Not All Critics are Created Equal

Whenever a book is subjected to a harsh review by someone whose views generally agree with the author's, or when a critical review appears in a publication from which one might expect sympathetic treatment, it sticks in my memory. That's not always because I might otherwise be sympathetic to the book's thesis. The New York Times, for example, rejected the efforts of Tony Hiss to present his father Alger in a sympathetic light in The View from Alger's Window, written to save his father's memory from scandal. When even the Times admits Hiss's guilt, partisans who still rally to his cause appear even more bizarre and detached from reality than they did in earlier years.

So when I saw Scott Simon's commentary on Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" in today's WSJ (free), I knew I was in for a treat. Simon is a Quaker, and as such has always been a pacifist -- that is, until the war against terror (I'm still waiting for a better name). I heard him tell his NPR audience some months back that he realized that his pacifism was made possible by the sacrifice of others on the battlefield; that freedom is bought at great cost, and that his stance ensured that such a cost would always be borne by others. It was a moving and honest bit of soul-searching that reflected my own long-held views of pacifism. And even though I find Simon's opinions on most matters to be predictably mired in 1960s nostalgia, I continue to admire his willingness to buck office politics (especially at NPR) and change his mind on key issues.

His piece in today's Journal, titled "'Gonzo Demagoguery' Writ Large," begins: "Michael Moore has won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, and may win an Oscar for the kind of work that got Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Jack Kelly fired." He says of Moore's work "seems to regard facts as mere nuisances to the story he wants to tell." And that he "ignores or misrepresents the truth, prefers innuendo to fact, edits with poetic license rather than accuracy, and strips existing news footage of its context to make events and real people say what he wants, even if they don't." All that appears in the first few paragraphs.

Simon also hits Moore hard for his faux populism, which he shares with much of the elite left. It's the same point that Zell Miller made yesterday in his WSJ ($) op-ed. Miller hails from my home state of Georgia and was taught college English by my aunt, herself a native of Young Harris. I've never met him, but I admire his willingness to stand by principle when the easier route would be to follow many other Southern Democrats into the schizophrenic life of presenting themselves as a left-liberal on the floor of Congress and a good old boy (or girl) to the folks back home.

Miller excoriates the Democrats for their move to the left, including their abandonment of our troops in Iraq as demonstrated by the ticket's vote to deny funding for supplies and equipment. He notes that most of those troops come from middle class backgrounds and reads, correctly I believe, the anti-troops stance among many Democrats as further proof of their lack of empathy with middle class Americans. But it's in his concluding words that he nails the problem:

"All the speeches we hear this week won't be able to hide the truth of what today's Democratic Party has become: an enclave of elites paying lip service to middle-class values."

Scott Simon and Zell Miller writing against left-wing elitists in the pages of the Wall Street Journal? An interesting office pool could be run on who'll be the next big name to purge his soul in public.