Sunday, October 11, 2009

Capitalism: A Love Story - B

In theaters. Rated PG, 127 minutes. Trailer.

Lightning rod director Michael Moore has delivered another entertaining and sporadically challenging documentary about his dim view of America's way of life. That he would overstate his case and make laughable accusations was a foregone conclusion, but I like films that make me think and challenge my conservative worldview. In some ways, Capitalism is Moore's most mature work because it presents a more cohesive statement of principles instead of focusing on a smaller issue like he has done before. Click below for more on CAPITALISM:

As someone that is fiscally and socially conservative, my life experience has also taught me to appreciate the 'beauty of grey'. I love Ayn Rand and embrace objectivism - but not 100% - I can enjoy both Atlas Shrugged and Michael Moore (but loathe Keith Olberman and Glenn Beck). That said, if you're liberal, you'll be saying amen most of the time and if you're a conservative you'll be laughing about half the time.

The film starts with a vintage warning that children and the faint of heart should leave the theater, a funny touch. Then more vintage video about how great America used to be and then even more vintage Roman and Jesus videos dubbed to have them saying ridiculous things. These segments work well and set us up for the inevitable video of someone being foreclosed by the big bad bank. Of course they haven't paid their mortgage, but don't worry about that, Moore just wants you to focus on the human drama of someone bein evicted. For me, a person that has performed foreclosures (only on the courthouse steps, not the throwing people out part), this was especially interesting because of Moore's one sided presentation of the matter.

The film then moves into a deconstruction of the Reagan era and deregulation, focusing on the themes of Roger & Me and the spending habits and priorities of Americans. There is a way too long segment on companies that buy life insurance policies on their employees - a little creepy, sure, but not really a big deal. He also mourns the loss of the way of life he had growing up (dad was an assembly line worker, mom didn't work, went to Catholic school and had plenty of money) and rightly pinpoints that the decimation of the German and Japanese economies in World War II laid the groundwork for the domination of the American auto industry in the 50's, 60's and 70's - but he doesn't acknowledge the massive role that globalization has in helping erode the middle class lifestyle in America. The best of this sequence is his conversations with his father at the site of the plant he used to work at.

The last part of the film is the best - he goes to Wall Street trying to get the money back from the bank bailout and make 'citizens arrests'. He also rightly rips any Congressman that voted for the bailout and correctly points the fingers at the Democrats for this legislation. The funniest line of the movie comes from an unknown Wall Street guy - as the 'fat cats' exit the building after work one day, Moore is trying to catch someone to 'give him advice'...the guy says "don't make any more movies" right away - genius. Moore includes a portion of the last of Franklin Roosevelt's State of the Union Address, which lays out a proposed second bill of rights (I have included the poignant if misguided portion of the Roosevelt speech at the bottom of this review). This succinctly states the liberal view of the USA and modern liberalism's goals - to which I say, great, I like seeing someone lay out what they are for (even though I don't agree with it).

All in all, the film is interesting, but only the weak minded or naive would be convinced by most of his arguments. His diatribes against the Wall Street bailout are dead on - if they get to keep the ridiculous profits that come from their work and risk, the American people shouldn't have to underwrite and bail out the investments if they don't work. I also appreciate his underscoring the erosion of a blue collar middle class - a sad occurence, but a reality in today's global economy. Worth seeing.


FDR - January, 1944

"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

6 comments:

Doctor said...

Too complicated a situation to make a short coherent comment, but worth a try:

Wall Street is full of Democrats donors so it's no surprise they were bailed out. BHO's SOP has been nothing but political payouffs for the first 9 months (giving GM and Chrysler to the unions, etc.).

I do think stabilizing the banking system was a good idea, and I don't think the government should have any say over anyone's salary.

Agree that Beck and Olbermann are both idiots but for different reasons.

Bowling for Columbine is Moore's best film (despite the misguided Charlton Heston ending) since he didn't have a preconceived idea of where it was going and didn't constantly inject himself into the film (haven't seen Capitalism).

Still having trouble reconciling Christianity with capitalism. I do think that Jesus would probably be a socialist (your opinion on this subject would be greatly valued, Priest), but American Capitalism giving people incentive to work and invent has raised standard of living levels to all-time highs and indirectly helped liberate hundreds of millions of people in the last 100 years by giving the wealth to do so (isolation in the Western Hemisphere didn't hurt).

I'm of the opinion that FDR prolonged the Great Depression. Government spending did not get us out it. WWII did by getting the entire country to save everything and work 80 hours a week for little to no pay for 3+ years. That kind of productivity and sacrifice will get you out of any financial crisis.

Lawyer said...

There is also an instructive section when MM goes to the National Archives to read the Constitution and find where capitalism is proscribed for the nation. Of course, its not in there. The reality is, everyone is a socialist on some level. I am fine with providing education for all children (not a federal right, but may as well be) and providing some measure of economic security for the elderly as well as childrens health insurance for poor children- all of that could be viewed as socialist in nature. I simply draw the line between the individual and collective at a much different point than MM and his ideological ilk.

As for whether Jesus would be a capitalist or a socialist, I agree he would be a socialist. But, of course, He was and is concerned with the souls of men, not the governance and economic policies of men. MM includes interviews with priests that state definitively that capitalism is a sin - but to me that is myopic. I think your summary of its benefits means it is the best system even though it isn't perfect.

Doctor said...

There's nothing in the Constitution about nationalized health care or an income tax either. That's a specious argument. Weird that there actually is something about a nationalized postal system.

Priest said...

Sorry to be late on the reply. Let me begin by disagreeing with lawyer. While I do think Jesus is interested in souls, I think he's also interested in government and money. Of course, there was no separation of church and state in either Rome or Israel. Governments and Religious leaders both had a tendency to try and consolidate these two significant power bases. So, the Roman emperors declared themselves gods, and King David moved the temple to Jerusalem after he declared it his capital and began the process of building a permanent temple there. Up until then, it had been in a tent that could be moved around. So, when Jesus attacks the money changers (the act that precipitated his crucifixion), it is a religious act, but he's also attacking the temple system. The temple was controlled by the Sadducees. The Sadducees had been appointed high priests by the Romans and held onto that power by feeding information to the Romans about potential threats. So, his attack is also a political attack. And he dies a political death for it.

Jesus and capitalism vs. socialism is a tough call, partially because neither of these ideas were any where close to fully formed in his day, so we're probably dealing with categories he just wasn't addressing. It's kinda like abortion. We can try and extrapolate out a stance, but the fact is, it just isn't addressed in scripture. It's worth noting that the early church, presumably trying to live out his teachings, was basically voluntary socialism. It's also worth noting that they thought Jesus was coming back in their lifetime and that they modified their behavior when it became evident this wasn't the case. Just because the church was voluntary capitalism doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus taught that imposing socialism was the answer. Rather, it seems likely from how the early church acted even after their initial commune-ism that Jesus taught that in the Kingdom of God the rich were to help the poor out.

I think it's worth going back to ancient Israel to see a system that seems to be at the core of Jesus' own thinking. Israel as a nation was considered to belong to all the Jews. Each family got a certain tract of land when they entered the country. They could do with this land what they wanted. They could sell it, use it as collateral, rent it out, whatever. The only thing was, every 50 years (the year of Jubilee-cue bono), the land returned to it's original owner's family. So, selling it was really just a long-term rent agreement. This allowed an industrious person who wanted to work hard and had a good head for business to get ahead, make money, expand, and potentially pass some wealth to his children. But it also meant every generation or so, no matter how much your parents screwed things up, you weren't forever screwed. The poor got a piece of land back that they could farm or rent or sell for capital to go into some other business.

The year of Jubilee was also known as the Year of the Lord or the Year of the Lord's favor. Jesus quoted passages in Isaiah dealing with the year of Jubilee when folks asked him what he was doing. So, that's not really socialism, but not really capitalism entirely either. What I think we can say was that Jesus was for the poor getting a fair shake and opportunities and not be denied either admittance to the temple (which was happening via the temple tax during his life) or the opportunity to make money on the land.

Priest said...

PS. Also worth noting. It appears that Israel never actually practiced the year of Jubilee.

Lawyer said...

Maybe what I should've said is that JC shouldn't have been concerned with it. I don't want my pastor moonlighting as the police chief because the roles are at odds.