Broken Frontier

“The Betrayal of Captain America” by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies claims the character embodies a nationwide “epidemic.” So does that mean he still represents – or resents – America?

“The Defense Department must face international terrorism,” begins the April 2003 white paper from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), “without the aid of a celebrated hero of past victories – comics figure Captain America.”

That is an extraordinary statement: That our real-world DOD must contend in the modern era without the renowned Marvel Comics character as an asset. The reasons given are likewise astonishing:

Marvel Comics and other publishers are disseminating comic books that actively promote a destructive cynicism and mistrust of the United States Government. They express anti-war sentiments, condemn America as a racist state, liken the actions of our Armed Forces to the murderous crimes of Islamic terrorists […] and reveal our Government officials to be scheming, evil villains. 

For a moment, put that major indictment aside and look again at the opening line – because it is a subtle, yet remarkable admission. The modern U.S.Government must fight “without the aid” of Captain America.

Can a fictional character truly have such importance? Perhaps so – perhaps enough, at least, to serve as cautionary tale for what the authors of this “Betrayal of Captain America” document believe to be a much larger issue: “the deep cultural malaise afflicting our nation in the midst of a significant war” that one “might expect […] from Hollywood activists, academic apologists, or the angry protesters who regularly fill the streets of European capitals (and many major American cities).” But this stance is not expected from superhero comics – not, at least, by the FDD nor, most likely, by much of middle America.

For it remains the comic book industry’s legacy to be viewed as juvenile literature, “aimed largely at children and teenagers,” despite any wealth of demographic information and coverage to the contrary. For certain, the major publishers such as Marvel and DC Comics are struggling to regain and expand their consumer base with an influx of younger readers – all to only limited results, such as Teen Titans Go! or the latest all-ages Marvel Heroes fare. Regardless, few outside parties will debate that it is America’s youth, many “of age to serve in the Armed Forces,” that are “precisely [the] demographic group that is targeted by the comic book industry.” The majority of America still would not blink an eye at that statement, unfortunately.

As such, in Werthamic fashion, this is Captain America’s perceived power lies: He is betraying us by misleading the next generation of Americans. “These comic books illustrate a broader problem – the epidemic of self-doubt and self-hate infecting our popular culture, disseminated by the arts and entertainment industry.”

The actual target audience of Captain America comics is debatable, and the character’s “aid” in past wars is likewise questionable. In fact, Captain America’s post-World War II Commie-bashing exploits were retconned away as those of a stand-in hero when the “original” Captain America, Steve Rogers, was awoken from suspended animation in the modern day. Further, he had very little active participation in the Vietnam War, largely staying on the homefront and, in fact, briefly abandoning the Captain America identity for “the Nomad” when strikingly confronted by government corruption in the wake of Watergate. Further, Wikipedia notes:

In the 1980s, a similar story was written by Mark Gruenwald when Rogers chose to resign his identity rather than submit to the orders of the United States government and took the alias of "The Captain" instead. This extended story arc was intended to illustrate the difference of Captain America's beliefs from his replacement who was intended to illustrate the jingoistic attitude that the popular movie character Rambo embodied and which Rogers did not share.

For the most part, Rogers has since come to accept the corrupt officials as part of his modern existence, though by no means the widespread rule that “The Betrayal of Captain America” might suggest. “Senior U.S. officials, including members of the Cabinet, are portrayed as arrogant and hostile villains,” rather than discrete individuals. In particular, the FDD specifically notes U.S. Secretary of Defense Dell Rusk “with the same initials as Donald Rumsfeld” as a “government official[…] revealed to be a vicious, lawless thug.” After the publication of this white paper, however, Rusk was revealed to be the arch-villain the Red Skull, an anagram of his alias, undermining Captain America, his teammates, and America from the inside.

However, the issue remains: Is Captain America now “a handy bludgeon for America-bashing?” Is he portrayed differently now after September 11, 2001? Further, is there an obligation on the part of Marvel Comics and its creative teams to handle him differently during “the War on Terror?” In fact, is there a mandate to do so or, worse, a benefit?

To be continued.