We spend a lot of time in the political blogosphere discussing the Christian Right and the political claims to Christ's personal endorsement of their agenda - but personally, I draw the line at any attempt by the Right to co-opt my superheroes. So my gander was tweaked when I read last week's typically left-bashing piece at Vermont's Dwinell Political Report entitled HELP WANTED: SACRIFICIAL LAMBS. The piece, which started out reasoned and thoughtful, quickly veered into li'l ranting tidbits like this one:
choosing to be in Vermont now overwhelming means that one is expected to volunteer to be sacrificed to the pig-headed vanity, incredible ineptitude, and purely-ideological fantasies of a remnant ruling class of elderly flower children.
Fairly pedestrian right-knee-jerk-drivel, of course - except for the byline (emphasis added):
Captain America graces these pages annually. Captain America is a Vermont resident
I beg your pardon.
Captain America?! A Republican?? Pfft. Let's put this li'l fallacy to rest right away.
First off, it comes as little surprise that the Right would try to co-opt Cap (Cap-opt?). Mr. Red-White-and-Blue is the very image of patriotism, and the right has a tendency to think they own that particular quality. In point of fact they do own it, inasmuch as those that do attempt to use the concept as a bludgeon (certainly not all Republicans, just the talk radio types) like to define it as some sort of imperialized laissez-faire, religious and ethnic superiority. It brings to mind Bill O'Reilly's favorite trick, recently put on display against Barbara Walters on The View, whereby he pointedly, repeatedly and impatiently prods on the matter of the Iraq War with the simplistic question "you do want us to win, don't you?". The answer is awkward because his presumptive definition of "win" is likely the neoconservative transformation of the Middle East into an American corporate client state. A straight-up "no" doesn't play well, and you don't get any time to qualify your answer to Mr. "I've never received any Republican talking points" (BWA-ha!) O'Reilly.
So Cap's the one they think they have a right to. Who else have they got? Spider-Man's mantra of "with great power comes great responsibility" is, after all, a better statement of the liberal ethic than the last thirty years of Democratic Party talking points.
For those who don't know (and without going too much further down the fanboy route than absolutely necessary), Captain America's story begins in World War II, where he volunteers to receive a chemical treatment (the secret to which has, of course, been lost) which transforms him into a "super-soldier." Not super-powered per se, but given a shortcut to the peak of human athletic potential. Through a combination of suspended animation and the peculiar flow of comic-book time, Cap survives into the modern era fighting more contemporary bad guys.
On the way though, there have been several hints into Cap's political leanings. There was the enthusiastic first meeting with FDR (where the President gave him his shield) - but the ever-patriotic Captain is always respectful and accomodating to the office of the Presidency. Less easy to explain away, however, was his reaction to the Watergate scandal (or its comic-equivalent). Rather than adopting Skynard-esque defiance, Cap was distraught, losing the stars and stripes for a time to become the gloomier Nomad.
He also dropped his Captain America persona following his attempted conscription by the government in the 1990s, and his rational (but deeply felt) patriotism was contrasted against the aggressive, Rambo-era jingoism of his replacement in the red-white-and-blue (a replacement he naturally had to take down eventually). This is clearly not a my-country-right-or-wrong guy. In addition, he's always been one to stand up against racism, sexism and classism, and one could argue in the post WWII era, that given his genesis, the guy is a one-man successful government program.
So, okay, this is one fanboy's opinion. What isn't a matter of opinion is the message being sent by the current stroryline in Captain America's Marvel Comics line. From this month's issue of the Utne Reader:
Hundreds are killed. The president asks for, and gets, expanded powers. Preemptive war is waged in the name of national security. More people die. Only a few voice their dissent. "War is just a diversion," writes embedded journalist Sally Floyd. "We're so busy watching ugly pictures on TV that we lose sight of what's really going on. The hurt doesn't seem real . . . which suits the warmongers just fine."
Who is this perceptive and opinionated journalist? She's a fictional reporter for the imaginary New York Alternative-and the war she's covering is between two groups of superheroes in the Marvel Comics Civil War mini-series, launched in May. One group embraces a "Superhuman Registration Act" that forces costumed heroes to reveal their secret identities and register with the government; another, led by Captain America, goes underground and resists the expanding power of the state. Later, Sally is arrested for refusing to reveal a confidential source.
Reflecting their older demographic base from previous decades, comics have done what few television or movie productions have - tackle the Bush era civil liberties debate head on. In fact, leading the other side of this "civil war," is Marvel's Iron Man - the head of a multinational corporation who recently (and briefly) served as Secretary of Defense. Captain America, now forced underground, clearly playing the role of oppressed, but unbowed everyman. From Utne again:
For example, some readers might assume that Captain America, a superpatriot who already works for the government, would support the Registration Act. Yet it makes perfect, if surprising, sense for Captain America to lead the rebellion. Through many political zigs and zags in the real world, Cap has always represented core American ideals-freedom of conscience, fair play, and commitment to the general welfare-that are today in conflict with the imperatives of the war on terrorism. If Captain America really existed in George W. Bush's America, whose side would he be on? Cap probably would be punching out Abu Ghraib torturers and exposing secret detentions as un-American.
What's my excuse for spending so much time on Captain America today? Yeah. sure, I'm a geek - but it's more than that. That little byline on Dwinell's site is yet another (albeit subtle) example of Republicans feeling they have the right to co-opt everything and anything that smacks of patriotism. Sometimes deliberately, but sometimes out of complete cluelessness, given that to so many of the Bushites (again, which not all Republicans are), being proud of America means being proud of the Republican Party, as opposed to being proud of the noble principles enshrined in our imperfect, yet still-extraordinary Constitution.
So to Dwinell and his mystery writer daring to scrawl his drivel under this hallowed pen name, this fanboy has one thing to say:
I've grown up with Captain America. I know Captain America. Captain America is a friend of mine...
Mr. Republican-screed-writer, you're no Captain America...
(Crossposted from Green Mountain Daily)