politics in comics

[The_Greatest_Username]

I don't think there is even a single character in all of comics that has consistent political views over the decades.

I don’t think there’s a single living person who has the same views across decades. What I mean is that I don’t want Hawkeye to be written extremely liberal in one story arc and then extremely conservative in the next.

[CentralPower]

The main problem with a character having a consistent view is that they characters do not age.

For example, Hawkeye will always be ~30 years old. Even assuming a consistent political bent for the character, the where the character fall on the real political spectrum is going to change based on when a series is published, or even where it is read.

(I live in metro Boston. Between that, and the circles I travel in, I am often one of the more conservative people in any given room. But, I am much to the left of the US as a whole.) The liberal Hawkeye of yesterday would effectively be the conservative Hawkeye of today.

To complicate things even more, more characters are not inherently political, and should probably remain that way.

Comic writers are as qualified as songwriters, filmmakers, TV writers, novelists, and playwriters to talk about politics. All of which deal with politics and social issues.

Most of them need to stay out of politics as well. I do not care how they vote. And, if they want to donate to a party or candidate, it is certainly their right. But, celebrities advocating for candidates and issues are mixing what is wrong with American culture and American politics into one terrible whole.

(Clint Eastwood yelling at an empty chair at the RNC and Katie Perry at the DNC are both insults to the American voter.)

If an entertainer wants to change industries, and go in to politics, that is another question. (For example, ignoring Al Franken's recent scandals, there was nothing wrong with leaving SNL and going in to electoral politics.)

[Carabas]

Most of them need to stay out of politics as well. I do not care how they vote. And, if they want to donate to a party or candidate, it is certainly their right. But, celebrities advocating for candidates and issues are mixing what is wrong with American culture and American politics into one terrible whole.

Not a big fan of the 1st amendment, are you?

[CentralPower]

I support the First Amendment. But, I am not going to pretend that celebrities typically add value to politics.

[Ascended]

Comics have involved themselves in socio-political issues since the very beginning. Superman taking on businessmen in the defense of the poor? Captain America punching Hitler? Wonder Woman's very existence? All of these things (and more) carried political meaning.

Many of the greatest comic stories ever told, and many of their defining moments, have been rooted in politics and social commentary. Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Roy Harper being revealed as a junkie, the very premise of the X-Men and Captain America, etc.

So to say that politics have no place in comics is to ignore their history. Not every character is rooted in it but every character has touched on it.

I don't have a background in politics and have only taken a few college courses on the topic, but I think what we might be seeing today is that people no longer want to see politics in their comics that don't support their own opinion. Some people talk about how sensitive the liberal snowflakes are, but the right is just as bad. They all throw a fit if anything is put on the page that they can say is "offensive" or part of an "agenda" or whatever hot-button word they want to use. And they'll police their pull list for anything they can interpret as being "against" their views, even if that means grossly misreading the actual content itself. They seem to think having a different opinion is some sort of criminal act.

I don't typically enjoy heavy handed politics in my books, unless that is an active part of the character or story, such as with Green Arrow or President Lex Luthor. And I don't think most writers today do a great job of handling political topics either, since they largely just regurgitate their own opinions rather than actually try to explore the topic in full. But I don't take issue with politics itself in my comics, merely the lazy execution of such. I also don't mind political opinions I don't share. Arrow is far too liberal for me to agree with but I always enjoyed his character. Likewise, Icon was far too conservative (at least at first) but I still enjoyed him. If you can't survive someone expressing a different opinion on politics, the problem isn't the opinion, it's you. Get over yourself.

Also, Trump-MODOK is funny as hell. Easily over-done and a comment aimed at the lowest possible common denominator, but still funny. Likewise, Hillary Clinton as, I dunno, the leader of AIM or something? Equally funny. Sometimes a political comment doesn't have to add anything to the narrative, sometimes the best thing a political comment can do is make us laugh at the absurdity of it all....even, perhaps especially, when we're laughing at ourselves.

[CentralPower]

I don't have a background in politics and have only taken a few college courses on the topic, but I think what we might be seeing today is that people no longer want to see politics in their comics that don't support their own opinion.

This is a fair point. But, it is hardly unique to comics. Similarly, unless there is hard data, I would hazard that both lefties and righties drop comics (or other entertainment) for partisan reasons at about the same rate.

One thing that I have noticed on the right (particularly those who are in their 30s, and more so for under-30, is that they complaints are framed as a variation on "if it is good for left, it is good for the right".

But I don't take issue with politics itself in my comics, merely the lazy execution of such

I largely agree. My complaint is a variant of "most of the politics in comics are handled in a lazy fashion".

Also, Trump-MODOK is funny as hell. Easily over-done and a comment aimed at the lowest possible common denominator, but still funny. Likewise, Hillary Clinton as, I dunno, the leader of AIM or something? Equally funny.

The problem is that the example above is too representative of the level that comics handle politics at. And, some readers act like this comics are legitimate commentary. At best, those are funny. But, they are not insightful. The writer and artist are not demonstrating any understanding of the office or officials in question. And, it lets some people think they are in the know, without having to do so much as listen to the news at the top of the hour.

[Ascended]

This is a fair point. But, it is hardly unique to comics. Similarly, unless there is hard data, I would hazard that both lefties and righties drop comics (or other entertainment) for partisan reasons at about the same rate.

I'd assume you're likely correct about that. I wonder if there's any actual research on the topic? Someone, somewhere, must have wasted a sociology semester doing it......

I largely agree. My complaint is a variant of "most of the politics in comics are handled in a lazy fashion".

Wouldn't this be more of a commentary on the quality of creators, and less about the subject material? The delicate and nuanced subject of politics just make their skill level more obvious than the usual "good person punches bad person a bunch of times" narrative we're used to.

The problem is that the example above is too representative of the level that comics handle politics at. And, some readers act like this comics are legitimate commentary.

That's a problem with the reader, not the content.

At best, those are funny. But, they are not insightful.

*Must* they be insightful? Is it not a good practice to occasionally just enjoy a stupid, empty laugh and cleanse the palate?

And, it lets some people think they are in the know, without having to do so much as listen to the news at the top of the hour.

Again, the flaw of the reader is not on the creator. Granted, creators have to take their audience into effect, but there's only so much spoon feeding that can be done.

[Flash Gordon]

Politics are life.

Art is life. Any good writer/artist is going to inject life (their feelings and personhood) into the work.

[Citizen Kane]

Comic writers are as qualified as songwriters, filmmakers, TV writers, novelists, and playwriters to talk about politics. All of which deal with politics and social issues. No reasonable person looks at these forms and thinks they're getting objective journalism...these are art/entertainment forms that can be used to comment on society. We as the audience are free to comment on or reject said art forms and that's how the exchange of ideas works.

I draw a line where these ideologies begin to infect established titles, especially when the ideology on display is merely a projection of the writer's views rather than the character's.

[CentralPower]

Wouldn't this be more of a commentary on the quality of creators, and less about the subject material?

Yes. And, those creators need to stay away from thing that they are not qualified to write about.

I have no problem with politics, and have mentioned examples of politicomics being done well. But, generally, mixing comics and politics does not yield any good result.

*Must* they be insightful? Is it not a good practice to occasionally just enjoy a stupid, empty laugh and cleanse the palate?

I have nothing against stupid laughs at the expense of politicians. A local fire-brand has spent most of the last few months harassing local officials. He accused one of them of eating babies, and then went on to mock the poor guy's name. I will admit that his invective and mockery is a guilty pleasure of mine.

But, if comics are going to get more political, then they need to be smarter about it. If nothing else, mocking Trump is cheap and easy and has been done to death.

Similarly, writers like Spencer, who actually do understand politics, only make things worse by being viciously partisan. (I did not vote for Trump. But, there is no reason for Spencer to be as dismissive of Republicans as he is.)

In other cases, writers need to make better cases for what they are pushing.

Art is life. Any good writer/artist is going to inject life (their feelings and personhood) into the work.

But, the artist still needs to have insight about the subject matter.

"Nazis are bad" is not worth anybody's time. Make a case for how and why Nazis are bad.


To go back to one of my earlier examples, consider "Red Son". That is an exceptionally well-written case for being wary of the Moral Hazard (or Tragedy of the Commons). Millar (who I am given to understand is a lefty) argues that the danger is greater when the consuming authority/protector is well-intentioned (and recognized as being so). Superman works as a main character because everybody identifies Superman as being good.

That is a far beyond and above making the bad guys obvious proxies for real life politicians. (I am a fan of Al Ewing, but his attempts at getting political are a waste of page space.)

[ed2962]

Most of them need to stay out of politics as well. I do not care how they vote. And, if they want to donate to a party or candidate, it is certainly their right. But, celebrities advocating for candidates and issues are mixing what is wrong with American culture and American politics into one terrible whole.

(Clint Eastwood yelling at an empty chair at the RNC and Katie Perry at the DNC are both insults to the American voter.)

If an entertainer wants to change industries, and go in to politics, that is another question. (For example, ignoring Al Franken's recent scandals, there was nothing wrong with leaving SNL and going in to electoral politics.)

I didn't mean so much celebrities endorsing candidates or political causes, I meant that artists and entertainers have always included politics and social commentary in their work. This has always bee true across a variety of meduims. "Dirty Harry" is a political movie. George Carlin doing "The Seven Words you can't say on television" is political. The TV show "Touched By An Angel" is full of commentary. Megadeth's "Peace Sells But Who's Buying"...I could go on and on.

Now it's true that some artists aren't as well informed as others and that some may be well informed but poor at expressing their ideas, but that's separate issue.

[ed2962]

I draw a line where these ideologies begin to infect established titles, especially when the ideology on display is merely a projection of the writer's views rather than the character's.

That's a valid. But I think that goes to bad writing or writers being ill-suited for for certain titles.

[FIGHT]

You're kidding right? This is one of most infamous covers that Marvel has made in the last decade. Here we have a publically traded business outright shilling for an incoming president. I would politely describe this cover as propaganda but that would be an insult to all the hardworking spin doctors who take pride in their work. This is just Marvel debasing themselves to curry favour with Obama, short-sighted and ultimately self-destructive.

propaganda? Marvel comics were founded on propaganda. Go read Captain America. As for the obama spiderman cover there is nothing wrong with it. Go watch Alex jones with your conspiracy stuff. What can / did Obama do for Marvel?

[Ascended]

I have no problem with politics, and have mentioned examples of politicomics being done well. But, generally, mixing comics and politics does not yield any good result

Well, let's be real here, a good result is largely subjective. Some folks are quite happy with the cheap mocks and partisan presentation. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that in and of itself. A person who is happy with that might be of the lowest common denominator (or at least need more discerning taste), or they might be intelligent and well informed people who are looking at comics more as a satire, where heavy-handed commentary is a viable narrative method.

I think I'm largely in agreement with your personal tastes though; I enjoy politics in my comics when they're done well, but I do want them to be done well. I'm gonna be a little stuck-up about it and expect something at least marginally intelligent. I think I'm just more willing than you are to accept the fact we're gonna get a bunch of crap in the process.

But, if comics are going to get more political, then they need to be smarter about it. If nothing else, mocking Trump is cheap and easy and has been done to death.

Similarly, writers like Spencer, who actually do understand politics, only make things worse by being viciously partisan. (I did not vote for Trump. But, there is no reason for Spencer to be as dismissive of Republicans as he is.)

In other cases, writers need to make better cases for what they are pushing.

I'm fine with characters being viciously partisan where applicable, but writers? No, not so much. Writers, I expect to have a basic understanding of an issue. They don't need to be experts, nor do their arguments need to be air tight (I'll expect that from comic writers after the politicians themselves manage it) but they should put some effort into researching the material. And I expect writers to cover all major sides of an issue too; don't just present one side of an argument, get the main perspectives in there.

Politics can often be done poorly in comics and usually are, but can't that be said for most anything? Why should we hold writers to a higher standard for politics than we do physics, philosophy, psychology, biology, or anything else?

[Kintor]

propaganda? Marvel comics were founded on propaganda. Go read Captain America. As for the obama spiderman cover there is nothing wrong with it. Go watch Alex jones with your conspiracy stuff. What can / did Obama do for Marvel?

Marvel was founded as an entertainment company, back in the 30s when it was known as Timely Publications. Captain America only worked as propaganda in World War II because he didn't become partisan; he tapped into nationalist pride and patriotism rather then the political talking points of the day. Quite a far cry from Marvel today, who's current politics condemns national pride as a form of bigotry and conflates patriotism with Fascism. Marvel only threw their lot in with Obama out of sycophancy, to be seen as part of the winning team in 2008. Now Obama is gone and that cover is just a horribly dated example of Marvel's short-sighted political leanings.