The Jim Shooter thread somehow turned to the subject of politics in comics. Rather than further derail that thread, I am posting my responses to the political questions here.
-----------------------------------
My view on this may be skewed, as I have a background in politics.The real "issue" with politics in comics is that people are older now and we have social media so there are more voices in our faces. The stuff back then was pretty blatant and would've angered a lot of people if it happened now. People just don't like politics they don't agree with showing up in comics.
I am fine with political ideas (emphasis on "ideas") in comics. If nothing else, superheroes are just about the best analogues for power one is likely to find in fiction. But, the writers need to have something to say, or have a better way to handle something that has already been said. "Superman: Red Son" is one of the most articulate cases against creating the moral hazard (aka "nanny state" or "tragedy of the commons") around. Gruenwald's "Squadron Supreme", for all of its Bronze Age baggage, is a respectable case against benign tyranny. Both stories are about ideas.
What I do not want are "ripped from the headlines" polemics, especially when the writers have nothing new to add. Generally, anything in those comics has already been covered (likely with more insight) in a newspaper or magazine.
But, those single issues read and look better than the "done in one" stories of previous decades.In essence, trades are now just oversized single-issues, while the floppies are more like chapters (or, in some cases, paragraphs) of the stories.
But, why are we going to read the comic pitched at little kids?The litmus test, I feel, is whether a young child with little or no political understanding can still enjoy the story. In the case of Golden Age stories, the answer is "yes."
When we get to Modern Age stories, wherein the story is often in service to the political point, the answer is "not so much."
I am not against kiddie books. But, not many adults (myself included) are going to buy them.
If nothing else, if an idea is worth writing about, it is probably worth writing about well. Pitching to kids diminishes the idea.
I have found the politics in Ewing's work to be a deterrent.USAvengers has been political, and it's been a delight.
Ewing has technical skills as a writer. He he can write with ideas (beyond OCD plot-points about minutia, though he handles minutia well).
But, Trump analogues (such as the Golden Skull) are a waste of page space. Ewing is not saying anything useful or insightful about the President (then-candidate), especially compared to some of the better critiques that are available in non-comic media.
If Ewing or Gillen want to write about Brexit on their own, that is one thing. (And, given where they live, it is completely appropriate.) But, they should not be talking about Brexit or Universal Basic Income in comics.
Given the scale and resources (infrastructure and intellectual) that the big two have, that idea could work as an imprint. If nothing else, the imprint would make it easier for the "comics need to be simple and easy" crowd to avoid.I don't even think most superhero comics need to be like that. But I think some should be. I think there is absolutely a place in Big Two cape comics for books that are passionately political.
But, the idea has merit. Get real commentators or experts (Spencer, Peters, Friedman, Henninger, Rove) to come up with concepts and plots. Then, if needed, get writers like Bendis to make it readable. (Actually, the guys I listed can write. But, you get the idea.) Politics, economics and technology are obvious subjects for superhero comics. Comics are a good vector for the sorts of thought experiments that those topics warrant.
Comics could contribute to the market of ideas without being polemical.