On the reception of Fahrenheit 9/11

Nick Cohen poses the question in the Evening Standard: 'Why have luvvies fallen for Moore's nonsense?' (The article is not online.) Cohen makes a point already made by several others:

Moore's trick is to subject his viewers to a blizzard of information so they have no time to pause for breath and ask: 'What are you trying to say here?'

But for me this is the money passage:

Traditional Left-wingers would have regarded Saddam's totalitarianism and the Taliban's terror regime as their worst nightmare. They would have shown solidarity with its victims. Even if they opposed wars to remove dictatorships as a greater evil, they would have supported their comrades once the fighting was over.

That Left is all but dead, and Iraqi democrats and socialists can barely get a hearing in the liberal West. What progress there is towards democracy is regarded with widespread indifference or, on occcasion, a morally disgraceful desire for the Saddamist and al Qaeda 'insurgents' to succeed.

Supporting people who share your values in a faraway land can be hard work. You have to take up their cause at meetings, lobby MPs and, perhaps, confront your prejudices - which can mean accepting the consequences of what Bush and Blair do aren't always bad.

It's far easier to flee from complexity and enter the looking-glass world of Michael Moore, where you oppose the powerful whatever they do. If they make a move, you match it with an equal move in the opposite direction. If they U-turn, so do you. And if you find yourself standing on your head and negating every principle you profess to hold, well at least you're in star-spangled company.

(Hat tip: BC and JG.)