It’s a Wonderful Lie

Fahrenheit 9/11 is “a 110-minute hatchet job that doesn’t even bother to pretend to be fair.” Michael Moore mixes “sober outrage with mischievous humor and blithely [violates] the boundary between documentary and demagoguery.” It is “a partisan rallying cry, an angry polemic, a muckraking inquisition.” “Fahrenheit 9/11 never pretends to be an objective study— it’s loaded with spin, sins of omission and obvious vitriol.” “Contradictions run rampant”: The war in Afghanistan should not have been fought, but we didn’t send enough troops; homeland security is Orwellian and too relaxed; Bush is a crafty tyrant and moron.

These are all from rave reviews of the film. It’s hard to recall a similar moment in American discourse. One after another, leading liberal commentators have said a) that Michael Moore is a consummate liar, propagandist, and “cheap shot artist,” and b) that he is a force for good, a prophet, “a credit to the republic” (in the words of the New York Times). Aren’t these things at odds with one another?

About the Author

Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg is a National Review contributing editor.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is “a 110-minute hatchet job that doesn’t even bother to pretend to be fair.” Michael Moore mixes “sober outrage with mischievous humor and blithely [violates] the boundary between documentary and demagoguery.” It is “a partisan rallying cry, an angry polemic, a muckraking inquisition.” “Fahrenheit 9/11 never pretends to be an objective study— it’s loaded with spin, sins of omission and obvious vitriol.” “Contradictions run rampant”: The war in Afghanistan should not have been fought, but we didn’t send enough troops; homeland security is Orwellian and too relaxed; Bush is a crafty tyrant and moron.

These are all from rave reviews of the film. It’s hard to recall a similar moment in American discourse. One after another, leading liberal commentators have said a) that Michael Moore is a consummate liar, propagandist, and “cheap shot artist,” and b) that he is a force for good, a prophet, “a credit to the republic” (in the words of the New York Times). Aren’t these things at odds with one another?