In my recent Democratiya essay about Michael Moore, I remarked: "Oddly, Moore was not a major presence during the midterm election season...."
Well, Moore's absence is over.
The U.S. government has handed him a propaganda coup on a silver platter by threatening prosecution over an unauthorized trip to Cuba during filming of "Sicko," his new movie on health care, which will hit U.S. theaters in late June. (For the record, I oppose the U.S. embargo and call on the U.S. to drop the case against Moore.)
Not having seen Moore's film, I can only rely on advance descriptions, but his aim is familiar: he wants to contrast the lack of access to health care in the U.S. with the universal coverage to be found in Cuba.
Moore is right to point out the inadequacy of the American system. But given that he has devoted his entire career to condemning governmental abuses and angrily upholding the right to dissent, it will be interesting to see what else he mentions about Cuba in the film.
Viewers might want to know that Rolando Jimenez was recently sentenced to 12 years in prison for writing anti-Castro graffiti. Or that Oscar Sanchez, a journalist, was given four years for "social dangerousness" after reporting on poor factory conditions — exactly the sort of thing Moore used to do back in Flint, Michigan.
Yes, in Cuba, people who do what Moore does tend to get jail time. But when Moore travels there, it's not to denounce the Castro dictatorship, but to whitewash it.
It's one thing to make the case for a single-payer health care system. But when you consider the effects of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment on the health and welfare of an individual, it is perverse to laud Cuba for its social services.
Moore, as always, is catching hell from right-wingers. For this reason, he will feel vindicated. He shouldn't, because his apologetic stance toward Castro runs afoul not of conservative principles, but liberal ones.
The biggest whopper of all? Cuba's state-run daily Granma has rushed to Moore's defense: "The U.S. government's targeting of Moore 'confirms the imperial philosophy of censorship' by American officials, [the newspaper] added." This, from a regime that has outlawed free media for over 40 years.
[Salon's review of "Sicko" is here.]
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Exactly so. I've always thought that one can make the point that Cuba has a good health care system without supporting or embracing other aspects of Castro's totalitarian regime. It's a sad fact that most of the people who do recognize the benefits of Cuba's national health care system do so out of a commitment to a sinister political agenda. Why is it so hard to get the obvious distinction right (or left)?
I'm reminded of Chomsky addressing the Cuban parliament with a speech on US political prisoners. Now, I'm agnostic on the question of whether we actually hold political prisoners (Guantanamo is something of a special case, although that doesn't justify it.) Maybe there are some. It's certainly worth looking into, and if it's true, denouncing.
However, there's a proper way of doing it, and that way is NOT in an address to the Cuban parliament. When Chomsky did this he displayed a deep moral deficit (as if we didn't know.)
You really ought to see the movie before you write such a critique. Michael Moore's trip to Cuba was not made for the purposes of denouncing or supporting Fidel Castro, nor did it speak to freedom of speech or freedom of press issues.
Moore's objective was to demonstrate that Cuban healthcare was universally available (even to foreigners). It was important to the message of the film that Cuba IS a third world country, and that Castro IS famously abhored and denounced by the U.S. government.
Even so, the lack of political freedom in Cuba that you speak of only makes it more remarkable that universal healthcare and universal access to education are available.
Contrast that to a nation (the U.S.) which claims to value political freedom, where 50 million have no medical insurance at all, and where even those who have coverage are often unable to get the treatment they need because of the cost or due to health insurance restrictions. All this while insurance and pharmaceutical companies claim higher and higher profits each year. How can one see that as anything but a violation of basic human rights?
Don't get me wrong, freedom of and to information are invaluable. There are nations that have universal healthcare and education AND freedom to access information and speak out. In the movie, Moore evidences that France is one such nation.
I've seen the movie and I not only stand by my initial suspicions, I amplify them.
Sorry, Jenny, but if you style yourself a champion of dissenters' rights, as Moore does, it's not an option to film a sequence in Cuba and make no mention of the regime's stifling of dissent. Far from criticizing the Castro regime, Moore paints a heroic picture and mocks the very idea of criticizing the regime.
It's not just the US govt that abhors the regime, btw -- it's also Cuban advocates of human rights, and they've been handed jail terms for their trouble. Where does Moore stand on that? Where do you, Jenny?
Post a Comment