Dude where's my
country? by Michael Moore (Penguin), I THOUGHT Bowling for Columbine" was extremely powerful but never read "Stupid White Men" (I just never got round to it. That meant I didn't really know what to expect when I read "Dude where's my country".
had already read and listened to various commentaries on Moore's new book but I always like to make my own mind up. Most of the reviews seemed to miss some of most powerful bits. It's true that a good deal of the material -possibly all of it - is available elsewhere, but bringing it together makes a very coherent case against George W Bush.
I found the way he builds his case effective, with most chapters comprising a list of examples that complement each other. Of course many people know that the US - and Britain - armed Saddam when they saw him as an ally, but certainly I hadn't taken on board the extent to which this was true and the range of biological and chemical weapons he got from the West.
Even where there were facts that were incorrect (such as his oft quoted assertion that in Britain the people can call an election whenever we want - I wish) or arguments that i didn't agree with, was impressed with the charges against. And the fact that the argument is unwound in an accessible and witty style led me to think it might well follow its predecessor to the top of the American best-seller lists. I knew in advance that I would have problems with the case for - given that the book is cited as a significant part of the case by the 'Anyone but Bush' camp. In fact early on, I was pleasantly surprised that Clinton didn't get an easy ride at all. In fact when I got to the final two chapters where this position is unfurled more sustainedly, my problem was not only political. This was the part of the book that was least well argued, least integrated into the work as a whole. It's the place where I found it most difficult to know whether and when Moore was pulling my leg - or perhaps later where I realised how much Moore himself was steeped in some of the worst aspects of US culture.
And Moore has gone further by stimulating debate on this question on www.SpendMikesTaxCut.com
Thinking about it again, this political aspect surprises me less. There are far more people I agree with about what's wrong with the system than there are who think the same as me either about what to put in its place or how to get there. But not many of them have as much influence as Michael Moore.
The tendency of sections of the American left - including people way to Moore's left - to argue that campaigners and trade unionists should back the Democrats is a long-standing problem. And the legacy of George W strengthens that argument and that current of opinion.
But the reasons that the US has waged the war against terrorism are deeper than the individual personality or political views of the current incumbent of the White House.
Of course it would make a difference if Bush wasn't there. Individuals do play a part in making history - but their choices are also constrained by wider social forces.
The absence of stability in Iraq months after the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein's regime shows pretty graphically that even the most powerful man in the world - not to mention the most enormous military regime - still don't get things their own way.
So putting either a Democrat, or someone else in the White House who is not Bush, but whose opposition to the current war-criminals is skin deep (such as General Wesley Clark who is one of the alternatives Moore promotes in the book) does not necessarily mean an end to the crimes against humanity of American imperialism or the government's crimes against the American
And going down this track could disorientate the anti-war movement and those resisting government austerity in the United States today.
But despite its weaknesses this is a book worth reading - and probably a good present if you know anyone who still needs convincing of the horrors the New American Century promises us.
page 18 of the scan
18 soca Anti-capitalist politics ice January 2004