Debating Sicko

I watched Bowling for Columbine in a theater near Lincoln Center, one of my favorite areas in New York. When the credits rolled, the crowd burst into applause, which made me a bit sick -- and I'm a staunch proponent of gun control. But I can't think of someone who I'd less rather have defending a cause of mine than Michael Moore. The guy's techniques are so transparently...untransparent that I think it's only possible to admire him as a propagandist. Of course, propaganda is something those around Lincoln Center are happy to see, if it takes up their side.

Even aside from his treatment of facts, though -- or perhaps this is an inherent part of any work that treats facts the way his does -- I'm most turned off by Moore's condescension to his subjects. I'm happy to ridicule people if they're presented neutrally more or less as they are (here I think of American Movie, Chris Smith's brilliant documentary about a young horror filmmaker in Wisconsin, who's easy both to laugh at and to love), but Moore sets himself up as a champion of the common man. Yet, I have never seen him pass up an opportunity to sneer at the common man for a cheap laugh.

I also haven't seen Sicko, Moore's latest, but I've been following the reaction to it with interest. I imagine there are many things that can be done to improve the American health care system. I'm not sure "change it to the exact system used by Canada or France" is a worthwhile, or even feasible, response. Jane Galt, as always, talks interesting economics that I don't fully understand. Andrew Sullivan points to a brief film that takes the opposite side of Moore's argument, and he also tries to balance the portrait of current American care.

Of course, like all hot-button issues, this one brings out the extremists, like this comment left on Matthew Yglesias' blog:

Sullivan might be right on some issues, but let's not forget he's a diehard capitalist on this issue and would rather see dead children than a broke CEO.

I wouldn't draw attention to such an insanely unfair summary of someone's philosophy if it wasn't fairly common. This is the leftist equivalent of all the righties who say liberals want terrorists to win. Despite the obvious existence of corrupt CEOs, etc., I think the majority of people who believe in the power of the free market do so because they think it can lead to good. Or at least, more good than other solutions. It's wise to debate them on the merits of the arguments. Saying they're rooting for children to die is not just ridiculous but counterproductive.