"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11&

[Thecla]

Perhaps that is why you shouldn't take things he says at face value.

Yes, he's a bit like Bush in that respect.

[[wcip]Angel]

I saw this movie yesterday, and I was a bit disappointed. Politics aside, the movie wasn't very interesting or entertaining. The false allegations and half-truths were still present, but they did nothing to improve the film as they did in Bowling for Columbine, which I actually found to be a delightful little thing. In contrast to Bowling, I didn't see the 'red line' running through the movie; there were several times during the movie I asked myself "How is this related to the message and theme of the film?" What did the Christmas-celebration in Iraq have to do with his Anti-Bush-sentiments?

I liked Bowling for Columbine, as an interesting, thought-provoking and entertaining film. I didn't like Fahrenheit 911, because I felt Moore simplified everything, and inadvertently reinforced the false stereotype that Americans are stupid, and must thus be treated as such. I mean, he maniacally twisted words and sentences based on what was shown on the film to come up with some great (but easy to understand) theory.

I'm not saying that all his 'facts' and comments aren't true, but I don't think a documentary ought to 'dumb down' the material in order to reach a wider audience. Things tend to get lost in the translation from "complicated" to "simple", such as the fine art of "counter-arguments."

[kandrathe]

Hear! Hear! The last thing Americans need is to be portrayed, yet again, as idiots. (Thank you Jerry Lewis.)

Are we any smarter than the rest of the world? No. I do think there is an isolationist ignorance in the American electorate, but my experience is that most people seem to be pretty informed. Their opinions and votes, seem myopic, in the sense that they are focused only on benefits to themselves for the present and near future. At least those who do vote. With the choices this year I understand the dilemma. Which privileged, inarticulate, white, Yale educated, spoiled brat would you choose? Is neither a choice?

Unfortunately, our top two choices for President will not change the image of American dullness anytime soon.

Moore's view of American's as reflected in his interview with the Daily Mirror; "Take his description of his fellow countrymen and their blind pursuit of the American Dream: "They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks." "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. "

[Cybit]

http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature....hp?feature=1150

Basically, the Hitchens argument really doesn't...prove anything. The Hitchens argument works great as long as you don't see the movie. See the movie, and Hitchens arguments kind of falls apart rather fast. That's what I've noticed about most of the critcisims, they don't make much sense once you see the movie, since it's essentially someone drawing their own conclusions about what the movie is saying, and then criticizing what those conclusions are. That would work, should the movie define clear conclusions, but a lot of the criticisms are based off conclusions I didn't even think you could stretch to make fit in the movie.

[Cybit]

No, he didn't say they would be sent to war, he said its the age kids start thinking about a career in the military, which, as far as I can tell, is quite true, as all of my close friends (5-6) who joined the military started the considering about the age of 15 or 16. Hence the reason they should be able to see this movie. Personally, this movie needs to be R. There are some gruesome, gruesome things in it.

[NinjaRooster]

No, he didn't say they would be sent to war, he said its the age kids start thinking about a career in the military, which, as far as I can tell, is quite true, as all of my close friends (5-6) who joined the military started the considering about the age of 15 or 16.  Hence the reason they should be able to see this movie.  Personally, this movie needs to be R.  There are some gruesome, gruesome things in it.

I haven't seen the movie, so my question is simple:

What are some examples of 'gruesome' in the movie? Thanks in advance.

[Bone]

Cybit,

Is it your contention that the Hollywoodbitchslap article refutes the claims of Hitchens in the Slate article?

(here is the Slate article by the way):
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

If it is as you say, and F911 draws no conclusions, on what basis would any criticism have merit? It is disengenuous to say that F911 draws no conclusions when it clearly is presented with an agenda (from Moore himself). If I say, "Maybe little Joey is a jerk", if someone were to respond saying that in fact Joey is not a jerk, is it fair for me to chime in and say that "that's not what I said, I said maybe so you cant say that that is what I meant". The implication is clearly there. Hitchen's conclusions are not unreasonable, given the context of the film.

Were you interested in discussing the two pieces point by point, or was it your intent to present the Hollywood article as a contrast to the Hitchen's one?

[Cybit]

The thing is, there are conclusions you can "infer" from the movie. Note: By inferring, you are assuming, and when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. :D

Theoretically, you could stretch nearly any conclusion to be inferrable from the movie, which is what the HBS article accuses Slate of doing, and what I would too. Having seen the movie, I can easily say, even my very neo-conservative friends, who mind you, did not like the movie at all, if they couldn't get those conclusions, I have a hard time seeing how you get those conclusions. Most of Slate's points are merely one level below what F9/11 said, essentially Moore claims one thing, the next layer underneath is what Slate sees, but the problem is, if the article really got to the true point of the matter, that truth kinda refutes most of the Slate arguments.

The Slate argument works as long as you don't see the movie. See the movie, and that article doesn't make any sense at all.

As for the Joey argument, yes, you can make that argument if I nitpick on details such as the "maybe" before hand, then you have every right to nail me on something I previously nailed you on. For instance, Slate pulls the Clarke statement that he authorized the flights out for the Saudis. Moore claims it came from high up people in the White House. Slate's article implies that Moore is lying, and he would be, if that was the full truth. Now, guess who was the highest person in the White House when 9/11 went down and a few days after? (First chapter of Against All Enemies, Clarke's book).

Richard Clarke.

[eppie]

I hope it is not a problem that this old thread is brought up again, but I wanted to add my comments, after having seen both Bowling and Fahrenheit recently. (and I found it a bit early for the US presedential elections thread).

First I would like to comment on the points often brought up by people "opposing"these movies. For bowling several people gave as most important comment that they really disliked the way Charlton Heston was portrayed, and what was shown of him being at this NRA rally just after the columbine shooting. In my opinion this one one of the least important things adressed in this movie. I found the interviews with the canadian youth a lot more significant for the whole weapons issue. Canadians, just did not have a clue why in Canada there was so much less violence and deadly shootings than in the US. Canadians seemed also to live with a lot less fear than US citizens. This scaring of citizens by the media, is something which later also comes back in Fahrenheit. All in all I think Bowling was a nice movie, but could not make me get a different opinion on things.

Fahrenheit was also made in a more or less propaganda kind of way, which at some points made me start disliking it. But than on the other hand it is something that comes back in television very often (in important things like news shows e.g.) so I don't blame Moore for using the same kind of techniques. Also this movie did not make me change opinions (because for me it more or less confirmed what I already knew). It gave some shocking facts however, especially on the Bush/Saudi connections. The positions in companys that the ministers in his government held before getting that position was also quite disgusting to see. (I'm assuming BTW that no lies were used in this movie (by Moore), and I consider myself inteligent enough to look through creative mixing of video footage).

I have the idea that Bush does not care too much about the american people and that he is using his presidency for his, and his friends, financial benefits. Bush himself cannot be blamed too much btw. I have never seen somebody in such a position that was so unable to really tell what he feels or wanted to say. You can see that he is able to make correct sentences when talking about golfing or hunting, but as soon as it is about politics he does not say anything sensible anymore (and Fahrenheit is not my only source of Bush speeches). I have the idea that the group around hin like Rumsfeld, Cheney and his father are the real responsible.

If some of you lurkers can still be bothered to react on this old thread, I would like to hear your opinions on Bush' feelings for the american people, his capacity to be president and the role of the people around him.
eppie

[kandrathe]

I'm assuming BTW that no lies were used in this movie (by Moore)

:blink:

Man, no matter whose lips are flapping on either side, there is a 90%(or more) chance that something is either misrepresented or distorted. I would trade in those rose tinted lenses for a more skeptical pair.

So now that you've seen the movie that reinforces the opinion you already had, try to address its criticism.
Google: Farenheit + Lies

I'm not sure who I'm voting for, but it's not going to be a Yale man.

[eppie]

:blink:

Man, no matter whose lips are flapping on either side, there is a 90%(or more) chance that something is either misrepresented or distorted.  I would trade in those rose tinted lenses for a more skeptical pair.

So now that you've seen the movie that reinforces the opinion you already had, try to address its criticism.
Google: Farenheit + Lies

I'm not sure who I'm voting for, but it's not going to be a Yale man.

Thanks for the link Kandrathe. I read more or less one third of it, but I would like to respond already now. (i will read the next part though).

The part I read is classified under the number "things that don't matter to me" (I told you I considered myself inteligent enough, to look through Moore style of moviemaking).
I am reading almost half an A4 paper about the claim that "no president saw this kind of protest on his inauguration". There were no eggs thrown at his limo but just one egg. "Oh my, I based my entire opinion on Bush upon the amount of eggs that were thrown to his limo" :P

I mean this kind of critics to the movie just don't do it for me. The part about the voting was not much better. To be sure about what happened just do a complete recount. The way it worked out now made Florida look like a Banana republic, and has damaged the image of the USA in the world I think. If they just would solve the situation in a westernworld kind of way, there would not have been al these troubles. (p.s. the Nixon comparison is also a bit painful I would say)

So like I said in my first reaction in this thread, I would like to know of this man (Bush) can be trusted. I mean I know he went to Iraq for wrong reasons, I don't need Michael Moore for telling me that. I know that I have never seen Bush utter a complete sentence about politics in a correct way, I don't need Moore to tell me that. (I agree that it can be a problem of dyslexia, so I don't use this as a point in my arguments, I just wanted to explain you what we know about this man, form daily news, (mind you I also live in a pro-Bush government country))
I am interested in the opinions of US citizens, like a lot of you here on the lounge. For my work I meet once in a while americans (ussualy scientists) and when you talk to them you notice that the media, covers completely different things about US-politics than the things we hear and see in europe. They are ussualy very surprized when talking to europeans about politics. So I would like to find out what this problem of our misunderstanding is, I hope somebody can shed more light on this matter.

eppie

p.s. now I will read what this kopel has to say about the saudi connection

[eppie]

This anti-Moore pamflet keeps amazing me: I would like to share this with you, it is a piece about "moore portraying Wofowitz in a bad way"

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is shown surreptitiously licking his comb in preparation for Congressional testimony under the cameras. I know: Eeeuuww! Moore's point is that this proves Wolfowitz is a low life, a sleazy guy whose policy opinions should be devalued accordingly. And, of course, it's funny to see the famous and powerful embarrass themselves. Yet not one among us hasn't had dozens of questionable hygiene moments that we would be mortified to have witnessed by anyone, not to mention see featured in a nationally released documentary. Moore knows that Wolfowitz's desperate act in attempting to tame unruly hair for a public appearance will look much worse on movie screen than it really is, and he must know that periodic hygiene failings are not any kind of proof of depravity: after all, we're talking about a director here who habitually appears in public unshaven and sloppily dressed. To Moore's likely retort that Wolfowitz deserves to be gratuitously ridiculed for doing nothing worse than any member of his audience could easily recall doing himself, the answer is that nobody deserves to be treated this way. It is cruel and hypocritical, and violates basic ethical reciprocity. Doing so is wrong, and far more wrong, and infinitely more harmful to others, than licking one's own comb.

So these kind of statements should make me change opinion?

I am open for every comments about what is wrong with the movie. I mean I just saw it and that is all I know about it. But I would like to get comments that are a little more substantial. That is why I ask it here at the Lurkerlounge because I know there are several people here with a lot of knowledge an opinions about current affairs in general. (does anybody know when Occhi is coming back)

[Guest]

Very interesting movie
The documentary is very biased though;it only shows the flaws and the lies about the war in Iraq;it would have been better to tell the whole truth about the Iraq issue:the crimes and genocides perpetrated by saddam hussein,all the tortures of Iraqi people by a bloody dictatorship,the murders of Iraqi people who support the allies,etc...and I could go on the list
The main problem of Fahrenheit is that it is not unbiased;in order to be unbiased,you have to show the whole truth,that is the good and harm that came after war,and not only the bad consequences,because there are also good consequences for the Iraqi people:freedom of speech,political freedom..
We need more time to judge if Iraq has become a better place after war and if all the good done have outdone the harm caused by war

[kandrathe]

What is wrong with the movie?

To me it is a baseless, twisted, distorted, tasteless propaganda advertisement attacking the sitting president of the US with the sole aim of preventing his re-election.

Ok. Fine, it is an expression of freedom of the marketplace, and freedom of speech. It is a very well made propaganda film and earning its creator millions. When the American electorate process yields a candidate with integrity, fortitude and character, then I'll get excited about politics -- until then I'm voting libertarian (which fits my views).

If polls are an indication of American sentiment, then I am an atypical American. I currently do not agree with the rigid social agenda of the Republicans or the liberal fiscal agenda of the Democrats. I'm a little tired of America's political process being flooded with money with the major parties becoming the focal point of attack and issue ads the final three months.

Ok, specifically, how do I feel about Bush? Since the beginning of his Presidency, I've faulted his administration (and our media) for failing to communicate clearly and loudly on why he is taking a particular course of action. It is easy now for people to review history in hindsight and say "he went to Iraq for wrong reasons", but leadership to me means that you have to be willing to commit to even a risky course of action based on the information that you have. I give Bush credit for taking actions that Clinton was unable, or unwilling to take. The jury is still out on whether Afghanistan or Iraq can emerge from these wars with at least civilized governments. The UN tried the carrot approach (or sanctions) for the entire Clinton presidency, and when you run out of carrots, all you have remaining are sticks. We are doing the same dance with North Korea, placating their blackmail for food and fuel oil and in the name of compassion we are delivering it -- but it still smacks of appeasement to me. Any positive press spin on that one for America? No.

Again, this communication gap extends to Europe, but also gets distorted by your press even more. We have a wonderful publicly funded resource here called CSPAN which allows anyone to view more than just sound bites and political gaffs like the Wolfowitz incident. No, neither Bush nor Kerry are rocket scientists -- but neither are they the idiots they may be portrayed to be. You would hate to see you or I give a speech to a worldwide audience. Would this well communicated clarity of purpose convince all detractors? No, but it would give his advocates more to stand on than just a show of support. What made Reagan great was that he made difficult decisions for a well stated reason and then faced down his opposition from his moral high ground. So, how has Bush backed up Blair, or Howard? Not so good. I like to ponder what would the situation be now had the Iraq war not happened.

Then we get to domestic issues. Here is where I depart from both major parties -- except that both have now adopted an understanding of supply side economics and an appreciation for letting Alan Greenspan run the economy. We had three major blows to the US economy almost simultaneously, first the tech bubble (another deceptive phrase, I would call it scam) was stretched well beyond rational, second we had 9/11 hit Wall-street and then third, due to the resulting downturn, it was revealed that numerous high level firms and executives had cooked their books. So, who would have looked good in this economic situation? The prior administration is guilty of allowing the tech sector to get outrageously over extended, and the SEC, and Janet Reno might have done more to investigate suspicious corporate behaviors. Ok, then beyond economy we have the liberal penchant for spending my money, the conservatives wanting to regulate bedroom behavior, and both sides filling the budget with so much pork that even pigs blush.

Do I like Bush? No, now that he is trained in he is merely adequate and I would like the president to be more than adequate. Do I like Kerry? No, he is not a leader, he is just an errand boy.

Congressional Quarterly found that in 2003, Kerry voted with Kennedy 93 percent of the time on roll-call votes in which both men were present. While that might seem like a lot, it was, historically, a rather low number for Kerry; who voted with Kennedy 100 percent of the time on key votes in 2001, 1999, 1998, 1993, 1992, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, and 1985, according to a Republican analysis of CQ's designated key votes from those years.

[Chaerophon]

What made Reagan great was that he made difficult decisions for a well stated reason and then faced down his opposition from his moral high ground.

What made Reagan great was that he got shot at the right time to force his budget vote through Congress and set off the downward spiral of democracy and social welfare in your country, and abroad. I agree, the world became a less democratic place the day that Reagan died. Of course, that was only because the media's subsequent elevation of his character and ideals to the level of an FDR or Jefferson solidified him in the American pantheon alongside other such truer champions of a more authentic and substantive democracy. There's was a democracy that was centered on people rather than economic principles made law. Reagan's major contribution was the creation of a self-serving and functionally unsound ethos of "personal responsibility" that elevated supply-side economics as a matter of principled self-interest. Of course, it was, in fact, exactly the opposite for 90% of the population.

Here is where I depart from both major parties -- except that both have now adopted an understanding of supply side economics and an appreciation for letting Alan Greenspan run the economy. We had three major blows to the US economy almost simultaneously, first the tech bubble (another deceptive phrase, I would call it scam) was stretched well beyond rational, second we had 9/11 hit Wall-street and then third, due to the resulting downturn, it was revealed that numerous high level firms and executives had cooked their books. So, who would have looked good in this economic situation?

Try looking, first, at the general trend since the inception of 'supply-side', neoliberal monetarist economic policies in America. Stagnating real wages, structural unemployment, and a general deficit of democracy. After all, Alan Greenspan is now "running" the economy according to economic "law", so where's the room for dissent, or even mere questioning of the viability of economic scientism? Real democracy is open to the subjection of popular 'truths' to scrutiny. Media and dominant elites hold monetarism and neoliberal globalization as foregone, historical conclusions, and are not mindful of the fact that such ideologies are, rather, one point of view, and the result of human agency.

The old free-market "diminishing returns" formula hasn't really worked out in peripheral countries, has it? The disparity in wealth between North and South has increased by nearly a factor of two, to about 74:1 (if memory serves), since the early 1990's, and, to step out of your upper-middle class "spending my money" perspective, that does matter.

BTW, did you just call KERRY an errand boy?!? Good God.

[kandrathe]

Of course, that was only because the media's subsequent elevation of his character and ideals to the level of an FDR or Jefferson solidified him in the American pantheon alongside other such truer champions of a more authentic and substantive democracy.

And, that has really frosted your britches. It's not that I don't appreciate what some of the other American presidents did or attempted to do, it's that Reagan stands beyond them in his ability to motivate America, and the world behind a cause -- and to me that means leadership.

Stagnating real wages, structural unemployment, and a general deficit of democracy. After all, Alan Greenspan is now "running" the economy according to economic "law", so where's the room for dissent, or even mere questioning of the viability of economic scientist? Real democracy is open to the subjection of popular 'truths' to scrutiny. Media and dominant elites hold monetarism and neoliberal globalization as foregone, historical conclusions, and are not mindful of the fact that such ideologies are, rather, one point of view, and the result of human agency.

... And your evidence is? A 20 year period of economic prosperity, improvements in the quality of life for peoples throughout the world, a WTO that coordinates free trade (mostly) trying to remove the old punitive tariffs and self serving taxation systems. Sure, its not perfect, but I remember the 70's and I think things are much better now.

As for my "to step out of your upper-middle class "spending my money" perspective", I'm happy to be here and it was due to the efforts of my emigrant grandfather carving a farm out of the prairie, and my blue collar father efforts to send me to college, and me working for 30 years to get and try to hang on to a little of what I have earned. So color me a little bitter when an old blue blood liberal, like Ted Kennedy, tries to appropriate another 10% to pay for his pet social programs or some gung-ho Senator wants to invest another trillion dollars in some outdated weapons system because its built in their State.

As for "disparity of wealth" -- c'mon what measure is that? Just because Micheal Moore is 100 times wealthier than me, is his consumption 100 times more or his enjoyment of life 100 times more? There have always been "the wealthy" due to many circumstances. But, "the real world" is where people get up in the morning, eat breakfast, go to work, go home and relax for a few hours before bed. On the weekends, holidays, and vacations we get to play a little within our meager means. At least Moore does something with his money, whether I like it or not. I have no clue what someone like Warren Buffet does with his money.

eppie wanted to know how Americans felt about Bush. I was honest. So shoot me.

Edit: iespell ;) for Pete

[Chaerophon]

It's not really worth it, but I'll say it anyway...

it's that Reagan stands beyond them in his ability to motivate America, and the world behind a cause -- and to me that means leadership.

Funny. For me, the history of his media control and ideological tour de force indicates hegemonic power and a willingness to completely disregard detractors (who were numerous).

A 20 year period of economic prosperity, improvements in the quality of life for peoples throughout the world, a WTO that coordinates free trade (mostly) trying to remove the old punitive tariffs and self serving taxation systems. Sure, its not perfect, but I remember the 70's and I think things are much better now.

You really need to do some research on that one... Check the Phillipines, Thailand, the rest of southeast Asia, and the majority of West/Central Africa. Then look at the reactions in Mexico. Then look, in particular, at women in those countries. It might sound "bleeding heart", but give me a chance. Having done a ton of research over the past six months, I can tell you that I've gone from a near fiscal conservative, to a disgusted anti-Globalist (note: that's not anti-globalization. There is a difference).

Social/industrial society construction requires one-of-two things: benevolent investors, or protectionism. Otherwise, in the modern Global context, it winds up exploitative. It's that simple, and I'm not going to go any deeper than that. There's a lot of information out there. Of course, this attitude of Buchanan-style Americo-centrism never flew for me.

Anyways, IMF/WB structural adjustment have done anything but "teach these countries to fish". They have, instead, left them with no infrastructure by which to foster national industry or develop their own means of sustenance. Of course, Northern countries who use these nations as a cheap, "unable-to-unionize" source of labour don't care about national infrastructure, so as globalization and "Free Trade Zones" have advanced, so too has global poverty. Unlike the "Asian tigers", these countries have little hope for industry construction. It's a race to the bottom, and, contrary to your contentions, it is placing downwards pressure on American blue-collar wages.

As for "disparity of wealth" -- c'mon what measure is that? Just because Micheal Moore is 100 times wealthier than me, is his consumption 100 times more or his enjoyment of life 100 times more? There have always been "the wealthy" due to many circumstances. But, "the real world" is where people get up in the morning, eat breakfast, go to work, go home and relax for a few hours before bed. On the weekends, holidays, and vacations we get to play a little within our meager means. At least Moore does something with his money, whether I like it or not. I have no clue what someone like Warren Buffet does with his money.

What we're talking about is women who are forced to work hard labour, the work that the men won't even do, for 12 hours a day. On top of that, they spend another four hours providing food and water for the men and children, and act as 24 hour day care workers, at home and at work. It didn't used to be this way for them. RESPONSIBLE globalization would do more than provide these women a below-subsistence wage. (This wage could, no doubt, have some benefits for women, but as it stands, their condition can't improve) It would facilitate localized construction, and domestic development in these countries. Current globalization patterns are not doing so. Again, don't take my word for it, read outside of your usual sphere and tell me that it's not true.

[Assur]

Well, most of Southeast Asia is doing allright, economic growth in Thailand or Vietnam is higher than in most Western countries. As regards the role of woman, that is the result of traditional, indigenous culture/society, nothing to be blamed on the West, even though Naomi Klein et al. try to blame it on the evil West. The women who work in the "sweatshops" for western MNCs consider themselves lucky, they are earning their own money and the work is harder in the traditional sectors.

As regards development/economic growth, Singapore and South Korea developed by integrating into the global economy! Have a look at North Korea when you want to know how protectionism works out.

That sub-saharan Africa is going to hell in a handcart is a fact. It's also a fact that a lot of it is down to to the corrupt systems erected by Africans. Or are you going to blame Darfur on the US/West too?

[kandrathe]

I agree with you that more needs to be done to lift the bottom and prevent exploitation of people and the environment from unfettered capitalism and greed. I don't hold out much hope for Africa, due to its tradition of ethnic conflict, lack of prior industry, rich resources and AIDs epidemic. What you are missing in your scenario is that most of our world nations are led by humanists, and not cold hearted economics alone. I may be pragmatic, and cynical but I am also an eternal optimist.

...so as globalization and "Free Trade Zones" have advanced, so too has global poverty.

Well, I spent 3 hours perusing the WB site reports and statistics, and it does not look like bad news in general; Granted there are some trouble spots that need more care and attention. One poverty theme was consistent in all the nations you cited -- rampant overpopulation and unrestrained growth.
East Asia & Pacific Region: Global Poverty Down By Half Since 1981 But Progress Uneven As Economic Growth Eludes Many Countries
Poverty in Mexico : an assessment of conditions, trends and government strategy

I'm not sure how I feel in general about Globalization other than as with most change it should be planned and gradual -- otherwise it is like mixing two volatile chemicals which result in extreme damage. When you have two equal humans doing a similiar job, one in Detroit earning 25$ per hour and one in any 3rd world nation earning $25 a month you will have catastrophe if you don't homogenize the situation such that you don't over excite one economy (e.g. China) and stagnate the other (e.g. make redundant all the plant workers in Detroit or Toronto). Soon all world economies will be secondary under China's dominance anyway. The US may currently be the 800 lb Gorilla, but King Kong is coming.

[Chaerophon]

First, a definitional matter; in my view, a substantive democracy is one in which dominant “truths” are perpetually subjected to the scrutiny of meaningful dialogue. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill once argued that “so essential is this discipline [democratic diversity] to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skillful devil’s advocate can conjure up”. I think that there is a great deal of merit in this articulation. Anyways...

What you are missing in your scenario is that most of our world nations are led by humanists, and not cold hearted economics alone.

I like to think of matters such as these from a perspective more cognizant of the fact that states merely serve as vehicles through which the voices of dominant elites are articulated. Those who control the discourse in which the state conducts itself are the true motivators of political agency. The fact of the matter is that, thanks to the structural control exerted by dominant elites in the United States over media and the economy, the people are constrained from diverse perspectives on the issues, and consequently, leaders are constrained from acting on any mandate derived from a truly substantive democracy (as described above). This is both a result of historical factors, such as America's revolutionary spirit of self-reliant liberal independence (as opposed, perhaps, to labour solidarity...), as well as the economic power of its capitalist agents.

The case of Germany, for example, is much different. The people there have access to more diverse perspectives at a political level. From a paper that I recently wrote:

"The case of Germany is a good one by which to measure the power of the nation-state to articulate the interests of political agents outside of the capitalist sphere. Stephen Vogel points out that Germany has “stalled on the road to the [neo]liberal market model” because it “maintain[s] greater cooperation between labour and management, closer ties between banks and industry, denser networks of relationships between firms, and closer coordination between government and industry.” In other words, powerful political agency has accrued to the forces of labour such that neoliberal reforms are limited by the power of their complex integration with business and state structures. Vogel points out that “one statistical index suggests that economic freedom did not rise at all in Germany from 1990…to 2001” (Vogel 2001, 17). While this is most likely a bit of an exaggeration, the fact remains that it is demonstrable that labour and other such forces can constrain neoliberal reforms in liberal economies and that these economies can remain viable and sustainable, even in this era of advanced global interconnectedness."

In other words, thanks to historical factors of political structure (i.e. the labour movement in Germany has historically been particularly strong; it is the birthplace of social democracy), the struggle for political agency and the articulation of political goals through the state form has been contested as labour has integrated itself as an impediment to neoliberal reforms. This has resulted in a more egalitarian society in Germany almost across the board, and it has also led to a much different sphere of acceptable "political discourse" in Germany where "bleeding heart" reform liberals, neoliberals, and even Social Democrats are allowed the floor in the popular media and at the state level without being disparaged or laughed out of the door. I would argue that in this sense, Germany is more democratic than America because a more diverse spectrum of viewpoints and perspectives are engaged in that country than in your own. With a wider spectrum of ideas comes a wider spectrum of criticism, and so popular ideas are better tested by democratic means.

Of course, it goes without saying that most extreme leftist countries (of which, I might add, Germany is not one) are undoubtedly shaped as much by such propaganda models as are more neoliberal models. However, it is a mistake to suppose that state leaders are not a product of the discourses in which their power is embedded. It's even worse to suppose that neoliberalism is a "logical" conclusion without considering the fact that it is an ideology embedded in a democratic framework, a supposed forum for a "hierarchy of ideas", that is particularly imperfect and one-dimensional (at an official level - just watch CNN, Fox News, or even NBC for the proof in the pudding.) in the North American context.