Is Civil War pro war, therefore pro conservative/republican?

[Billy Parker]

Civil War can and should be interpreted as pro war.

What do you guys and gals think?

I side with the heroes that won't register. And in the end, I think they will win the political war.

I think a lesson to be learned is "Though heroism/war may result in death (600 dead young students) that is the price we pay for freedom in this country."

The heroes are on the right side in protecting the American people. And in this way, they parallel the U.S. military in our country. And though in our heated political world, many people oppose our decisions to go to war with Iraq, the truth is that we NEED war to be completely practical. There are evil people out there in other countries, and our duty is to right their wrongs, even if it means people die doing the right thing.

Therefore, Civil War is pro war, pro military, pro heroes, and pro right-wing politics.

Civil War is a great series of books, because you can discuss it and interpret it in many ways, even politically. And I think this is one interpretation that hasn't been discussed much yet.

What do you think?

[Phrozen]

You are giving the "allegory" way to much credit.

[Kevinroc]

It's an allegory for US policy following 9/11. But it isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for those policies.

I think the reason Millar was so surprised that so many people have always been against the Pro-Reg heroes is because of the number of supporters Bush had when some of the real policies that inspired events in CW were enacted.

[Dazzler]

i'm as liberal as they come, and i am, for one, really on neither side. they're both acting like spoiled brats who've had their toys taken away or sadistic monsters. i can't support either.
i can't condone ripping civil liberties such as personal privacy away from individuals...but i can't support totally disregarding law and public safety for personal ideals either. i do, however, support standing up for beliefs by challenging law AS WELL AS showing personal beliefs by obeying it.

neither side is really "winning" or being forthright...nobody wins when they best you can do is fight all day long, and i think that might be the point of Civil War when it's all said and done.

--Dazz

[Expletive Deleted]

It's pro-"selling lots and lots of comics."

[garin]

I think you have the allegory backwards.

Cap doesn't want to give up freedom for security, Tony is willing to make that sacrifice. It's very clearly analogous to events following 9/11, like the passing of the Patriot Act. Cap is the 'liberal' here.

[IamtheRock3]

I think you have the allegory backwards.

Cap doesn't want to give up freedom for security, Tony is willing to make that sacrifice. It's very clearly analogous to events following 9/11, like the passing of the Patriot Act. Cap is the 'liberal' here.

Which is odd

See think the Allegory dont work

Cause the history of marvel VASTLY differnt

hard to really add real world stuff this late in the game unless you ignore the comic book world history, or have some recons (Ex. Oh yea. Hulk kills people a lot, been doing it for years, we just never mention it)

still a good story, but some stuff fall apart

[Billy Parker]

I think you have the allegory backwards.

Cap doesn't want to give up freedom for security, Tony is willing to make that sacrifice. It's very clearly analogous to events following 9/11, like the passing of the Patriot Act. Cap is the 'liberal' here.

WHOA!!!! Cap a LIBERAL!!! Dear God no. He's an all-American war hero. Military is conservative.

And I realize the "giving up identity" is an invasion of privacy that parallels our Patriot Act. This would be a pro liberal interpretation of the story.

Besides, the "allegory" isn't that strict which is the great thing about Civil War comics. You can interpret the story in so many ways.

But I still think as a conservative interpretation, the pro heroes is like a pro military, pro war element of the story. Anyone get this?

[Magneto Rocks]

The allegory really doesn't workt work in thaty regard. I'm a liberal, and I'm pro-reg all the way. On the other hand, the general feeling seems to be that the SHRA is conservative, despite it CLEARLY representing Big Government "intrusion" into people's lives, and it's parallels with liberal-supported Gun Registration.

Cap is most definitely a liberal. It's beyond doubt.

[overmind]

No, Civil War is Anti-war like those peaceful people in Darfur slaughtering refugees. Or like Sadaam was when he extended an olive branch of peace to Kuwait via some Scud missiles. Ofcourse it was only bad until the Republicans came to liberate Kuwait from the kindly forces of Sadaam and his peace loving hippies.... who occasingly torture people.:mad:

[gothamite]

WHOA!!!! Cap a LIBERAL!!! Dear God no. He's an all-American war hero. Military is conservative.

Wow.

You are seriously misinformed. :rolleyes:

[IamtheRock3]

well this aint the first time Cap went against the goverment

Both sides appeare to have ultra Left and right mentalities

depening on how you look at it

[TotalWorldDomination]

WHOA!!!! Cap a LIBERAL!!! Dear God no. He's an all-American war hero. Military is conservative.

What Cap is is an old fashioned FDR democrat. That means he has as little in common with modern-day democrats as he dose with modern-day republicans. Cap is a man out of time in both his political and personal views, so ascribing him to either "Liberal" or "Conservative" ideals is counter-productive (although I'll give you on most issues he's probably Left-of-Center).

Back in the day, FDR supported interventionist foreign policy, continued military buildups, increased federal government power, increased intelligence powers and other things that are now associated with American conservatism. If you look back it was the Republicans under Eisenhower who warned against the growing power of military, and the dems who supported it (under FDR and Truman).

I myself am a big supporter of Gun Control, a supposedly liberal issue (although I consider myself to be right-of-center), and thats what I most often compare it to. I have other friends who supposedly go "Against Type"- conservitives rooting for Cap, and liberals rooting for Tony.


to address your original concern- technically there is no "Pro-War" party. every ideology except extreme pacifists are willing to go to war over there beliefs and even a pacifist will fight back once attacked. so, I would say that no, Civil War is not Pro-War. If anything it shows how war can destroy a community from within.

[John Nowak]

I'm fairly conservative, and I've seen a couple of self-described conservatives discuss Civil War. No, three isn't a huge sample, but I none of them sees Civil War as containing a pro-conservative, or pro-war message.

Personally, I think Civil War is just a bad comic series and that reading any political message into it should wait until the story is over.

[Doom Hammer]

It's an allegory for US policy following 9/11. But it isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for those policies.

I think the reason Millar was so surprised that so many people have always been against the Pro-Reg heroes is because of the number of supporters Bush had when some of the real policies that inspired events in CW were enacted.

Actually, what I find interesting is the divided nature of the allegory, whether intentional or not.

Sure, Iron Man is supporting Partiot Act-esque legislation, but Captain America is leading an army into a conflict with no clear goals, no exit strategy, and no end in sight.

It's Millar writing W versus W.

God, I love comics.

[Kevinroc]

Actually, what I find interesting is the divided nature of the allegory, whether intentional or not.

Sure, Iron Man is supporting Partiot Act-esque legislation, but Captain America is leading an army into a conflict with no clear goals, no exit strategy, and no end in sight.

It's Millar writing W versus W.

God, I love comics.

I hadn't thought of it like that but it actually makes sense.

[kidpernicious]

I don't think there's nearly enough in Civil War that actually consistently parallels the real world situation to call it an allegory. There are definitely elements, but as the thread's starting to make clear, these elements are piecemeal, and pro- and anti-registration both have elements of liberalism and conservatism. Bottomline it's probably just like any other comic book: not enough like the real world to be having this conversation.

That all said, the BIGGEST parallel you can get out of this is the SHRA equaling the Patriot Act, which itself represents increased government powers, intrusion into peoples' privacy, and forfeiture of civil rights for the sake of security. If you want instead to compare it to gun control (it's really an approximation of both issues), that's cool too, but primarily even from Marvel themselves this thing has been characterized as having the Patriot Act as its real-world counterpart. If that's the case, and we all admit the anti-reg side are the 'good guys' in this (despite the bs Marvel promotion of both sides being portrayed equitably), and if you ALSO want to oversimplify the politics of both the Marvel U and the real-world issues the Patriot Act creates...

Then no. Civil War isn't pro-war, pro-conservative or pro-republican. The primary issue of the story is that for the sake of people's security, the government is legislating into peoples' lives and overriding their rights, and the 'good guys' are rebelling against this.

[kidpernicious]

Something else I wanted to comment on:
I side with the heroes that won't register. And in the end, I think they will win the political war.

I think a lesson to be learned is "Though heroism/war may result in death (600 dead young students) that is the price we pay for freedom in this country."

The heroes are on the right side in protecting the American people. And in this way, they parallel the U.S. military in our country. And though in our heated political world, many people oppose our decisions to go to war with Iraq, the truth is that we NEED war to be completely practical. There are evil people out there in other countries, and our duty is to right their wrongs, even if it means people die doing the right thing.
-snip-
Therefore, Civil War is pro war, pro military, pro heroes, and pro right-wing politics.
Your interpretation of Civil War seems a little (a lot) inconsistent. The SHRA is going to indoctrinate superheroes into SHIELD, as in they're going to codify their behavior, train them, give them agent status and put them out in the field. Basically, the pro-registration side is looking to militarize the superhero community. I suppose turning them into a police force would be more accurate a phrase, but the point remains. Pro-registration seems much more the pro-military side. And the issue of protecting the American people is in fact the primary motivation of the pro-registration side, it's the whole point of registering the heroes - so they can do their job better and safer with less risk to the general populace. Looking at it from the other side, if there's a Marvel U metaphorical equivalent to the military (aside from, you know, the military in the comic books), it's not superheroes, it's SHIELD. A regulated, structured organization that trains and polices their forces. Decidedly NOT similar to what the anti-registration side represents. There's no autonomy in the military, there's orders, rank and discipline. All elements that the SHRA would instill in the superhero community.

[Dazzler]

WHOA!!!! Cap a LIBERAL!!! Dear God no. He's an all-American war hero. Military is conservative.

And I realize the "giving up identity" is an invasion of privacy that parallels our Patriot Act. This would be a pro liberal interpretation of the story.

Besides, the "allegory" isn't that strict which is the great thing about Civil War comics. You can interpret the story in so many ways.

But I still think as a conservative interpretation, the pro heroes is like a pro military, pro war element of the story. Anyone get this?

Kuzzah whuzzah wha--?

I grew up in a multi-generational military household, and i can tell you that we were all liberals from the get-go. Just because the military policies call for a certain way of doing things, doesn't mean the individuals in the military have their personal viewpoints stripped away.

--Dazz

[Billy Parker]

But

Civil War is still pro war, not anti-war. People die fighting for what's right, and that's how our country works. If heroes protect us and people still die, we are still doing the right thing.

Liberals are all about ending fighting/war forever. But fighting/war is necessary in our world. Therefore, this reaffirms conservative ideas on war as the necessary choice for our country.

[gorthon616]

You are giving the "allegory" way to much credit.

Exactly. That's why I always hate it when people get too sucked into the story as a pseudo political treaties. If it gets you interested, that's great, but don't get to enraptured by the story as a political statement.


But

Comic Book Superheroes are still pro war, not anti-war. People die fighting for what's right, and that's how our country works. If heroes protect us and people still die, we are still doing the right thing.

Liberals are all about ending fighting/war forever. But fighting/war is necessary in our world. Therefore, this reaffirms conservative ideas on war as the necessary choice for our country.

Corrected.

[sherlockbones]

mhh, a marvel insider frequently posts stuff like the beneath. and he is working as marvel´s link to the reader-so what do you think is brevoort´s personal opinion on the op´s question?

So by definition, they forfeit not only all of their constitutional rights but also their protections under the Geneva Conventions. To me, that seems like kind of an extreme punishment for a bar fight. Is that the way things work in Marvel U.S.A?

Did you by any chance see Keith Olbermann's broadcast on the ramifications of the new legislation effectively eliminating Habeus Corpus protections? It works that way in OUR U.S.A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfOUAsBYsYg


Tom B

i think that backs up the allegory argument

[Rorysm]

The fact that Tom B. quotes Keith Olbermann says a lot to me! Not that Tom B. is the mastermind behind CW. (Olbermann almost rejoices at the violence in Iraq).

Honestly, I think it's a case of too many cooks ruining the stew. CW set out to be one thing, a parallel of the Patriot Act with some elements of Gun-Control thrown in. Then, when it was placed in the hands of soooo many writers with a liberal/democratic bias, it became a place to throw in any anti-Republican anti-Bush thoughts you had. Check out the Gitmo comparisons (and by the way, you'll notice there's not a reporter making up stories about mistreatment that leads to violence in the streets the way it happened in the real world when the NYTimes writer made up the "flushing the Koran" story). There just isn't enough conservative/Republican writers on Marvel's staff to balance the story out. It's a case of personal agendas affecting the companies presentation.

The comment about Captain America being an FDR-Democrat is interesting. Good food for thought. I'm not sure we couldn't learn more about the heroes in the Marvel Universe from studying FDR. The country went through a depression so he went against the Constitution to help the people (his social programs were unconstitutional) and he realized that even though it was illegal and unconstitutional to help England fend off Germany it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO! So, the President willingly and brilliantly (and correctly) broke the law to help what he saw as a growing problem (the Nazis) and did so with the lend-lease deal. However, I'm not sure that this last part could be classified as FDR-Democratic. It was the Republicans who helped FDR do this and the Democrats who were outraged (if I'm remembering my Master's class in WWII correctly).

I wish Frank Miller would chime in on the Marvel CW. His piece on NPR (on the radio and on their webpage) about the importance of the Nationalism after 9-11 was excellent.

[Phrozen]

mhh, a marvel insider frequently posts stuff like the beneath. and he is working as marvel´s link to the reader-so what do you think is brevoort´s personal opinion on the op´s question?

i think that backs up the allegory argument

It is a poor allegory. A very poor allegory. Not to mention Keith Olbermann is not one I would go to for deep political insight.

[sherlockbones]

It is a poor allegory. A very poor allegory. Not to mention Keith Olbermann is not one I would go to for deep political insight.

you may think of olbermann what ever you want (i don´t even know him) but the point is what does tom b. thinks about him and his publications. you may further discuss what can be extracted from tom´s post as marvel´s agenda/opinion.
imo tom is an indicator. analyze his posts under this assumption

[wellsoul2]

But

Civil War is still pro war, not anti-war. People die fighting for what's right, and that's how our country works. If heroes protect us and people still die, we are still doing the right thing..

Well..You are right in that instead of the Anti-Reg heroes leaving the country
they stay and fight. So the whole thing is pro-war I'd guess.


Liberals are all about ending fighting/war forever. But fighting/war is necessary in our world. Therefore, this reaffirms conservative ideas on war as the necessary choice for our country.

I disagree. Communists fight as much as conservatives.
Maybe you are talking about neo-conservatives..I dunno.

Just because more conservatives might support the Iraq war now doesn't
mean it won't be the reverse tomorrow.
For example..more liberals would probably support intervention in Darfur
and supported it when Clinton went to Bosnia.
Everybody supports war when it fits their reasons...just about anybody.

[Calybos]

The argument doesn't work, right from the start.

"Pro-war" and "pro-military" aren't even exclusively right-wing or conservative positions in the first place. Granted, most of the opposition to one specific war (Iraq) could be argued as coming from the left--MAYBE. But in general, conservatives are no more "pro-military" and "pro-fighting for what's right" than liberals are.

I think you're coming at this from a very oversimplified perspective on what liberal principles are.

[Brian M.]

The fact that Tom B. quotes Keith Olbermann says a lot to me! Not that Tom B. is the mastermind behind CW. (Olbermann almost rejoices at the violence in Iraq).

Honestly, I think it's a case of too many cooks ruining the stew. CW set out to be one thing, a parallel of the Patriot Act with some elements of Gun-Control thrown in. Then, when it was placed in the hands of soooo many writers with a liberal/democratic bias, it became a place to throw in any anti-Republican anti-Bush thoughts you had. Check out the Gitmo comparisons (and by the way, you'll notice there's not a reporter making up stories about mistreatment that leads to violence in the streets the way it happened in the real world when the NYTimes writer made up the "flushing the Koran" story). There just isn't enough conservative/Republican writers on Marvel's staff to balance the story out. It's a case of personal agendas affecting the companies presentation.

The comment about Captain America being an FDR-Democrat is interesting. Good food for thought. I'm not sure we couldn't learn more about the heroes in the Marvel Universe from studying FDR. The country went through a depression so he went against the Constitution to help the people (his social programs were unconstitutional) and he realized that even though it was illegal and unconstitutional to help England fend off Germany it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO! So, the President willingly and brilliantly (and correctly) broke the law to help what he saw as a growing problem (the Nazis) and did so with the lend-lease deal. However, I'm not sure that this last part could be classified as FDR-Democratic. It was the Republicans who helped FDR do this and the Democrats who were outraged (if I'm remembering my Master's class in WWII correctly).

I wish Frank Miller would chime in on the Marvel CW. His piece on NPR (on the radio and on their webpage) about the importance of the Nationalism after 9-11 was excellent.

I agree w/ you 100%.

That was very well said. Sadly I think folks like you are rare on this board. Logic doesn't always provial.

[Capt USA]

But

Civil War is still pro war, not anti-war. People die fighting for what's right, and that's how our country works. If heroes protect us and people still die, we are still doing the right thing.

Liberals are all about ending fighting/war forever. But fighting/war is necessary in our world. Therefore, this reaffirms conservative ideas on war as the necessary choice for our country.

liberals are all about ending fighting? what do you think a liberal is? a portion of the current group of liberals oppose the current war, but that doesn't mean they oppose fighting. You are mistaking Liberal for Hippie/or Pacifists. As a liberal I'm all for helping through force if necessary anyone that needs it. In fact that is one of the tenants of a liberal belief.

[mattx110]

hey, i'm well, kinda a liberal and i don't support fighting.

well, most of the time. every once in a while, some guy in a bar gets a bit too noisy and starts disrupting the band. then we feed him to the wolves.

on a slightly more serious note, on a larger view of CW, it is an allegory for the patriot act and the current US political situation. but on an individul basis of the issues (not issues issues, like comic book issuses) different parellels can be made. given the nature of having ten writers do one story (which i think is a good thing, despite every once in a while spidey forgetting his costume in a scene, or other such problems) people get to throw their own stuff in. plus fiction doesn't have to parralel reality so completely. this is a serial thing where writers get to throw in what they like, editors keep it running, and artists draw (and given marvels policy on writer/artist roles, some artists get to do more than just draw).

oh, and i think olbermann is more amused/disgusted by pres. bush's lack of action while people are dying in iraq. he never struck me as a sadistic bastard craving human life.
oh, and Teddy was 5 times the man FDR ever was. and the republican and democratic parties have been changed/segmented/re-put together a few times in the last 100 years. the parties of the early 1900s are veeery different from the parties WW2 era, and different from the 70s, and different from today. every 30 years or so, there has been a complete change of at least one party. while less noticable than in the past, regional political views can create a stark contrast between members of the same party (ie: northeast democrats who are commies, vs. southwest dixiecrats (who have formed into a sort of conservative republican, a neo-con if you will)

i'm sort of agreeing with rory, but i feel the idiosyncrasies involved in having a whole buncha writers in on one story makes it more interesting. it also makes there not be one clear solution. you might support the proreg in one book, and think they're the devil in another. this might be poor storytelling for a book written by an author trying to make a point, but i like the fact you've got a few broad strokes, and a whole bunch of writers with their own ideas. continuity can get lost, but it's a hard thing to hold together in a serial format. deadlines make it harder to coordinate, but it's nice to get 20 issues of civil war a month involving your favorite characters separetly instead of 10 to 12 perfect issues a year.

and as a "liberal" though, in reality, i'm not quite a liberal in a clearly political theory way, but more as a practical middleground. extreme change in the workings of gov't are difficult, or unheard of without a lot of violence. i'd rather support health care and education than attempt a coup.
anyway, as a liberal, i'm with teddy on the "speak softly and carry a big stick". the threat of the US nuking some country is non-existant. and obviously invading and occupying a country doesn't work (especially when poorly planned). right now the US is like a loudmouth with a twig :(.
umm.. my point. yea i can't get behind registration now that we've had so many years of the MU living with superpeople. it's easier to accept in something like the ultimate universe, with shield as a keep superhumans under control organization.
oh, and i hate when things are judged to be liberal bias liberally (sorry, couldn't think of a better word). it's basically the same thing as saying conservatives enjoy war because liberals are p*ssies. when you attribute something to liberals, you're not only misrepresenting them, but misrepresenting conservatices. by saying something like "liberals want to end all fighting" you're implying conservatives support war for the sake of war.
don't confuse lack of support for bush with liberalism. sometimes the truth and the supposedly biased opinion are the same thing. not bothering to listen to anyones thoughts because they're liberal or conservative, you're going to wind up ignoring reality. there aren't always two opposing sides to an issue. and the opposition to an argument isn't always an equal valid counterpoint.

umm, because this is way too long a post, my point kinda is, you can take the larger picture of civil war as an allegory, but each issue isn't going to match up with that larger idea, and this is a good thing. i also think some writers are pushing the borders of what tony stark is doing in terms of ethics to make for a more interesting post-civil war iron man title. if what he was doing was clearly right, his conscience would be clean. i don't think marvel wants any character completely unaffected by civil war.

[elias_A]

Ok, I see the similarity to the patriot act (registration means sacrificing civil rights), but just think of what unregistered heroes are doing:
They spy on people they suspect to be dangerous without court order and then arrest them or beat them up without caring for the proper law - isn't that just what Bush is doing?
His philosophy seems to be "in national emergency we cannot afford to respect the constitution" - and so many superheroes are vigilantes operating in the same manner.
I wouldn't even be surprised if Bush thinks of himself as a superhero.
So, for me, pro-reg should be closer to liberal than to conservative.

Since I recently read Marvel editors clarifying that registered heroes have the right to stay at home and do nothing, instead of being drafted (yet?), one of the main arguments against registration (besides the danger for secret identities) seems to be gone.

So it's a pity Tony & co. are written as villains, because their point of view makes much more sense to me.

[Jadeskies]

Why does this have to be about the left or the right? Why can't it just be about writing a story worth reading?

Seriously folks, its people who bicker over left and right and attribute every one of the worlds problems on a political factions secret underhanded administration of power that takes the fun out of life, liberty and my friggen right to read a comic book without smoke being blown up my butt!:mad:

[Billy Parker]

Pro reg = liberal
Anti reg = conservative

This is what I was getting at in my various posts, in case people thought otherwise.

Since the majority of readers seem to support the anti reg heroes, then the Civil War book can be seen as pro conservative in this way.

[gorthon616]

Why does this have to be about the left or the right? Why can't it just be about writing a story worth reading?

Seriously folks, its people who bicker over left and right and attribute every one of the worlds problems on a political factions secret underhanded administration of power that takes the fun out of life, liberty and my friggen right to read a comic book without smoke being blown up my butt!:mad:

lol. good point.

My only disagreement on that assessment is that... well basically, they (Marvel) has set this up to "make people bicker" about these things. It's not like we're using the story to arguing socio-political issues, the story is (supposedly) set up to be an argument about socio-political issues.

I would love if they just pulled this into a nice fun hero v hero mini (with perhaps some mild political allegory). But instead they hyped it up, played the "we're targeting intelligent politically interested readers angle ::hint hint::," and set the result of story as being a fundamental determinate of the future direction of the Marvel Universe.

[John Nowak]

Since I recently read Marvel editors clarifying that registered heroes have the right to stay at home and do nothing...

Avengers #22 didn't happen? Well, I'm okay with that...