Justice League turns lefty?

Okay, for any who have seen my opinions in the past, you know that I'm an avid comic book collector. For a few years now, my favorite title has been Justice League, or JLA for short. The newest issue, #83, came out yesterday. It was, without a doubt, the most unvarnished left-wing piece of Bush-bashing propaganda I've ever seen. The baisc set-up is this (*WARNING*--SPOILERS)...President Luthor (yes, in the DC Universe, Lex Luthor is President of the United States) has decided that the nation of "Qurac" has acquired or constructed Weapons of Mass Distruction, and has decided that he must attack before they can be used (how coincidental). The Leaguers (really, only Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman in this issue) are unconvinced. Batman (badly mischaracterized by writer Joe Kelly) states that to attack a sovereign country without UN authorization would violate international law. Luthor attacks his (and WW's) statements as "unpatriotic." Batman even punches out a police officer in broad daylight who was keeping a group of war protesters from boarding a train...the policeman said there was a fire on the tracks. Batman doesn't believe him. Superman says he checked and it was true...there was a fire. Batman says, "I know." That's it. 'Nother words, he punches out the officer because he wanted to. There's more barely-disguised Bush-bashing until the end when...this is true...it all turns out to be a dream of Superman's. Yes, a dream. This issue had no story, no continuity, no connection to anything else in the entire DC Universe. It was, purely and simply, agit-prop Socialist propaganda. And apparently, the entire thing didn't go over very well. If you check the JLA message board at the official DC site, you'll see plenty of readers, both cons and libs, who were outraged by the over-the-top sermonizing:

Please check it out and feel free to comment (IF you've read the issue). And there is a place to send messages to DC, which is conveniently down. I think they're getting lots of feedback they didn't expect.

Anyway, you're talking to a guy here who thinks the Empire in Star Wars gets a bum rap. The Rebels are just a bunch of left-wing radicals running around blowing stuff up, without a viable plan for governing after they win. But I digress....

I've heard this position voiced (but I haven't heard much in details and don't care to look into it). It's only a movie... it's only a movie...

The Empire was a dictatorship (and certainly there were some power hungry people at the top).

I don't think that all planets should have to belong to a universal government (nor should all nations have to join a one world government).

There were Princesses and other unelected rulers in the preEmpire universe. Certainly things weren't great before the Empire but I don't know that they were a solution (what with blowing up planets to get people to talk).

I don't care for the story arch that closes out the series (films I-III coming after IV-VI). Chapters I-III basically are the arc of Darth Vader, who he is and how he came to power. Would anyone film a 3 picture deal about Adolph Hitler? Making him the hero of the first film using the old 1930s cliche of winning a race to save the family farm? In the second film he is more anxious but his blooming romance (and ties to the royal family are established, how do you think Princess Leia got to be a Princess?).

The original trilogy fare no better (ends with Ewoks). Empire Strikes Back was hailed as the best of the bunch but it ends with a cliffhanger. I say watch the original 1977 Star Wars and forget about all the rest.

I don't know Bob Burden's politics. I think he gave up drinking (but maybe still goes to strip clubs). Doesn't speak of his politics but does say things about his character. He's alluded to a shady past in America's dark underbelly. I don't know how much was fiction and how much was true.

These are things he's volunteered. He is an interesting (buy shielded) man to talk to.

I don't know Frank Miller's politics. Maybe Libertarian, maybe something different altogether (pick one from column a, one from column b...). He doesn't seem like an out and out Liberal to me. The Comics Journal just published a retrospective of interviews they conducted with him from 1980-2003. I think it is about a $20 book. His next project is supposed to be about Jesus but he hasn't indictated just what he plans to do with it (what angle he is taking).

I hear that Steve Ditko is into Ayn Rand. He is very private in that he wants his work to stand on its own (although he has put politics into his strips). He is quite "camera shy" and doesn't make personal appearances (but he is still alive and was creating through the 1990s).

I found this excerpt from a longer interview with John Romita Sr.:

Q : Who did Steve Ditko originally want the Goblin to be?
JOHN : From what I've gathered - and this is secondhand information, because I never asked Steve this - he wanted it to be someone unknown. And his theory was sensible; this is the reason Stan and he disagreed a lot. Ditko had a feeling that more real life should be put into the strips, and I thought he was a pioneer that way. He wanted politics in the strip, he wanted sociological upheaval in the strip; that's why there were riots on the campus in the strip and all that stuff. He was a very political animal, and he was very conservative too, as you probably know. He wanted all this stuff to look real, and he said, ''In real life, if there's a masked criminal, and you unmask him, 99 times out of 100 it's going to be someone you never know.'' And Stan's like, ''What are you talking about? We're not doing real life here; this is a guy who crawls on walls.'' (laughter)

I think that Dave Sim (of Cerebus) has some conservative positions but as a Canadian, I don't know all of his positions. More of that is my fault, I don't buy his self-published comics, I buy the self-published collected volumes. The individual issues have lengthy essays/editorials.

Here is a lengthy gripe from someone who dislikes Sim and Ditko's politics: Cerebus the Aardvark: An Obituary

I've found a couple of interesting commentaries on Conservativism (and Steve Ditko, the original Spider-Man and Blue Beetle artist):

http://www.belogical.com/comics_&_conservatives.htm

Dear Logic Lovers,

Mr. Jon B. Cooke, publisher of a wonderful fan magazine for comic book collectors, Comic Book Artist, recently informed me that a letter of mine is due to be printed in a forthcoming issue. [The letter has been printed in the January, 2001 issue.] The letter was my response to an interview with a highly-regarded comic book writer about politics in comic books. It seems that today’s writers often take the liberal viewpoint -- and I wanted to come to the defense of a writer/artist named Steve Ditko who is known in the business for being conservative. The book being discussed in the interview was Ditko's Mysterious Suspense featuring a superhero known as "The Question" who in real life was a radio/TV commentator named Vic Sage who used logic as his guide. Sound familiar?

Here’s my letter to CBA, written on August 9, 2000:

***

Dear Jon,

The latest issue of Comic Book Artist [August, 2000] was nicely done, as usual. I was saddened to hear of the death of Dick Sprang, a man I consider the best artist ever in the field, and the man who designed and delineated the definitive Batman. No one like him seems to be on the horizon, though one wonders what a story would look like if illustrated in the Sprang style by Peter Poplaski.

When I received this issue, I went straight to the Alan Moore interview because I think Moore has elevated the comic book form more than any other writer. His "Watchmen" is still the most intricate comic book series ever written, reading more like a classic novel than a comic book. Certainly, young kids wouldn’t have understood the rich tapestry that Moore and his collaborator, Dave Gibbons, inserted into the work. And boy, was the politics in that series interesting! I have learned, however, to try to set aside politics as much as possible when pursing today’s pop culture. Otherwise, I would have to find new ways to entertain myself.

It seems that most of today’s comic book creators are lefties. I grew up with a conservative Superman, but now he and Lois are portrayed as raving liberals. (Remember the story in which Superman would have let the Joker kill Lois rather than kill the Joker? Get real!) There is a character who appears from time to time in Superman (Agent Liberty?) who is a novelty because he is a conservative. How times have changed.

So when I read the comments about Steve Ditko, I pulled out my copy of "Mysterious Suspense" #1 [published in October, 1968] to look for those right wing wacko comments that Mr. Ditko may have inserted. I found a couple.

On page 6, a character says: "That stupid Sage. A rumor spread about him speaking out against the U.N. Instead of denying it, he asks if decent people should deal with cutthroats and if not, why should free governments deal with dictatorships that enslave their own citizens. And should we recognize the right of a dictator to make slaves of people." Ditko at his right-wing worst.

So Vic Sage didn’t deny anything as Bill Clinton so often does. He admitted that his opinion is that the United Nations should not deal with dictatorships. Let’s see if that rings any bells in today’s society where a liberal president sent a little boy back to an island prison so he could be reprogrammed by an aging and anachronistic dictator. How prophetic were the words of Mr. Ditko’s script.

On page 11, a character says: "Our standards are high. I won’t tolerate impurities in drugs that people will introduce into their systems. Vic won’t allow distortions in his evaluations which are to be absorbed by his listener’s mind. I protect my drugs with science and research. Vic protects his views with reason and logic! His words, like my drugs, are intended to clear unsound conditions...not to sound nice or taste good."

The pharmaceutical company is being threatened with a Jesse Jackson-style boycott unless it stops sponsoring the Vic Sage commentaries. The character goes on: "You can refuse to buy my products or listen to Vic. But if you deliberately reject quality and truth, you must be willing to settle for that which is inferior and lies!"

That’s great, powerful dialog. What does it remind you of in our modern day? Gays and lesbians trying to shut up Dr. Laura Schlessinger, just as the thugs in the story were trying to shut up Vic Sage. In the story, Sage was exposing lies and telling the truth about corruption. In real life, Dr. Laura, who strongly believes that homosexuality is unnatural, speaks out for what she believes to be right. In both cases, in this land of free speech, opposing groups work to shut up disagreeable, and therefore unacceptable ideas.

We have a term for that. It’s called "Political Correctness."

Alan disagrees with Ditko because Ditko believes there is a right and a wrong. But on the left, there is only moral relativism. Mr. Ditko may believe in "white supremacist dreams of a master race," but I doubt it. I haven’t read everything Ditko’s ever done, but I didn’t get that out of "The Question." Being conservative doesn’t mean you’re a Nazi.

The other thing I enjoyed about "The Question" when I reread it was the use of the word "logic" to describe Vic sage’s commentaries. That’s a word I use in my daily commentaries on the radio, and at my website, www.BeLogical.com. Sorry guys -- I enjoy your work tremendously and will continue to read CBA and the ABC titles -- but liberalism holds no appeal and no logic for me.

Lynn Woolley

posted on December 10, 2000

http://www.ditko.comics.org/ditko/why/whybagge.html

Peter Bagge, creator of the legendary independent comic HATE, wrote & drew the April release of THE MEGALOMANIACAL SPIDER-MAN for Marvel Comics. It features Peter's take on the whole Spider-Man mythos. It has received massive critical acclaim and basically follows Bagge's idea of a Peter Parker who turns into Steve Ditko. I'm not sure how Steve will feel about it, but it too has a "created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko" credit on the splash, & a "Tip O' The Pen To Steve Ditko" nod from Peter in the very end. Peter generously shared these thoughts with us on the issue...

-----

Blake,

I wasn't trying to say anything in particular about either Steve Ditko or Ayn Rand in that Spider-Man story. What I know of both Stan Lee AND Ditko (I've never met or spoke to either of them) seemed to be reflected in Peter Parker's personality when I read the early Spidey stories they did together -- which may explain why Parker comes off as such a tortured and complex character in them, seeing what diverse personatities his creators had.

So I used this notion to fuel my story, by making Parker first become a "Lee" type before evolving (devolving?) into a "Ditko"... The fact that Ditko himself is so heavily influenced by Ayn Rand made me wonder what kind of an effect her books would have on Peter Parker himself, so I used her as reference to illustrate the changes Parker goes through in the story. Critics of Rand claim that she preaches "selfishness" and greed, and that aspect of her philosophy is reflected in Parker's "Lee" phase of the story; while an equally important aspect of her philosophy -- that of being true to yourself; don't bow to societal pressures; to live and let live etc, etc -- is somewhat illustrated in the final part of the story.

- PETER BAGGE

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.