I consider Moore to be more of a protester than Coulter. He focuses on certain issues, like Columbine, 9/11 and so on and makes a statement about them, protesting his ideas. Coulter’s arguments, on the other hand, are solely based on personal attacks against the Democratic Party. In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore edits his documentary in a way that makes Bush seem like a complete idiot and how the war with Iraq never should have happened. In doing so, he is protesting against the presidency and the war. His arguments are persuasive because he has so much physical evidence- from documents to film clips to interviews- regarding the topic.
I think the reason for their popularity and American support is based primarily on the fact that they are so extreme and one of a kind. There are people who make political documentaries like Moore, or extreme republican’s like, Coulter- but it’s their style and just something interesting about them that makes them so intriguing. For example, I don’t believe anything Coulter says, but I liked listening to her because I was interested in seeing what ridiculous thing she would say next and how defensive she would be in saying it. Moore is also popular because he is so extreme and even if you don’t believe in what he says, he does a very good job at making some interesting arguments. They both have completely different tactics, but since they are unlike so many other political figures, it’s hard not to find them fascinating!
No comments:
Post a Comment