"empirically fat"

Steph,
I just wanted to clarify. I thought that being fat was framed as an opinion and being manipulative was framed as a moral argument. In this case, it might be difficult to argue the opposite but I question if those boundaries are so easily demarcated.

On a different note, Stephen mentioned a second critique of deliberative democracy that we didn't have time to discuss and that was the dd can be elitist. Since I brought up Town Meeting last night (which I am a supporter of), I do feel (morally?) obligated to say that one of the critiques of Amherst town meeting is that only a small percentage of people end up participating and many working families don't have time to participate. But I seriously question that argument on a few different levels that I will write in about later.

last night, i had questions about whether the deliber idea was only on paper, not in practice...not sure if you all were speaking about THEIR procedure in particular,or any work on deliberation. i seemed to remember plenty of empirical/programmatic work on deliberation (with humans) from studyng with john gastil at the univ of washington. i kept quiet about this because i couldn't remember names... but just checked and remember mostly the work done by The Kettering Foundation http://www.kettering.org/index.html

Their buds Max McCombs and Amy Reynolds did the National Issues Conventions, bringing people together for discussion of voting issues during a presidential campaign, then doing a poll AFTER the deliberation.

On the site you'll find
this book: Creating Citizens through Public Deliberation (2004)
These case studies describe how nongovernmental organizations in 10 countries are using public deliberation to help citizens think of themselves as political actors who can change the course of their communities.

Other colleagues of theirs are David Schoem and sylvia Hurtado, who do delib stuff in schools and communities

And then of course there are all the folks in the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation
www.thataway.org

I can't say report that it's perfect or that it works, but just have heard about the work being done.

Camille, you're right - fatness can supposedly be empirically verified but not liking someone on that basis is an opinion, not a point of moral dispute (although that could shift in a different context, couldn't it?)

Regarding empirical fatness, there are so many spaces where body, history, science and culture collide--since i didn't take part in that discussion I'll refrain from further comment due to lack of empirical experience.

Although. . . I have a bootleg of Fahrenheit 9/11 if anyone's interested in further discussion(not mine though, I've "borrowed" it for awhile).

What is interesting to me is how so much of the reading (which i did not do) parallels my background in conflict/ mediation stuff. Although the focus was always on deliberative and procedural "justice" rather than democracy.

Re: my presence. i suppose the obligation now is to "voice". Or does silence speak in democracy?

Leda

I have to disagree that Stephen put forth a powerful argument or critique against Moore's film and/or if he used Gutmann & Thompson's model correctly, then maybe I am just agreeing with the class that the model is weak.

I read a critique of Mooreís film that I thought was quite worthy of reading this summer on the anthro list-srv. I forget the author's name and I really wanted to get it before spouting off about it b/c its been quite awhile now since I read it --I think the article was 'Why MM's film isn't a left film." If I recall correctly, the points that I agree with the author were mainly around its racist bias (negative portrayals of other countries, focus on white groups and people, assumption that audience is white). Jose told me that Henry might have a copy so I will try and get one.

They also critiqued Moore for lambasting Bush with barely a critique of the Democratic party. While I share their view of the Dem party (or at least the ones that are in control of it), I think that Moore is clear about his position in the film and presents an emotional, one-sided film. Iím OK with that. Is he trying to make people believe his version of history/politics? Yes. Donít most of us when we tell a story? I guess this is the part of Stephenís argument that I donít understand. Funny, because I agree with him that there is no Truth (though I believe in more socially just truths/versions.) But Iím confused how we would persuade or transform opinion for more just futures without trying to present a powerful story. The media is not a hypodermic needle and many stories are circulating; I donít think we have to demean movie goers by accusing them of not being aware of this or being so easily manipulated. (Donít forget that it wasnít MMís doing that got it the coverage that it did rather Miramaxís attempted suppression.) Maybe media effects scholars will take me to task on this and Iím willing and feel morally obligated to listen!

Secondly, Stephenís claim (moral argument) that the woman/mother who was pissed off and emotionally destroyed in the film was exploited is even more confusing to me. Why is emotional outrage dismissed so easily? Why is she positioned by Stephen as a victim? Why should she just be ìleft alone?î Young talks about how ìnorms of deliberation often privilege speech which is dispassionate and disembodiedî (39). (Thatís how far Iíve gotten in the reading!)

I am all in favor of critiquing the movie, and perhaps, even using a moral argument but I guess Stephen would need to spell out his argument a little more clearly and less stereotypically if I were to agree that it was a terrible film and to understand how Gutmann and Thompsonís model would work. In many ways I would like to just move on from MMís movie so I should get reading Young so that maybe Iíll have read the book before I comment next time!

It just dawned on me that I'm as spaced out as Scott was. oops.
Camille

By the way, Its not that I think being fat and or not liking fat people can be empirically proved its that I thought that the entire line fat/not liking was ruled out in G & T;s model and being manipulative is instead the "correct format" for arguing.
Camille

"Empirically fat" was a joke, of course, but one meant to show the kind of opinions that are NOT deliberative arguments. G&T, like most deliberative democrats, make no room for ad hominem attacks. So in saying in, I expected it to be thrown out by a healthy deliberative system.

The MORAL argument I made against Moore is that his propagandistic style lowers us to the likes of Karl Rove, who seeks to win above anything. The argument was that if we play by those rules (or by negative advertisements and not by policy), then we will never get out of this ugly system. We might lose the election by refusing such communicative forms, but we will win the moral high ground, which has its own capital. (This was, BTW, an argument made by certain democrats during the primaries.) In other words, exploitation cannot breed justice.

Viveca's argument, that it is more just to do what is necessary to win and feed children now than wait for some future victory, is also compelling. Again, it is not an ad hominem or just an opinion, but rather argumentation (as the deliberative democrats would see it). If she and I wish to engage each other democratically, we have to respect the moral integrity of these two positions and try to talk about them, if not reach some consensus.

Is this depiction of deliberation a naive theory of politics? Perhaps. Idealistic? Most certainly. But G&T are very clear that it could be taught, that we could practice it, and that if we did, folks on the left and right just might find a healthy and open communication to replace the truly ugly partisan shouting that dominates the public sphere. And Joanna notes that there are plenty of good folks trying it out. I would also add to her list Let's Talk America.

Scott asks if I really support this moral position. I'm not sure how much my actual commitments matter with respect to my ability to argue for it, but just to be fair I'll lay my cards on the table. I think any savvy rhetorician knows you have to fight propaganda with propaganda. My real problem with Moore is not that I think he is propagandistic, but that he does it in a way that is too crass, whereas my and his political opponents are much more slick. Swiftboat Veterans does in 60 seconds what Moore can't do in 2 hours. That says something to me about the rhetorical weaknesses and inconsistencies of the left.

And yet also, somewhere deep in my heart, I suspect my leftist politics and win-at-all-cost-because-your-opponents-will-do-the-same strategies are killing any hope for a democratic world.

Hey, thanks for ignoring my comments all together. I knew that being fat was a joke which is what I tried to clarify, I later thought maybe the mother argument was also a joke which is why I said I might have spaced on that one BUT what I called "manipulative" was shorthand for what you called "his propagandistic style lowers us to the likes of Karl Rove, who seeks to win above anything. The argument was that if we play by those rules (or by negative advertisements and not by policy), then we will never get out of this ugly system" is what I was questioning. I'm not sure I get the "crass" point either. (Isnít that usually used against working-class over emotional people, I think Iíve been called crass before.) My point was that his film can/should be critiqued but Iím not sure that your critique is very clear. What would a film look like under G & Sís model? Are ëOutfoxedí and ëBush Family Fortunesí better or more of the same?

I went to the website of Lets Talk America and it seems like an interesting model, somewhat like what ethnographic approaches can accomplish because you really get to hear, perhaps understand, the Other's viewpoint. Interesting that part of their mission is to bring a town-meeting style to these meetings, which they call the heartblood of America. But they meet in libraries face-to-face. Can the same standards be held for the mediated public sphere where the means of control are in the hands of the Right? Maybe they can, but Iím not so sure when it seems that the left canít get the right to engage in dialogue. Did they respond to any of the issues that Moore raised? I agree with you 100% about the rhetorical weaknesses of the left but I question what is the way out of this conundrum. (which I see you do as well.) The right is slick so is being crass possibly more moral than being slick?

It would be interesting to hear about other non-U.S. public spheres, perhaps models or parts of models exist there.

I'm intrigued by Camille's question about crassness and morality, and linking it to the body (when, where, by and with whom is it allowed to be present) and also to Leda's comment about silence. DOES "silence speak in a democracy"? Because it seems like taking the moral high ground has an aura of invisibility about it, a non-saying, and yet the body (originator of the silence) is still there ~ occupying space, utilizing time, producing/emanating energy.

Iíve expressed two points of view that seem to be conjoined by others, so I want to clarify.

The first was a moral argument against Mooreís films to illustrate one way of looking at deliberative democratic exchanges: (1) propagandistic films of any sort perpetuate a bitter, partisan, and unjust political system, (2) Fahrenheit 9/11 is a propagandistic film, so (3) Mooreís film perpetuates a bitter, partisan, and unjust system. If you agree with this argument, or if you are willing to recognize its moral implications and integrity (exploitation of an audience cannot breed justice), then our collective question is what to do about it. This is a non-partisan argument against all forms of propaganda, regardless of their political ideology or source; healthy democracy cannot exist if caught in such a web.

The second was my personal criticism of Mooreís films, which I see as failing to do the primary work of propaganda, namely to seduce others who would otherwise not agree. I think Moore preaches to the choir, and has actually played into the hands of the Right by becoming a caricature of the outrageous / crass liberal. We would need to see the numbers, but I suspect more ìundecidedî voters turned against Kerry thanks to Swiftboat Veterans than they did against Bush thanks to F9/11. Why? Because Moore talks like a liberal, frames images like a liberal, and nurtures like a liberal. The Swiftboat Veterans showed both the ìstern fatherî morality of conservatives (Iím referencing George Lakoff here) AND managed to look like politically neutral, everyday folks. As a leftist, I want us to be rhetorically savvy about form and audience. This is why Fishís comments interest me. Perhaps itís not a capitulation to the Right; perhaps heís decided to play their game and strike from within.

Camille, I completely agree with you that the emotional life is of supreme importance to human society and healthy democratic discourse, but weíre both on the Left in saying that. Our emphasis on emotions is not met with equal fervor on the Right, or even among certain versions of democratic theory (such as Habermas). I wish we didnít, but we MUST make a clear case for why the emotional life matters in public, and we canít think that such a declaration is neutral and easily accepted.

Now: is it any wonder that Iím confused? Stephen makes the argument that Mooreís film is bad because

a) it is propaganda

and

b) it is ineffective propaganda

No - just kidding. I understand the distinction (and I confess - I was a little spaced out). But, for what it's worth, here's my take on the film:

As to charge a): I think this whole question of whether or not the film is propaganda is kind of moot. First off ñ how do we define ìpropagandaî? If we take Stephenís claim, that propaganda is any film which attempts to ìseduceî its viewers, weíre left with the question ñ what film is NOT propaganda? Iíd submit the primary motive behind any act of communication is to, in one way or another, ìseduce.î But certainly that is the case with documentary ñ whether weíre talking about Ken Burns or Michael Moore, the implicit, motivating force behind any documentary is the demand: ìBelieve me.î Since any attempt to represent the world is also an act of interpretation; and any attempt to ìpresentî that interpretation, is also an attempt to win others over to it (i.e. an act of ìseductionî), then whatís the point in bickering over the propagandistic tendencies of F 9/11, or any other film for that matter?

To me, what we can argue over is whether or not the film attempts to disguise its own propagandistic tendencies. In this regard, I find F9/11 refreshingly HONEST. Moore has never claimed ìtruthî for his film (although he has continuously defended the ìtruthfulnessî of specific claims made in the film). He has described it, over and over again, as an ìop-edî piece ñ that is, as a specific interpretation of events; not an objective presentation of the ìfacts.î And, indeed, the discourse of the film backs these claims up. The film is structured as a personal argument ñ and if we take umbrage with what is said, we know where to go ñ the most distinctive aspect of Mooreís style is that he foregrounds himself as interpreter. Many find Mooreís use of himself (or more accurately, the persona he has constructed for himself and performs on screen) as arrogant and self-serving ñ which is true enough ñ but it also makes his films a bit more laudable. Critics like to deride the film as ìMichael Mooreís version of reality ñ Michael Mooreís version of the factsî ñ the irony is that, to his credit, this is all a Michael Moore film ever claims.

In fact, this leads me towards a more provisional definition of ìpropaganda.î Iíd argue that a more useful definition of propaganda would be not simply a film which attempts to seduce ñ but a film which attempts to seduce precisely by defining itself as neutral and objective ñ that is, an act of seduction which denies its own seductive tendencies. For instance: Fox News Channelsí claim that it is Fair and Balanced. This is the kind of ìpropagandaî we should be worried about; not because it attempts to convince viewers of a certain point of view, but because it encourages passive viewers who accept what they hear because it is defined as objective fact. We can argue that Mooreís film is slick, manipulative, racist, exploitative ñ even just plain wrong ñ but I donít think it ever claims to be objective or neutral. I think there are a lot of arguments to be made against this film ñ good arguments ñ but the propaganda argument isnít one of them.

Second ñ as far as the claim that it is bad at what it does ñ that the Swift Boat Veterans convinced more viewers in 60 seconds than F9/11 did in two hours ñ is an argument that I am deeply skeptical of. I can only speak anecdotally, of course, but the enthusiastic response the film got at a south-eastern, MA multiplex (believe it or not ñ there are conservative parts of Massachusetts, and this is one of them) was anything but an instance of the film preaching to the choir ñ indeed, the fact that the film played to sold-out audiences in this part of the state would argue against that claim. Either way, it is literally the only time that I came out of a movie at the mall and people were arguing about politics in the lobby.

Of course, there can be arguments made about the fact the Moore presents himself as an unabashed liberal, and that this inhibits the amount of people the film will speak to ñ but is this really such a bad thing? Considering Donnaís well-taken point about the fact that liberal has become a dirty word in the contemporary American context, I for one am glad thereís somebody out there proudly reclaiming that label as a legitimate position from which to speak ñ even if he is an arrogant, self-serving, loud-mouth! Furthermore, if the ìliberal biasî of the film has turned off a wide swath of the folks whose minds Moore is trying to change, this has as much (if not more) to do with the way in which the conservative talk-machine has worked feverishly to define the film as an anti-American piece of garbage, as it does with the way in which Moore defines himself. I guess I see Stephen's point here - that Moore acts into this by playing the part of the lunatic-leftie; but just how are liberals supposed to act? Either we're eletist, patrician, and boring (John Kerry); crazy, out of touch, and out of control (Howard Dean), or crass and un-American (Michael Moore). There's a conservative stereotype for every liberal "mode of performance" out there - so just how are we supposed to present ourselves? If there's anything good to be said about Moore's schtick it is that, unlike most prominent liberals, he's unapologetic about being one. Amen to that.

And as far as the Swift Boat Veterans go, I donít think it can be proved at all who has convinced more voters ñ the ad or the film ñ but certainly, if the SBVs HAVE won it has much more to do with their use of the advertising system than it does with their filmmaking techniques. As a feature film, viewers must, at the very least, choose to go see Mooreís film. However, anyone who watches even a small amount of television has no doubt been subjected to multiple viewings of the SBV ad. With that in mind, say what you will about Mooreís film, but the amount of box office it has done (as a documentary, no less) says volumes for his ability to get people to sit down and listen (and pay for the opportunity, lest we forget). ìPreaching to the choirî is not nearly enough to explain this success.

Having said all that, there is much to dislike about the film. While I support the way in which Moore makes his arguments, I do not support some of the arguments themselves. For instance, I agree with the claims that the film dabbles in racism. His despicable assertion that the Bushes cannot be trusted simply because they have connections to Saudi Arabia is flat out xenophobic, and exactly the kind of claims we could have expected from the conservative right had Al Gore been in office during 9/11. This kind of argument buys into exactly the kind of ìus vs. themî reasoning that led to widespread support of the war in Iraq to begin with. Itís an argument that no self-proclaimed liberal should be making. But beyond its racist undertones, its also unforgivably simplistic. The real relationships Moore should have been revealing there are the larger, structural workings of global power ñ a system that both Republican and Democratic parties have a stake in. The claim that those in charge of the American political system might be more interested in oil and overseas markets than the well-being of the American (or ñ to be sure ñ Iraqi) people is a claim well-worth making ñ the conspiratorial notion that itís ìjust the Bushesî is disingenuous, simplistic, and unhelpful. I think Ralph Nader would concur.

To me, Moore makes his most powerful arguments in the second half of the film, when he starts talking about the costs of war, for both Iraqis and Americans. The fact that it is, by and large, a certain segment of the population that actually fights and dies when politicians declare war is an important fact that is hardly ever spoken about ñ much less acknowledged ñ in mainstream American culture. As for his use of the GI mother, I havenít made up my mind about this. This seems to be one of those questions in which hypothetical lines are drawn, and arguments must be made about whether or not those lines have been ìcrossed.î Any act of filming is always an act of exploitation, in some way, shape, or form. But regardless of where we come down on that question, I think that ñ rhetorically speaking ñ the narrative Moore invokes there ñ of a conservative, ìpatrioticî mother becoming radicalized after the death of her son, is pretty powerful stuff.

Scott,
you rock!

I agree with much of Scottís comments on the Moore film As for crassóinsensitive, stupid, gross, tactless, obtuse, inane, blundering, ridiculousówhich of those Word-listed synonyms most closely applies? Certainly not inane or ridiculousÖ.perhaps tactless, but tact is a gift we offer to those with whom we want to remain friendly. I donít expect that the Bushes are going to invite Mr. Moore to Crawford or Kennebunkport. It is only fitting that Mr. Moore excoriates the Bush familyís march to war, since, after all Mr. Moore received film tutelage from a Bush Cousin (Kevin Rafferty).

I disagree, kindly, however, with Scott that Moore asserts that ìthe Bushes cannot be trusted simply because they have connections to Saudi Arabia is flat out xenophobic, and exactly the kind of claims we could have expected from the conservative right had Al Gore been in office during 9/11.î

Hardly. Moore asserts that the *Saudi Royal Family* has influence with the Bush familyís oil companies (and consequently due to 2 presidencies, government). I didnít see ALL Saudis blamed, I just saw the Royal Family.

Moore did reveal, by way of House of Saud, House of Bush companiesí example, the ìlarger, structural workings of global power ñ a system that both Republican and Democratic parties have a stake in.î How else do you represent that argument in a popular way, without using such a glaring and timely example? I thought he was successful in making that clear. I guess I was wrongósome just saw Saudis blamed as the problem.

I cannot help commenting on the series of scenes in Fahrenheit 9/11 that feature the GI's mother. My first reaction to the scene was that it is a perfect example of a type of presentation that to me, as a Hungarian, comes across as patently U.S. American. It reminded me of another performance at my old university, SUNY-Albany, when a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) speaker stood on the podium and related, in tears, the story of how her son was lost in a car accident that involved drunk driving. It is so cliche for international students to come out with their respective culture shocks, but I will, all the same, for the sake of the argument. I found seeing this woman up there, in tears, talking about her deepest sorrows IN FRONT OF A CROWD deeply shocking. I cannot imagine a similar scene taking place in Hungary where the loss of your son is your business and noone else's, period.

After having encountered similar performances I gradually came to realize that speaking of your private feelings in formt of a multitude of people - if it's done in the name of a good cause - is a mode of public speaking that is considered sensible and agreeable by many U.S. Americans. The presentation of feelings in public served a genuinely honest and moral end for that MADD mom, and for the crowd that accepted it as sensible.

Superimposing these personal experiences on the presentation of the GI mother in Moore's film I am ready to risk an argument: the presentation of the mother's change of mind in an intensely political film is a performance of political (democratic) participation. This argument of course presupposes that the presentation took place with the mother's willing participation. With the American frame of reference in mind I see the mother's willingness to present her private feelings to millions who watched Moore's film as an example of democratic participation.

Has Moore taken it too far with this woman? Possibly. I feel that Scott, for example, has reservations. But it is "powerful stuff" all right - the utilization of a genre in a powerful way.

a quick note on the mother in moore's film: I heard her on Amy Goodman's show and she credited and thanked Moore for her ability to move from paralysis and mourning to *voice*ing dissent, making moves towards advocacy/lobby, and, of course, therapeutic expression/catharsis. All of those moves seem to be democractic opportunities that might not have been available (to this extent) had Moore not given her a platform for performance.

Speaking of performance, my experience was that this mother's story was the most UNcomfortable part of the movie, the part that I personally banked on to 'move' people. So though it was difficult for me to watch, I appreciated the emotional performance that David speaks of - precisely because it WOULD make people uncomfortable. I tend to resist the convention of keeping public speech contained, impersonal, and rational.

When I claimed that Moore exploited the grieving mother (Lila Lipscomb) in class, there was little uptake. Weíve worked out more of an argument here since Camille introduced it. Let me make a case why I think what he did is exploitative: In his attempt to tell his story, Moore did not consider how the political Right would frame Lipscomb and let her performance play into their hands. Did any of you catch the Right-leaning critiques of F911? They said exactly that: liberals will stop at nothing to spread their propaganda, even prey on women. It doesnít matter if she went on Amy Goodmanís show and claimed otherwise. Itís that she never went on Bill OíReillyís or Rush Limbaughís, and even when she talked to USAToday or Good Morning America or the Guardian, they asked her about Mooreís penchant for manipulation. Conservative blogs lit up with accusations of Mooreís decision to ìuseî her, and thus it actually made liberals seem like the uncaring ones who put winning above human decency. They beat the liberals at their own game of nurturing, folks, and Moore continually lets that happen in his films.

For those of you who think SBV did not have a greater impact than F911, have you seen the electoral map Bryan sent us? If F911ís October release swings voters the other way, I will gladly recant, but again my claim is that Moore (like most liberals) puts absolutely no thought into how the opposition will spin him, and this is why he does more harm than good. Conservatives are winning the battle of framing politics because liberals simply do not anticipate their opponentís maneuvers in the chess game of politics. I hear from the political talk shows that when SBV came out, Kerryís advisors urged him not to return fire and go on the offensive. Why is it Kerry seems to understand what kind of rhetorical situation weíre in but his supporters donít? Perhaps because they are so angry at the way Bush performs, they refuse to see how slick and convincing it is.

I agree completely with Davidís argument that Lipscomb has the most striking pathos in the film and that her public display of emotion is a performance of democratic participation (if she was not coerced, as Joanna testifies). As a lover of democracy, I would like nothing more than a world predicated on such dissent and emotional displays. But as a rhetorical strategist, I am deeply concerned that Moore frames emotion the way liberals frame emotion and thus does not get the number of people who matter to come over. Am I alone in saying that liberals and conservatives have remarkably different ways of performing emotion? Or that the conservative set of performances now reigns?

Finally, Scott: I didnít say propaganda is seduction. I said it is seduction that moves people who would not otherwise agree. I like your definition of propaganda to include forms that hide behind neutrality and objectivity, but I think weíd be incredibly naÔve not to note that propaganda works to advance certain lived conditions in the material world. Itís not just ìBelieve Me.î Itís ìBelieve Me and Do as I Say in the Political Arena.î So I take umbrage with your putting Ken Burns and Michael Moore together. They are exponentially different in their aims, judgments, and rhetorical constitutions. (Having said that, I wish Burns were making propaganda films for my side.)

To your question, how should liberals act? The answer: not like lunatics, elitists, or nurturers. How about like sane, clean-cut, god-fearing, family-oriented patriots who wave the flag proudly and say it like it is through sound-bites? Kerry could have done thisóI believe he still can in a way during the debatesóbut Iím not sure if the people who want Bush out of power so badly will let him do what it takes to win.

Oh, hey! Let me be clear here: I was not in any way attempting to equate Ken "I invented Jazz, Baseball, and the Civil War" Burns with Michael Moore! (Surely I'd have failed my comps question on Documentary with such a claim). I was trying to say that even documentary styles as different as Burns and Moore have some similarities at their base.

As to the second point - about how Liberals should act. I'm serious this time, and not just spacing out. It really seems to me that we have a bit of a double standard going on here. On the one hand, we have a great discussion going on about what forms democratic communication should take - and on the other hand, we are supporting a "rhetorical strategy" that goes explicitly AGAINST such a form. Stephen said:

"To your question, how should liberals act? The answer: not like lunatics, elitists, or nurturers. How about like sane, clean-cut, god-fearing, family-oriented patriots who wave the flag proudly and say it like it is through sound-bites?"

My question is still: which is it? Are we proponents of Town Meeting, disagreement, moral reflexivity, and radical antagonism - or are we diabolical manipulators, willing to sacrafice such a form in order to "win" outright???

I suspect Stephen's answer will be "both." I don't mean this as a challenge, but as an honest question. I find myself agreeing with Stephen when he argues eloquently for a radical democratic form, and agreeing with him when he argues that John Kerry should fight dirty, and Michael Moore should be better at playing the spin game.

But I have yet to reconcile, in my own mind, how these two things go together. I'd love it if we could throw this question into the arena at some point.

Scott