I wasn't aware that being politically
liberal, well connected and wealthy
gave people more credibility in their
opinions and the right to impose them
on others in an inappropriate forum.
I think there are several issues intermingled here:
1. Did Moore have the right to "impose" his views?
2. Did he select an appropriate forum to do so?
3. Did the nature of the audience affect either the appropriateness of his selection of a forum or lend more credibility to what he said?
My own view is that he has the right to say whatever he wants. While Moore is at times excruciatingly funny, more often I find when watching him that when he opens his mouth he merely removes all doubt.
That having been said, I think the answer to question #1 above is clearly "yes", he had the right to say what he did. That's what makes this America and other countries what they are. It's not a matter of imposing his views. He can't do that as long as we can think.
Did he select an appropriate forum? I suppose that depends on what his goals were. Some would argue that when our troops are at war it is never appropriate to dis the CIC like that. I won't go that far, for the display of opposition to a war effort is one of this superpower's primary checks on misguided militarism. In the present case I think the protests make little difference because they are clearly understood to represent a view that is not held by the majority of the population, and because in many cases the front and center of the civil unrest is being fomented by professional pot stirrers. I think Moore wanted to express dissent to the view that the Oscars should just quietly go about their business, and probably felt even more strongly that way since many of the attendees opposed the war but felt like they might p*ss off mainstream America if they stood up and said so. Moore didn't have to worry about that, because mainstream America isn't really his core audience.
Which leads to question #3 -- does the nature of the audience matter, either in the appropriateness or the credibility of the message? I think it doesn't matter at all for the credibility, and if anything, people tend to suspect the motives and credibility of stars posing as public policy experts. The credibility of the statement really stands by itself in that situation, not affected one way or the other by who was sitting there in the audience. I do think that the audience, not necessarily its wealth but its perceived political bent combined with the fact that they were largely observing a self imposed silence, made it appropriate for Moore to select that particular forum.
He is, after all, a pot stirrer. It's what he does, almost how he is defined. And there he was, among a group of wealthy and influential pot stirrers who badly wanted to stir a pot but didn't dare. That had to be a temptation Moore just couldn't resist. |
