Cap's Loyalty: To the gov. or the people?

[Sandy Hausler]

The Government should decide who the hell is Captain America, he should be loyal to them, he's a damn soldier, if he wants to be loyal to the people, he should lead a ministry or something loyal.

Uh, he hasn't been a soldier since 1945. He is not in the military. Just because he calls himself Captain, doesn't mean that that's a military rank. I mean, is DC's Captain Marvel a member of the military.

This doesn't answer the core question asked, which I feel others have adequately answered.

Sandy Hausler

[Sandy Hausler]

As the ol' song goes "thy liberty in law". You can't have liberty or freedom's without the respect of law. It is the law that gives you all the freedoms you have and protects your liberty.

Now I don't know when this idea of what Cap is thinking being the American Dream got started. The American Dream to the founders was one of that government by, for and of the people. Hell if there would have been real colonial participation in government we would probably still be speaking iwth an English accent today. The people decided this issue, that is what America is about.

Not always true. Segregation used to be the law. I don't think there was anything wrong or that people (black people) were not good Americans who sat a lunch counters in the South when it was illegal to do so.

Generalizations don't always hold true. This is one of them.

Sandy Hausler

[Sandy Hausler]

Which is why with a heavy heart I have maintained throughout Civil War Cap is in the Wrong :(

One can only assume that Markavian is going to have to stop reading comics once the civil war is over and things are back to normal.

Sandy Hausler

[Calybos]

LordLad nailed in back in post #8, and Eallison expanded on that concept quite well.

Cap is loyal, first and foremost, to the American IDEAL. That usually puts him on the side of the people when they come into conflict with government, but the ideals of justice and liberty are what matter most.

When the "majority" is moving away from those ideals--as they're doing with their panicky Registration Act--Cap tries to set an example to lead people back to the right path, the true American way. Just as he would during a riot, or a gay lynching, or any other "majority" activity that runs counter to American ideals.

And just who does he think he is, passing judgment on what constitutes "true American behavior"? Why, he's Captain Freakin' America, beeyotch!

[Wonder Dude]

Not always true. Segregation used to be the law. I don't think there was anything wrong or that people (black people) were not good Americans who sat a lunch counters in the South when it was illegal to do so.

Getting back to the idea of going through the courts, for Cap to find himself there requires that he resist. The courts need some reason to prosecute. It's unfortunate that they picked Speedball instead of Cap to make an example of. Captain America on trial would make a better story.

[Jmacq1]

Getting back to the idea of going through the courts, for Cap to find himself there requires that he resist. The courts need some reason to prosecute. It's unfortunate that they picked Speedball instead of Cap to make an example of. Captain America on trial would make a better story.

That brings up a good point:

Why do so many people assume that the Pro-Registration side would allow Captain America a public voice in his "trial"? Or that his "trial" would be in any way known to the public? At least in the case of Hill vs. Cap in "Civil War" #1, where many Pro-Reggers seem to think he should have surrendered and allowed himself to be arrested, despite -no- assurances that he'd get any sort of fair trial or be allowed a public voice.

More likely, the conniving Tony Stark and the authoritarian Maria Hill would make absolutely certain of the -opposite- so that he would be unable to sway public opinion. Tony's not stupid enough to give Steve a public voice in the matter. Nor to let him contact other heroes (if he'd surrendered straightaway). He'd probably lie to the others for as long as it took to see his plans come to fruition, and by the time they realized something was rotten in Denmark, it'd be too late.

In other words: He'd get a "secret trial" and get quietly shipped to the Negative Zone (or worse) until the whole thing blows over. Hell, SHIELD could just trot out the "He's on a classified long-term mission" excuse (if the public even bothered to get curious as to where Cap was) until they had all their eggs in the basket. Or they could just say "He committed treason by defying the SHRA (conveniently omitting that it wasn't law yet) and was convicted of such by a military tribunal". If the public is as blindly in support of the SHRA as Marvel's made them out to be...they'd accept it and move on.

Given Hill's actions in the past and in relation to Cap at the beginning of Civil War, he had -no- reason to believe he'd be able to "work through the system" fairly. Remember, SHIELD isn't necessarily beholden to U.S. Law...they all too often make their own rules. And in this case I'm certain they would...because letting Cap be a public "example" in this case is too damaging to their side.

So as you said, Cap -had- to publicly resist, in order to insure that the public is -aware- that he's resisting. -Now- he could potentially surrender/get captured (as Zemo implied he knows he -must- do), and would virtually be insured that he gets some kind of public trial/hearing, because otherwise people -would- wonder WTF is going on.

[Jeff-E]

I personally think that Cap's loyalties are to what the Ideals of America are and what it should stand for(America that is). The problem with this is that it's a nigh impossible thing to write, and it changes from writer to writer. In the hands of someone like me Cap would have been Pro Reg, and Tony would have been against it(other things would have been changed but thats neither here or there, just trying to curb, the "Cap wouldn't do that" speech). In the hands of someone like Millar, who has a very limited knowledge of America and it's history (he admitted he didn't know who won the real CW, what it was about or if it was important) he becomes a violent fanatic, who resorts to violence almost immediatly because thats a view of America (the various Iraqi wars, and America's involvement in other countries). So where do Cap's loyalties lie? I'm going to say with the Ideals of what America should be. However that unfortunately changes from writer to writer based on their ideals, and beliefs.

[Jmacq1]

I personally think that Cap's loyalties are to what the Ideals of America are and what it should stand for(America that is). The problem with this is that it's a nigh impossible thing to write, and it changes from writer to writer. In the hands of someone like me Cap would have been Pro Reg, and Tony would have been against it(other things would have been changed but thats neither here or there, just trying to curb, the "Cap wouldn't do that" speech). In the hands of someone like Millar, who has a very limited knowledge of America and it's history (he admitted he didn't know who won the real CW, what it was about or if it was important) he becomes a violent fanatic, who resorts to violence almost immediatly because thats a view of America (the various Iraqi wars, and America's involvement in other countries). So where do Cap's loyalties lie? I'm going to say with the Ideals of what America should be. However that unfortunately changes from writer to writer based on their ideals, and beliefs.

Very true, at least in terms of Cap's "ideals" changing with the writers....

Which is why historically the best writers of Cap have avoided putting too many political themes into their stories (or at least directly involving Cap in said political themes), and instead let Cap's "ideals" come out in action against his various villainous foes. Rather than trying to make a mouthpiece out of Cap for their own political views, they concentrate on the story rather than the preaching.

Honestly, Cap's title is leaps and bounds better when it's primarily an action story/technothriller rather than a political commentary. At least in my opinion.

[Starscream]

@jackolover

wel look at it form his point.
If u were Cap and would go to a Tv station and tell the people about ur confrontation with Hill and SHIELD (were Hill asked Cap to hunt antis and had some 30 armed men to jump on cap incase he said no.

A good part of the public would say that ur just badmouthing Shield etc.
Cap doesnt want this to be a dirt fight threw the media.

And that Cap stil thinks about the averege people can be seen that he and his crew stil devote their time to helping people (cause they went to that factory in CW3 cause people were in danger or atleast they thought so).

And yeah the minority that Cap represents is really a very small minority.
But everybody deserves to be heard and they arent heard, they simply got the stamp of being criminals.
this minority often put their own life on the line ot protect others so they deserve to be heard and not just being outlawed and hunted.
As said they have 3 options:
register and work for SHIELD
go to jail
Leave home forever.

[XPac]

Another point made was an eye opener. You'll notice, there are not that many anti-regs floating around. There are a lot more registered Capes than not registered capes. So I don't know how cap can claim he is doing good for the superhero community, when he represents such a small group.

I think Simons experience can shed light on that.

Note that Simon wasn't aware that he had signed on to a draft in Frontline till the SHIELD agent told him so. And he might not have been aware that SHIELD was corrupt (though I'm sure he's starting to get an idea of that now).

Heroes are like everyone else... they sometimes don't bother reading the fine print. Like the general public, they might not be as aware of the situatin. I'll wager more capes would be skeptical of signing on if they were better aware that it's a backdoor draft by a corrupt SHIELD.

[XPac]

A very good point, because the common man has no idea how this SHRA is being implimented. But I counter with this. Immediately post-Stamford, I don't think the people would care how the law was implimented, as long as something was done to make capes responsible for their actions.

And this is an example of exactly why the will of the people should sometimes NOT be followed. This is an example of the will of the people not dovetailing perfectly with the ideals of the people. Events like Stamford show up the dangers of a TRUE democracy, and we don't have one.

You SHOULD care how lethally and morally a law in implimented. But our founders realizes that people aren't perfect... hence the checks and balances we have in the form of the courts, who decide whether something is constitutional or not regardless of what the people want.

And similiar to the courts, Captain America doesn't respecent popular opinion. Again, he represents the ideals. If the popular people go against those ideals, then he is against the popular people at the time.

[bulbasteve]

So, the people are never wrong? It isn't possible that they are not very reasonable after big tragedies? Wouldn't a specialist in some area (let's say, superheroes) know what's best for the US and the world in that department than most people, who are not, and often don't have a clue? Wouldn't this specialist do whatever it takes to show the people they're making a tragic mistake, and refuse to be a part of it?

You know that actually happened already, the Amazing Spider-Man issues where Tony and Pete went before Congress, or She-Hulk appearing on Larry King Live. Of course we didnt' see Cap doing anything like that... must have been too busy thinking beating people up will change things than to get his view across to our elected representatives or the American people.

No, I think it is responsibility that allows you all the freedoms. The law can round you up, or put you on surveilance just because you are from a certain social group. Responsibility is the key.

You or Cap might be living Saints, but to the rest of us it is often laws that restrain behavior so that others may be free.

The most simplistic answer I can give is that neither Cap nor anyone else for that matter should be blindly loyal to either the government or the will of the people.

There are times the government is wrong. And there are times the will of the people, regardless of whether it's the majority or not, is wrong. The beauty of our constitution is that it limits the power of BOTH.

Captain America represents the highest ideals of the american people. Sometimes the government doesn't live up to those ideals, and sometimes even the majority of the people don't.

You guys keep spouting about "highest ideals", but you don't seem to say what they are, and how exactly you come to think they are the American ideals. Of course I may be wrong and who knows maybe Hamilton talked about how Superheroes should be allowed to keep their indentities in the Federalist Papers.

The beauty of the constitution is that it makes it so you don't have to attack officers of the law and break people out of prison to get change done. But clearly Cap doesn't seem all that aware of that.

[bulbasteve]

Not for nothing, but it's pretty arrogant and dishonest to imply that Cap thinks he knows more than the people (implying how wrongheaded Captain America is) when the actual populace of the Marvel US doesn't even know the truth about the SRA. In this case, he DOES know more than they do -- and we know even more than Cap.

Ask these questions;

*snip*

The SRA passed the Congress and was signed by the President. It wouldn't even matter if it was only 30% and not the 90something% of the public that actually supports it. They are our elected officials and as part of that yes they know about State Secrets. They are the extention of the people, so I really don't see your point...those in charge know about all the measures, and it is them who the people have given the ability to make the decision.

But what is Democracy and a trusty rule of law? I hope it's not the SHRA Law. That ones not trusted, and is hardly Democratic. I suppose if you want to call a law 'The Ideal of America', it has to be fully accepted. The SHRA is not. Besides, you are giving your own definition on what 'The Ideal of America' is. A person could come up with any definition they like. (I'd like to hear a detailed definition by Captain America).

Not it really doesn't. Democracy is only a government by the people. I know it is very popular to equate democracy with "freedom" of social justice or any number of liberal or conservative ideas. But it isn't, the founders were simply looking to set up a political system which was representative of the people. If Cap wants to say he is working to the ideal of libertarianism or socialism or anything he wants that's fine, but "America" is a political SYSTEM not the politics. America was created to be a democratic republic based on the rule of law, and that is EXACTLY what Cap is going against. You can look a lot better saying your own political ideals are America's when you aren't violating the most basic tenants of America.

No, it really isn't a good point.

Less than 150 years ago, in the US, the majority of people thought slavery was actually moral, and it was legal.

Less than 100 years ago, in the US, women could not vote. This was both legal, and considered "normal."

Anyone who ran counter to those views was in a distinct minority. Did that make them wrong?

A simple majority on ANYTHING doesn't mean right or wrong. It means exactly what it is, that the majority of people believe it. Nothing more, nothing less. I suppose it works if one believes that morality is decided by the majority, or that legal=moral. I don't subscribe to either belief. I think PUBLIC morality is decided by the majority, but I also believe that there are actions that are intrinsically right or wrong, independent of personal belief. That's why I am leery of statements about a majority believing or stating something, and therefore that something MUST be right.

*snip*

And how did those finally get changed? Not through violence that is for sure. Look at our own Civil War, Lincoln urged the country not to divide itself over the issue and let the legal and legislative sytem take it's course in ending or keeping Slavery. I'm sure American history would have been a fair bit rosier if Slavery was around for a few more years but we didn't get the bloodshed of the Civil War. If I may quote Lincoln, "There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law."

[bulbasteve]

Not always true. Segregation used to be the law. I don't think there was anything wrong or that people (black people) were not good Americans who sat a lunch counters in the South when it was illegal to do so.

Generalizations don't always hold true. This is one of them.

Sandy Hausler

Well black people didn't tend to pick guys up who were sitting in the white section and throw them out the window into heavy traffic, regardless of if according to comic book magic they actually lived or not.

I think there we can start to see the difference between peaceful protest and violently opposing the government.

[XPac]

You guys keep spouting about "highest ideals", but you don't seem to say what they are, and how exactly you come to think they are the American ideals. Of course I may be wrong and who knows maybe Hamilton talked about how Superheroes should be allowed to keep their indentities in the Federalist Papers.

The beauty of the constitution is that it makes it so you don't have to attack officers of the law and break people out of prison to get change done. But clearly Cap doesn't seem all that aware of that.

Firstly you have to remember that the constitution was written by revolutionaries. They do understand that sometimes there is a need to take arms against one's own government, and made provisions in the constitution that allows people to do so if it's necessary. They addressed that in the very second amendment.

As for the ideals... it's certainly true that Hamilton didn't have superhumans in mind. And in all likelihood he didn't have women and people of color in mind either. I think the moral of the story is that all people deserve the chance to have the same rights as everyone else.