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 Redemption of Captain America - Part I

In April of 2003, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) released Michael Medved and Michael Lackner’s white paper “The Betrayal of Captain America.” And last month, I began my response to that piece, first addressing the real-world applications of the fictional character, and now dissecting Medved and Lackner’s points on Steve Rogers ideology.

Thing is: Somebody got to it first.

Rather, somebodies – Stephen Grant of ComicBookResources.com (CBR) and Scott Slemmons, to name two. And kudos to them; I don’t mind being a johnny-come-lately to this party, especially when I have the benefit of extra hindsight that the last two years have provided with current events. Still, Grant and Slemmons got there first; much of Grant’s reaction is spread over several of his CBR “Permanent Damage” columns, but Slemmons’ reaction to Medved’s “Captain America, Traitor?” article – a shorthand version of the FDD white paper – remains available in its entirety at his site.

Before moving step-by-step through the white paper and the questions left hanging from my previous column, let’s start with Grant’s brief summary on Medved himself and some speculation as to what fueled the analysis in the first place:

…Self-appointed moral watchdog Michael Medved (a film critic who made his rep founding The Golden Turkey Awards to celebrate bad films, before briefly joining Jeffrey Lyons…) apparently read John Ney Reiber's recent run on the character and The Truth, Marvel's revisionist "black Captain America" saga, and was horrified - absolutely horrified, I tell you - to see that Captain America, the living symbol of all that's good and proper about this great land we live in, was actually considering the possibility that America might have some responsibility for its actions. Horrified enough to write an article about it for renowned conservative rag The National Review.

That piece, in turn, led to the white paper with Lackner, which, over two years later, leads us here. Civilization hasn’t crumbled, Captain America continues to be published (albeit by way of another issue #1 reboot), and the War on Terrorism rages on. Or the Struggle Against Extremism, whatever they’re spinning it as at the moment.

In the previous column, I took a wide approach focusing on the bizarre, metaphysical responsibility or use a fictional character has to a real-life crisis. This time, however, armed with Grant and Slemmons, it’s worth grounding the discussion in Medved’s argument itself, putting aside that more abstract argument and frankly asking: What are the charges against Captain America?

Medved’s white paper opens with a laundry list of accusations – to which I have added numeration and my own emphasis – all leading to an overall denunciation of Cap. He says:

In his latest adventures, the “Sentinel of Liberty” not only (1) expresses ambivalence on the current war on terror but (2) even embraces trendy notions that the U.S. somehow deserves the hatred of Islamic radicals. (3) Disillusioned, (4) embittered, (5) surprisingly sympathetic to terrorists, and (7) amazingly uncertain about which side represented the real “good guys” in World War II, the new Captain America provides a startling example of (8) a popular symbol of nationalism transformed into a handy bludgeon for America-bashing.

To take issue with Cap’s status as a “popular symbol of nationalism” cycles back, to a degree, to last month’s discussion; he is a trademarked character of a private company, not the American bald eagle or Uncle Sam (who has been himself the subject of numerous comics, actually).  But, putting that aspect of Medved’s objections aside, a more concrete – or perhaps more rhetorical – question comes to the fore: How do objections 1-7 add up to conclusion 8?

Even if all of Medved’s suppositions are correct, does this truly transform Cap into “a handy bludgeon for America-bashing,” a “politically biased assessment of the war on terrorism,” a “bizarre abuse” of the legendary hero? No. If these indictments are at all true, it only changes Cap from an icon to a character – a man just as he was found in Avengers #4, out of synch with the present and struggling to understand both his place and his views on modernity. This man behind the mask Steve Rogers, moreover, has been conflicted with his role for some time long before September 11, 2001, notes Slemmons:

In fact, this is far from the first time that Cap has been depicted as disillusioned and conflicted about America -- since the 1970s, Captain America has gone through multiple periods where, usually in response to national crises and periods of unrest, he questioned whether he believed America was still an ideal worth fighting for. (my emphasis)

Medved equates the current W.o.T. or S.a.E. to the grandfather of all inspiring American military acronyms: WWII. “Captain America,” says his opening paragraph, “the patriotic superhero whose comic book exploits inspired the nation in World War II, now feels uncertain about his nation’s cause.” Truth be told, Medved might not be wrong here; what is erroneous – or, rather, cunningly disingenuous – is the suggestion that Cap’s role is not only to support America faithfully as he did in the 1940s, but to never cease doing so. To question America-now is to question America-then. Thus, when Cap sees modern terrorist bombings and relates them to Dresden in his mind – “History repeats itself life a machine gun,” reads the caption – Medved implies that this is a desecration of both 9/11 and WWII. He rules out the possibility that, perhaps, destruction is just destruction to the war-weary Captain America, regardless of in whose nation it takes place.

Medved states, “Captain America’s new, post 9/11, understanding of the destruction of Dresden suggests a moral equivalence between the Allied forces in World War II in the midst of a bloody, all-out global war and the al-Qaeda terrorists who attacked unsuspecting office workers on a peaceful morning in September.” Well, it certainly wasn’t peaceful somewhere for these men to enact their terrible plot. And it isn’t a moral equivalence of motivation that the comparison suggest – it’s a moral equivalence of life.

“Today America is at war. Why would a publisher wish to blur the distinction between the America of WWII and our enemy Nazi Germany?” To point out that both sides kill, both sides lost lives, and neither side left the field of war unbloodied. “Might it be to suggest that there was no moral certainty then, and no moral certainty now?” Perhaps -- This currently is, at least for some, the Struggle Against Extremism, and what’s more extreme than moral certainty? But, also, perhaps not --  Maybe the moral certainty now is: A human life is sacred, regardless of its citizenship.

To quote Slemmons, “what did Medved get right? …Some of these comics deal with quite complex political and social issues…and should have been rated at least PG-13.” That’s fair, after all, since what we have here, much to Medved’s disgust, is a complex Cap, not a simple one for simpletons. PG-13 would be appropriate, because this issue of moral (un)certainty alone is a hard pill to swallow, even if it is filled with the Super-Soldier Serum.

Does Medved have a problem with Cap or a problem with reexaminations of World War II? He goes out of his way to invoke the minor character of Redpath with “his hatred of the United States” and the Native American’s observations in the comic:

I don’t know why I’m worried about Cap. I’ve seen him work. He can take care of himself. Has for several lifetimes. But I can’t help thinking he’s not ready for this. He’s such a relic of the past. The war is different now. The sides are less clearly defined…I worry about Cap because he was born in another time. A time when villains had honor – and the government never had madmen on their payroll. At time that never really existed. Except in his mind.

The war is not only “different now,” but so is the public’s awareness of world politics and military history. “The desire to whitewash history is a major theme of Medved’s column,” states Slemmons. Whereas Superman once urged us to “Slap a Jap,” the Man of Steel is a bit more polished today. To what higher standard must Cap be held? “If nothing else,” says Grant, “he's a character who illustrates the pitfalls of too closely tying an origin to a specific historical event … Batman can stay young forever if necessary, but Captain America steadily collapses under the ever-increasing weight of World War II.”

In order to shift that weight, the character of Steve Rogers bends with the years. However, it isn’t a matter of Cap being portrayed imperfectly for Medved – It is his being portrayed as in any way imperfect. To help illustrate, Grant continues:

Depending on how well your political POV gibes with the particular writer's you either dig it or you don't. It happens. There's Mark Millar's vision of Captain America as a grizzled old soldier in The Ultimates, and I remember Roger Stern, back when he was writing the character, viewing him as a Roosevelt-era New Deal Democrat, which still makes the most sense to me.

Even if Cap were written as a pro-war, staunch conservative federalist – certainly, as legitimate a way to write him as any – the problem would still be in his strict adherence to approved standards. At one moment in the paper, Medved chides Cap for not arguing more strongly against the (poorly written) terrorist leader Faysal Al-Tariq – while he’s violently pounding him. Then, later, when he does reply to accusations leveled at America, he “meekly admits” according to Medved that “We’ve changed. We’ve learned.” There seems only one, precise route for patriotism acceptable to the critic, and Cap is not following it. Perhaps it is so precise that he cannot follow it.

“To Medved,” says Slemmons, “it seems that a patriot is someone who loves his country wholeheartedly and never says anything bad about it, while anyone who criticizes any of his nation’s policies or actions is a traitor.” So why does Medved have such objections to World War II being reinterpreted? By those standards, Nazis, too, were excellent patriots. “It’s mindless nationalism at its most delusional.”

Should we, like Redpath, be worried for Cap – not only from assailants like Medved, but also from his own legend? Pragmatically, the answer is no. The only true threat to Captain America, the property of Marvel Comics, is lack of sales, not lack of morality. Slemmons says, “Approaching Captain America as solely a fictional character, it makes good storytelling sense to force him to examine his beliefs about America.” This holds especially true for the protagonist of a serial comic book, whose audience one month may not be the same as the next; reinvestigation invites additional readers into his story, psychology, and conflict – what most fiction “boils down to,” quoting Slemmons. This is Joe Quesada’s response to Medved – “These are just stories.” – though he also does suggest that Cap represents not the “American Way” anymore, but “the American Ideal.” The character is larger than any one war, any one administration.

In this way, it cheapens Captain America as a rich protagonist to have to sell the company line with the War on Terrorism; he’s bigger than that. Or, perhaps, simply as Steve Rogers, he’s much, much smaller: As Redpath is quoted to say, “I should have made a distinction between the counter – and the man.”

Big or small (or, I suspect, even framed in Ultimates v. 2), Captain America is always devoted. Always dependable. Constant, and ready to fight to the end for his allies. These qualities alone – and not a momentary stance on the latest global skirmish – make for his principles. Commendable ethics for any nation, certainly for America: Noble. Enduring. Impressive.

Captain America is no traitor.