Is a book detailing ways liberals supposedly are hypocrites, eg
““I don’t own a single share of stock,” Michael Moore declares. No, his tax returns show he has owned hundreds of thousands – profiting from some of the very companies (like Halliburton and Boeing) he viciously denounces”
I dont want to debate the book , just wondering of anyone knows where there are some responses or rebuttals to it, Ive had a go on google and in this forum and nothings turned up yet.
Just about everyone’s a hypocrite in one way or another, and the price of taking the moral high ground is that one has more to be hypocritical about. As for Michael Moore, though I may agree with much of his sentiment, I’m with “Team America - World Police” as to his personal attributes.
The term “liberal” is very loose, and is really whatever you define it to be. In the UK it’s a political party, traditionally in the centre, but it currently finds itself on the left due to the Labour party’s rightwards shift. Hating a British liberal would make as much sense as kicking a spaniel, and would probably produce exactly the same hurt expression. They’re generally well-meaning people who are more likely to own a bicycle and a compost heap, a bit different from your US liberal, who if neo-cons are to be believed are the scum-sucking spawn of Satan who will bring about the collapse of decent society with their Godless ways. It’s not an opinion that translates well to this side of the Pond.
US liberals are really only left-leaning and radical compared to the Democrats and Republicans, which are both right-of-centre. There’s more of a spread in the political spectrum in Europe, and over here a radical US liberal would fit right into the mainstream of somewhere progressive like Germany, Netherlands, Sweden etc.
Yeah, and in Saudi Arabia, a US conservative Republican would be a left-wing radical. The Democrats are left of center in the United States, and the Republicans are right of center in the US. Their orientation compared to parties in other countries really aren’t relevant, I don’t think.
Interesting, this sounds like a way in which one exemplary liberal is a hypocrite; I was expecting, from the thread title and the opening sentences, that this book would consist of arguments to the effect that liberalism itself inevitably constitutes hypocrisy.
In this case though, I think the best response is “So what?” - to do otherwise may be to indulge a fallacy of well-poisoning.
Without reading the book or looking at Moore’s tax return I’d WAG that unless Moore is outright lying, he has a lot of money in mutual funds but doesn’t hold any securities outright.
In other words, an examination of his portfolio would show that he doesn’t hold a single share of Halliburton but has money in something like the Fidelity Killer Fund. An examination of the Killer Fund’s annual report will show that the fund’s money is invested in Halliburton and other nefarious merchants of death. The investors in the fund have no influence whatsoever on which securities are held by the fund. This is why so-called “socially responsible” funds have popped up to provide a place to invest with a clear conscience.
Assuming my guess is correct, is Moore guilty of hypocricy? That’s a Great Debate. Is Schweizer trying to smear? I’d say so.
Since the OP says he doesn’t want to debate the premise of the book, but simply to find out what rebuttals or responses to it have been published, I’m going to point out the review by Ben Adler at Powells.com:
[In preview, I see that The Chao mentioned this a few minutes ago, but that link appears to be subscription-only.]
I disagree. First of all, I believe the term as used here in the US has nothing to do with radicalism. A liberal may or may not be radical in his or her beliefs–just like a conservative or anyone else.
Further, it is my opinion that US liberals are mostly to the RIGHT of center. Combine that with the conservatives here and I’d say the vast majority of the entire nation (IMO maybe 70 - 80%) is right of center. Just look around at the politics and policies of the rest of the world and you might agree that we really are that lop-sided politically.
(Yes, I invoked the entire planet. The Whole World (even France). I am actually considering the politics of all human beings–not just the super-special, extra-important, Americans. Though some people think it so, the US is not actually the whole world.)
ouch my head. Never google “michael moore tax return.” You get the worst web sites this side of goat porn.
Does anyone know how to get a copy of Michael Moore’s tax return? It wouldn’t be a public document (like a Presidential candidate). Did Mr. Moore release it for some publicity reason at one time? Was it stolen? Invented?
Gotta concur. I’m definitely one of the more lefty posters on this board, and quite liberal by American standards, but people I get into political discussions with here in the Netherlands call my opinions “conservative” without batting an eye. :eek:
I believe that the allegations of Michael Moore owning stock are based on the tax returns and other disclosure forms of his foundation. The source I read indicated that the holdings were actual stocks, not mutual funds, but were held by his foundation, not by him.
Does it say how much stock he owns? Of course if you saw him at a stockholder’s meeting he owns stock. A lot of information is available to staockholders of a specific company that isn’t available to the general public. Newspapers make a policy of buying stock in companies they ex[ect to be covering.
The stockholders’ meeting is an ethical reason for an activist to own stock in companies whose behavior he wants to change. In order to put an issue on the stockholders’ ballot (reasonable pay for the top officers, pledges to refrain from bribery, for example) you must be a stockholder.