Greetings from The Publisher . . . Fahrenheit 9/11 Heats Things Up & Isn’t It Time to Swing into Balance?

What a difference a year makes. Last July 4 many questioned just how consistent the Patriot Act was with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Who would have dreamed that a year later many people would be asking if the actions of several levels of the Administration were consistent with their oath to uphold the Constitution—or international law, for that matter.

If you're not sure what those issues are, you'll discover a few in Fahrenheit 9/11 . I appreciate that Michael Moore made the movie. I can't say I like it as much as I appreciate that he made it. Parts were very humorous, but it's more a sad-but-true dark humor. Much of it was disturbing.

Many politicians will find it unflattering. It's surprising that politicians seem to think they are in a vacuum and are surprised or angry when they are shown being themselves. I mean, I guess that's whom they're being.

I have to agree with USA Today , which suggested that Republicans — who have been trying to stop the film — “chill out.” They editorialized, “it is everything that most politicians are not: stimulating, thought-provoking and willing to challenge conventional thinking.”

Trying to stop the film is not just talk. The Regal theater chain allowed it to be shown on only 12 screens (out of 377 screens, or 3%) in Pennsylvania 's Philadelphia and Delaware Valley . That area is the fifth-largest market in the US . Not one theater in Delaware County is showing the film. I wonder how Ben Franklin would do it.

Pennsylvania is a borderline state now, and important with a lot of electoral votes. The owners of the Regal Cinemas chain are major fund-raisers for Bush.

In Central Florida —yes, another important state—the Loew's theater complex at Universal Studios is the only place showing it. That means a three-hour round trip for some to see it.

Still, the film was on a pace to be the weekend's top draw nationally. It's closest competitor, White Chicks , was shown in three times as many theaters nationwide.

Rumors that Bush supporters were attending White Chicks en mass to skew the numbers could not be verified.

Instead of calling it too political, too partisan, and trying to stop theaters from showing it, imagine how different it would be if both parties addressed what Moore accuses them of. I say both because anyone who has seen it knows he takes swipes at the Supreme Court, the House and the Senate, the Army and Marines, past and present political administrations, and, of course, a whole landscape of Bushes. Try fitting that entire group in one political party.

Moore 's an equal-opportunity offender if there ever was one. And here I thought it was the Democrats who were supposed to be too sensitive and thin-skinned, not the Republicans. It's Moore 's style to question everyone, and he does.

If anyone — especially the Democrats — thinks this film is pro-Democrat, they missed a lot. The senior (ex-President) Bush expressed his anger at Moore and called the film a personal attack on his son. He missed a lot, too.

Moore asks many questions about the Senior Bush. He explores who is making money from the war and the profit-making process. The Carlyle Group, Halliburton and Mobil Oil are a few of the biggest benefactors. Among others, the Carlyle Group consists of the senior Bush, James Baker, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and until recently, the bin Laden family (relatives of The bin Laden) were investors.

Moore asks why they — the ones running the war — are profiting from it, especially after the 9/11 Commission has questioned the stated reasons for the war. Moore wonders if the Carlyle Group and Bush family ties with the Saudis protected that country and pushed us toward Iraq instead, even though 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

Besides the issues the movie brings up, it's troubling that the response to Moore is to try to restrict his—and thus our—First Amendment rights. Moore has said his film is about what happened, and has hired people to check and verify the factual basis of everything presented. If he weren't factual, wouldn't the best way to silence his accusations be to offer the truth?

It's a little tiring to hear, once again, that finding ways to restrict our rights—as in the Patriot Act—is the best way to make bad things and people go away.

It reminds me of the recent allegations about baseball player Barry Bonds. At an age when most people are slowing down and losing muscle mass, he is gaining muscle as quickly as a toddler developing leg muscles (proportionally that is). He then hit more home runs in one season than anyone ever has. He was accused of using steroids, of course, and denied it, but would not make his lab tests public.

He shouldn't have to. But if you were innocent, and could stop the critics, wouldn't you want to prove you earned the record without the help of drugs? Wouldn't you want to have that baseball record be untainted by rumors of drug use?

Suppose you or your family—your vice-president, the top people in your Administration—were accused of lying about why we went to war and then were accused of profiting financially from going to war, would you want to clear it up or stop people from hearing about it.

Or maybe it's all right. Some may say, “they all do it. It's okay. Profit is the American way.” If so, it could be time for an ­audit. If the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence during an election year is not a good time for a national self-examination, when would be? Whether we do so or not, the world is certainly taking a second look at who we say we are and how we act right now.

With all the questions that Moore 's film has stirred up — questions about the Administration as well as the Democrats — they should be worried that someone new might come along. Is there a Constitutional Party with a candidate?

Wouldn't the Constitution be a pretty good political platform right now? Congress didn't declare war. What they did was similar to giving the President a voucher to turn whenever he wishes. But it's their job. They all take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then don't. Time to start over?

Family values? How about the Bill of Rights? Those are pretty good values. Discovering the truth would be a good start.

We often hear people validating their positions by claiming themselves consistent with “original intent of the Founding Fathers.” I'm sure I have. Reading The Federalist Papers (written by James Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton). and looking at what happened at the Constitutional Convention, it's clear, however, that there was little on which they all agreed—even on what ended up in the Constitution.

Historian R. B. Bernstein described the position of one of two main factions in those days: “Desiring to preserve liberty and to achieve the common good, Americans established republican forms of government—in which the people held ultimate political power, entrusting it to representatives responsible to them.”

By contrast, the other most popular faction viewed the common good a little differently. They “favored each person's right to pursue his or her interests and abilities to the fullest extent possible.” And that the “republic should take the greatest pains possible not to restrain that process but to guide it so that individual's pursuit of their own interests would foster the public interest.”

The Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention heatedly debated which position should be emphasized. Scholars debated over the original intent for a couple of centuries. Neither side won.

The position of many historians today, states Bernstein, is that “American constitutionalism embodies an ever-shifting balance between these two bodies of thought,” and that we have never had a dramatic shift between the two. (He wrote that in 1996. Times may have changed.) In the name of the public good, the majority does not get to trample on our expression of self-interest — unless our expression affects the rights of others. Over time, we seek a balance.

Bernstein also noted that every previous republic at the time of the Constitutional Convention had “collapsed into anarchy or tyranny.” He explained why.

A balance between the “common good” and individual rights was necessary. What provided the balance? “The precondition for a successful republic . . . was to maintain the people's virtue — their willingness to sacrifice special interests in the service of the public interest.” What seems in short supply now is that very virtue.

The us that makes up the U.S. must at some point swing to the other side and say it's not just about me making sure things work for me and mine. At some point we must say that who we are collectively is important, too. The only way to justify the profit taking that dominates our Iraqi policy now is for us to believe that it's for our own good. That is, that there must be some higher calling, such as avenging 9/11, stopping world terrorism, or a crusade. Fahrenheit 9/11 challenges our assumptions. Moore could be right, half-right or just full of it. But it must be allowed to be presented.

For me, Moore demonstrates just how much we're out of balance right now. Special interests are us/ U.S.

Have a great month,

Steve Hays

BACK TO TOP



HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH