Louis points to a verbal war between Alexander Cockburn and Michael Moore.
As usual, these guys probably both are right (and both wrong) in different
ways.
I think Moore's critique of the Left is largely friendly: he wants us to be
more involved with talking to actual working people and less involved with
obscure debates, etc. (See his article in a recent NATION, which folks on
the east coast probably received two weeks before I did.)
Alex C. generally supports the "good causes" (Jesse Jackson, etc.) But even
though I generally agree with what he says (when he's not exaggerating for
effect), I think his _style_ is off-putting to most working people. The
same goes for Noam Chomsky. I think almost everything he says is right on,
but his excessive use of irony and sarcasm (e.g., the use of the phrase
"the Free Press" in a discussion of how corporate-dominated it is) is a
turn-off for many. As one born with irony-rich blood, I know very well that
irony only works if there is already a strong basis for communication
beforehand.
Moore seems to be reacting to the _style_ of the Left more than its
position. Awhile back, he was brought in as editor of MOTHER JONES
magazine, causing all sorts of conflicts over style and his firing. In the
end, he seems to be the winner, what with MJ deciding that affirmative
action is out.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
