Posted 27 October 2015 - 10:19 PM
I'm not sure, Dog. I think different writers write Steve Rogers in different ways, with a core belief system, which is the inherent goodness of democracy. He can be written as more liberal or more conservative, depending on the writers' views, but he's usually going to have a vague sort of moderate view-point. He's above partisan politics, boiling the concept of "America" down to certain core beliefs, based in equality of human beings and their free will.
It's hard to label Englehart's Cap as a Conservative, because of the story-arc where he confronts the 1950s Captain America. Englehart had Steve Rogers say that the version of the character from the 1950s is out-dated and wrong.
The 1950s brand of Conservative found homosexuality to be morally wrong. The J.M. DeMatteis Captain America wrote Steve Rogers as someone who had no problem being friends with a gay man.
As vile as the Christian fundies are in 2015 and as much as modern Repubs try to appeal to the Christian fundies to get votes, the facts remain that you're far more likely to find modern Conservatives who don't have a problem with gay marriage, where in the 1950s, I seriously doubt you could find one Conservative who would agree that homosexuality was "normal". I think that's important to remember.
Are there elements of Steve Rogers' personality that seems Conservative to a social liberal? Sure. He's a man who came of age in the 1940s and joined the military, and woke up again in the 1960s, to see the world looking very different, socially.
My personal view of Steve Rogers is defined by the Mark Gruenwald run. I don't feel it was the greatest run on Cap ever, although it certainly had its moments. I don't think that it was the greatest characterization of a character ever done, because Gruenwald basically wrote Rogers as some sort of Superman boy scout type. But, what I feel Gruenwald did best was to show the inner nature of Captain America and what that role meant to Steve Rogers. I'm explicitly looking at the Super-Patriot story-arc when I say this, I should say. When Ronald Reagan decided that Steve Rogers, since he was Captain America, should be working for the federal government. Steve Rogers refused and decided that he could no longer represent America as Captain America at that point. He gave up the identity of Captain America. The Super-Patriot took up the job of Captain America, becoming more of the "grim 'n' gritty" type of hero that the '80s was glorifying with all the vigilante types who were going to get "tough on crime", and to be damned with the rule of law that protects criminals until proven guilty in a fair court of law.
Why I like that interpretation of Cap is because it put him above the political landscape. It didn't matter what the government wanted him to do, he refused to compromise his ideals. I argued about this story-arc with a Conservative on the internet. He complained that Rogers quit being Captain America before he even heard what the government wanted him to do. I replied that it didn't matter if the government only wanted him to walk little old ladies across the street, he felt it was the government over-stepping its authority.
Steve Rogers represents the rights of all the people, not any particular government.
It informed his views during Civil War, where he didn't care if it was his buddy Tony Stark in the White House, he was opposed to the infringement on civil liberties that Stark was pursuing in the name of "safety".
So, that's how I see Steve Rogers, and why I have such a problem with him being written as someone who is willing to work with the government now.
"I wish it were fin du globe," said Dorian with a sigh.
"Life is such a great disappointment."