Spring Break
George Bush as Batman
Paul Hawkins
Issue date: 3/19/09 Section: Opinion
Now that I have you curious with that headline, I would like you to read this article in its entirety and just think about it. First of all, this premise was not my idea. To give credit where credit is due, Andrew Klavan is the one who wrote about this last summer in an opinion column in the Wall Street Journal. The basic idea: the movie "The Dark Knight" is a metaphor for George W. Bush and the war on terrorism. So, let's deal with this idea that Batman is a metaphor for Bush.
In "Batman Begins," Bruce Wayne was the aimless rich kid looking for a purpose. He found it; he became the masked, anonymous defender of Gotham. "The Dark Knight," however, presents a much more complex picture. In this film, Batman is more anti-hero than hero. He is not the visible "hero" of Gotham; he is a man hated by many Gotham citizens and especially by the Gotham press. He is labeled a "vigilante," and the police department is out to get him. In his quest to stop the Joker, Batman constantly pushes the limits on what is proper and legal to track down the killer. From the envelope-pushing interrogation scene with the Joker to the device Batman designs to listen in on Gotham phone conversations, some of these methods are not so subtle allusions to real life.
Bush also found his purpose after 9/11. He was to use all the power of his office (and allegedly exceed it) to keep Americans safe. He did just that. His methods were controversial to say the least -- war overseas, barely legal intelligence programs, etc. -- but they worked. Like Batman, he became hated. He left office with one of the lowest approval ratings ever. However, as Klavan puts it, it is almost the destiny of a man like Bush (or Batman) to be hated.
The leader who stands up and draws a clear distinction between right and wrong is fated to have the mob turn on him or her eventually. That leader is especially hated when he or she becomes almost evil in order to defeat the very evil that is hell-bent on destroying our values. They hate what they term "moral simplicity." However, what is complex really, as Klavan states, is the fact that the criticizing, hand-wringing moralists on the sidelines feel it necessary to vilify this person. It gives them an "appearance of righteousness" at the expense of the person standing vigilant watch over their very values of tolerance, freedom of thought, pluralism, etc. Now, we move on to the Joker.
In "Batman Begins," Bruce Wayne was the aimless rich kid looking for a purpose. He found it; he became the masked, anonymous defender of Gotham. "The Dark Knight," however, presents a much more complex picture. In this film, Batman is more anti-hero than hero. He is not the visible "hero" of Gotham; he is a man hated by many Gotham citizens and especially by the Gotham press. He is labeled a "vigilante," and the police department is out to get him. In his quest to stop the Joker, Batman constantly pushes the limits on what is proper and legal to track down the killer. From the envelope-pushing interrogation scene with the Joker to the device Batman designs to listen in on Gotham phone conversations, some of these methods are not so subtle allusions to real life.
Bush also found his purpose after 9/11. He was to use all the power of his office (and allegedly exceed it) to keep Americans safe. He did just that. His methods were controversial to say the least -- war overseas, barely legal intelligence programs, etc. -- but they worked. Like Batman, he became hated. He left office with one of the lowest approval ratings ever. However, as Klavan puts it, it is almost the destiny of a man like Bush (or Batman) to be hated.
The leader who stands up and draws a clear distinction between right and wrong is fated to have the mob turn on him or her eventually. That leader is especially hated when he or she becomes almost evil in order to defeat the very evil that is hell-bent on destroying our values. They hate what they term "moral simplicity." However, what is complex really, as Klavan states, is the fact that the criticizing, hand-wringing moralists on the sidelines feel it necessary to vilify this person. It gives them an "appearance of righteousness" at the expense of the person standing vigilant watch over their very values of tolerance, freedom of thought, pluralism, etc. Now, we move on to the Joker.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Mr. Jones
posted 3/20/09 @ 6:05 AM EST
This is what I love about Mr. Hawkins: he doesn't sugar coat the facts... he dunks them in high fructose corn syrup! He tells it like it is, he calls them like he sees them. (Continued…)
J
posted 3/20/09 @ 10:42 AM EST
You bleeding hearts sure love to throw that "con man" name around a lot. Wake up dick, all politicians are con men. When they aren't kissing babies they are stealing their lolly pops. (Continued…)
Sarah
posted 3/21/09 @ 4:02 AM EST
Woah. Calm down J.
Post a Comment