Michael Moore Votes Republican

In a recent Rolling Stone interview, noted controversial leftist documentary filmmaker Michael Moore confessed to something that will surprise many of his die-hard fans.

He votes straight-ticket Republican, and has for many years.

Asked why, Moore explained that it was for "job security reasons." "My business model depends on the right being in power," he explains. "There needs to be a machine to rage against, or my films don't get much press."

Michael Moore, creator of hard-hitting political documentaries like Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko, rose to prominence during the Bush administration, with Fahrenheit 9/11 grossing more money than any other documentary in history. The former president's controversial policies and war actions, combined with overall Republican control of the federal government, made a ripe market for films targeted at the disillusioned left. The danger, of course, is that sometimes these films actually make a difference.

"I was afraid I'd overdone it when Obama got elected," Moore recalls. "Suddenly the Democrats controlled both houses, healthcare was being overhauled, and I was running out of things to complain about. Nothing to complain about means no films. I made a documentary attacking capitalism, for Chrissake. I'm a multi-millionaire and I attacked capitalism. Even some of my strongest supporters thought I was reaching."

2010 proved a hopeful year for Moore, with the Democrats losing the most seats during a midterm election that America had seen for over 70 years. He remains cautiously optimistic about the outcome of the 2012 election, but in his own words, he's "not holding his breath." He promises to make more films but confesses he's running out of ideas.

"If Obama gets reelected," he says, almost overcome with emotion, "my next film will be called Western Civilization: Can We Say Overrated? I think the title alone shows that it will not be my crowning work."

Moore concluded the interview with a small plea for his fans to consider "ironically" voting Republican this year so that he can, quote, "get a bitchin' private jet...with a low carbon footprint, of course."

Some critics are now suspecting that Moore may not actually be a liberal at all, but a closet conservative using the backlash from his scathing political commentary to garner support for the right. When questioned about the idea he declined to comment. However, it is often in the best interests of a backlash campaigner, as they are often called, to keep their status a secret.

Backlash campaigning, also known as backlash rhetoric or backlash satire, is a relatively recent innovation with very old roots in traditional political and social satire. It hinges on the well known sociological fact that any controversial statement or thesis, no matter how well meaning, eloquently versed, or even objectively correct it is, will create an antithesis, or a "backlash" of dissent. Those who disagree with the thesis will have their resolve strengthened. If the thesis is presented in a sarcastic or angry manner the backlash will be even stronger; the negative tone of the thesis may inspire revulsion in those who are undecided on the issue, causing them to lean the other way.

The goal of backlash campaigning is to create a backlash that is actually greater than the thesis' positive reaction; in effect doing more harm than help to the thesis' cause. The goal is to be so abrasive and needlessly disrespectful that even people who agree with the thesis will be embarrassed to be associated with it and second-guess their opinions.

This technique is most frequently used in apologetics. Evangelical Christians like Bill Maher and Penn Jillette and Raymond Teller (a.k.a. Penn and Teller), have been using backlash campaigning for many years to reinforce negative stereotypes about atheism and drive individuals toward a closer walk with Christ, even though most of their "fans" have no inkling that their face value message is a facade.

On, Dog!

Penn has written perhaps the landmark treatise on backlash campaigning in his recent book, On, Dog!, itself a parody of the title of his apparently atheist secular book, God, No! Again, most of his secular follower aren't even aware of On, Dog! because it is sold almost exclusively in Christian bookstores.

In the book he explains the psychology behind backlash campaigning, including the so-called backlash "sweet spot," in which the thesis is presented in a manner so abrasive and unnecessarily disrespectful that it causes maximal backlash and minimal reinforcement of the face value message of the thesis. It is a difficult balance to find; make the presentation too offensive and no one will take it seriously.

"The key is to avoid irony," says Penn in the introduction, "except when irony is part of your thesis. But you must deliver a convincing performance that the message of your thesis is your real message. You must use genuine examples of hypocrisy and inconsistency and you must make a credible case for the thesis. Otherwise the backlash effect is ruined. Some people will agree with the thesis. Some people will actually believe it's possible to debunk two thousand years of religious tradition in one thirty-minute episode of Bullshit! My heart goes out to them, but I really can't help them. It's the fence-sitters we're targeting. The less certain who may yet be malleable to the words of Christ if the words of the world are made offensive enough to their senses. Amen."

If he is then he learned from the best; he has been known to hobnob with Penn at Christian retreats. But again, things get muddy on the politics side of the spectrum. Evangelicals can "come out of the closet," so to speak, with their backlasher status in venues such as Christian bookstores, which atheists rarely visit. Differing political ideologies, however, scrutinize each other more closely, so if Michael Moore is a conservative backlasher he may not come clean for some time to maintain the effectiveness of his act. His tactics, however, seem consistent with backlash campaign techniques, and the opinions of many of his opponents echo the ideal reaction sought by backlashers. Paraphrased, the reaction is, "If he's right I'd rather be wrong." In other words, people would rather disagree with his thesis, even if it is correct, than be associated with him.

Even if this is the case, Moore and Penn have stiff competition, as backlash campaigning is not only practiced by the right and the religious. They face oppositions from atheist groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church and Jack Chick and their anti-Christian smear campaigns, and liberal backlash commentators such as Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck.

One thing is certain: choosing the lesser of two evils is becoming a more daunting task for the general public by the day. With so much irony and meta-irony being cast about many Americans are having trouble separating facts from satire, and with an important election looming now is a very dangerous time for people to second-guess credible and well-meaning sources. For instance, this inherent distrust will likely many individuals will likely disbelieve the facts conveyed in this article and blast it in the comments section, completely oblivious to its real point. Unfortunately, there is no cure in sight.