Evidently he thinks Downsize is a dirty word, but that's not my objection

When it's supposed to be humorous political commentary, it makes a reviewer's job a lot harder. When I encounter something that looks highly illogical/inconsistent, but which is (for that reason) rather amusing, I have to ask myself whether or not Michael Moore deliberately exaggerated his actual opinion in order to be outrageous.

Don't get me wrong. I actually agreed with a fair amount of the things he complained about regarding the USA of the 1990s, and even if I disagreed with some of his proposed changes (some of which were definitely meant to be funny rather than thinking they would ever happen) I appreciated his bringing quite a few interesting facts to my attention on a variety of subjects. And I enjoy a good laugh as much as the next fellow!

Sending campaign contributions to political candidates, using checks printed to show they came from such praiseworthy organizations as Abortionists for Buchanan, National Hemp Growers of America, the John Wayne Gacey Fan Club, and other stirring group titles was hilarious! (Learning that the Buchanan campaign actually cashed checks from Abortionists for Buchanan and the serial killer Gacey's fan club was a real shock, though.) Proposing the Department of Commerce relocate its headquarters from D.C. to Tijuana, Mexico to show it takes NAFTA seriously was worth doing. Suggesting the U.S. Government could save a real fortune on "welfare payments" by ceasing and desisting from its habit of giving huge handouts and tax breaks to major corporations is interesting, particularly given all the facts and figures he produces to show us how much of this has been going on. Every man is entitled to his opinion - and to express it in print for the amusement or enlightenment of others - but it would be nice if his opinions were, at the very least, self-consistent. There were several minor flaws in his thinking, but the glaring one that really left me scratching my head and asking, "Did he do this illogical thing on purpose" was as follows.

In Chapter 13 Moore describes what he thinks Bill Clinton should have publicly said, loud and clear, to his political opponents (mainly the Republicans in Congress, I gather) right after his first election to the White House.

I am right, and you are wrong. This is the way it is going to be done. I will bark, and you will jump. And you will ask, "How high, Mr. President?" You will like it or lump it - and if you lump it, you can throw me out of office in four years. But until then, the people have spoken, and they have said they are fed up with the policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations. So [CENSORED] off and good night!"

Moore claims that Reagan's attitude upon winning his first presidential election was similar to the above sentiments. He totally ignores a few things, such as that several of the things Reagan had promised to do nevertheless failed to get Congressional approval, and that not even Clinton's fellow Democrats in Congress were universally enamored of his ideas and ready to slavishly vote for any proposals he tossed out on the grounds that he must be smarter than they were, and - most importantly - that Reagan had actually gotten 50.7% of the popular vote in 1980 (spread out enough that 44 of 50 states went his way in the Electoral College), which strongly suggested to your typical Congressman that yes indeedy, the American people (or a majority of them, anyway) really liked the things he had been saying. Clinton, however, only got 43% of the popular vote in 1992, which could be interpreted as meaning that 57% of the American people were basically saying they didn't like his proposed changes all that much. But Moore doesn't mention that, because admitting that Clinton got significantly less than half of the voters to support him would do severe damage to Moore's proposed speech saying "the people have spoken."

Then Moore turns around and shows his shameless partisan bias in his approach to "interpretation" of election results when he turns around and examines the 1994 congressional races that put a Republican majority in control of the House, hence Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (Chapter 19). We get the following display of "logic" paraded before us:

As I've pointed out, over 60 percent of the voting-age population in this country did not vote in the 1994 election. Of the remaining 38 percent who did show up at the polls, the Republicans got a little more than half of the vote. That means that Newt Gingrich has been ruling America with only 20 percent of this country having voted for his agenda. Twenty percent! That's no mandate - IT'S A CULT! That's all - just a puny little cult. Nearly 80 percent of all Americans did not want Newt Gingrich running the show!

Ooooookay. Mr. Moore, does the term "self-consistent" have any meaning in your life? When a Democrat wins an election then this Democrat has the right to insist that "the people have spoken" and everyone should look upon him as the messiah who has been democratically appointed to lead his fellow Americans to the promised land, or at least try his darndest. But when a Republican (gasp and horror!) ends up in a high position after an election two years later, as a result of the Republicans having won the Congressional races in a majority of the 435 districts, then it is suddenly time to start counting all the people who didn't care one way or another enough to vote at all, and say that they (plus the ones who voted Democrat or independent) "did not want Newt Gingrich running the show!" Well, Mr. Moore, if those 60+ percent of us were firmly opposed to the idea of seeing Gingrich (or any Republican who might get the job) start running things in the House, they had the option of registering to vote and going down to the polls and making themselves heard by voting against the local Republican candidate. I don't think sheer apathy should be equated with "did not want" in the sense of "knew they hated the idea," which seems to be how you are trying to use that phrase in this context.

Pardon me while I do a little research. Okay . . . at http://www.multied.com/elections/1992state.html I am told that 55.2 % of eligible voters actually voted in the 1992 election. So if Clinton got about 43 percent of those people to vote for him, it means he only got about 23.7% of all the votes that were theoretically available to a candidate who tried hard enough. I suppose being in the Oval Office thanks to a "cult" of 23.7% is slightly better than being in the Speaker's office thanks to a "cult" of about 20%, but couldn't you call a spade a spade (or a cult a cult) both times, instead of picking and choosing when to claim that in spirit all the non-voters were actually in agreement with your personal opinion on whether or not someone deserved to win something, and when to ignore the existence of the non-voters entirely as well as ignoring the fact that Clinton never even had a majority of such votes as were actually cast, it's just that his 43% minority were clustered in enough key states to give him the grand prize?

Overall I recommend the book as entertaining and thought-provoking. Come on, look at how much thought just two chapters, 13 and 19, provoked in yours truly! (I mean, assuming you stayed awake through all that and have actually gotten this far!) Clearly a sign that Moore's writing is capable of grabbing my attention and making me think! I've seen books of political and social commentary which I agreed with more but which interested me far less. At least Moore is colorful in expressing himself.