Superheroes are, by definition, LIBERAL!

[Lord Destiny]

Certainly, regarding Bill Willingham's "traditional superhero."

There are two basic beliefs behind the superhero concept (powers or non-powered):

1. There are problems too great for established agencies to solve.

2. If you are able to help, you are morally obligated to do so.

In the case of #1, from Superman to Indiana Jones, superheroes are people who become aware of a problem that they are convinced the regular law enforcement, judiciary, and other societal resources cannot fix. The problem is too big one way or another. Not that such observations are necessarily liberal. This is a prerequisit for the motivation of any kind of hero. But heroes in general take it upon themselves to solve a problem rather than wait around for others to do it. (This is not to be confused with conservative do-for-yourself principles, which means you help yourself and let the other guy help himself...and if the other guy can't, well too bad.)

In the case of #2, this is true for the "traditional superhero." And it is the very basis of liberal activism. If you have the means to help, it is a moral imperative to do so. The New Deal, Great Society, Affirmative Action and so on. (Speaking to their motivations, not necessarily their successes.) If we can spend tax money on law enforcement to improve society, then we can also spend tax money on other things like health care.

Superman and Indiana Jones do not act for personal gain, but to right a wrong. Typically, the trad s-hero is rewarded only in praise and a doctor bill. His power is not used to feather his nest. This is the opposite of conservative (i.e. capitalistic) uses of ability. It also illustrates a whole-world philosophy. Superman seeks to help everybody, because he sees the world as one communtiy. If we let strangers suffer, we all suffer; the world is a worse place. Conservatives generally more tribal, that their tribe exists independent of other tribes. Do for your own tribe. If you altruistically do for a different tribe, you're just hurting your own tribe. And let me throw in that superheroes are by definition activists, and we all see how conservatives react to meddling activists--they demonize them.

It is very wrong to say that liberals have gotten ahold of superheroes and turned them into liberals. That's simply because superheroes have ALWAYS been liberal. It's the basis of superhero DNA.

[EuropaBambaataa]

I think superheroes need to be closer to the ends of the political spectrum.

They can be either:
* Anarchists - Superheroes don't believe society authorities have the means to protect society itself. Since the individual who becomes a superhero sees this as a power vacuum, he is free to act as his own authority.
* Fascists - Superheroes don't believe society authorities have the means to protect society itself. Since the current authorities fail, the individual appoints itself the real authority to protect and guide the citizens.

[Paradox]

I'm pretty sure vigilantism is neither a conservative nor liberal ideal. More (as mentioned in the previous post) anarchic.

[AllisterH]

I've always seen vigilantism as more of a libertarian ideal....

[Charles RB]

* Fascists - Superheroes don't believe society authorities have the means to protect society itself. Since the current authorities fail, the individual appoints itself the real authority to protect and guide the citizens.

For years now I've been finding it dodgy when superheroes were presented as the only ones who can protect society and that we should just listen to them & not do them down, because they're always right and are our only hope, you ungrateful proles.

Well, okay, I'm exaggerating - I seriously doubt the writers intend it to be read as that, but stuff like Mark Waid's FF run (which I did like) sometimes give that impression.

[Brenz]

I've actually got a comic coming out shortly that's about two groups of superheroes at odds -- one traditional, American and apple pie protectors of the status quo, and the other a force for change.

And they're facing villains both fascist and anarchistic, and the whole thing boils down to a question of neither of those axes, but of authoritarian vs. anti-authoritarian.

I think Lord Destiny pretty much calls it, at least for the 20th century superhero.

[Michael P]

The only thing I'll say about Willingham is that his view of the "this A on my head" line in Ultimates as an example of the kind of heroism and patriotism Captain America should show completely negates any merit in whatever else he had to say.

[Steven Grant]

Certainly, regarding Bill Willingham's "traditional superhero."

There are two basic beliefs behind the superhero concept (powers or non-powered):

1. There are problems too great for established agencies to solve.

2. If you are able to help, you are morally obligated to do so.

You're forgetting the underlying principle that whoever gets in the last punch wins. That's effectively "might makes right," which is hardly a liberal proposition.

But the underlying social premise of the superhero is the protection and preservation of the status quo, which is neither (or, rather, both) a liberal and conservative proposition, since that's the objective of both persuasions. They just differ on the exact definition of status quo, and probably not as much as they'd like people to think. But there are other persuasions...

- Grant

[Adam C]

(Bill doesn't identify the story where Captain America turns a blind eye to a government conspiracy, but I get the idea from one of his comments it's the Ultimate Captain America. But that's the parody version, isn't it?)

From Willingham's article...

And even in that story mentioned above where Captain America participates in the sinister cover-up, under the pen of the same writer, a few issues later he resurrects a shade of his former self (summons his inner John Wayne if you will) and tells an evil alien invader he’s fighting, “Surrender? Surrender??? You think this letter on my forehead stands for France?” (The letter is an ‘A’ for America, of course.) Good one, Cap.

Willingham seems to mention a story where Capt participates in a sinister cover-up, but he seems to be under the mistaken impression that the Ultimates story occurred in the mainline titles and was also written by Jon Ney Reiber.

Anyways like Michael, Willingham's complaints about superhero decadence seemed pretty unconvincing partly because how much of he emphasized the heroes seemingly not being patriotic enough. And that seems to be more about how much the heroes line up with an ideal version of the American government based on his comments. However, the Captain America story he singled out is about trying to reconcile the symbol of American ideals with the actions of the American government that have gone against those ideals. (That's leaving aside that the story didn't do a very good job of it.) Additionally, the X-Men's main enemy is almost as much the American government as it is Magneto, and yet as someone observed they actually put the most effort into trying to reform their villains.

It's also curious how marginal his two examples are, paritcularly in the context of plenty of other more recent, high profile stories . Reiber's Captain America story is not only six years old, but mostly seems forgotten, as is the case with Superman Returns. Which leaves me wondering what he is reacting to exactly.

[Dennis]

1. There are problems too great for established agencies to solve.

Liberals try to establish agencies to solve problems.

2. If you are able to help, you are morally obligated to do so.

How do you explain all the liberals (most of them?) who don't lift a finger to help anyone.

[Charles RB]

Reiber's Captain America story is not only six years old, but mostly seems forgotten

I only ever remember it because of blogs and columns bringing it up!

[Imaginos666]

Superman and Indiana Jones do not act for personal gain, but to right a wrong.

I'm pretty sure you've got Indiana Jones confused with someone else.

[dancj]

The only thing I'll say about Willingham is that his view of the "this A on my head" line in Ultimates as an example of the kind of heroism and patriotism Captain America should show completely negates any merit in whatever else he had to say.

That was a fantastic line, but you're right it's not the example to set if you want all of your Superheroes to be upstanding role models.

[Samurai]

Certainly, regarding Bill Willingham's "traditional superhero."

There are two basic beliefs behind the superhero concept (powers or non-powered):

1. There are problems too great for established agencies to solve.

2. If you are able to help, you are morally obligated to do so.

In the case of #1, from Superman to Indiana Jones, superheroes are people who become aware of a problem that they are convinced the regular law enforcement, judiciary, and other societal resources cannot fix. The problem is too big one way or another. Not that such observations are necessarily liberal. This is a prerequisit for the motivation of any kind of hero. But heroes in general take it upon themselves to solve a problem rather than wait around for others to do it. (This is not to be confused with conservative do-for-yourself principles, which means you help yourself and let the other guy help himself...and if the other guy can't, well too bad.)

In the case of #2, this is true for the "traditional superhero." And it is the very basis of liberal activism. If you have the means to help, it is a moral imperative to do so. The New Deal, Great Society, Affirmative Action and so on. (Speaking to their motivations, not necessarily their successes.) If we can spend tax money on law enforcement to improve society, then we can also spend tax money on other things like health care.

Superman and Indiana Jones do not act for personal gain, but to right a wrong. Typically, the trad s-hero is rewarded only in praise and a doctor bill. His power is not used to feather his nest. This is the opposite of conservative (i.e. capitalistic) uses of ability. It also illustrates a whole-world philosophy. Superman seeks to help everybody, because he sees the world as one communtiy. If we let strangers suffer, we all suffer; the world is a worse place. Conservatives generally more tribal, that their tribe exists independent of other tribes. Do for your own tribe. If you altruistically do for a different tribe, you're just hurting your own tribe. And let me throw in that superheroes are by definition activists, and we all see how conservatives react to meddling activists--they demonize them.

It is very wrong to say that liberals have gotten ahold of superheroes and turned them into liberals. That's simply because superheroes have ALWAYS been liberal. It's the basis of superhero DNA.

The problem with this is that #1 is not a liberal notion at all. It's at best bi-partisan, and in some ways closer to the conservative idea that the government/established agencies cannot or should not handle every problem in life, that the individual has a great deal of personal responsibility. Which also ties in to #2, a very conservative idea of the moral obligation of helping yourself, your neighbors, and your community rather than turning to the government for help.

If the heroes were all government teams, sanctioned and sponsored by the government, funded with taxpayer money and taking orders only from Congress or the President, THAT would be the liberal notion that government can solve all problems better than we the people can, and that it's the government's responsibility to do so.

[Michael P]

That was a fantastic line

No it wasn't. It was idiotic.