Watching Michael Moore on CNN last night, I was reminded of
Stephanie Zacharek's mostly negative commentary on
Fahrenheit 9/11.
When Jon Stewart asked Moore what was the problem with the left in the U.S., Moore suggested that they were "too wimpy".
I think he's right, but that's not the main problem, and certainly not why much of the right sees the mainstream media as being "liberal".
The main problem seems to be a lack of willingness to put nuance and nicety away in the service of a higher goal. The right clearly does this, ready to simplify, obfuscate and attack at the drop of a hat in order to gain or protect their influence and power. When they see someone attempt fairness or objectivity they see these as "promoting a liberal world-view". Well, frankly, they are. The way the right works nowadays, fairness and objectivity are simply not part of the public dialogue.
The lesson of populism (right or left, and at this moment, mostly right) is not that you need to have charisma or charm (Moore certainly seems to prove that), but that you need to know when to put away the "objectivity", balancing of alternatives, and committment to open debate and concentrate on simple, powerful slogans, observations and facts. That is what Michael Moore does most right. The left's (or center's) queasiness with his methods is largely about his oversimplification of complex issues, selective presentation of facts or "staging" of certain events in order to show bigger truths.
These are effective strategies when the battle is over hearts and minds, and they are more than fair when the right can attack the patriotism of anyone who questions either their goals or methods. We need more lefties committed in the way that Michael Moore is.