Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Christian

DC Gets Political

Recommended Posts

http://www.motherjones.com/riff_blog/archi...uperman_is.html

 

"DC Comics has just announced that it's sending its characters into the most terrifying parallel universe yet: the American political system. At a comic-con last week, the publisher's executive editor talked about its upcoming "DC Decisions" series, in which members of the DC universe will declare their partisan affiliations. "Everyone’s talking politics; it’s an elections year, and we’re going to try to see how the characters of our universe react to that," he said, which I think means that his writers have completely run out of material. So now that superheroes are going to start meddling in domestic politics, which way will they swing politically? A few guesses at some of the exciting partisan plot twists to come, after the jump."

 

Why is DC doing this? What is the point? They're going to end up distancing some of their readership from their characters with partisan politics, I believe, in the long run. And, it's all (of course) biased towards American politics. How many stories can you get out of the big decision between choosing Republican or Democrat?

This just screams stupid idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seven or eight years too late. Possibly they want to take a poke at Hilary (and/or Obama) six months before everybody else does when McCain wins.

Who gives a shit at this point? Doubtless Shelley Bond will emerge from behind Vertigo's velvet curtains to brag about how daring and iconoclastic it is (which will be why no fucker else is bothering, besides all the republicans and neocons) and offering it as proof as how daring and iconoclastic the minor offshoot of TimeWarnerAOL who pays her is.

Bleah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a good way to take a header into the pavement, but unless they play it pathetically safe, it could at least be a memorable if not possibly even a spectacular header.

 

This echoes of Marvel's Civil War uber arc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reaction 2:

IF DONE RIGHT (which I think the odds are against), this could be a really good way to develop characters in ways they haven't been developed before. I think a person's politics, if gone into deeply, can say a lot about them. I'm a little sorry to see this announced, actually, because I can very easily imagine characters' politics limited to the safe, media-allowed discussion of Democratic and Republican party politics, without enough verbiage used to make even that interesting. I just can't see any DC superhero books ever having enough words per panel to do justice to this concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.motherjones.com/riff_blog/archi...uperman_is.html

 

"DC Comics has just announced that it's sending its characters into the most terrifying parallel universe yet: the American political system. At a comic-con last week, the publisher's executive editor talked about its upcoming "DC Decisions" series, in which members of the DC universe will declare their partisan affiliations. "Everyone’s talking politics; it’s an elections year, and we’re going to try to see how the characters of our universe react to that," he said, which I think means that his writers have completely run out of material.

Or maybe DC's worried about its sales numbers and feels a little desperate about pushing them back up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear God, no :witchhunt:

Why is DC doing this? What is the point? They're going to end up distancing some of their readership from their characters with partisan politics, I believe, in the long run. And, it's all (of course) biased towards American politics. How many stories can you get out of the big decision between choosing Republican or Democrat?

Well, Hillary and Obama were on each others' side, and there was sure a lot to say about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think all the unnofficial lists of superheroes' affiliations caused such a ruck (especially as no one could accept the likes of Superman might support a different party to them). It will be interesting to see who votes what and I'd be surprised if there wasn't a lot of backlash amongst the heroes when someone they thought was 'on their side' turns out to be 'one of them'.

 

 

I think the thing that sparks it all off is Green Arrow endorsing a candidate and then a reporter hounds ALL the superheroes to get a definite red, blue or other vote from them.

 

I do think this idea has potential but Im with everyone that it'll probably chicken out! Perhaps they should have done an elseworld with it so its not in continuity.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green Arrow would be for Dennis Kucinich. I know he would.

This does sound a lot like Marvel's Civil War....and look how well that went! It went so well that they just quietly shoved it under the rug and started talking about Skrulls infiltrating Earth (and all the better for it, I say).

 

The only character who's really been overtly political in the past has been Green Arrow. It's not as if politically themed story-lines don't work. It's just that Green Arrow never came out and said, "Democrats are the only hope for the future of America". Probably because he was written as a liberal independent (and all the better for it, I say), but still....

 

Didn't Green Arrow run for mayor or something later? I remember reading something about that. Did he pick a political party to run, or was it the magical "independent gets elected to office" that comics have so often used for politically divisive stories?

 

I really hope they end the first issue by confronting a major superhero on which party they support, and have the cliff-hanger as the character saying, "I'm....I'm....." to be continued.

That would give me enjoyment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only character who's really been overtly political in the past has been Green Arrow. It's not as if politically themed story-lines don't work. It's just that Green Arrow never came out and said, "Democrats are the only hope for the future of America". Probably because he was written as a liberal independent (and all the better for it, I say), but still....

If that was an actual question, he was elected, officiated over a same-sex wedding and everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps they want to do one of those stories where two heroes meet in uncertain circumstances and inadvertently think they are enemies and end up fighting and then realise they are on the same side and team up to beat the bad guy.

You know, before it's too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps they want to do one of those stories where two heroes meet in uncertain circumstances and inadvertently think they are enemies and end up fighting and then realise they are on the same side and team up to beat the bad guy.

You know, before it's too late.

 

Yes, we all know that the real villain is voter apathy!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blast it, John!

 

It's too late, all you've done is reveal your treachery. The project will proceed as planned, all my people are in place and all the right parties are paid or silenced. I've dissmanteled the or moved all the assets, I've already left Sarajevo and all I must do now is sit back and watch as the plan unfolds, and think of how am I going to vest my wrath upon you.

 

Prepare for my vengeance, PREPARE FOR LIQUIDATION!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps they want to do one of those stories where two heroes meet in uncertain circumstances and inadvertently think they are enemies and end up fighting and then realise they are on the same side and team up to beat the bad guy.

You know, before it's too late.

 

Yes, we all know that the real villain is voter apathy!

Or election rigging, possibly. The people who actually vote are less apathetic than those who don't, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the ones who really try to vote, over and over again, while being told they're currently serving a jail term and are thus ineligible for voting.

 

I'm not sure if I missed your joke, Dog, or not....but it's not always the case that people who choose not to vote are more apathetic.

 

Adrian's post was hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adrian withers the evil.

 

(I'm not taken with the argument that "not voting shows commitment" when people who've chosen to do so are as guilty for the election of a fascist clown in London as those who actually voted for the scumbag or put him as their second choice after the BNP.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could take that stance, but many Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists refuse to vote.

Why? Because we don't believe in bourgeois democracy, where you give up your rights to others with a vote.

Also, because many do not have a party that represents their beliefs.

I'm sure there are people on the Right with the same views.

I guess if you want to point fingers, you can say why aren't the Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists out there starting the revolution if we don't believe in voting.

I just refuse to vote for anyone who is going to end up going against what I believe in though. If I were living in London, I would not have voted, because while Ken Livingstone was the better choice, he also put into effect the current surveillance system disguised as a "congestion pricing" scheme. I will not support authoritarianism. Not to mention there are other policies of Livingstone's that I also do not support. By voting for Livingstone, I'd be giving my support to the surveillance system and privatization even though I did not support those policies, alongside other policies of his that I did support.

In the upcoming election, I doubt I will vote. I didn't in the last election either. I do not want to see John McCain in office, and do feel that Obama would be the least bad choice, but I cannot vote for Mr. Wallstreet Obama. If I did vote, it'd be for Ralph Nader or a libertarian Socialist or maybe Green Party candidate.

I'm sure you can bring up all sorts of good examples, such as Nazi Germany (and etc.) of how voting for the lesser evil can be a positive, but those are my moral values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why choose to think of it as a vote for the least-bad candidate? Why not view your heroic contribution as a vote against the worst candidate? Glass half empty, etc.

 

Note that "worst" isn't the same as "baddest". I got your "baddest" right here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could take that stance, but many Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists refuse to vote.

Why? Because we don't believe in bourgeois democracy, where you give up your rights to others with a vote.

Also, because many do not have a party that represents their beliefs.

I'm sure there are people on the Right with the same views.

I guess if you want to point fingers, you can say why aren't the Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists out there starting the revolution if we don't believe in voting.

I just refuse to vote for anyone who is going to end up going against what I believe in though. If I were living in London, I would not have voted, because while Ken Livingstone was the better choice, he also put into effect the current surveillance system disguised as a "congestion pricing" scheme. I will not support authoritarianism. Not to mention there are other policies of Livingstone's that I also do not support. By voting for Livingstone, I'd be giving my support to the surveillance system and privatization even though I did not support those policies, alongside other policies of his that I did support.

In the upcoming election, I doubt I will vote. I didn't in the last election either. I do not want to see John McCain in office, and do feel that Obama would be the least bad choice, but I cannot vote for Mr. Wallstreet Obama. If I did vote, it'd be for Ralph Nader or a libertarian Socialist or maybe Green Party candidate.

I'm sure you can bring up all sorts of good examples, such as Nazi Germany (and etc.) of how voting for the lesser evil can be a positive, but those are my moral values.

And voting for Mussolini was a moral gesture for a load of pondlife in the 'thirties: you don't do something like that out of pragmatism, do you? Sorry, I'm not having people abdicating all responsibility and then trying to pass off sitting on their hands and sneering as a moral gesture. Fuck that shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, if people supported Mussolini and voted for him, that was their right, wasn't it? Isn't that what your brand of democracy is all about?

To me, that was the wrong choice, and I would've sided with the Communist and Anarchist groups who were fighting against fascism. I feel the people who supported fascists were dupes of the system.

If you support Ken Livingstone and wanted to vote for him, good for you. That was your right. He was in office for a while, and as the saying goes, "people get the government they deserve". If Livingstone's London is your dream society, there ya go. Personally, I am against many of his policies, so why should I support the guy personally?

I am an Anarcho-Communist and I get tired of people who stand on the moral high ground and say that those who won't pick a side are "part of the problem". The sides are picked for you, you're not making any personal decisions, you're playing the role of a cog in the system. Maybe the problem is the people who say, "Hey, we've got these few people to work with, and I don't really like them, but it's what I've got!".

I could've supported the Democrats under Bill Clinton (as the least bad candidate), and I'd be responsible for the bombing of Yugoslavia, the blowing up of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, NAFTA, and the continued shredding of the welfare system in America. If that sounds like good policies to support, well, that's your prerogative.

There's a saying on the Left. "Liberals look at the problems in the world and say, 'There must be something wrong with the system.'. Marxists look at the problems in the world and say, 'The system must be working just fine'."

 

It does become a very hard issue for the far Left in these days of what exactly to do except form a choir.

Sure, we could get guns and take to the streets, but how many Communists, Anarchists, and revolutionary Socialists do you think are left in the United States? What could we accomplish?

Or, we could go out and plant bombs and replicate the Red Army Faction. I'm not taking a totally negative view of them and their actions, but obviously that's a self-defeating gesture, and they didn't do anything positive.

 

Hey, if it means I'm doing something, I'll be out there bright and early voting for Ralph Nader. No worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way Dog, how many anti-war protests did you attend, how many articles did you write for your party's news letter, how many petitions did you sign and work to circulate? And, that's just talking about the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, that's just one small area.

Before I got "sick", I was involved in all those things. I still supported the parties I believe in monetarily even then, also.

If you were involved, good for you!

But, if not, maybe you ought to reconsider what it means to sit on your hands and do nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(I'm not taken with the argument that "not voting shows commitment" when people who've chosen to do so are as guilty for the election of a fascist clown in London as those who actually voted for the scumbag or put him as their second choice after the BNP.)

The idea that not voting for anybody has the same effect as voting for someone makes no sense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson didn't have a big majority, and more people who could vote for somebody didn't than did. The twerp's been elected by apathy as much as anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way Dog, how many anti-war protests did you attend, how many articles did you write for your party's news letter, how many petitions did you sign and work to circulate? And, that's just talking about the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, that's just one small area.

Before I got "sick", I was involved in all those things. I still supported the parties I believe in monetarily even then, also.

If you were involved, good for you!

But, if not, maybe you ought to reconsider what it means to sit on your hands and do nothing.

Point taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnson didn't have a big majority, and more people who could vote for somebody didn't than did. The twerp's been elected by apathy as much as anything else.

 

Also, these "lesser of two evil" candidates can lead to reactionary attitudes.

Many Left-Wing political commentators believe that the Reagan victory was the result of the fact that people voted for Carter as the candidate of change, and the guy didn't do anything. In fact, the attack against the working class started under Carter. It led to disillusionment with the Democrats.

There was the phenomenon known as the "Reagan Democrats". The idiots of the two political parties in America today like to talk about how it was because Reagan was the candidate of hope and how he really brought America out of dark times, and all kinds of other sickening crap, because the Democrats won't stand up and say, "Hey, we're fighting to be the business party too! There's not really any difference between the two parties!".

The reality is "Reagan Democrats" were people who were sick of the Democrats because they were moving towards the Right, and wanted to see some sort of change. It was totally reactionary, of course. It was a vote against the Democrats, rather than support of Reagan.

If an actually progressive candidate would've been in office, I do not believe Reagan would have been elected.

The same thing happened to some extent with the first W. Bush election. A lot of working class voters who supported Democrats in the past voted for Bush because of Clinton's NAFTA agenda.

I think that may be what you are seeing with this apathy in London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it: more every conservative in the capital throwing a snit about Livingstone and the BNP members putting Johnson as their second choice on their ballots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×