Tell Me Moore

Capsule:  Is our new populism--from Michael Moore's pathos to Fox News' tea-party rage--the anima or the persona of the media?  Do we really treasure the messages of Frank Capra, while yearning to return to the great society of FDR?  Or is populism a useful but only skin-deep adaptation in times of national stress? 

(http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1 ;
http://fora.tv/2009/09/17/Filmmaker_Michael_Moore_on_Capitalism_A_Love_Story#Moore_Says_Greedy_Media_Execs_Killed_the_News_Industry


Michael Moore's latest film, "Capitalism: A Love Story," breaks new ground on populism by pitching some mud onto the current state of capitalism.  Inside Moore's film (produced by Paramount Vantage, Overture, Dog-Eat-Dog Productions and Weinstein Studios,) the documentarian shares a major bank's 2005 Global Markets Report describing the US, the UK and Canada as "the new Plutonomy"--as in, "the world is divided into two blocs: the Plutonomy and the rest."


The bank report, written at the height of the go-go equities-and-real-estate boom, goes on to describe those not in the Plutonomy in class-war-classics edge.  "There are the rest, the 'non-rich,' the multitudinous many...only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the...pie." (Phew.)


Why is Moore making a stingy-hearted yet grandiose markets report a core element in his new film?  Because his thesis is that capitalism has failed and must be transformed into a new sociopolitical reality.  What better way to get our populist emotions stoked in order to entertain a mass conversion than by telling us that some bankers think we may be part of the "multitudinous many" who don't deserve and shouldn't get our piece.

What's not news: the 2005 Plutonomy Report characterizes its US members as the top 1% in riches, accounting for 20% of earnings and 40% of the country's accumulated personal net worth.  Should you fall into the Plutonomy group, there's a kicker lest you get too smug: even the Plutonomy has an upper class that drives it--in this case, the top 0.1% or 100,000 wealthy plutocrats that run the school.  

What is news-y (in our modern emotional-context-as-subject sense of "the news") is the Report's actual language, revealing its authors' callousness in the face of wealth disparities.  Moore is well-synced to the growing anger inside an increasingly divided citizenry feeling cut out of the power structure they helped build.  He's also extreme in letting this report carry the image of successful banking institutions around the world.  It's unlikely that the Plutonomy Report, if carefully read, even carried the full sympathies of its own bank's management--but, taken out of context, it's tough stuff.


The actual Plutonomy Report, linked above, makes better reading after the film.  Moore's populism and relentless accusatory stance sets us up for distrust and anger, easily heightened by those authoring the bank analysis who, after breaking what might be to many a scary idea about wealth concentration in the hands of 100,000 US Plutocrats, follow with the line: "It gets better (or worse, depending on your political stripe.)"  Bwah-hahahaha!  Is it really possible to break the Republican and Democratic parties down to those who have it and those who have had it taken away?


Of course, the global economy has collapsed since these supposedly teflon ideas were shared only four years ago; and, the collapse occurred both despite and because of the wealth creation drivers we celebrated. The near-term drivers cited by the bank include: disruptive technology-driven productivity gains; creative financial innovations; capitalist friendly cooperative governments; the international dimension of immigrants and overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation; the rule of law and the patenting of inventions. The more direct contributors: the major drops in the tax rates assessed on high income wage-earners beginning in the 1980's.


All of these factors changed the character of the Anglo Saxon rich "from coupon-clipping dividend-receiving rentiers to a Managerial Aristocracy indulged by their shareholders."  (Anyone hear a drum beating?)  Influencing the Managerial Aristocracy is the Report's idea--there was no footnote to make us think this is a fact--that the "top" 2% of the global population has high dopamine levels, leading to the high risk comfort of entrepreneurs and their capital supporters--which may be read to mean that the risk-seekers deserve to inherit the earth.  The authors' reference to immigrants as Plutonomy drivers doesn't liberate US immigrants in gratitude for their support of our wealth-generation; it refers to the top 2% of the human dopamine-rich population that have become US immigrants because they are such risk-seeking wild-and-crazy guys.  (Them, we'll keep.)


And, these huge dopamine dollops inside the Plutocrats also lead to risky personal investment behavior--which thrills the authors, who gush: "The coolest figures: the higher the share of income going to the top 1%, the lower the overall US savings rate."


The hardest part about reading this report, like watching a Michael Moore film, is coming to grips with its fundamental truths.  The bankers who wrote it were being statistically accurate in describing where the wealth was in the world--at least, in the western world.  Their analysis also seems accurate as to how we got where we are--the dopamine link notwithstanding.  But the glee inside the authors' choice of words about global inequities is insulting and Moore seems to cherish the insults as he winds up to hurl his own brand. 

Throughout "Capitalism," Moore insists that the folks on Wall Street produced nothing of value before the credit markets collapsed.  This idea is fundamentally and ethically wrong and Moore seems too smart in the grand manipulation of his film for us to believe that he actually believes his emotional self.

Beware of all of the masterful showmen who don the populist banner.  BSkyB in the UK has announced the beginning this month of a complete rebranding campaign that will strive to present "a warmer image" so that BSkyB, run by Rupert Murdoch's son James as an important part of the News Corp. empire, can "replace the BBC as the UK's most loved and respected source of entertainment."  Love and respect are words so emotionally charged as to make us think with our hearts.  Sadly, thinking with our hearts leads us away from the cognitive vigilance we need in order to judge the snake oil salesmen as distinct from our fear of snakes.

The extreme emotion expended in media in this post-collapse-pre-recovery age is alarming.  Reality shows dwell on anger, fears and tears drawn from dance performances, weight loss, well or badly realized love and the quotidian frustrations of American life.  David Letterman's confession of office affairs during his show last week seemed so much the stuff of popular TV that many in his audience thought his on-air confession was a bit.  And in many ways, it was.  The confession may have been sincere and true, but the confessor knew on some level that it could be done because it would fit into the fabric of today's media entertainment rather nicely.

Unfortunately, the news and news analysis we hunger for fit into the fabric of media entertainment oh-so-badly, especially if we're trying to find an educated clarity about what's really going on.  The BBC, EuroNews and a handful of straightforward news brands dare to share what's really taking place in the world without attempting to be too entertaining.

But what American voices have the seriousness necessary to deliver the tough messages about what's really happening in the US economy, politics and our quality of life?  Whom can we trust when words like "fair" and "balanced" are appropriated over networks promoting news personalities that weep on air about the Obama administration's liberal aspirations?  Who will have the courage to expose the next Plutonomy report before the crash without fear of being ruined by the banking establishment--most of whom would in real life find the ideas inside as troubling as their audience?

Unfortunately, we've got little cause for hope at least inside the din of what's working in the media these days.  If there were a brilliant low-emotion Mr. Spock on the news horizon, he or she might be talking about jobs.  Last week's announcement about unexpectedly high job losses in September disturbed many but was reported as a bad statistic rather than as a real technical and human story from which we might draw hope and a plan.

The truth about job creation is that it's a disturbingly uncooperative process for minds working inside major corporate or government hierarchies.  You can't go to one place to cover it or to manage it or even to explain it.  The majority of new jobs that are being created in the US today and that likely will be created in the next five years are coming from small businesses with fewer than 50 employees.  Who in government or the media understands this distributed world?

Small business might make interesting headlines or television if marginalized like last year's Joe-the-Plumber.  Instead, what if the media could talk about what needs to be done and what is being done, in an effort to inspire its audience towards growth.  When CNN reaches toward inspiration with its "Heros" series, it's using as a backdrop the idea of a single selfless savior reaching out to society's most disadvantaged members.  The ideal of charity is powerfully worthwhile and CNN's celebrations of charitable good works are more soul-feeding stuff than one can generally find across the internet or the interactive TV guide.

But what about the work that needs to take place without a savior?  Who can help us understand the major socioeconomic trends in the world and in our country so that we can take this knowledge and make a difference?  What business and government leadership is moving in this direction?  At times, it feels as if our need to make a rock star or a villain out of every major personality in the news is so pervasively destructive that the media has become a large part of why we're stuck in a rut. 

Content companies can make a difference, especially news organizations who can demonstrate a facility with the complexity of daily life that helps consumers understand what's happening around them on the way to a hopeful future.  Distribution companies can create new products and new jobs inside traditional structures and on the periphery in new organizational forms.  They can also examine their vendor relationships and attempt to support the US economy through small business health inside their local service areas.  

It's a good time and perhaps a financially viable time for the media brands who want to distinguish themselves to try to make a rational difference.  Most consumers don't think with their emotions all the time.  Our rationality keeps us in the center and the center holds as long as we have reliable information, thoughtful analysis and a little social encouragement.