The Narcissistic Gospel According to Michael

A night spent listening to Michael, and watching the fans of Michael, was a little more educational than I had imagined it would be. Don't misunderstand: Michael didn't teach me anything about politics or America, but he taught me a lot about himself.

Michael Moore is raising an army of narcissists that will emulate and adore him.

Quite some time ago, I read a primer on narcism that talked about the traits common to narcissists. While I listened and watched last night, the thought that kept popping into my head were these: preacher, pop star, and narcissist. There's a tiny bit of a thread there.

Michael Moore doesn't discuss facts--he discusses his opinion. He shouts, he gesticulates, he spits, and he provokes. He does not accept or recognize intelligent dissent--in fact, in his world, there is only the Gospel According to Michael, and all else is despised.

Michael Moore doesn't discuss facts--he discusses his opinion. He shouts, he gesticulates, he spits, and he provokes. He does not accept or recognize intelligent dissent--in fact, in his world, there is only the Gospel According to Michael, and all else is despised.

The bad part is that he manages to couch it in passionate, fiery speech with touches of brilliant humor. He's a genuinely funny guy, and, I'm convinced, a bright guy, with a gift for speaking to and motivating a crowd. What he urges them to do--open their minds and learn--isn't a bad thing. How he urges them to do it--ignore American media and rely on the "truth" told by the BBC, Mother Jones, and the Guardian--is as biased in it's view, and dangerous in it's one-sided nature, as the "truth" as told by Pat Buchanan.

After re-visiting that old primer on narcism (found here), I realized that what seems to prop up his popularity is the very same thing that makes him such a blunt speaker: a personality that fits the concept of narcism if not the clinical diagnosis of the disorder.

According to the primer, five of nine certain traits have to be displayed for a person to be considered narcissistic. I think that we can show, pretty conclusively, that Moore fits that (or, at least, that public persona that we saw on stage last night).

1. Feels grandiose and self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

A few minutes into his performance last night, Michael was handed a piece of paper by an aid. After a few moments of what felt like well-rehearsed fluster, he announced that his aid had just handed him a slip of paper telling him that his new book was going to debut at number one on the New York Times bestseller list. This is quite an achievement, but his need to have us all recognize it, his telling us all what a great achievement it was, felt tremendously overdone. Humble is not a word for Michael Moore, self-important is.

Still, his success cannot be denied, so he isn't necessarily exaggerating to any great extent. Pass. By a hair.

2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist)...

Throughout the whole performance, one of the repeated themes was of the coming "liberal" ( a better term would have been leftist) overthrow of the conservatives and Republicans around the nation. This was because the actions of those that he reached would be enough to bring down the conservatives. According to Moore, we all "live in a liberal country." He meant that in a very specific sense; to be liberal to him is not necessarily to be Democrat, but instead it is to agree with Michael Moore on health care, abortion, drug laws, gay marriage, and American intervention in the Middle East.

Another repeated theme throughout the night was how intelligent and well-informed the people in the auditorium were in comparison to the rest of the people in the United States. Not only is that self-aggrandizing, though, it's teaching others to do the same; and since these people are so brilliant, and all others so deluded ("self-induced ignorance" as Moore put it), then listening to political arguments of opponents is unnecessary.

Luckily, that means that honest dissent and disagreement is quashed without a second thought; no need for self-doubt or questioning. Fail.

3. Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions)

See number 2.

At one point during the show, Moore told everyone that "nothing we say or do will be heard outside of here." He obviously sees himself as the leader of a special group of people (hard left liberals) who are better, smarter, and better informed than the rest of the country.

This is offset, though, when he says he also believes that the majority of the country is in absolute agreement with him on the issues (regardless of voting habits, polling realities, or common sense). And when he says that he's embarrassed by his country when 11% of 20-25 year olds couldn't identify the United States on a map, I don't think he's exhibiting any particularly noxious form of self-love. It is a bit embarrassing.

When he says that Americans "are the bad guys" (as he did last night, in those words), though, he's treading pretty close to the line. Pass. With reservations.

4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation -or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply).

Could there be another category more specifically made for Moore? From his telling us about the remarkable success of his books and movies to his regular railing against the media for not covering such an important event as his show, every step seemed geared to garner more recognition for Moore. Fail. Fail. Fail.

5. Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favourable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her expectations

At the beginning of his show, Moore made a point of letting us know which stations weren't covering his event. Why are they not covering us? He asked, almost seeming violent in his anger.

So, to find out why, he called Channel 9's assignment desk and spoke with a man whose name I, unfortunately, couldn't catch. Moore asked why the event wasn't being covered. The gentleman on the other line told Moore that it had been discussed at the editorial meeting, and that they had placed their priorities elsewhere. Moore asked (this is not a direct quote, but it is close) what could have been more important than covering the 7000 people watching his performance.

In other words, I'm far more important than whatever it is you're covering, so why aren't you here?

When the gentleman declined to discuss the matter, Moore demanded to know. When the gentleman asked a number of times why Moore thought that it was okay to broadcast and record a conversation without first informing the other party, Moore shouted him down with profanities ("No, you answer the fucking question!") and hung up on him, much to the delight of the crowd.

After hanging up on him, Moore did a little goose-step and feigned a German accent, saying, "Answer the question now!"

Moore felt entitled to the coverage, and offended when the opinions of others didn't match his expectations. In fact, on all issues, he seems personally offended when others don't agree with him, and is not at all averse to shouting people down. This is not discourse or dialog, this is bully-pulpit preaching at it's worst. Fail.

6. Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends

First, he gets the crowd full of college kids, a few middle aged curious, and old hippies in need of a saviour, whipped into a frothy, anti-conservative frenzy, then he tells us all to vote against Democrats who act like Republicans. He wants us to march down to Channel 9 news and demand to be seen.

Then, later, he goes for the kill, saying, "what if we could get up an army of foot soldiers? ...[I]f it meant the congress would be out of the hands of the Republicans, wouldn't it be worth one weekend in October?"

His call to action is an emotional call to support his agenda. Much like the distortions of truth in his movies that are meant to motivate people to vote and act certain ways, he wants to exploit his influence on others to carry out his political agenda.

On the fact of it, the entire blogging world is made up of people with the same basic goal (as is much of politics). The difference is the distinct lack of honesty and integrity on Moore's part; his willingness to misrepresent facts for his gain is what makes this a failing of his. Everyone wants to influence others, everyone wants their voice heard, but the willingness to lie to gain that influence is wrong. And his stated purpose of raising an "army of foot-soldiers" just puts the final nail in this proverbial coffin.Fail.

7. Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others

Any disagreement with Moore is met by loathing. Complete and utter loathing. He doesn't actually listen to other viewpoints, no matter how devoted he claims to be to multiple viewpoints.

When reading from one of his books, he has God telling the readers to go after the "devil in the big white house." He demonizes opponents instead of trying to understand their view, listening, or even showing the barest bit of empathy. He's like a big child, demanding that his needs are met while ignoring the needs of others. Fail.

8. Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her

His constant harping on "angry white males" (which is funny, because I'm not sure I've ever seen such an angry white man in my life as Michael Moore) and his constant noting that these "dying dinosaurs" control the White House, the House, the Senate, and most of the governorship could certainly be seen as a sort of political envy. That would be reaching, though.

I don't see enough evidence to support this one. Pass.

9. Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted.

See the story about the man from Channel 9 who confronted Moore for an example of this. There were times last night when I thought he might suffer a stroke; this large man, shouting from the stage, veins bulging, and passionate.

Friends will tell you that I can get intense in conversation; my political discussions don't usually involve raised voices, but they do involve a focused energy that can be easily mistaken for enmity. I have nothing on Moore.

He was preaching the hellfire and damnation of an America under the hated conservatives. Where Pat Buchanan says that we face hurricanes and natural disasters because of God's wrath at the liberals, Moore seems to believe that the downfall of American (while not directly associated to God's anger) lies squarely at the feet of the Republicans; and his waving arms and desire to see General Clark "kick Bush's ass" (in a political sense, of course) put the fine point to his rage. Fail.

Does this really mean that I think Moore is a narcissist in a clinical sense? No. But it is an interesting framework in which to view his politics, his work, and his personality. And it's worth noting that he's encouraging others to exhibit the same behavior.

In my, admittedly flawed, analysis, Moore hits on 6 of the 9 traits of a narcissist, and that is precisely what makes him less of a pundit than a pop star. He's a Personality, not a thinker or a politician or a policy wonk. And the people in the audience (including those of us opposed to him) are responding to the Personality, not the substance of his arguments. Which is good, as most of his arguments aren't terribly substantive.

As I said, I didn't learn anything politically, but Michael Moore the Personality is a fascinating study. Vile, wrong, annoying, frustrating, and over the top, but fascinating. What I can't decide, at the end of it all, is where the most danger lies: in taking him too seriously and lending a level of authority to his voice, or in ignoring the very real influence that he does have.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a psychiatric professional, so understand that what I'm about to say does not constitute any real analysis in a psychiatric sense. What it does constitute is a thought that kept running through my head while I listened to the preaching of Michael Moore the previous evening.)

Posted by zombyboy at October 16, 2003 12:55 PM | TrackBack