There's a great book which you can read online, "The Authoritarians," by Bob Altemeyer, a prof at the U. of Manitoba.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Remember the notorious experiments where ordinary people would administer dangerous electric shocks to another person (not real, but they didn't know that) on the orders of an experimenter? And how very few had the moral fiber to refuse? Bob Altemeyer's been expanding on that research since the '60's (within ethical limits) and spills the beans in this book on what the research shows. As he says in the intro:
"Don’t think for a minute this doesn’t concern you personally. Let me ask you, as we’re passing the time here, how many ordinary people do you think an evil authority would have to order to kill you before he found someone who would, unjustly, out of sheer obedience, just because the authority said to? What sort of person is most likely to follow such an order? What kind of official is most likely to give that order, if it suited his purposes? Look at what experiments tell us, as I did. (snip) The studies explain so much about these people. Yes, the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank-and-file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?"

It's a very entertaining book, along with being scary; Prof. Altemeyer has a humorous style. In a footnote near the end of the book he exclaims "You're still reading this?"

I mention all this only because you'll realize that it answers so much of what you ask in the second paragraph.

Just wait,” Wentworth said, “till--oh, say--the threat of the asteroid impact builds in the years ahead. You would see unthinkable sacrifices quickly embraced by the people as we united the planet to establish a massive asteroid-deflection system in deep space.”

“Is there an approaching asteroid?” Linda asked.

“There could be,” Wentworth said.
--Dean Koontz, The Good Guy

Okay, that's just from a novel, but I can't help but wonder how well it illustrates the way authorities on both sides use fear to manipulate people.

Want people to give up possession of firearms?

Exploit the hell out of the most recent series of mass murders and use such events to imply that only people who "hate society" would refuse to give up their weapons.

Want to discourage people from demonstrating against the government?

Exploit the hell of a particularly violent demonstration and pretend that the people involved represent the norm for political dissidents when for all most people know, they could be atypical individuals--if not agents provocateurs.

And then use such demonstrations as an excuse to curb political demonstrations in general..

Want to discourage people from employing religious connections to organize against the government?

Exploit the hell out of a few wacky cults and argue that such cults represent the norm for religious people. And argue that only a creepy religious person would argue different.

Want to install microchips in people so that you can keep better track of them?

Make a big deal out of, say, terrorists or illegal aliens--and imply that all people who refuse to have a chip installed obviously sympathize with one or the other.

Or better yet, exploit a series of missing children cases and use such cases to imply that anyone who refuses to have a chip installed in their child obviously "hates" children or doesn't care if they're kidnapped.

Okay, I'm obviously a bit imaginative in my examples--but history has shown time and again time that people in authority have a tendency to try almost anything if they can get enough people to go along with it. And that under the right circumstances, such people can get away with anything.

Which is why it's generally a good idea to prevent the right circumstances from coming about.

Oops. Should saved all that for my thesis...

Mea culpa.

Moore will be dismissed as a clown or a joke because he presents himself as a clown or a joke. Someone like Richard Dawkins making the same arguments (assuming he would make the same arguments) would be taken seriously, because he would present himself seriously.

Moore goes for the cheap laugh and the gag with his presentation. It makes for more exciting filmmaking, but it also obscures his point and makes it seem goofy and not particularly insightful. He also has a tendency to stretch the truth on occassion and every now and then his research is less than thorough. As a result, he leaves himself open to being attacked on particular points, undermining any other point he was trying to make.

If you act like the court jester, don't be surprised when people treat you like a clown.