Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9” Aims Not at Trump But at Those Who Created
the Conditions That Led to His Rise
Glenn Greenwald
September 21 2018, 1:08 p.m.
2017 AP YEAR END PHOTOS - Donald Trump is sworn in as the 45th president of the
United States by Chief Justice John Roberts, as Melania Trump and his family
looks on during the 58th Presidential Inauguration at the U.S. Capitol in
Washington, on Jan. 20, 2017. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
Photo: Patrick Semansky/AP
“Fahrenheit 11/9,” the title of Michael Moore’s new film that opens today in
theaters, is an obvious play on the title of his wildly profitable Bush-era
“Fahrenheit 9/11,” but also a reference to the date of Donald J. Trump’s 2016
election victory. Despite that, Trump himself is a secondary figure in Moore’s
film, which is far more focused on the far more relevant and interesting
questions of what – and, critically, who – created the climate in which someone
like Trump could occupy the Oval Office.
For that reason alone, Moore’s film is highly worthwhile regardless of where
one falls on the political spectrum. The single most significant defect in U.S.
political discourse is the monomaniacal focus on Trump himself, as though he is
the cause – rather than the by-product and symptom – of decades-old systemic
American pathologies.
Personalizing and isolating Trump as the principal, even singular, source of
political evil is obfuscating and thus deceitful. By effect, if not design, it
distracts the population’s attention away from the actual architects of their
plight.
This now-dominant framework misleads people into the nationalistic myth – at
once both frightening and comforting – that prior to 2016’s “Fahrenheit 11/9,”
the U.S., though quite imperfect and saddled with “flaws,” was nonetheless a
fundamentally kind, benevolent, equitable and healthy democracy, one which, by
aspiration if not always in action, welcomed immigrants, embraced diversity,
strove for greater economic equality, sought to defend human rights against
assaults by the world’s tyrants, was governed by the sturdy rule of law rather
than the arbitrary whims of rulers, elected fundamentally decent even if
ideologically misguided men to the White House, and gradually expanded rather
than sadistically abolished opportunity for the world’s neediest.
But suddenly, teaches this fairy tale as ominous music plays in the background,
a villain unlike any we had previously known invaded our idyllic land,
vandalized our sacred public spaces, degraded our admired halls of power,
threatened our collective values. It was only upon Trump’s assumption of power
that the nation’s noble aspirations were repudiated in favor of a far darker
and more sinister vision, one wholly alien to “Who We Are”: a profoundly
“un-American” tapestry of plutocracy, kleptocracy, autocracy, xenophobia,
racism, elite lawlessness, indifference and even aggressive cruelty toward the
most vulnerable and marginalized.
This myth is not just false but self-evidently so. Yet it persists, and
thrives, because it serves so many powerful interests at once. Most
importantly, it exonerates, empowers, and elevates the pre-Trump ruling class,
now recast as heroic leaders of the #Resistance and nostalgic symbols of
America’s pre-11/9 Goodness.
ellen-instagram-1537551468Screenshot: The Intercept
The lie-fueled destruction of Vietnam and Iraq, the worldwide torture regime,
the 2008 financial collapse and subsequent bailout and protection of those
responsible for it, the foreign kidnapping and domestic rounding up of Muslims,
the record-setting Obama-era deportations and whistleblower prosecutions, the
obliteration of Yemen and Libya, the embrace of Mubarak, Sisi, and Saudi
despots, the years of bipartisan subservience to Wall Street at everyone else’s
expense, the full-scale immunity vested on all the elites responsible for all
those crimes – it’s all blissfully washed away as we unite to commemorate the
core decency of America as George Bush gently hands a piece of candy to
Michelle Obama at the funeral of the American War Hero and
Trump-opponent-in-words John S. McCain, or as hundreds of thousands of us
re-tweet the latest bromide of Americana from the leaders of America’s most
insidious security state, spy and police agencies.
Beyond nationalistic myth-building, there are substantial commercial, political
and reputational benefits to this Trump-centered mythology. An obsessive
fixation on Trump has single-handedly saved an entire partisan cable news
network from extinction, converting its once ratings-starved,
close-to-being-fired prime-time hosts into major celebrities with contracts so
obscenely lucrative as to produce envy among most professional athletes or
Hollywood stars.
Resistance grifters exploit fears of Trump to build massive social media
followings that are easily converted into profit from well-meaning, manipulated
dupes. One rickety, unhinged, rant-filled, speculation-driven Trump book after
the next dominates the best-seller lists, enriching charlatans and publishing
companies alike: the more conspiratorial, the better. Anti-Trump mania is big
business, and – as the record-shattering first-week sales of Bob Woodward’s new
Trump book demonstrates – there is no end in sight to this profiteering.
All of this is historical revisionism in its crudest and most malevolent form.
It’s intended to heap most if not all blame for systemic, enduring, entrenched
suffering across the country onto a single personality who wielded no political
power until 18 months ago. In doing so, it averts everyone’s eyes away from the
real culprits: the governors, both titled and untitled, of the establishment
ruling class, who for decades have exercised largely unchecked power – immune
even from election outcomes – and, in many senses, still do.
The message is as clear as the beneficial outcomes: Just look only at Trump.
Keep your eyes fixated on him. Direct all your suffering, deprivations, fears,
resentments, anger and energy to him and him alone. By doing so, you’ll forget
about us – except that we’ll join you in your Trump-centered crusade, even lead
you in it, and you will learn again to love us: the real authors of your misery.
The overriding value of “Fahrenheit 11/9″ is that it avoids – in fact,
aggressively rejects – this ahistorical manipulation. Moore dutifully devotes a
few minutes at the start of his film to Trump’s rise, and then asks the
question that dominates the rest of it, the one the political and media
establishment has steadfastly avoided examining except in the most superficial
and self-protective ways: “how the fuck did this happen”?
Knowing that no political work can be commercially successful on a large-scale
without affirming Resistance clichés, Moore dutifully complies, but only with
the most cursory and fleeting gestures: literally 5 seconds in the film are
devoted to assigning blame for Hillary’s loss to Putin and Comey. With that
duty discharged, he sets his sights on his real targets: the U.S. political
establishment that is ensconced within both parties, along with the financial
elites who own and control both of them for their own ends.
Moore quickly escapes the dreary and misleading “Democrat v. GOP” framework
that dominates cable news by trumpeting “the largest political party in
America”: those who refuse to vote. He uses this powerful graphic to tell that
story:
It’s remarkable how little attention is paid to non-voters given that, as Moore
rightly notes, they form America’s largest political faction. Part of why
they’re ignored is moralism: those who don’t vote deserve no attention as they
have only themselves to blame.
But the much more consequential factor is the danger for both parties from
delving too deeply into this subject. After all, voter apathy arises when
people conclude that their votes don’t change their lives, that election
outcomes improve nothing, that the small amount of time spent waiting in line
at a voting booth isn’t worth the effort because of how inconsequential it is.
What greater indictment of the two political parties can one imagine than that?
One of the most illuminating pieces of reporting about the 2016 election is
also, not coincidentally, one of the most ignored: interviews by the New York
Times with white and African-American working-class voters in Milwaukee who
refused to vote and – even knowing that Trump won Wisconsin, and thus the
presidency, largely because of their decision – don’t regret it. “Milwaukee is
tired. Both of them were terrible. They never do anything for us anyway,” the
article quotes an African-American barber, justifying his decision not to vote
in 2016 after voting twice for Obama.
Moore develops the same point, even more powerfully, about his home state of
Michigan, which – like Wisconsin – Trump also won after Obama won it twice. In
one of the most powerful and devastating passages from the film – indeed, of
any political documentary seen in quite some time – “Fahrenheit 11/9″ takes us
in real-time through the indescribably shameful water crisis of Flint, the
criminal cover-up of it by GOP Governor Rick Snyder, and the physical and
emotional suffering endured by its poor, voiceless, and overwhelmingly black
residents.
After many months of abuse, of being lied to, of being poisoned, Flint
residents, in May, 2016, finally had a cause for hope: President Obama
announced that he would visit Flint to address the water crisis. As Air Force
One majestically lands, Flint residents rejoice, believing that genuine
concern, political salvation, and drinkable water had finally arrived.
Exactly the opposite happened. Obama delivered a speech in which he not only
appeared to minimize, but to mock, concerns of Flint residents over the lead
levels in their water, capped off by a grotesquely cynical political stunt
where he flamboyantly insisted on having a glass of filtered tap water that he
then pretended to drink, but in fact only used to wet his lips, ingesting none
of it.
President Barack Obama drinks water as he speaks at Flint Northwestern High
School in Flint, Mich., Wednesday, May 4, 2016, about the ongoing water crisis.
(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
President Barack Obama appears to drink water as he speaks at Flint
Northwestern High School in Flint, Mich., Wednesday, May 4, 2016, about the
ongoing water crisis.
Photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP
A friendly meeting with Gov. Snyder after that – during which Obama repeated
the same water stunt – provided the GOP state administration in Michigan with
ample Obama quotes to exploit to prove the problem was fixed, and for Flint
residents, it was the final insult. “When President Obama came here,” an
African-American community leader in Flint tells Moore, “he was my President.
When he left, he wasn’t.”
Like the unregretful non-voters of Milwaukee, the collapsed hope Obama left in
his wake as he departed Flint becomes a key metaphor in Moore’s hands for
understanding Trump’s rise. Moore suggests to John Podesta, who seems to agree,
that Hillary lost Michigan because, as in Wisconsin, voters, in part after
seeing what Obama did in Flint, concluded it was no longer worth voting. As
Moore narrates:
The autocrat, the strongman, only succeeds when the vast majority of the
population decides they’ve seen enough, and give up. . . . . The worst thing
that President Obama did was pave the way for Donald Trump. Because Donald
Trump did not just fall from the sky. The road to him was decades in the making.
The long, painful, extraordinarily compelling journey through Flint is
accompanied by an equally illuminating immersion in West Virginia, one that
brings into further vivid clarity the misery, deprivation, and repression that
drove so many people – for good reason – away from the political establishment
and into the arms of anyone promising to destroy it: from the 2008 version of
Obama to Bernie Sanders to Jill Stein to Donald Trump to abstaining entirely
from voting.
We meet the teachers who led the inspiring state-wide strike, some of whom are
paid so little that they are on food stamps. We hear how their own union
leaders tried (and failed) first to prevent the strike, then prematurely tried
(and failed) to end it with trivial concessions.
We meet Richard Ojeda, an Iraq and Afghanistan War veteran, Democratic State
Senator, and current Congressional candidate, who tells Moore: “Our town is
dying. One out of every four homes is in a dilapidated state . . . . I can take
you five minutes from here and show you where our kids have it worse than the
kids I saw in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Needless to say, all of that began and
took root long before Donald Trump descended the Trump Tower escalator in 2015.
To Moore’s credit, virtually no powerful U.S. factions escape indictment in
“Fahrenheit 11/9.” The villains of Flint and West Virginia are two Republican
governors. But their accomplices, every step of the way, are Democrats. This,
Moore ultimately argues, is precisely why people had lost faith in the ability
of elections generally, and the Democratic Party specifically, to improve their
lives.
And in stark and impressive contrast to the endless intra-Democrat war over the
primacy of race versus class, Moore adeptly demonstrates that the
overwhelmingly African-American population of Flint and the largely white
impoverished West Virginians have far more in common than they have
differences: from the methods of their repression to those responsible for it.
“Fahrenheit 11/9″ does not shy away from, but unflinchingly confronts, the
questions of race and class in America and ultimately concludes – and proves –
that they are inextricably intertwined, that a discussion of (and solution to)
one is impossible without a discussion of (and solution to) the other.
No examination of voter apathy and the perceived irrelevance of elections would
be complete without an ample study of the 2016 Democratic Party primary process
that led to Hillary Clinton’s ultimately doomed nomination. And this is another
area where Moore excels. Focusing on one little-known but amazing fact – that
Bernie Sanders won all 55 counties over Clinton in the West Virginia primary,
beating her by 16 points in a state where she crushed Obama in 2008, yet, at
the Democratic Convention, somehow ended up with fewer delegates than she
received – Moore interviews a Sanders supporter in West Virginia about the
message this bizarre discrepancy sent.
Moore asks: “This just tells people to stay home?” The voter replies: “I think
so.” Moore offers his own conclusion through narration: “When the people are
continually told that their vote doesn’t count, that it doesn’t matter, and
they end up believing that, the loss of faith in our democracy becomes our
deathknell.”
With all of this harrowing and depressing evidence compiled, it becomes easier
and easier to understand why Americans are either receptive to anyone vowing to
dismantle rather than uphold the system they have rightly come to despise, or
just abstain altogether. And it becomes even easier to understand why the
guardians of that system view Trump as the most valuable weapon they could have
ever imagined wielding: one that allows them to direct everyone’s attention
away from the systemic damage they have wrought for decades.
Broadly speaking, there are three kinds of political films. There are those
whose filmmaker fully shares your political outlook, mentality and ideology,
and thus produces a film that, in each scene, validates and strengthens your
views. There are those by filmmakers whose politics are so anathema to yours
that you find no value in the film and are only repelled by it. Then there are
those that do a combination of all those things, causing you to love parts,
hate other parts, and feel unsure about the rest.
Without doubt, “Fahrenheit 11/9″ falls into the latter category. It’s literally
impossible to imagine someone who would love, or hate, all of the scenes and
messages of this film.
Indeed, for all the praise I just heaped on it, there were several parts I
found banal, meandering, misguided and, in one case, downright loathsome: a
lurid, pointless, reckless, and deeply offensive digression into the
long-standing, adolescent #Resistance theme that Trump wants to have sex with,
if he has not in fact already had sex with, his own daughter, Ivanka. What
makes the inclusion of this trash all the more tragic is that it comes very
near the beginning of the film, and thus will almost certainly repel – for good
reasons – large numbers of people, including more reluctant and open-minded
Trump supporters, who would be otherwise quite receptive to the important parts
of the film that constitute its crux.
Then there is the last 20 minutes, devoted to a direct comparison between Trump
and Hitler. I am not someone who opposes the use of Nazism as a window for
understanding contemporary political developments. To the contrary, I’ve
written previously about how anti-intellectual and dangerous is the
now-standard internet decree (inaccurately referred to as Godwin’s Law) that
Nazi comparisons are and should be off-limits.
As the Nuremberg prosecutors (one of whom appears in the film) themselves
pointed out during the post-war trial of Nazis: those tribunals were not
primarily about punishing war criminals but about establishing principles to
prevent future occurrences. There are real and substantive lessons to be drawn
from the rise of Hitler when it comes to understanding the ascension of
contemporary global movements of authoritarianism, and this last part of
“Fahrenheit 11/9″ features some of those in a reasonably responsible and
informative manner.
Ultimately, though, this last part of the film is marred by cheap and
manipulative stunts, the worst of which is combining video of a Hitler speech
overlaid with audio of a Trump speech, with no real effort made to justify this
equation. Comparing any political figure to someone who oversaw the genocide of
millions of human beings requires great care, sensitivity, and intellectual
sophistication, and there is sadly little of that in Moore’s invocation (which
at times feels like exploitation) of Nazism.
There are, without doubt, people who will most love the exact parts of the film
I most disliked. And those same people will likely hate many of the parts I
found most compelling. But that’s precisely why Moore’s film is so worth your
time no matter your ideology, so worth enduring even the parts that you will
find disagreeable or even infuriating.
Because – in contrast to the endless armies of cable news hosts, Twitter
pundits, #Resistance grifters, and party operatives, all of whom are vested due
to self-interest in perpetuating the same deceitful, simple-minded and
obfuscating narrative – Moore, for most of this film, is at least trying. And
what he’s trying is of unparalleled importance: not to take the cheap route of
exclusively denouncing Trump but to take the more complicated, challenging, and
productive route of understanding who and what created the climate in which
Trump could thrive.
Embedded in the instruction of those who want to you focus exclusively on Trump
is an insidious and toxic message: namely, removing Trump will cure, or at
least mitigate, the acute threats he poses. That is a fraud, and Moore knows
it. Unless and until the roots of these pathologies are identified and
addressed, we are certain to have more Trumps: in fact, more effective and more
dangerous Trumps, along with more potent Dutertes, and more Brexits, and more
Bolsonaros and more LePens.
Moore could have easily made a film that just channeled and fueled standard
anti-Trump fears and animus and – like the others who are doing that – made
lots of money, been widely hailed, and won lots of accolades. He chose instead
to dig deeper, to be more honest, to take the harder route, and deserves real
credit for that.
He did that, it seems clear, because he knows that the only way to move forward
is not just to reject right-wing demagoguery but also the sham that masquerades
as its #Resistance. As Moore himself put it: “sometimes it takes a Donald Trump
to get us to realize that we have to get rid of the whole rotten system that
gave us Trump.”
That’s exactly the truth that the guardians of that “whole rotten system” want
most to conceal. Moore’s film is devoted, at its core, to unearthing it. That’s
why, despite its flaws, some of them serious ones, the film deserves wide
attention and discussion among everyone across the political spectrum.
👆