Moore, in his films, tends to demean the powers of the individual to naught, making his cases on the theory that no person is responsible for any of their own actions, unless they are a capitalist or a Republican. In "Bowling for Columbine", he fails to hold the murderers of 15 innocent people to any fault for the crime, but blames K-Mart for selling bullets. In "Fahrenheit 911", he manages to make claims that President Bush is a friend of terrorism, and presses the audience at times to sympathize with the terrorists responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans, and in his new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story", he exploits the current economic situation to tear apart capitalism.
I will dismiss the fact that Moore's fame and fortunes are due to capitalism, as I'm sure he would dismiss those things as beyond his control (remember, Moore-ism says we are never responsible for the results of our actions). What I will not dismiss is the entirety of history showing that true laissez-faire capitalism is much more successful and beneficial to all of the people than the socialist, top-down system that Mr. Moore would clearly prefer. My case rests not in ancient history, but rather in the economic considerations of the Cold War.
For nearly half-a-century (1945-1990), the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and The United States of America (USA) were, by leaps and bounds, the two most powerful nations in the world. The USSR was communist. the USA was capitalist. While the American capitalists were driven to invent new technologies, compete for sales, and change their business practices over and over to keep up with the times, the USSR's economy faulted beyond governmentally protected old technologies, and ended up overextended and underfunded.
This does not mean I like the current American market situation. We have significant problems with governmental interference in our financial enterprises (AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc.), we have "pro-business" legislation set up that actually cripples free-market enterprise and supports horribly unethical business practices, and our answers to all of our problems, rather than understanding their causes, seems to be increased legislation and market manipulation.
Based on our current social trends, Mr. Moore's opinions are likely well-intentioned, and (capitalist, I know) play into marketing to what people want, a quick and permanent fix. Two things are at issue with this: 1) popularity and correctness, as we all know, are often not the same, and 2) economy, social-based or capital-based, can and will never be permanent and unflinchingly stable.
***
Does this mean I'm one of those ultra-libertarians that wants capital-based schools and police forces? No. I think there are certainly things (of which health care may be one, but that's an entirely separate ballgame) that we desire our government provide to our citizens as something of a moral imperative that outweighs economics. This is perfectly acceptable. The problem is when we try to mix the profit-greasing capitalistic system (oil), with the pure-intentioned non-profiting governmental programming (water). They simply don't mix. Chemistry is smart enough to figure this one out. Clearly we have not been and have created government-sponsored monsters under the guise of capitalism.
Neither the free-market or moral imperatives can be compromised. When we do this, it's clear nobody wins. I mean, Gorbachev lost the cold war, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment