I have read an article,
Bat-Bush: A New Hope for Conservatives by Brandon Barker, from AOL News that is itself a comment on an article in the Wall Street Journal,
What Bush and Batman Have in Common by Andrew Klavan. Klavan makes the argument that Batman in the movie Batman: The Dark Knight is allegorical for the Bush Administration and how it has dealt with the "War on Terror." Barker countered his argument with humor but not much else. All he succeeded in doing is offending me by making disparaging remarks about Batman (the ones about Bush might be valid). Let's take a few minutes and discuss some of points that they both bring up.
Klavan said
There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.
And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.
I don't think that Klavan is correct equating Bush to Batman because to do so equates the Joker to Bin Laden and his like-minded ilk. The Joker is bent on anarchy and murder of everyone around him regardless of who they are and what they believe. The problem for Batman was that the Joker was trying to push Batman, Gordon, and Harvey Dent to their breaking points so that they will compromise the rules and values that they hold dearest. That is why the Joker did not kill Dent after he became Two-Face. The Joker recognized Tw0-Face as a victory. Batman is willing to do whatever he has to do, sacrifice whatever he has to, except the life of another human being. He will not kill ever. He refuses. The Joker wanted to push Batman to the point that he would kill Joker. Like everyone knows the Joker is nuts. How many lives has Bush sacrificed in this war? It's not his own life on the line, it's the lives of our 18 to 30 year-olds. Batman consistently put his own life on the line.
Bush compromises the civil rights of law-abiding citizens in order to protect them. Batman only goes outside the law to stop criminals from breaking it. One could argue that this is wrong and Batman struggles with it. He is constantly asking himself "have I gone too far?" "Have I become what I hate?" I question if Bush and those in his administration ever ask these questions. Batman makes no apologies for his methods. Will he torture a suspect? Yes. Will he ignore international laws to protect Gotham City? Without any hesitation. Is he right? He constantly hopes so. The film makes a point (the comics make it too) that Batman can do things that the authorities cannot do. The authorities cannot be just as bad as those they have authority over. Batman is constantly working for a time where the city will no longer need what he does. He constantly told Harvey Dent: "You are better than I am for this city." Batman believed that Dent was someone the Batman can never be because their functions are different.
Here is another point about how Batman and Bush are different: When Batman did bend the civil rights of the citizens to listen to every single phone call in the city to find the joker, he destroyed the technology as soon as it was over. How many of our civil liberties have been permanently abridged? You can be legally wiretapped at any time. This point came up in the film. Harvey reminded people that when Rome was a republic they would appoint one man to get them out of trouble and handed all political and social power to him and talked about Batman being like that man and when the crisis was over the man would give up his power and Rome would be a republic again...until Julius Caesar any way. The film explained that Batman is what Gotham needs in the wake of the Joker and the threats still over it. I'm not too sure if America still needs Bush's policies.
How does Barker argue against Klavan? And I quote:
But let's take a quick step back. How, in fact, is President George W. Bush--the helmsman of the most disparaged administration since, well, Clinton's--comparable to this tough, decisive and plastic-coated version of the winged hero? Kavlan claims:
A. They are both "vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand"
B. They sometimes have "to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency"
C. They both understand "that there is no moral equivalence between a free society and a criminal sect bent on destruction"
Would it be too easy to point out that they are also both the sullen, neglected, entitled sons of wealthy and powerful men who, when given the freedom of adulthood, create widespread, high-tech havoc?
Okay, I admit that Barker made a funny. But let's think seriously for a second. The real difference between Batman and Bush is not that they create havoc. Batman tries to control and protect the world from the havoc that nearly destroys his life when he saw his parents gunned down in front of him (I'm talking about Batman as if he's real because Barker went as far as making a personal insult against a fictional character). The movie makes the argument that the city of Gotham and that fictional world is better off because of Batman's actions. Can anyone make the same comment on your life as an American citizen because of George Bush's actions?
Both Batman Begins and Dark Knight are based on themes of choice. In Begins, Bruce Wayne chose to be defined by what he does, not by what people think of him. In Dark Knight, Harvey Dent said "you either live long enough to die a hero, or to see yourself become the villain." When Batman made the decision he made at the end of the film (I'm not going to say what it is in case you haven't seen it yet) he quoted the same line. He decided that it was better for Gotham to sacrifice himself than for the Joker to win. Commissioner Gordon agreed with him but hated it. Do you see Bush, or yourself for that matter, falling on your proverbial sword for anyone?
Posts
