Editor's Note

Team member Beth Goin, due to unforeseen and extenuating circumstances, was unable to publish a blog this week. We extend our thoughts to Beth and anticipate her return to contributing.

Congress, Malaria, Bridges, OH MY!

I absolutely believe that Congress deserves the bad rap it gets in movies and in public opinion. The Senate in my opinion is a group of men and women who do nothing for the people of this nation and line their own pockets and pockets of friends, they get paid a great salary especially when people are talking about paying CEO’s of Fortune 100 barely six figures.

The Senate where many in it are sons or daughters of former congressmen is also a place where many of these people cannot even pay their taxes correctly. I feel they sit on perch and talk down to everyone from their seats of power in Washington D.C. but many Americans along with myself find people from other regions to be the problem. Many people around the nation would agree with Jefferson when he said Congress should be moved to a malaria infested swamp, people today feel that these people are crooks, liars and lack virtue. How can you when some like Ted Kennedy have been in the Senate for half a decade. People look and see that congressmen and women need to be swapped routinely because power corrupts.

The House of Representatives lay closing to their people and vote routinely along party lines, these people are closer to the people and have to work on their re-election almost right when they get to office, the House has not controlled matters since Clay left it and is a body that believes in uniformity then being able to stand out. Both places are imperfect and need changing and most politicians it is politics as usual when you get to Washington too many politicians don’t do the right thing. In most movies congress is shown to be power hungry men who lack any clear vision. They love the cameras and funding for their little “pet projects” be it a bridge to nowhere or some federal money for condoms, when it comes down to it these people focus on themselves. There are few idealists in the Congress and they are forced to change over time just so they can appear to get something done. Most people think that Congress is over-paid, too many vacations and too many lobbyists at their doors and the people’s inability to change the system. I think that Congress does deserve the bad rap they get in the movies because time and time again they show they cannot unify less than one central leadership nor get what the people want done. The Congress being Republican or Democrat has shown it cannot push through on their promises, the only established Congress that got things done were the FDR democrats. This group of individuals pushed threw the New Deal and helped the nation get back on track. Congress’ present favorable rating is less then the outgoing President and that says something about their leadership now. If Congressmen and women want to change the attitude it is up to them to change their politics as usual mentality.

Robert Foster

The Whiny Will of the People

Jack Gustafson


“And on the rulers turned I my back, when I saw what they now call ruling: to traffic and bargain for power--with the rabble!” - Friedrich Nietzsche


It is a given that most people have a negative view of Congress. As long as Congress has existed, with very few exceptions, the American population has held Congress with contempt. This contempt has manifested in the steady grumbling of catchphrases like “politics as usual”, “Washington insiders”, and a laundry list of abstract criticisms that have evolved since the foundation of our country. But if we are truly upset with the actions of Congress, then why don’t we throw the “bums” out? The fact is that we will never throw them out, because as much as we hate Congress we love our Congressmen. Congress always has a low rating, but a Congressman’s constituents will mostly give him or her a high rating; Former Senator Ted Stevens can testify to that. We hate “pork”, but we love it when our area gets government spending. For this reason, we can recognize the grumbling directed at Congress as nothing more than the cackling of the rabble.

The rabble-rousers in the news media and in Hollywood have recognized the will of the masses and have learned that people look for guidance in times of disorder. The media steps up as an orderly “objective” figure, and comforts the viewing public. Even when disorder is not present, the media will seek out a way to summon it and create fictitious problems. People like to get worked up over things, as people see issues as a way to define themselves. There is no way to eradicate this herd mentality as it is part of our human essence. Because of this, there will always be a platform for this anger to be directed towards. This manipulation of the public’s consciousness is self-defining and it will continue until the end of mankind.

The eternal nature of public criticism will be packaged, consumed, and recycled ad infinitive by Hollywood and other outlets. Besides, nobody wants to watch a movie without a conflict, and nobody will pay ten bucks to see a movie where everything is “nice” the whole time. For all of this, political conflicts will always have a place in a movie producer’s heart. As we recognize our inherent anger, and if we want to call ourselves patriots, then we can reason that Congress deserves the bad rap it gets from Hollywood. The reason I say patriot is because Congress benefits from Hollywood’s depiction. Yes, the media controls our minds, but the government controls the media. As long as there is distrust, there will be politicians promising to ease our pain, with no regard to the fact that they may or may not be the ones who created it. With this distrust, there will always be campaigns, there will always be hope, and there will always be money to be had.

Hatin on the House

The only thing more smutty, slutty, corrupt, unrealistic and disgusting than a Hollywood-produced sex scene is the incessant, corporate lobby-pandering members of the United States Congress. If Congress were a celebrity, it would probably be Britney Spears it began innocently enough, but has become more distasteful by the session. In this respect, the establishment is more than deserving of the dogmatic, despicable and detrimental portrayal it receives in cinema.

In all fairness, though, Congress has been disproportionately cited in the negative only in the singular, Republican sense. As the American consumer recently discovered, those under the "capitol chapel" had a proclivity to bilk their constituencies in what was an exceptionally rare demonstration of bipartisanship. While some members retrospectively blame one another for the blatant and catastrophic failure of oversight and financial review during the execution of the Temporary Asset Relief Program (TARP), it must be noted that the ranking Senator on this matter was Connecticut Democrat Christopher Dodd. An investigation of Dodd's Senate record and the associated lobbyist record illustrates the intersection of corporate influence and personal avarice.

Much like a fictional Hollywood portrayal, Congress has become an interesting and routinely seedy back alley for special treatment s in exchange for Congressional favors and the inclusion of pork barrel funds for "pet projects." Dodd, the esteemed Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee who was the presiding officer of the "non-hearings" that Congress feigned prior to the initial bailout trillions being released, just so happens to be the biggest recipient of contributions from the credit card and financial services lobby. How coincidental it was when it was revealed that the nation's merger-happy banks: JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citi Group were hardly burdened with stringent questions or inconvenienced with namby-pamby "conditions," despite the most blatant step toward the nationalization of a financial institution since the Soviet era.

Of course, a good plot is never truly realistic until the other party screws up, too. Need I say more than eight years of Bush? Sure, some who read this blog might actually attack me for the lacking of specifics with regard to a "failed" Republican policy, but citing any of these is redundant for two reasons. Underscoring a potential conservative, right wing political blunder is unnecessary because revisionist historians and pundits have already reversed said errors. It is difficult to rail against non-existent history, right. Moreover, most of said egregious offenses against holistic humanity have been perpetrated within the realm of common, American and international knowledge-save for that network Fox News who apparently failed to receive the memorandum with the multitudinous mistakes.

When one of the most powerful branches of government in the world fails to inhibit the premeditated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, protect the American consumer from the predations of legalized loan sharks, and and pretends to care that automakers are flying in private, corporate jets when they (members of Congress) often imbibe in superfluous "representative visitations" to exotic locations, they might be deserving of the collective "best actor of the year" award in the newly invented category "useless films."

Of course, insidious rants against a largely inanimate object are exceedingly pointless. Personally, I have detailed a rather comprehensive and consumer-oriented approach to the current “cluster fuck to the poor house,” as John Stewart so aptly described it. My post here cannot include such a plan though as it is currently in development for submission and would inflate the blog, much like Congress has with the national debt, to unhealthy levels.

At the risk of being labeled a "citizen's political soap box," the only way to curb this disastrous Congressional performance is to voluminously speak out against what is unacceptable behavior-by any industry standard. It is easier to resign to the inevitability of further dilapidation, but this script like those in Hollywood that decry the aforementioned body, is editable.

Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra

You Can't Handle The Truth!

For many people who watch movies on presidents many believe that some are shown to be more favorable to others and they seem to fall on party lines. I don’t believe anyone in America will disagree that many in Hollywood have views that might different from yours, and their views are much more known because of paparazzi and candid interviews. When looking at history both parties have contributed to America from; winning World War II, the growth of economic supremacy, welfare programs, defeating the Soviets. I believe that many of the negative views stem from two things the 1960’s and Watergate. Many people in the 1960’s grew to distrust the older generation and Big Business believing these people forgot about the impoverished and lower class people. This is stigmatism that is still around in our culture today and directed at one party more the other.

The second is Watergate a watershed moment in American history the first president ever to resign from office because he was in fact, a crook. He was a Republican and the view of the party suffered and the office itself lost much respect afterward, the presidency has never been able to regain its past glory. The lionization of one certain party over another done by Hollywood is in fact complete stupidity. There have been good and bad presidents in both parties,; few people honestly look at Jimmy Carter and say he was a magnificent president other then Chevy Chase. You can look at Gerald Ford as a bad president in the same light as Jimmy Carter both men did have a few accomplishments but overall very poor examples of presidents. I believe you must also look at how one classifies what a good president is. If you think a president who is animated, full of life, takes the office in new areas then your more inclined to think certain ones were more important. If you think a good president is one who builds confidence, ropes in government, and takes a strong diplomatic stand then your inclined to think the opposite. It would be simple to just say Hollywood is liberal and any Republican president is cast how they see these Republican presidents. I will concede that I have not seen a Clinton movie or heard of one while Bush II had one made before he even left office, that is complete obscurity. I believe in objectivity especially when it comes to matters of the press. I believe it comes down to what you view a good president to be, you can downplay Reagan defeating the Soviets all you want but it happened under him because of his re-engaging the Cold War. You can hate LBJ because of his Great Frontier programs but they are here in America it all depends on what you think.

If any person though watches a presidential movie and thinks that is exactly how it is should perhaps hold his tongue when discussing good presidents. Hollywood never gets a story that is exposed to be based on history right ever, so I see them as entertainment not truth; more a fiction then anything else. A made for television movie about Reagan years is going to be truth, come on it went right to television, or how a discussion between Nixon and the head of CIA really went, they can only guess and they are usually wrong with these guesses. I believe they get these things wrong and Hollywood is just looking to make a buck, greed makes the world go around even in Southern California, if you believe it to be liberal or conservative. It is in control of directors, writers and producers not historians or people who were really there.

Robert Foster II

The Hollywood Myth

Jack Gustafson

I must say that I disagree with the nature of this question. First off, I see no evidence that Hollywood intentionally lionizes Liberal Presidents and demonizes Conservative ones. In fact, I can only think of a short number of movies dealing with the American Presidency, and of these few movies, I see no evidence of a hidden plot to paint a particular ideology in a negative or positive light.

Hollywood makes movies to make money. It is financially ignorant to attach any sort of political affiliation to any movie, as a certain portion of the population will commit themselves to not see it if they think it will directly challenge what they believe in. It is also a mistake to think that the Hollywood establishment is progressive, when the Hollywood power brokers have much more to gain from a Republican administration. With this said, why is there this myth that Hollywood is “out to get” conservatives?

To answer this question, I must ask two more: What makes a good movie? What makes people want to see a movie? The answer to both of these is the desire to witness conflict. We must not view Richard Nixon in Oliver Stone’s Nixon primarily as the Historical Nixon, but rather as a fictional one. The same goes for any other movie. In Oliver Stone’s Nixon, we get a character study of one of America’s most scrutinized Presidents. It is the breakdown of character, the ability for the audience to feel empathy, which allows the film to succeed. To make a good movie, one has to take artistic licenses in order to keep the audience’s attention: A director won’t succeed by being preachy; the film has to show and not tell. The story cannot stick to the absolute truth or else people would be asking for their money back.

Because there is this historical inaccuracy, we can presume that ideologues will be miffed. So back to part of the original question: Why are conservatives demonized? We can presume that since conservatives have held the Presidency for the majority of time since the acceleration of mass media that conservatives will be featured more than liberals in the media. Because of this prominence and because of the historical inaccuracy, we can presume that some will feel that Hollywood is demonizing conservatives.

To lay this non-answer aside, why do conservatives have such a distain for Hollywood in general? I believe that the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s are emblematic of why conservative do not trust Hollywood. Conservatives of the Rush Limbaugh/Jerry Falwell bent were taught to believe that real Americans don’t drink to excess, use drugs, have sex before or outside of marriage, question authority, question God’s will, or be gay. Because Hollywood uses many of these issues within their films, we can assume that these types of conservatives will not take kindly to them, even if they do have to tackle these issues in their own lives, however quietly they do. The fact is that these issues are exciting and prone to cause conflict, which is why they are in films. People want to see something that will shock them; people want to see sex and violence.

To say that Hollywood is biased toward a particular political ideology follows the same sort of illogic that goes with saying that the media is biased in a particular political way. The fact is that money talks. The media will be biased to a certain degree, as long as it is profitable, just as a given film may attach itself to popular beliefs. Hollywood stopped being relevant a long time ago, so to even have this conversation bolsters the Hollywood myth.

Hollywood: Nuts & Bolts

The reason entertainment, particularly Hollywood, lionizes liberal presidents comes down to the basic principal of geography. Where is Hollywood? The great state of “fruits & nuts:” California. California is largely a liberal and democratic state. Although there are some areas that may be more conservative due to the wealth in California, the state is considered a blue state.

Long before film was considered to have a political nature, a man by the name of Eadweard Muybridge strung together a series of images and projected them to make The Horse in Motion (1878), considered to be the first movie ever made. There’s no underlying political message hidden in this clear-cut movie (as far as I know) but the roots of Hollywood span from a man, although originally from England, mainly resided in San Francisco, California. Another example of the early beginnings of film leaning towards a liberal persuasion is one of the first controversial political movies Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939.) Although the viewpoint may not have been considered liberal at the time, those issues recognized in the movie would today fit the depiction of liberal ideals today.

Is Hollywood liberal because the roots of industry were largely a liberal people starting an unbroken wave of liberalism in movies? Or did Hollywood start out unaffiliated and became liberal when the artists and free thinkers migrated there because that’s where the industry began? That’s similar to asking the age old question of “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”

Are there any movies that portray a conservative president in a good light? Not any that I can recall. There may be a few comedies that lash back at liberal portrayals, such as An American Carol (2008) which finished 9th in box offices it’s opening weekend (ouch!) Or movies that hide the heroism of conservative presidents - or so Andrew Klavan says about The Dark Knight (2008) although I tend to disagree- but none that blatantly try to portray a conservative president in the Hollywood glow that liberal presidents are cast into.

The basic truth is that entertainment is largely rooted in liberalism and intended to entertain a highly liberal audience. There are just no trends that allow room for conservative views (and presidents) in Hollywood.

Beth Goin

Hollywood's Lucifer

The question of why does Hollywood tend to lionize liberals but demonize conservatives is more complex than it initially appears. Mostly, though, the answer is rooted in the cultural progressiveness that Hollywood is often inclined toward; a progressiveness that is certainly not embodied in the often conservative, archaic and leisurely unaware Republican presidency.
Too often, in the interest of entertaining mass audiences who are generally preoccupied with indulging in sodium and caloric nutritional catastrophes and slurping on brown soda sludge, Hollywood races to “the bottom of the barrel,” as the syllabus points out. Consequently, the popcorn-pondering consumer is confronted with gratuitous violence, open legs and language that would made any sailor look like a saint.

Traditionally, family groups and other conservative organizations have been against the violence, sex and language of many Hollywood productions. Interpreting the aforementioned in a Biblical, moralistic light and choosing to conscientiously ignore the creativity and art of the craft, the conservative right has often aligned themselves in such a manner as to encourage their leaders to censor or otherwise limit the unbabashed discourse of the movie industry.

George W. Bush, in particular, was purported to rarely see a movie or read a newspaper-for that matter. His general ignorance and that of his Republican predecessors toward entertainment and the comedic wit and contemplative plots of Hollywood translated to his popular unpopularity among celebrities. Oh, and it did not really help that he was also a meat-eating, war mongering and wire-tapping. Hollywood is never quite eager to celebrate an individual who essentially contravenes everything Tinsel Town touts. Need we be reminded that meat bashing, anti-war protesting, moral relativism and civil rights are standard ideals that actors espouse?

Recently, there has been a thematic trend toward films that elevate the humanistic cause. Global warming, conspiracy speculation and political corruption have been among the issues depicted. Historically, Republican presidents have disputed-and indeed acted against legislation and measures that mitigate the emission of green house gases, among other things. This absolution against the planet is viewed as pseudo demonic; and in Hollywood where it is generally “trendy” to do anything for the planet and award-worthy to picket for the saving of endangered whales, those people who do not are seen as “backward” and uncultured. Acting in accordance to its collective progressiveness, Hollywood elites tend to marginalize conservative presidents and remove any remnant of political halo that might exist among viewing audiences.

Republicans’ tendency toward moral absolution, particularly defining world events in a “black and white” “good versus evil” manner does not particularly befit the Hollywood elite, either. In a town where dollars are made to tightrope the boundaries of morality, any attempt to establish a precedent for inarguable moral conduct is frowned on more than shouting in a public library.
Contrarily, Hollywood often lionizes liberal presidents. The reasoning for this is the converse of why they demonize conservative presidents. Because the majority of those in Hollywood would identify as openly liberal, it is not surprising that the films they produce are inclined toward progressive politics. Hollywood regards liberal presidents much as evangelical Christians regard Jesus: as humankind’s savior.

One recent portrayal of a conservative politician, Ronald Reagan, while objected by many right-wing pundits as “unfair” was rather positive. “The Reagan’s” a CBS miniseries was eventually pulled due to the incessant bitching of revisionist-history Republicans. The series, though, did attribute disproportionate credit to Reagan for concluding Cold War hostilities, among other creative liberties.
Maybe, the only reason Reagan was semi-haloed in this film is that Reagan himself had an artistic presence of Hollywood. After all, it would be considered “turn coat” and “Benedict Arnold-like” to completely condemn a former colleague to hell. Of course, it is difficult to condemn someone to “eternal fire” when you believe that hell is just another fanciful invention. As Andy Dick once said “I guess that is just how things are in Hollyweird.”

Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra

Second Post

Our collective second post addresses the question why Hollywood tends to lionize liberal presidents while demonizing conservative ones. If our previous entry was any indication, this too should provoke stimulating opinion and side-splitting humor.

Klavan''s Bachelor in B.S. (Batman Science)

Upon my first review of Andrew Klavan’s viewpoint of “The Dark Knight” I… fell out of my chair laughing. The bat symbol as a discreet symbol for everyone’s favorite former President? You have got to be kidding me.

Andrew Klavan’s viewpoint is a broad, and stretched interpretation of “The Dark Knight.” In fact, any most every movie ever made, in most every genre, but especially in action and drama, contains the basic principle good vs. evil. According to Klavan’s viewpoint, most movies have war on terror undertones, including movies that existed before the war on terror.

Now I have to admit that I don’t often watch movies looking for a deeper political message, but I can usually at least perceive, even if I don’t agree, with a person’s alleged interpretation. But I refuse to accept that my favorite movie of 2008 is, as Andrew Klavan says, “a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown” by the President I most despise “in this time of terror and war.” For example, Klavan states that Batman, like former President Bush, “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. “ Bush not only pushed those boundaries of our enemies but also extended those boundaries to the point of vengeance, and disgraced our countries reputation. Batman doesn’t believe in vengeance and punishment. Batman believes in justice and change for the better, like is passion for trying to improve Gotham City. Even further, Bush didn’t re-establish those boundaries he pushed; he left his mess for the next administration to clean up. In fact, the next administration did more for those “pushed” boundaries in days than Bush every attempted to do.

Another statement that I found particularly unnerving is his statement that “doing what’s right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous,” implying that this principle regards to both Batman and President Bush. Well, I am not going to deny that there is a possibility that there are some things that the former President did do right and with good intentions. But telling the truth, I have my doubts. In fact, with the onset of the war, the American people were told to live our lives as normal and to continue spending money, as if to not cause any panic or concern over the said war. The truth is that if the Bush administration had been honest about the terrible happenings in the Middle East, that they would have been able to rally more support for their cause, instead of Bush’s administration having to “slink in the shadows” because we’ve turned Bush into the bad guy. He asked for it by treating to American people with kid gloves, and allowing the media to skew the view on the war on terror.

Andrew Klavan should keep to writing his books and movies, and quit trying to interpret other works of entertainment. It’s possible, and likely, that Batman is just Batman.

Beth Goin

A Flawed Fictional Comparison?

In the Wall Street Journal piece comparing Batman to Bush I can see where the author might conceptualize the two being connected and showing how wonderful the movie did in the theaters with what he saw as “right wing” values compared with the movies he sees as “left wing” but when looking closer at such a comparison many flaws become apparent. The need to compare a comic book character with a real life person can be troublesome, Batman invented in the 1930’s and his continuum ever since show a man fighting crime in a mask to protect his loved ones but also the system was too corrupt from the inside so he had to step out and do things his way. Bush is the system he is the president all authority begins and ends with him, for the most part. I fail to see the comparison looking at the two men from that perspective, if we widen it though to say the United Nations the world agreed with the invasion in Afghanistan many nations pledged troops and supplies. When it comes to Iraq, those comparisons do arrive for the most part because France was a major player in saying No to the invasion. The proof was given later that France and Iraq had strong diplomatic ties as well as economic with almost everything in Saddam’s palace originating from France. This is the only connection I can make for the call to step out of the system. The call to step out of the system can easily grow to a problem because there is nothing to keep you in check, because power corrupts. With Batman his super-power is control, he has one absolute rule and Joker did not fail to see it or call it in question, Batman lives his life by rules so he does not become corrupted by his other persona. We see today that many liberties were trampled on during the Bush years and that power might have tainted some of his administration. Batman and Bush while fighting for what they believe have had both highs and lows shown in the movie, popularity is fickle and the John Q public will question things the longer they go on. While it is important to finish what you start conversely Batman is not up for re-election this is his career, Bush can only be in office for eight years. While I do agree with Mr. Klavan’s opinion with what he calls “left-wing” movies looking at the list they were all wildly unpopular to the public none of them scoring a lot of money, it illustrates a disconnect. Batman in my opinion is not a right-wing movie; the director said in an interview it was not political. Comic books do allow writers to tell a story I agree but few writers take such an abrupt political tone. Making tough choices is not a labor simply shared with the right it is a labor both parties deal with. I agree also that freedom is not free and defending those rights takes sacrifice Batman showed it and Bush did as well from time to time. The trapping that people can fall into when discussing comic book characters and real life people is that they live in different worlds, the real world is more complex yes but the values are still shared between them. I can see where he Mr. Klavan can draw similarities but for the most part his piece stretches a lot of reality.

Robert Foster

If Bush Would Have Worn Spandex The World Would Be a Safer Place

Upon reading Andrew Klavan’s “What Bush and Batman Have in Common” (WSJ 7/25/08), the reader may question whether the writer is being serious or not. My initial impression of the article was of astonishing wonder. I figured that this article was bitterly cynical yet was offering a humorous commentary of our nation’s collective exhaustion of President Bush’s ethos. George Bush as Batman; hey that’s kinda funny. But boy was I wrong! Granted, by the end of my initial reading, I did think, “Maybe this guy is laying it on pretty thick, but then again I don’t write for the Wall Street Journal, so who am I to question his stylistic choices?” But sadly, Mr. Klavan is not trying to be cute, something I learned after a quick Google where I discovered that Mr. Klavan is in fact, “for real”.

I couldn’t believe it. I didn’t want to believe it. The combination of the ridiculous clichés, “[H]ounded to the gates of Hell”, the old-hat complaints of limp-wristed Hollywood Liberals, and the downright silly comparison of President Bush’s plight to Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, may lead one to think that this article is not from The Wall Street Journal, but rather, some stoner’s comment in a discussion forum on Politico. When does Godwin’s Law kick in to effect? If the article ran longer, I would expect a comparison of ________ (Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc, etc, etc…) to Adolf Hitler. I guess Klavan makes up for it by successfully using the phrase “Islamo-fascism”.

It is Klavan’s tone that makes it impossible to take the article seriously…he sounds like my grandfather when he complains about, “how those fucking liberals are destroying America!” But somebody must be taking him seriously, just as I’m sure that my grandfather’s bridge club takes him seriously. Personally, I was ready to take Klavan seriously, I was ready to see the connection that he was trying to make, but all I got out of it is: Batman does tough guy things, and so does W, America doesn’t like tough guys because hand-wringing liberals control the media, and as a result those damn liberals have made America hate George Bush.

George Bush made tough decisions because he had the foresight to understand that he was doing the right thing; after all, God told him what to do, and you wouldn’t question God’s will, would you? But maybe it wasn’t God that talked to Bush; perhaps He was really only W’s sidekick Cheney? But who was the Dark Knight’s sidekick, I didn’t see Robin anywhere (Too gay?), I guess it was Morgan Freeman, I mean he did help Batman spy on the whole city. So if Batman is W, Morgan Freeman is Cheney, the Joker is Osama bin Laden, Harvey Dent is Donald Rumsfield (hmm, not quite right, maybe Andy Carr?), then who are the wimpy liberals? Maybe they’re the Joker’s army of the mentally challenged? It’s only appropriate because liberals are the only ones who care about them anyways, but it doesn’t quite add up because Batman doesn’t execute them.

Klavan’s not-so-subtle comparison of the Joker to Osama bin Laden is not quite accurate either. In the film, the Joker promotes anarchy as a way to show that mankind is inherently selfish; the Joker signifies a lack of morality, rather than a particular type of morality that lies in contrast to Batman’s. But, to be a namby-pamby relativist, Osama bin Laden does not seem to be that simple. Yes, he has stated that his goal is the destruction of “Western ideals”, but his morals lie with Islamic extremism, not anarchy. Bin Laden has morals, even though they are wrong ones. George Bush has morals that are largely right, yet they were wrongly executed. Klavan only sees things in black and white; you are either right or wrong -- Klavan would never admit that bin Laden had any sort of motivation. His terribly misguided beliefs are best exposed in his passage where he says:

“Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don’t always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless.” (Klavan 2)

This is a hopelessly naïve view. If you asked any man or woman on the street what they thought about the above sentence, they would most likely admit that they prefer freedom, love, kindness, and tolerance over the opposites, yet our history as Americans, as well as our history as humans, says the opposite. We as humans have a history of doing wrong things with the belief that we are doing the right thing. Perhaps I am a hopeless cynic and I harp on our past mistakes, but I cannot believe that we “mysteriously” believe these things. We as a people largely believe things that we are told to believe, and we have a history of excommunicating, executing, or imprisoning those who believe differently. Klavan’s article seems to promote this osterization of “the others”.

What does Klavan’s perfect world look like? In his world, people are free, people are loving, people are kind, and I guess people are tolerant. But I can help but think that tolerance would be a lost trait, as there would be no opposing views to tolerate. His world sounds eerily similar to a hippie love-fest where everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya, but I get the feeling that he wouldn’t see it that way. In his world, Batman is Christ-like, in that he had to sacrifice himself so that we could reach a better place. But I can’t buy into W. as Batman if that means that the invasion of Iraq, the implementation of the Patriot act, the bumbled response to victims of Hurricane Katrina, the attempt to make global warming a non-issue, and the rabble-rousing of politicizing gun ownership, abortion, and rights for homosexuals is a way for us to reach the promised land.

I do not see President Bush as a bad guy, nor as the idiot man-child that Oliver Stone portrays him as. I see him as a human being, as someone who is inherently good, as I believe that individuals on their own are “good.” But Bush was someone whose attempt at making the world a better place failed. President Bush failed as a leader because he inspired hatred, intolerance, fear, and mistrust in people. I will insist that this was unintentional, I am not a person who thinks that the Republican Party is out to destroy America (nor do I think that they are a destroyed party, but that is for another time), but I believe that it is the twisting of history’s motives that can destroy any sort of collective good that was produced. Because of this, I can only see Klavan’s article as the sort of fantastical storytelling that comes with say, a superhero movie.

Jack Gustafson