Batman and Bush's Failure to Combat Terrorism

by: Living Liberally

Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 17:41


Screening Liberally Big Picture
by Seth Pearce, Living Liberally Blog

Of the countless movies made since 9/11, this new Batman film might have the most accurate depiction of the political and social climate of the world as it is today. A world largely uncontrolled by law and order, instead run by criminals, who are in turn pursued by vigilante heroes who stand in for a largely ineffective law enforcement. This leads to feelings of great fear and insecurity among the people of Gotham.

In The Dark Knight, Gotham is faced with its most treacherous villain yet: The Joker. Heath Ledger's brilliant and maniacal anarchist clown should be remembered one of the finest movie villain performances of all time. Ledger's Joker eschews all order, whether it is the power of the state or the invisible hand of capitalism. He appeals to a side of humanity more disordered than even the basest most animalistic parts of our minds. His complete unpredictability becomes a power that he uses to control the population of Gotham, much like the specter of terrorism has dominated the American psyche since 9/11.

Batman, our hero, who, in the time between the first movie and this one, has fought to put most of Gotham's big villains behind bars. He's done so as a vigilante and without much support (and a little disdain) from the people of Gotham City. While much of the film focuses on Batman's trying to reconcile the good that he's doing with the hate he incurs from the public and it's elected officials, the film's true protagonist is the people of Gotham City, whose mood, almost like that of a Greek Chorus echoes throughout each scene.

The political side after the jump!

Living Liberally :: Batman and Bush's Failure to Combat Terrorism
Many writers such as Andrew Klavan in the Wall Street Journal and Matthew Yglesias from The Atlantic have suggested that in this film Batman is representative of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, reluctant and unpopular leaders who have to make difficult and strong decisions.

I think this is an accurate comparison, if you substitute the war on the terror for Batman's war on the overwhelming crime and corruption that consumes Gotham. Like Bush and Cheney, Batman, in the first film and the beginning of this one, believes that he must use illegal tactics (torture et al) to pursue villains that don't play by the rules. He also believes that what Gotham City (in Bush/Cheney's case, the World) needs is a symbol of hope and strength so that everyone will know that someone with Batman's advanced and invincible weaponry is out there trying to make the world better.

This is similar to the rationale that the Bush administration when going initially prosecuting the war on terror, as Matt Yglesias lays out in his great book Heads in the Sand, that the US military has the immense power to go into the world and unilaterally fix any problem that arises, as long as it doesn't have the shackle of organizations like the UN (in Batman's case, the Gotham City law enforcement) around it's neck.

But John from Cogitamus lays out the  one lesson Batman learns that Bush and Cheney haven't:

Batman begins to realize that what Gotham needs is not a caped crusader, but a functioning law enforcement system. He begins seriously considering retiring the rubber PJs as Gotham's police and prosecutors become more effective.

While the Bush/Batman doctrine can sometimes prove effective in the short term, inspiring the Sunni Awakening in real life and the Batman-dressing vigilantes in the film, this system cannot and will not reign in the ultimate forces of terror in our world. John continues:

The Gotham system is the problem, where mobsters and police pick sides based on the day of the week and their mutual enemies, when a psychopathic avenger like Two-Face finds himself executing police or mobsters based on the flip of a coin, and when the nominal forces of order are fundamentally impotent because that's how everyone wants it, all we can say is that Gotham feels awfully Westphalian.  The solution is not more disorder (more extreme vigilanteism) but better law and order.

Most of our world, like Gotham, is without the law and order it needs. Many parts of it are run by greedy criminals with little or no regard for human rights. Whether it's in Zimbabwe or Afghanistan, Iraq or Darfur, the greatest, most heinous acts of terror go largely unpunished, and the truth is that Bush/Batman can't do anything effective about it because our national power, just like Batman's personal power, is limited.

What Batman realized and Bush needs to realize is that only when we create some semblance of a liberal world order, by creating strong and democratic military alliances, will we be able to effectively control terrorism. As Nolan's films (and John) wisely point out: the Joker, this paragon of chaos and terror, came to power in the first place as the natural criminal adaptation to Batman's tough vigilantism. Just as Bush's unilateral War on Terror has created more new terrorists than ever before, Batman's vigilante War on Crime only creates more and better criminals.  

The Dark Knight should be a best picture nominee. It is masterfully entertaining, effective and provocative social commentary. The action is extraordinary, making minimal use of  CGI while still maintaining its ridiculously awesome stunts. All of the actors, and this really is an ensemble piece, deliver outstanding performances. If you haven't seen the Dark Knight yet, then it's about time you did.


Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Saw it in IMAX today, (0.00 / 0)
and I urge anyone who has the opportunity to see it in this format. Sometimes editing in a film not specifically made for IMAX does not work well (Superman Returns), but this film is superbly edited for the big, big screen.

As to the politics of it, I find the Batman = GW Bush line to be astoundingly lame and shallow. Your reading is much closer to the politics of the movie.


Looks Like (0.00 / 0)
I'll have to check it out to many agree with the above.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tuc...

jo6pac


All things to all people (0.00 / 0)
What makes The Dark Knight so good is it raises all the right questions.  What makes so many commentaries on it so bad is people act like the movie answers the questions.

This link was for one of the most extreme I've seen yet -- claiming the movie shows that government regulation is the problem.  Yea, okay.


[ Parent ]
i disagree. (0.00 / 0)

SPOILER WARNINGS

Of the countless movies made since 9/11, this new Batman film might have the most accurate depiction of the political and social climate of the world as it is today.

I think that yours is a very one-sided interpretaton.  You can decide whether you want to whether you like(d) American imperialism or not, but I don't think gussying it up in moral terms does neither the Batman franchise or our understanding of world politics any good.  

Domestically, the difference is that in the movie, Batman is an outside-the-establishment force for safety who has largely won until the Joker comes along as the pathological product of domestic violence of various kinds, and then provokes social disorder.  The idea that a "lone hero"--however many assistants he had on the inside--was somehow responsible for creating American hegemony is anathema to any realistic understanding of American history and foreign policy in the 20th century, dating back to at latest 1898, if not earlier.  Just as the idea that somehow the Joker, the evil twin of Batman, is pathologically irredeemable is profoundly othering and neglects the role of the powers that be in creating it.  A better analogy would be if the mayor's office in the movie had funded both batman AND the joker, depending on who was most useful - more like the Christopher Walken character in the previous series of Batman movies.

In real life, the time frame of the movie would be anologous to post-cold war American dominance and then the threat to American hegemony created by Al Qaeda et al.  And this is where the morality of it needs to be looked into further - there was no 'time' when there was a New World Order that was just - there was simply American imperialism (IMF structural adjustment policies, privatization, market dominance, sanctions, warfare, inaction to actual problems like the genocide in Rwanda, etc.).  

I thought 300 odes a much better job of offering the other side of this picture - whether it intended to or not.  The hordes of people of color, the transgender emperor of persia, the "brave" White men struggling to remember the lost battle of last year and to continue to fight (hello Iraq).  It was a mockery, and so is almost all American politics today and yesterday when it comes to thinking about the global south, I'm sad to admit.

Relatedly, in the movie, the "good citizens" are unwilling to turn on the "bad citizens" whereas this is exactly the opposite of what happened in the United States.  V for Vendetta deals with this situation MUCH more unambiguously than Batman - and is a fantastic movie to boot.

What was MOST telling and irksome about the movie, however, is how far it strayed from being about citywide disorder into these themes about national / international disorder by metaphor.


Sounds like a Western (0.00 / 0)
Isn't this the classic Western plot?  Evil gunmen terrorize a town and the hard-working farmers.  Lone man, probably a former gunman, is the only one who will stand up to them.  The townies cringe at the violence, but he triumphs. And probably loses the woman.  The message is that only the rule of law will make the West safe for commerce.  We may need those gunmen, but their existence is a lonely one, and women should marry the sensible farmers.  "Shane", "High Noon", etc.  That's why "3:10 to Yuma" was so powerful (at least the original--didn't see the remake).

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
totally (0.00 / 0)
you're probably right...a lot of vigilantism probably comes from there (and in 300, the need to make the world safe for white people by killing the "savages").  but where this movie was different - and a bit weird - was that the central theme is that the lone gunman recognizes that vigilantism causes problems and invests heavily in the "proper" channels for justice (i.e. the law)....which then backfired on him and he was left where he started...as the lone gunman.  it also talks about the impossibility of ever truly eliminating social chaos through a monologue by the joker about how they're the same.

also batman also has the social chaos/violence creating its own demise in the form of a messianic figure that comes from it, but sides with law and order.  but it's a bit darker in visuals than a western, as befits a storyline based on new york from whatever decade:)


[ Parent ]
By your description, it hold true to another classic American movie (0.00 / 0)
trope, i.e. the individual is solely responsible for his (and it's definitely "his," not her)own plight and collective responsibility is necessarily forsworn. It's certainly a message that's meant to extend to a number of spheres, I would think.

[ Parent ]
nah it's a little more than that (0.00 / 0)
it's sort of the same idea, but it's extended to the realm of what happens when the individual can no longer take care of themselves - when law and order has broken down.  So what happens is you get an UberMensch to solve everything rather than assuming it's every person for themselves.

kind of like fascism ;)


[ Parent ]
Sry, but (4.00 / 2)
this whole story only reinforces my conviction that the American obesession with superhero cartoons borders insanity.

Hello, wake up, Batman&Co. are Marvel and Hollywood fairytales, with almost no connection to the world that we live in. Drawing any lessons from then, or searching for similarities with nowadays problems is idiotic. This whole endeavor only reinforces irrational black vs. white thinking and drives the politcal discourse to new lows. Horrible.  


To say it shorter: (4.00 / 1)
Imho the much better response to that WSJ opinion piece that compared Batman with Bush would have been to make the point that, evidently, Andrew Klavan is batshit crazy.

[ Parent ]
not lessons (0.00 / 0)
just cultural representation :)  rocky iv may have been an atrocious movie with an atrocious storyline, but as late cold war camp, it's brilliant.  the soviet premier clapping for rocky as he beats a steroid induced aryan machine!??!  brilliant!!!!  same with 300 with today's politics, though far less bearable given that i live in it.

that they're caricatures makes them tolerable.  in contrast, stories about events like the lake placid olympics hockey team have the same theme as the rocky movie, but are a) allegedly true and b) have no self-awareness about how false they are as history, which makes them more disturbing to me than the well-worn superhero movies.  similar with amistad - nice movie, shouldn't contort the understanding of history we have (i.e. NO study guides please, Mr. Spielberg).  all the wwii movies?  really problematic.

in other words, superhero movies are just a tiny bit of the problem created by the entertainment industry, and probably not as bad as a lot of the other crap that gets fed into the heads of children (i was rewatching gi joe the other day...ugh) and adults.


[ Parent ]
i had missed this part (0.00 / 0)
Most of our world, like Gotham, is without the law and order it needs. Many parts of it are run by greedy criminals with little or no regard for human rights. Whether it's in Zimbabwe or Afghanistan, Iraq or Darfur, the greatest, most heinous acts of terror go largely unpunished, and the truth is that Bush/Batman can't do anything effective about it because our national power, just like Batman's personal power, is limited.

Is this for real?  Please go read Chomsky or William Blum.


I realize (0.00 / 0)
that it's easy to look right past the words that issue forth from the administration's various talking heads, when you know they don't mean what they say, but if you take another look at the rhetoric they used to promote the Iraq war in the first place, it's clear that they already know this:

What Batman realized and Bush needs to realize is that only when we create some semblance of a liberal world order, by creating strong and democratic military alliances, will we be able to effectively control terrorism.

They get that. They know it's what the world needs and they talk as if they want it, too. That's what all the "Coalition of the Willing" nonsense was about, remember?

Unfortunately, it happens that they are in fact more interested in preserving their cushy global kingpin jobs by promoting fear and disaster than they are in "controlling" terrorism.

I mean, Jeebus, what would the Bush administration ever have had going for it if not for terrorism?


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search