Barb Lien-Cooper
Captain America
A Patriot for Our Time?
by Barb Lien-Cooper
December 2003
I read with interest and dismay Michael Medved's National Review online article, "Captain America: Traitor?" about Marvel Comics' most patriotic character. Please allow me to comment on the article. Mr. Medved's comments are followed by my responses. For Mr. Medved's original article in full, please refer to the following original article.
Michael Medved: As if Defense Department officials didn't face enough challenges in and around Iraq, they must now prepare for battle without a celebrated component of past victories. Captain America ...
Barb: You do understand, Mr. Medved, that Captain America is a fictional character owned by Marvel Entertainment, not a real life hero or a character designed by the US government as a propaganda machine ...? And, you do understand that under the First Amendment, Marvel Comics has the right to use said character as they see fit? Finally, you do understand that one has to be "real", not fictional, in order to be a traitor?
Medved: ... the patriotic superhero whose comic-book exploits inspired the nation in World War II, now feels uncertain about the nation's cause; in his latest adventures, The Sentinel of Liberty seems disillusioned, embittered, and surprisingly sympathetic to terrorists.
Barb: You obviously haven't been reading your comics for a long time. Captain America, from the post-Watergate years onwards, has questioned some of our nation's past policies. This fictional character has done so, not because he lost his patriotism, but because he understands that real patriotism isn't a blind stance, but an active, questioning thing.
Medved: This odd, unsettling direction for Marvel Comics comes at a time of maximum cultural influence.
Barb: While Marvel has been getting on its financial feet again because of movies and television deals, Mr. Medved's statement is a gross overstatement of the influence of comics in 21st century society. Comics, at this moment, are not selling the numbers they have in the past. They aren't even featured in most stores.
Medved: This mainstream clout makes the radical rethinking of the company's signature hero, Captain America, all the more unsettling.
Barb: Ah, look at that loaded term "radical". Some political writers seem to feel that loaded terms are acceptable in reasoned debate. They aren't (everyone from high school debate teachers to legal scholars will tell you as much). Such terms simply show the unreasonableness of the commentator's argument (or, the commentator himself or herself). As I mentioned before, Captain America has, along with the generations that cropped up after the advent of Watergate, made the journey from blind patriotism to a thinking person's version of the concept. He is a hero that loves his country, while fully willing to feel sorrow at our nation's mistakes and moments of ignorance.
Medved: In 2002, Marvel responded to the horrors of 9/11 with Captain America: The New Deal ...
Barb: Failing to mention all the wonderful titles Marvel published in the wake of 9/11, including 4-11 and 9-11.
Medved: (in the series) a militant addresses Captain America through loudspeakers, demanding: "Tell our children then, American — Who sowed death in their field — and left it for the innocent to harvest? Who took their hands, their feet?"
Barb: It would be naive, Mr. Medved, to claim that we Americans have never promoted any policies that could have inadvertently spurred terrorists on to violence. America often has to make foreign policy decisions that anger other parts of the world. We make our decisions, knowing the risks. The issue doesn't claim that what the terrorist is saying is correct. Instead, the comic is trying to show the motivation of said terrorist.
And, once again, may I remind you that the comic is a work of fiction?
Medved: A horrified hostage mother turns with fury on her own husband and shrills: "This is how you feed our baby? With bombs? You make bombs?"
Barb: A significant portion of our nation feels that "guns not butter" is a less than moral way to keep our economy going. It's simply an opinion that's different from yours, sir, from a fictional character, in a work of fiction. What's more, this fictional character is a hostage, so one would assume that said character, at the very least, is speaking/acting under duress and is speaking from her emotions and hysteria instead of writing a treatise concerning the United State's fiscal policy.
Medved: In the next installment of the series ... Marvel Comics thoughtlessly recycles a notion that's been lovingly nurtured by anti-American conspiracy theorists of all stripes: that our own intelligence establishment somehow orchestrated bloody terrorist attacks against U.S. civilians.
Barb: Mr. Medved jumps to a conclusion unwarranted by the comic book issue by saying that the issue is directly linking foreign policy decisions the USA has made in previous years to the USA being directly responsible for the terrorism on its shores. Medved uses buzzwords such as "anti-American" and "conspiracy theorists" to cover up this bare boned argument. As conservative commentators often seem to do, he makes outrageous assertions without backing them up with facts, hoping that "fighting words" will paste over the cracks in said arguments.
And, once again (!), may I remind Mr. Medved that said comic is a work of fiction, meant for entertainment purposes, not a political essay or work of reportage or anything else that requires accuracy in its portrayal of real events, actions, motivations, characterization, or whatever.
Medved: This idea of America the Guilty permeates other additions to the series, including #5 (October, 2002) in which Captain America visits Dresden to receive a history lesson on American war guilt — for World War II! The broad-shouldered hero goes through a searing reverie about America's controversial firebombing of the city in 1945: "You didn't understand what we'd done here — until September the 11th," he tells himself. "These people weren't soldiers. They huddled in the dark. Trapped ... And while there was nothing left to breathe there in the dark, they died... History repeats itself like a machine gun."
Barb: Instead of seeing this passage as a comparison/contrast between the two incidents, I prefer to look at how the passage shows Captain America (and hence, America itself) as having compassion and a conscience. It also shows our nation as one that is willing to make the tough, controversial decisions, even though we can often see the horror of our actions. How exactly is it wrong to see the civilian victims of war as people who have suffered?
Also, as a fictional character that has been around since "the greatest generation", Captain America's character would naturally have memories of suffering civilians from other times. The mention of these memories simply gives the character a certain amount of light and shadow needed to make the character one we can identify and sympathize with.
Medved: Especially in a comic book aimed largely at children and teenagers (and rated PG) the comparison (in the hero's own voice) is both illogical and obscene.
Barb: Mr. Medved portrays his ignorance of current comics by bringing up ye old "think of the children" argument. While every decent American wants to protect children in our society, Mr. Medved seems to be advocating a type of censorship that other forms of media that children can just as easily get their hands on are not subject to. The comic in question had a "parental guidance" (PG) rating, which Marvel voluntarily put on its comics in lieu of the older Comic Book Code rating. Therefore, Marvel did its part to "think of the children" by suggesting parental guidance, putting the protection of children back on the shoulders of parents, where it primarily belongs. I don't know about you, but any commentary that speaks of what should and shouldn't be put in comics because of some proverbial innocent children that might read them smacks of the "burning times" of comics in the 1950's. Can you say Seduction of the Innocents, boys and girls? As a related argument, Mr. Medved seems not to know that comics increasingly have appealed to older audiences than the ones of his youth.
He also seems unaware that media and pop culture are a mirror that reflects the times and mores of a nation (an idea made all the stranger as the man makes his living as a film and media critic). Captain America is incorporating issues of terrorism and America's reputation in the world because that is where we as a nation are at this point in time. However, mentioning said issues in fiction does not necessarily present said issues as truth. Perhaps Mr. Medved is of the type that believes that these proverbial children we're supposed to think of have such an infirm understanding of the difference between fantasy and reality that they'd believe that fiction is fact. I know that sounds ridiculous, but some conservative Christians believe exactly that concerning the diabolical works of one Ms. J.K. Rowlings, believing that Harry Potter and Co. promote Satanism instead of the glorious results of a classical education. If the children of these conservative types really do have such an infirm grasp on the natural of fact vs. fiction, said children have much worse problems than whether to read Captain America or Harry Potter or the Good Book.
Also, notice how Mr. Medved once again uses loaded phrases such as "illogical" and "obscene" to paper the cracks in his argument. When an argument can't be won by logic, some conservative commentators seem to feel it's acceptable to win by subterfuge (loaded phrases, name-calling, belittling, etc.). It isn't. Something I learned from reading superhero comics in my youth is that how one plays the game is as important as winning and losing. Maybe Mr. Medved didn't read enough superhero comics in his youth.
Medved: The indictment of the United States becomes even more explicit in issue #6 (December, 2002) in which Captain America listens to yet another sympathetic rant from a terrorist mastermind. "Guerillas gunned my father down while he was at work in the fields — With American bullets," the militant helpfully explains. "You know your history, Captain America ...You played that game in too many places ... The sun never set on your political chessboard — your empire of blood."
To this verbal assault, The Sentinel of Liberty responds meekly, "We've changed. We've learned...My people never knew. We know now. And those days are over."
Barb: I'd like to know what is so objectionable about Captain America using reasonable tones, admitting that we as a nation are not perfect, but we are one that tries to learn from our mistakes? America is truly the greatest country on earth. However, no nation is perfect. Our government is made of fallible human beings, after all. If this scene shows anything, it shows that America is a superior country because we always try and improve ourselves — and that we know our greatness, while understanding our flaws. Pretending that America has always been a perfect country means we as a nation can never learn from our mistakes. One of the things that make me proudest of being an American is how our country, in the main, can look at our collective past, acknowledge our actions, and move on. Isn't that the type of moral lesson those proverbial children Mr. Medved speaks of could benefit from? Or, perhaps, Mr. Medved doesn't believe that the people that make up nations should ever take responsibility for their actions. It seems to me that back in the day, certain conservative commentators were lambasting a certain Democratic president for not taking responsibility for his actions when he denied an affair with a certain intern. Does Mr. Medved honestly believe that "never apologize, never explain" is anything but an emperor denying that he's butt naked?
Then again, Cappy's apology is just one fictional character's opinion.
Barb's note: Mr. Medved's article then goes off into an area not warranted by the parameters of what he claims to be protesting — -"Captain America: Traitor?". He strays from his topic (the portrayal of terrorism in Captain America) when he writes about the Captain America, Red, White, and Blue mini-series, "In addition to making one-sided, damning references to controversial elements of American foreign policy, Marvel Comics recently highlighted totally invented atrocities to underscore the nation's vicious, racist nature."
Barb: Once again, Mr. Medved, try to recall that Marvel Comics are works of fiction. "Totally invented" is the very definition of fiction. Also, as any political commentator should know, a fictional work that may show the US Military in a less than flattering light is not per se a traitorous act. As you should know, Mr. Medved, the Constitution of the USA defines treason acts that give aid and comfort to the enemy. In protesting Red, White, and Blue because it portrays a fictional part of the U.S. Military during World War II in a way that comments upon the racism of another era, you are no longer addressing the issue of treason. Treason is a term of law, a legal term, as defined by the Constitution. Writing a fictional work that may be seen as showing the U.S. military of the 1940's in a bad light is simply a creator exercising the right of free speech, which is protected by the First Amendment.
Then again, Mr. Medved may be using the word traitor in the same dishonest and divisive manner as Ann H. Coulter does in her book, Treason. Said book seems to have been written with willful disregard to the truth or falsity of its statements and assertions (isn't "willful disregard of the truth or falsity..." the legal standard of slander and libel?), blatant name-calling, and arguments without basis. The 'facts' in her book have already been rebutted by numerous articles, if you care to do a little research around the Internet. Ms. Coulter (a lawyer who doesn't seem to understand that "treason" is a legal term, not a malleable, amorphous term that means anything she wishes it to mean) claims that anyone that dares to take a non-conservative point of view or anyone that disagrees with (or even questions) the current Presidential administration is a traitor. I can only assume that Mr. Medved is also using the word "traitor" as shorthand for "anyone that doesn't agree with a conservative commentator or the current administration." Of course, equating the two concepts is rather ridiculous on the face of it. However, the consequences of such an equation could be quite serious. In my opinion, the increasing number of conservative commentators who insist on equating the two concepts could eventually have a dangerous chilling effect on the concepts of reasoned political debate, the free marketplace of ideas, and perhaps even representative democracy, in general.
Barb's note: After Mr. Medved protests Captain America: Red White and Blue, he quotes a most reasonable rebuttal from Joe Quesada and Max Allan Collins's introduction to Captain America: The New Deal. Mr. Medved does not per se comment upon the substance of these comments, but instead resorts to name-calling to obscure the valid points Quesada and Collins make.
Medved: Joe Quesada, editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics, cheerfully acknowledges the holocaust echoes. "There are moments in our history that may not have been our shining glory," he told me. "We've done things in our history that aren't right to our own citizens." He specifically cited the infamous Tuskegee experiment, in which medical researchers left syphilitic black patients untreated in order to study effects of the disease. "The beauty of America is that we can tell these stories and learn from our mistakes and move on." The messages he hopes to convey to children who read the comics include "the need to learn racial tolerance and that peace is the best way to go, wherever possible."
In a special introduction to the hardbound edition of Captain America: The New Deal, Max Allan Collins (author of the acclaimed graphic novel The Road to Perdition) praises Marvel for its edgy content. He cites the determination to "take this classic character of a simpler time into the smoky aftermath of September 11th" and "this story's courage and ability to examine the complexities of the issues that accompany terrorism... specifically, not to duck the things America has done to feed the attacks."
We might expect such blame-America logic from Hollywood activists, academic apologists, or the angry protesters who regularly fill the streets of European capitals (and many major American cities). When such sentiments turn up, however, hidden within star-spangled, nostalgic packaging of comic books aimed at kids, we need to confront the deep cultural malaise afflicting the nation on the eve of war.
Barb: Mr. Medved, once again, you seem unable to make an argument without resorting to a type of name-calling that suggests the immaturity of a school yard instead of the words of a professional writer. "Blame-America"? "Hollywood activists"? "Academic apologists"? "Angry protesters"? Notice how Mr. Medved tries to use labels in an attempt to marginalize those who do not agree with his conservative point of view. He attempts to portray those who do not walk in lock step with him as being part of some type of fringe of American politics instead of part of the plurality that makes up the political mainstream. (To go off into comic book geek speak for a moment, if Mr. Medved used such flaming phrases on most comic book message boards, the moderator would definitely e-mail him off-list to issue a stern warning concerning his language.)
I took the time to comment upon Mr. Medved's commentary because it's simply another assault from a portion of the conservative movement that feels that the rules of engagement/reasoned and reasonable debate are for losers. Medved uses lambaste instead of logic, appeals to our emotions instead of our minds, and uses very dualistic argument style, seemingly designed to divide our nation into Us vs. Them. There's no room for complexity or ambiguity in such arguments (let alone said world view), so there's no real room for reasoned debate that could somehow lead to the kind of bipartisan consensus that our nation so desperately needs in this complex age. Perhaps some conservative commentators have an anti-intellectual bias because they know that their arguments often do not (and are not designed to) hold up in the cold light of intelligent analysis.
Such commentators and commentary make the whole conservative movement look like unreasonable hotheads instead of intelligent people who hold some valid and reasonable political beliefs that I respect (even though I don't agree with many of these views). I do not hate conservatives. However, I do find objectionable any political commentator (conservative, liberal, moderate, or libertarian) that feels that it's okay (or necessary) to fight dirty in order to win a debate. Those who use derision, divisive labels, marginalization, lambaste, name-calling, malleable "facts", conclusions instead of reasons, et al, strike me as the type of bad eggs that hurt the cause of American discourse, in general. I find such words and actions to be those of bullies and bad sports. Captain America, a symbol of fair play for sixty plus years, wouldn't agree with such tactics. But, as Mr. Medved seems to believe, one that doesn't agree with his form of conservative commentary is a possible traitor, even if that person is a fictional character presented in five panel pages for our reading enjoyment.
I, for one, applaud Marvel's attempts to make Captain America a more complex and fully realized character. Captain America represents a type of patriotism that is has its eyes wide open and is willing to embrace America, flaws and all, as opposed to Mr. Medved's blind, unreasoned, unreasonable form of the concept. Cappy may simply be a fictional character, but at least he's one that's always tried to play fair, which is something a truly "good" American always tries to do.
