One really interesting err… “phenomena” this last week involved a very unique article in the Wall Street Journal by Andrew Klavan entitled “What Bush and Batman Have in Common” –and the subsequent reaction to the article across the blogosphere. The article, as the title would imply, compares Bush’s fight against terrorism with Batman’s fight against the Joker. Allow me to provide a few excerpts for context:
Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past… And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society — in which people sometimes make the wrong choices — and a criminal sect bent on destruction.
Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They’re wrong, of course, even on their own terms… The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them — when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.
When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve.
As an initial matter, I think it should be quite apparent how insightful this analogy is. Terrorists, like the Joker, are individuals who do not act according to our own rational expectations. They have not implicitly accepted the “social contract” –the fundamental assumptions about how a society functions–and therefore the traditional means of enforcing these norm (i.e. the criminal justice system–with all its associative protections and rights) do not adequately protect society as a whole. It is precisely because the social costs of retrospective enforcement are so great as to break the social fabric that we (the audience) recognize that terrorists must be dealt with terrorists on their own terms… with tactics and with a morality more suited to swift and pre-emptive solutions.
And this is why Bush is similar to Batman. He, like Batman, is willing to use questionable measures that makes us uncomfortable–measures that threaten our collective morality (whether this be pre-emptive strikes or wire-tapping) in the hopes that by doing so he will preserve the very social values which cause our discomfort. And just like Batman… Bush will go away after he has finished his goal… and be able to himself enjoy the benefits a safe and secure society makes possible.
Like the movie… those who chase batman… those who scream ‘War-Mongerer’ or wax eloquent about civil liberties… are themselves a cause of the problem. They are willing to be ‘tolerant’ at the expense of allowing intolerance, they are willing to blindly respect privacy at the expense of allowing another terrorist attack, and they are so blinded by their own arrogance they do not recognize the hand that feeds them. Just as overly-timid and cautious law enforcement system lead Gotham down a dark path… so also a timid and handicapped intelligence system will allow terrorism to bring our own society into fear and darkness. Batman did what no one else was willing to do–including syping on the whole city–to solve a problem no one else was capable of fixing with traditional methods. Islamic terrorists were such a problem… Saddam was such a problem… and none of the traditional tools were working.
But the critics refuse to acknowledge these basic commonalities. Instead they fall into a series of predictable and specious arguments–all of which simply ignore the point and fuel their irrational hatred of Bush.
The first of these critiques follows the logic that “Bush is real, Batman is not… therefore this analogy sucks”. For example, ‘GA‘ points out that:
It is not surprising that some dumb right-wing nut makes the “Batman” connection to Dubya. Batman is entirely fiction, make believe, fantasy, not real. Dubya and Cheney et. al. personify the fantasy world that the Right Wing lives in.
Right Wingers always are pointing to movies that they do not like as examples of the degrdation [sic] of society, and point to movies they do like as examples of their correctness. Funny isn’t it, how they seem to like dark movies in which many people get killed…
A user ‘GW=MChammered‘ similarily points out (in more simple style):
Batman’s fiction. Bush is why America’s going out of business< !/p>
If there were an award for pointing out the obvious… ‘GA’ might be a finalist. The fact that Batman lives in a world of fiction and Bush in a world of reality was exactly what the analogy was TRYING to make. We can all rest assured that ‘GA’ will pass the reading comprehension portion of the SAT. However, this begs the question, what is so wrong about comparing something REAL to something fictional? Writers such as Orwell, Tolkin, and Shakespeare have all made similar comparisons without drawing the ire of bloggers… and anyone who has READ the books by any of these three writers will know that fiction has a way of communicating a truth about reality in an altogether unique and powerful way. One only has to quote from “Animal Farm” — “Some animals are more equal than others” to recognize the power and value of fictional analogies. Disqualifying the analogy because they are not IDENTICAL is therefore nothing more than an a refusal to critically analyze Klavan’s point.
In fact, Batman’s popularity rests almost entirely on its message and applicability to modern moral issues of right/wrong and the moral complexity of our times. People who use the “fiction” defense to try to muddy the analogy end up disowning their very hero as an un-important, two-dimensional drawing instead of the complex, misunderstood hero that he is.
The second of these critiques follows the following logic: “although we think comparing fiction to reality is ridiculous… Bush is ACTUALLY more like the Joker, the Penguin, the Adam West Batman…”
‘Wayno‘ points out that:
Klavan may have a point here…but he has the wrong caped crusader…W should be 60’s TV’s campy Batman, Adam West…clunky graphics, primitive special effects…in other words, not reality-based.
Of course, an argument could be made for Bush as Frank Gorshin’s 60’s TV’s Joker character, because as we all know, every clown has a “W” in it.
‘Rupertthebear’ mentions:
This is just like Wimp Lo in the movie “Kung Pao.” They train him to think winning is losing, with stupidly hilarious consequences.
Finally, there is an ‘argument’ line that goes something like this…. “BUSH SUCKS!!!”
‘Hourrayforanything’ says:
You forgot the part where Bruce Wayne doesn’t become Batman til he’s 40 because he spent most of his time being a drunk and horking coke.
And Vietnamvet writes in a rather driveling style:
Bush is a disgrace to this great Nation and has been every since he was elevated to that high office. What he has done TO this great nation makes Nixon look like a real statesman! It will take decades to rectify the damage he has heaped on the nation. He will go down in history as, without any doubt whatsoever, the worst president this nation has had to suffer through.
As the last few comments make clear, old talking points (like old habits) die hard. These people are not seriously addressing Klavan’s points in any meaningful way. In fact, I think it is fair to say that their viceral reactions reveals just how effective this piece was. They cannot stand hearing such a favorable picture of Bush and they lash out with all their hatred and prejudice. Instead of offering constructive analysis and alternative perspectives… they simply disqualify the idea up front and avoid the difficult task of rational discussion. I think Klavan has some worthwhile ideas that should be debated and read seriously… not dismissed offhandedly because it doesn’t fit your mold of reality.
