Michael Moore is Not A Democrat

I know I've posted excerpts from this before, but since I continue to see assertions (and not just in our comments) that Michael Moore showing up in someone's box at the Democratic convention makes him some kind of huge influence in the party, I think it's worth returning to the definitive annihilation of that argument by Matt Welch:

Jeff Jarvis says "Michael Moore lost the election." Roger Simon adds that Kerry blew "an obvious opportunity to win the election - the perfect 'Sister Souljah' moment," i.e., denouncing Moore...

[...]

What do these fantasized Souljah moments have in common? Besides being demanded solely of the Democrat, they all call for the nominee to condemn someone who has no elective function or power whatsoever. We are now cycling around to Jeff Jarvis' assertion that Michael Moore cost Kerry the election.

I heard more than 100 people during this election cycle say they intended, through their vote, to repudiate "the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party." Here's the deal: There is no such thing, at least of any significance.

Michael Moore did not even belong to the Democratic Party in 2000; his candidate was Ralph Nader, and Ralph Nader got a meager 2.7% of the vote. For the sake of argument, if you assume (wrongly) that every single one of those Nader voters, plus the 1.3% or so that defected from him in the last minute, represent "the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party," you are talking about 4% of the electorate, and maybe 8% of the Democratic Party. The real figure is likely much lower.

What about this year? In the primary season, Moore endorsed Wesley Clark, who campaigned like a boob, won one primary, and bowed out. Howard Dean, who is assumed (wrongly) to have Moore-like values (despite being a fiscal hawk who supported the four previous U.S.-led wars), didn't win a single primary. The Democratic candidate whose politics most closely mirrored Moore's was Dennis Kucinich, who was beaten like a rented elf. The nomination went to the former prosecutor & War Hero, and he picked as VP the second-most hawkish candidate from the primaries. And the Democratic Party Platform contained few if any of the provisions that the Moore/Nader/Kucinich 8% wing have been advocating for lo these many years.

Look, I used to work for these people, I have covered these people, I have certainly criticized these people, and from this extended exposure I can look you in the eye and say these people do not have a significant voice within the modern Democratic Party.

Yeah, you say, but what about Michael Moore wuz at the Democratic Convention in the skybox?? He was there at the invitation of discredited former president Jimmy Carter, the man who tasted the back of Bill Clinton's hand quite often in the mid-1990s. At the Republican Convention, one could find strolling the halls and signing autographs for worshipful Republican delegates the likes of Jerry Falwell. Who, you may recall, reacted to the Sept. 11 massacre by telling a nodding Pat Robertson that:

[snip famous "the ACLU caused 9/11" quote]

Did Bush "miss a Souljah moment" by refusing to allow Falwell his seat at the RNC (which the Souljah-jonesers in the media demanded of Kerry and Moore)? Somehow, this didn't come up.

Anyway, the main point is not to compare competing fringes, but mostly to point out that the Republicans' extremist fringe includes powerful senior elected politicians from their own party. Moore, for all his sitting-next-to-people action at the DNC, was not invited on the podium. Rick Santorum, the senator from Pennsylvania who has described outlawing gay marriage as "the ultimate Homeland security," gave a rousing speech to the Republicans. Tom Coburn, the new Republican Senator from Oklahoma, has advocated the death penalty for abortion doctors, and held up Fidel Castro's forced AIDS camps as a model worth emulating. Jim DeMint, your new Senator from South Carolina, thinks that single pregnant women shouldn't teach in public schools. If Bush wanted to deliver a "Sister Souljah moment," embracing cross-over moderation at the expense of his own party's fringe, he wouldn't need to take a swipe at a non-politician like Ann Coulter -- he could start in the august hall of the Unites States Senate.

So finally answering Jarvis' question: Did Michael Moore cost Kerry the election? Answer: Maybe! (I think it's impossible to ascribe one reason to a complicated election.) But if it's true, it's only because the people who voted that way didn't know or didn't care that Moore's influence over the Democratic Party pales in comparison to Republican extremists' over the Republicans. [my emphasis]

Look--it is plausible to infer, absent other evidence, that the president of NARAL represents the views of a significant number of pro-choicers (although not all, because there will always be internal disagreements among people with similar views.) This inference can be carried to major figures in political parties, although when you're dealing with sprawling brokerage parties one needs to be more careful. But it's ridiculous to say that Michael Moore "speaks for the Democratic Party," starting with the fact he's not even a partisan Democrat. As Julia noted in comments and Welch also points out, he was a crucial part of Nader's ability to kneecap Gore and deliver the election to Bush. And only people with absolutely no understanding of how politics works would compare sitting in an ex-President's box at a political convention to a serious power broker, let alone with a member of Congress or other important official. Holding up out-of-context Michael Moore quotes to tar Democrats is useless, except in providing strong evidence that the person making the argument is a hack.

...another oldie-but-goodie from Shakes Sis.