Is Batman's 'Dark Night' Bush or Cheney?

"The Dark Knight," an allegory about evil featuring the late Australian actor Heath Ledger as the Joker, is breaking all kinds of box office records.

Holy smokes, Batman, the movie is also being hailed in conservative quarters as a tribute to George W. Bush for prosecuting a war against terrorism despite great skepticism from the public.

In today's Wall Street Journal, Andrew Klavan discusses "What Bush and Batman Have In Common." His thoughts:

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. 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. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

Slavan does take a shot at the president, noting that the movie does a compelling job of selling the Bush policy that the president himself "cannot seem to articulate for beans."

But other commentators see Cheney in the lead role. Here's Spencer Ackerman:

The thought of Vice President Dick Cheney in a form-fitting bat costume might be too much for most people to bear. But the concepts of security and danger presented in Christopher Nolan's new Batman epic, "The Dark Knight," align so perfectly with those of the office of the vice president that David Addington, Cheney's chief of staff and former legal counsel, might be an uncredited script doctor.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo: Stephen Vaughan / Warner Bros.

Comments

[Sgt13Echo]

Thank God someone else noticed this. After the movie I have talked to several friends who had seen the movie and had no idea what I was talking about............

[Ture Patriot]

The framers, in all their wisdom, did their best to form a system that would safeguard democracy. To do this, they created various checks and balances. Many in America want to destroy this; some without realizing it, others with full intent.

Our founding fathers first goal was to prevent tyranny. With reference to the executive branch, they wanted to ensure transparency, accountability, and prevent a president from being above the rule of law. In this regard, the Bush/Cheney administration has had the worst record.

Aside from the will of the people as expressed through elections, there is separation of powers. Within congress there is the house and the senate as a check and balance, and combined, congress is supposed to provide oversight for the executive and judicial branches. Congress has failed to oversee the executive branch, initially due to being a “rubber stamp” Republican-controlled congress, but mostly due to legal machinations by the White House (signing statements, withholding documents, claiming executive privilege, etc.)

The White House machinations also have been allowed because of a partisan, pro-Bush US Department of Justice, first under Alberto Gonzales, and now under Attorney General Michael Mukasey. The Justice Department is supposed to be neutral. The hiring scandal (involving former Justice Department White House liaison Monica Goodling) is the most recent example of how the current administration has tried to subvert the intentions of our founding fathers in yet another way.

It is well known that Cheney’s personal goal has been to strengthen executive powers. Countries such as Iran claim to be democracies because of their parliamentary system. However, because the Parliament is not equal to the presidency, which has far more powers, it really isn't. What we must keep in mind is that precedence has been, and is continuing to be set (absent impeachment). And that precedence will apply to any future president, of either party, and regardless of whether a future president is good or bad. But Cheney, et al (think K Street), were thinking they and the Republican Party would always be in control.

To that point, another check and balance is the need for a minimum two-party system. Multiple parties would be even better, but unfortunately the current structure makes it very difficult for other parties to form and participate in elections. As if it weren't bad enough to have only two parties, the Republican-controlled Congress and White House together tried to create a one-party system (with them being the one party, of course). Other terms for a one-party state are dictatorship, or a communist or fascist state, but somehow they haven’t thought of it that way.

In the meantime, the Republicans have been working hard to stack the Supreme Court and the judicial system in general with conservative appointees. It would seem that to destroy all the checks and balances, they must not forget the judicial branch. When in reality “legislating from the bench” is done by conservative judges just as much as by liberals. And back to the topic of separation of powers, where is congressional oversight on this?

Additional requirements for the preservation of democracy is a free press that plays a “watchdog” role, and assists in maintaining an informed and educated population. After 9-11, nationalistic pressures made it very difficult for opposing views to be expressed from any source. If you're like me, you can't forget the propagandist mantra “If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops.” These Bush supporters forgot that in a democracy people are able to support the presidential candidate of their choice, as well as policies of their choice. And those who try to prevent other citizens from exercising such rights are the ones who are unpatriotic.

A most recent example of this kind of mentality can be seen in the op-ed "What Bush and Batman Have in Common" by Andrew Klavan. I laughed out loud when reading his statement that hopefully “...Hollywood conservatives will be able to take off their masks and speak plainly in the light of day.” The victim spin, from religion in the public square to the liberal media is a fascinating persecution complex, but I wish conservatives would get a grip on reality.

Aside from White House media manipulations -- screening, staging, talking points, heavy editing (climate change), restrictions (polar bear topics), ignoring (the EPA), and outright misleading (Iraq invasion) -- the Internet and talk radio have been an even bigger detriment to our country, because misinformation is worse than no information. As a result of this, and the preference of "reality TV" over responsible journalistic news (true reality), our population is not well informed.

And to comment more on Klavan’s op-ed, the thought that civil liberties once removed will automatically be reinstated is worse than naïve. The Bush administration had a plan for suspending elections in 2004 in the event of another terrorist attack. More often martial law follows such action, so I'd prefer not to place my liberties on such a slippery slope if you don't mind.

Klaven also refers to tolerance. As if compassionate conservatism isn’t a questionable term, a “tolerant conservative” most certainly is an oxymoron. The Agenda is God, guns, and gays. What is tolerant about the religious fundamentalists, white supremacists, neocon hawks, and other such groups that gather under the Republican Party tent?

And last, but not least, there must be fair elections in a democracy. In recent years, gerrymandering, electronic vote tampering, voter intimidation and fear mongering in general create deterrence to fair elections – and the lack of morality and downright pride in Operation Chaos is a great example of what is not democratic. Aside from the need for a paper trail, the US would be wise to allow external monitoring, and maybe even apply purple ink to voter's fingers, because the US is no longer the role model of democracy for the world.

Perhaps it is America's obsession with sports that there is now a win-at-all-cost attitude, but Republicans tend to tow the party line the most, even when it isn't in their own best interest. No? We hear of Reagan Democrats, but where are the Clinton Republicans? Many Democrats also crossed over and voted for Bush in 2004 because of concerns with national security and Iraq. Republicans think they are being loyal, but forget that our country is the "team." And, if they could get past irrational stereotypes, they'd understand we are all on the team of the United States of America. But ultimately, Bush/Rove have been the great dividers, not uniters.

When you think of all this, along with the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame and the invasion of Iraq (see The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism by Ron Suskind) and other attacks on the constitution such as warrant-less wire tapping and torture, “the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney—indeed the entire administration—is by far the most powerful and necessary case for impeachment that has ever existed” (see "The Tyranny of Good Intentions" by Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton). Perjury? Pffft, in protecting Cheney, Libby already is an example of that. Yet core Bush supporters are appalled. How can anyone really think Bush should be impeached?!

And this coming from the Party that currently holds the record for scandals (e.g., Jack Abramoff to Tom DeLay to Ted Stevens…for an illustrated guide to Republican scandals, visit http://slate.com/features/2007/scandal_guide/scandalmap.html), and considering that conservatives are trying to destroy our most basic principles of democracy and don’t even realize it, I guess that shouldn’t be surprising.

But ultimately people support the candidate they identify with. Like other core Bush supporters, Klaven characterizes Bush as being courageous for staying the course. These supporters also still claim the invasion of Iraq is part of the “war on terror,” with many still asserting that WMDs existed. They just can’t admit they were wrong to support Bush and the invasion. As such, they identify with Bush’s my-way-or-the-highway unilateralism, and refusal to make corrections when needed. And since when did diplomacy, cooperation, and open-mindedness become pejorative?

Bush supporters shudder in fear of how things would be if Al Gore had been elected. I won’t go into Richard Clarke’s memo about an impending Al Qaeda attack that Bush ignored, but otherwise, how could things be worse? The United States is now years behind in an energy policy, the environment, and most of all drowning in deficits. The Iraq invasion will cost $3 trillion plus. I can’t even wrap my head around a sum like that. The next president will step into the biggest mess in history. Is there anyone who thinks otherwise?

What do Bush and Batman have in common? They are both comic strip characters, and that's about it. I was once a Republican, but no more. How has the Republican Party fallen into such a dismal state? Because of anti-intellectualism, people lack the Rule of Reason for one (fire good, knowledge good -- see "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul" by Kenneth R. Miller). And just because you don't like what you're reading right now, don't hide your head in the sand. Bush supporters--stop with the cognitive dissonance, please. If you don't know what a signing statement is, or gerrymandering, or are unfamiliar with Richard Clarke's memo, Google is your friend—that is, if you know what a reliable source is.

Those who want fiscal responsibility and small government should become Libertarian, social conservatives should preserve separation of church and state and join the party that fits their political views (or at least poverty and taking care of the Earth), and those who want to destroy all checks and balances should move to a one-party state of their choosing.

”A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both.”

James Madison

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

[Gestotamoseke]

jordon said -
"We make war that we may live in peace" - Aristotle

i used to agree completely in fact when i was on an L.D.S. mission i often thought of the phrase - "we all scream peace, but we're not willing to fight for it."
but if we're at war, we dont have peace... we have war.
but it is true - war CAN bring peace - but only if its done properly (which this war has been far from that)
I loved the dark knight, and i honestly hope christopher nolan lives forever, the man is ingenious.

but bush is not batman - batman puts his OWN LIFE on the line to help people,
i dont think ive seen one photo of bush in iraq. and thats fine, but at least send people to their country that know how to help. ( i think its fairly obvious to say bush wasnt too concerned with the after war efforts. When ya put half of a country out of a job... how could ya be? )

**** SPOILERS******

harvey dent - "When rome was under attack they would suspend democracy and appoint one man in charge... and it wasnt considered a privilege, it was considered a responsability."

As far as i know in our constition we dont suspend democracy and appoint one man in charge when we're under attack. Bushs patriot act - ... its just not how the constition works.

and also - we all know how well that turned out for rome - despite what any history books might say, its still a great nation.

bush is an idiot, bruce wayne is smart - .... its like comparing a monkey to nikola tesla.... but there were good things that came out of his stay in office - saddam is gone, and maybe most important - after seeing what a difference a president has on america and the world, maybe american citizens will finally start standing up and getting involved in whats going on with our government, and with our country. We all say its the greatest country, well it wont be if we dont start taking care of it.

bush in no way resembles batmans character or personality -
batman was looking for an appointed authority who would stand up against criminality
- bush appointed authorities so he could accomplish his own criminality.

In the end batman is only portrayed as a villain by the citizens to keep evil people in jail - batman needed to be seen as the enemy, to keep hope in gotham.

Bush doesnt need to be seen as the enemy for us to have hope - and bush isnt covering up truth to give us that hope. He's covering up truth to protect himself. Batmans choice was a sacrifice, what has bush sacrificed? his popularity? and for what... our safety? to break the rules to provide us safety isnt hope, its telling people that we're too evil to be trusted - its the exact opposite of hope, its discouraging.

there were similarities in their reactions to terrorism - but harvey dents reaction to terrorism was taking justice into his own hands as well - so if you want to go off actions alone - bush could be like batman, or he could be like harvey dent - only time will tell the true effects of bushs stay in office -

but please - with great power comes great responsability - If anyone honestly thinks bush has been responsible with the power he has had disregard this comment, and go on believing he jumps from rooftops and puts his life on the line to serve justice to evil-doers.

[Jeremy]

Those posting here should actually watch the movie, at least a few times. The movie itself is so good (IMHO it is the best of the year) you don't care to pay attention to the symbolism and underlying message.

Once you have seen the movie few times, listen to Batman's lines. Many of them are inseparable from W's past speeches. Actually I saw a reporter (wish I could remember which news station did this!) poll Americans in some park. He would read a line, then ask "who said that, Batman or Bush?" Adults overwhelmingly guessed wrong! One kid got them all right, but she was a Batman fan and knew all the lines.

The parallels between Batman and Bush are unmistakable to the neutral among us. I suspect if you lean far to the Left you don't WANT the parallel to exist so you will deny it, but the journalists who picked up on this make a very strong case, if you stick to the facts.

Now the big question: what has/will Nolan say about it? Did he intend to make Batman a type for Bush? I have not heard him say anything to that effect, and what he has said does not indicate it. So, the comparison could be purely coincidental. Whether purposeful or not, the link is clearly there. See the movie a few more times if you are skeptical. Hey, even if you keep your mind closed to the Bush comparison, you are still seeing a great movie!

[AK]

Wow... I don't really know how to argue, well, not argue, but "converse" with a man of such wits.

First..."bush is an idiot, bruce wayne is smart - .... its like comparing a monkey to nikola tesla...."

Great, that is a deep, well thought out comment. I am so glad that we (stupid Americans) have someone as smart as you to look out for us. I am not a a huge fan of Bush, but dont sit next to your computer and PRETEND you would have any great solution to the current problem we face. Don't make any mistake about it, the terrorists, our enemies, want nothing more than to see us and our children dead; and to think that your unqualified and uneducated comments, blogging on some random site, will actually keep us safe, is offensive.

Nolan's view obviously reflects that of a man who feels Bush, DESPITE YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS, has made the difficult choices necessary to keep the ideals, not the laws, but the ideals of this country safe, deserves a little respect. I don't like the man any more than you do, but believe me, at least he stands for SOMETHING, unlike you or I.