. It's the same song with a different choir.
The fact is, both the right and the left manipulate the truth to further their own causes. Michael Moore is no stranger to the use of propaganda in his public appearances or films, the most recent being ""Fahrenheit 9/11."" However, he is not anti-American for questioning his government and its actions. But the methods Moore uses are indeed questionable.
However, he is not a hypocrite for previously endorsing Ralph Nader in 2000. Moore simply wants to get the message across to apathetic voters that President Bush is a poor choice for the country, and he's endorsing the liberal candidate who is more likely win, as Nader honestly doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidential election.
If Michael Moore wants to change the minds of apathetic ""slacker"" voters, he needs to stop making himself such an easy target and show the same respect to Republicans that he espouses. Even though Moore is unlikely to implement more polite methods in the future to get his point across, he should at least consider it.
Kate Marcus is a sophomore majoring in English.
