Home | About | Donate

What’s Michael Moore’s Actual Agenda?

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/04/30/whats-michael-moores-actual-agenda


From the article:

“…the Green New Deal, launched by the Sunrise Movement…”


“Sorry Democrats, the Green Party Came Up With the Green New Deal!”

(Source and article: ~https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/29/sorry-democrats-the-green-party-came-up-with-the-green-new-deal/)


To author Alison Rose Levy:

Thank you for this:
“All I know is that before I sign up and donate my emotional body to your cause, I want to see transparency and integrity. That’s what Bernie Sanders was all about.

And that’s why I’ll be WRITING IN BERNIE in 2020, instead of voting for the OTHER, accused sexual assaulter, complete with an active, CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against him, one SENILE “Uncle Joe” Bye-Done (R-VISA), aka "The Senator from MBNA, who helped tank Anita Hill’s sexual assault allegations against “Uncle Clarence Thomas,” saddling us with THAT POS for DECADES on "The Supremes.

And let’s not forget that “Uncle Joe” said he would VETO any Medicare for All bill that managed to find it’s way to his (presidential) desk. And that he told his donor-class that “…fundamentally, nothing’s going to change” in a Biden administration (or words to that effect). No thanks.


Michael Moore’s “agenda” is exposing the happy-talk “green economy” for what it is: a denial of the fact that we must change everything about the way we live in order to preserve a habitable planet. To my mind, proponents of “green growth” (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) are essentially akin to climate deniers in trying to tell us that we can have our growth economy and consumerist lifestyles, and a habitable planet, too!


Don’t waste your vote on Bernie - waste it on the Green Party!

The GP’s domestic platform is as good as Bernie’s, and their foreign policy platform is better. You get two for one! In addition, every vote helps the GP qualify for federal matching campaign funds.

(This plea obviously, applies to the November election, not to any upcoming primary.)

P. S. - I’m not bashing Bernie or his good platform in that first line. I’m just pointing out that the GP’s platform is better.


“Many who hoped to elect a climate-friendly administration this fall are now stuck at home, digesting a political loss and avoiding a contagious virus. In place of concerted climate action, the political stage is set for a contest between a climate destroyer and a fossil fuel enabler. If “Humans” were a better and more righteous film, it would help people in that task.”

Ah hem, the Many are stuck in their environmentally polluting homes waiting to be told what to do because lord knows they can’t think for themselves. Or the possibility that these behaviors contribute to the conditions that create pandemics they are now trying to avoid. The stage has been set alright and what to think about additional facts about their choices might also help with the task.

The Green New Deal wasn’t linked to the film except indirectly by what happens when green movements get coopted. Btw the GND needs some work.


Alison, why are you afraid to tackle overpopulation and consumption?


Jesse/Howie Greens 2020!

1 Like

The movie points out that we have well passed 350 ppm and just passed 410 ppm CO2. (Methane is another GHG that is worse than CO2.)

Michael points out that the main climate change champions promoted by the media are frauds working for (or sold out to) fossil fuel companies and venture capitalists.
E.g. *ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/billionaire-vinod-khoslas-big-dreams-for-biofuels-fail-to-catch-fire/2014/11/27/04899d12-69d7-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html

Michael points out that stopping the endless growth mantra of Wall Street is the only way forward. That is 100% anti-Wall-Street. There is no candidate on the ballot in all 50 states for that.

Michael did the right thing to not focus on the Green New Deal as a savior because it is not. It was a vessel to test public sentiment towards this grave threat and Democrat+Independents voters decided it wasn’t important enough to vote for Bernie. The plurality of Democrats are still living in the Obama/Biden years and are OK with watered down green washing/signaling.


Unimportant clarification:

My post at #6 was a reply to @GreenPowerNow at post #4.

Remember six months ago, when those " noisy nabobs of negativism ", were saying here at CD that the general affairs of everday life for Americans was going to have to get a lot worse, before they took mass affirmative actions regarding climate change, etc. etc. etc ( _________ enter your favorite crisis here )? After all is said and done, the bad parts make for the whole of the situation, to be a bunch of troubles pretty guickly, going forward. Or, is this dustup just another overreaction to a pandemic, by the usual nervous nellies? Irresponsibly revved up to be exploited, again?
R we approaching " we’re there, we’ve arrived " yet? Will we be " there "by next November, with another winter on the near horizon?
In 12-2016 lots of nabobs of negativism, at CD, didn’t think there would be federal elections in November of 2020. Based on what we already knew about Trump & Co. and, the modern leadership of the Republican Party?
Tell me, as a GP member, is the ship of state of America taking on too much water, to stay afloat?
Will the next national crisis be a shortage of life jackets and row boats, instead of PPE, food and shelter?
Just curious.

1 Like

Jesse Ventura is contemplating running for Prez on the GP ticket. Roll that around your head for a while. :slight_smile:

It’s rather Trumpian for so many to smear Michael Moore for pointing out the cracks in the environmental movement. If you think the movie was about propping up the fossil fuel industry, you missed the point entirely. None of the Moore smear artilces I’ve read even mention the lopsided use of resources by the US over other countries, or issues with big utility owned solar vs. home solar in regards to wildlife habitat. And if you think overpopulation is not an issue, you will NEVER solve this problem. And let’s not forget the big C word, capitalism, the elephant in the room. I’m not sure where Greta stands on this film, but I thought of her when I watched it, as she always talks of needing a complete overhaul of our systems. What I took from the film: it’s not just about climate change, and capitalism and the environmental movement don’t mix. Does anyone think for a minute that Moore doesn’t care deeply about the future of our planet? Progressives need to work together; not smear each other. Let’s continue the conversation, but let’s not shut out one of our greatest allies, Michael Moore.


The Green party presidential nomination process is well underway with Howie Hawkins having won 12 primaries so far and Dario Hunter having won one. It is also not possible at this late date to get onto the ballot for most all of the remaining Green Party primaries. Thus, former Governor Ventura cannot run on the GP ticket even if he wanted to (of course it is also very doubtful that he would get any support from GP rank and file even if he started running months ago)


I think if that were his “agenda”, the film he produced would have talked more about that directly. It didn’t. We do need a 1st-world-wide discussion of “de-consuming” vs “green-growth” (see CD’s article about halving meat consumption for a start), but this film isn’t it. Maybe he’s about to release another that is (perhaps “Consumerism: A Love Story”).

1 Like

Michael Moore putting his name on a film that berates over population and consumption? Nowhere in this film is there mention of the harm done to the atmosphere by the meat/livestock/slaughterhouse industry. Consumption…Moore…you’ve got to be kidding me. Moore needs to give up the pound of bacon and the 4 or 5 Bigmacs he appears to consume everyday. The environment would be healthier and it might chisel his physique a bit.

“Overpopulation” has nothing to do with CO2 emissions. 90 percent of the CO2 is coming from countries with stable or even declining populations.

And even if deep cuts in global population could address global warming, it is a totally impossible solution unless there was mass human extermination. Even if you could end all childbirth, it would still take, say, 50 years to halve the global population (with resulting CO2 emission reductions far, far short of what is needed) - at which point, human extinction would also be inevitable in another 50 years because that remaining half of the population would be all past childbearing age. Population collapse from fertility crash is already a threat to some nations - notably Japan.


Thanks Ms. Levy. Excellent analysis.

If I were of a more conspiratorial inclination, I’d be wondering if this movie is a very clever psy-op by the Heartland Institute, or Steve Bannon, to exploit the circular firing squad proclivities of the left in order send environmental activists into a frenzy of self-destruction. It seems to be working.

1 Like


Yunzer, I’m grateful for your clear thinking. This movie has created a toxic split in the environmental movement. Divide and conquer. Bannon and Limbaugh sing the praises of this film and I know they are rejoicing over the divide this has caused. I don’t think it’s conspiracy, at least I hope they aren’t that good at it. The left as well as the Dems seem to have a penchant for shooting themselves in the foot. Witness Clinton in 2016 and now Biden over Bernie in 2020. But take heart. I think 90% of environmentalists agree that this film’s attack on renewables and great people like Mckibbins and others was unwarranted, and Trumpian in its distortion of facts, and Moore by putting his name on the film has lost his credibility with environmentalists everywhere. The 10% that support the film just make a lot more noise. Maybe half of them are bots created by the pro nukers? I should know better than to even respond to the BS in the film, but again I’m grateful that you take the time to add some sanity to the conversation.