Breaking form to get a little political for a moment, yes, it involves comic books.... but be warned...
Captain America: The First Avenger was a fantastic film. Possibly the best film of the summer. Director Joe Johnson imbued what could have been a tongue in cheek film about America's "first" superhero with a genuine sense of character and pride, elevating it into something that worked on a deeper level and made a character that's become a stereotype pop into a three dimensional sympathetic character.
On it's way, the movie does something strange and unintentional. It comments on America and how it's fallen from grace in the past 70 years. Lets step back and look at this for a moment. The movie follows Steve Rogers, a good hearted but frail young man who wants little more in life than to do his part. His friends, including his best friend, are all going off to war to fight the Nazi's (the Japanese are never mentioned in this film, save for one line which seems to comment about the unwarranted suspicions placed upon Asian Americans) and Steve feels that he has no right to do any less than his friends. Steve wants to join the war not to benefit himself, but because he feels it is his duty to help out and prevent the "bullies" of the world from stepping on the "little guys". He's speaking from experience, as we see him get bullied in the film, but never backing down from his attackers, because "once you run, they never let you stop running".
Steve is a stereotype, but he's also the voice of absolute truth. He represents goodness that comes to power, and a true sense of altruism. Steve is the home-front during World War 2.
You're probably saying "Captain America is just Hollywood (and comics)" and to an extent, yes it is Hollywood. Certainly no one was injected with Super Soldier Serum and bathed in Vita Rays during World War II. And certainly we didn't have anyone wearing tights throwing a shield at Bob from Hyrda, or punching out Adolf Hitler.
But the absolute core of the movie is true.
During and after the World War 2 years, the citizens of the United States put self aside and did what was best for the common good. Women who had never so much as seen a factory went to work by the thousands building tanks and airplanes. Children skipped their weekend baseball game and salvaged scrap metal. People bought war bonds to fund their sons, brothers and husbands who fought overseas.
It was an era when people would help someone with a flat tire, and you could ask a neighbor for some sugar or milk. None of this had to do with traditional anything. It had to do with looking out for everyone else. Helping the guy next to you, and knowing he'd help you right back.
Where did that go?
Well, America itself had a lot of problems after World War 2. We had an economic boom, and a culture that had it's head in the clouds, despite a military stalemate in Korea, until November of 1963. When John F Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, the country fractured. People were looking for answers. People of liberal social values found themselves caught up in the hippie movement, protesting not only the Vietnam War, but "the man" himself.
People of a socially conservative nature found another icon. Ayn Rand.
Rand's first major book, The Fountainhead was published in 1943. It received mixed reviews (Rand dismissed many of the positive reviews as not understanding the book). The book praised the individual, following an architect would would rather blow up a building than see his personal vision compromised. A film staring Gary Cooper was made in 1949, and again received mixed reviews.
The books theme of personal conviction over the powers of the world seemed lost in the passions and idealism of the time. America was on an all time high after defeating the Nazi's and the Japanese military and coming home to an economy booming thanks to a female workforce and back military pay for soldiers. There was no great desire to force personal conviction on the populous, because the populous was more or less content and busy with starting families.
In 1957, Rand published Atlas Shrugged. In this novel, Rand took her philosophy of "Rational Self Interest" and put it at the forefront of the piece. Wealthy industrialists banded together against absurd government regulation in order to force the economy to tank. Why would they do this? Well, Rand make no secret to their reasoning, having the leader of this cult of greedy millionaires step out of their cave, once the economy has collapsed, and draw a dollar sign with his finger over the landscape before him. "Screw the rest of the world," Ayn said through her characters, "It's all about me. My desires, my luxury, my greed."
Despite a critical bashing (one critic called it an "homage to greed" while Gore Vidal said it was "nearly perfect in its immorality") the book did well. People bought the book, read it and devoured the philosophy. Students read it in high school and college, and latched onto Rand's philosophy of "greed is good" (sound familiar?... wait I'll get there).
The philosophy of "Rational Self Interest" spread and people championed the idea that "If I act in the interest of myself, my life will be good. I can help others, if it will benefit me in some way. If someone is not doing well, it is their own fault, and they are a parasite" or (as Rand calls them in the novel) a "looter". Capitalism became god, and it's followers moved into jobs on Wall Street and as the heads of major corporations. If something benefited them, they did it. They believed that the market would correct itself, so they could do no wrong and instilled themselves as a sort of new bourgeois.
It was this positioning and lead to not only the Wall Street underhandedness portrayed in the film 'Wall Street' (told you we'd get back to 'Greed is Good'), but it also created delusions in the world that when money was put into the top, it would trickle down to the bottom (Owners get government money, they invest it in their business, profits go up, profits are shared with workers.). Laissez-faire was the only way for the only way for the market to work according to Rand's followers, and as they took over not only corporations, but government, the implemented every measure to make sure that laissez-faire would continue.
Well, after Enron, Bernie Madoff, the housing bubble, bank failures, windfall profits for oil companies and a government consistently giving tax breaks to the wealthy while cutting social programs for the poor, it doesn't seem like there's any justification left to say they any of these beliefs are true.
The tragic irony is that all the whole, the same political block that is calling for more Randian measures (more tax breaks, more cuts to social programs, more political clout for megacorporations) is the very same political block that continues to want a return to the way things were when they were children. They pine for the late 40's and 50's like it is a lost paradise, while at the same time screaming "ME, ME, ME! MINE!" like Gollum possessed by the Orange Lantern Ring of Avarice.
Given all of this, is there still hope? Is there a possibility of returning to a national mindset of helping out the guy next to you? Of standing up for whats right, even when it's not always what benefits you the most? Will Captain America return?
Well...
There is a light at the end of the tunnel. Though, the tunnel is long and dark.
Current estimates place the current unemployment levels at 9.1%, that sounds pretty drastic until you realize that unemployment during the Great Depression was around 25%. Granted, there is criticism with the way current numbers are derived because they do not count people who have stopped actively seeking employment.
On August 4th the Dow Jones posted one of it's largest drops, 513 points (a 4.3% drop), again, this is rather tame when compared to the 12% drop it took on Black Tuesday (which started the Great Depression). This drop was precipitated by a week of declining stocks, not just on Wall Street, but around the world as numerous countries fall on tough political and economic times.
So, what does this have to do with the tunnel, the light or Captain America.
It has everything to do with them.
Steve Rogers was born July 4, 1917. This made him 12 years old when the stock market crash and means that he spent his teenage years living in the great depression. He experience first hand a country where everyone looked out for everyone else, because tomorrow it could easily be you who needed the helping hand. No one had much, so what everyone had, they had to share.
It was this mentality of cooperation, and the experience of a lifetime of being someone who was always too weak to take or do anything by force that Steve Rogers became the person that could be Captain America. The thing is, Steve Rogers was not alone.
Talk to any World War 2 veteran. The sense of altruism that we see in Captain America was a real thing. It really was a country where we helped our neighbors. It wasn't (as conservative pundits preach) because of some shared religious values, it was because we'd all been through hell and came out on the other side together.
This is what the country needs to do in order to not only survive the current global despair, but to thrive enough to push through it in a better state.
If we simply saunter through the current economic slump, singing the "Me Me Me" song, we will come out on the other side merely counting the days until the next economic crash. We will still believe that corporations count as people, and money counts as speech. We will still praise corporations that believe that if their board members are thriving, then it doesn't matter where they hire workers from. We will still curse the rich as they use power in Washington to push through legislation that makes them richer at the expense of the poor.
We're looking at two diametrically opposed philosophies. Captain America's philosophy of "Help the poor, stand up for the week, work together. No have no right to do any less" verses Ayn Rand's philosophy of "Help Yourself. To hell with the Looters. My happiness and comfort is all that matters." It sounds like the choice should be obvious, but time and time again, we drift toward Rand.
The Rich want to keep making millions of dollars, and the poor support it because they think they will be rich some day.
There's a reason that Steve Rogers was chosen to be the first Super Soldier. He believed that helping others, standing up to bullies and making the world a better place was his duty, no matter what the cost. It wasn't a choice he made because it was easy, it was a choice he made because it was right.
Do we have any real right to do any less?
Just because we have free will, doesn't mean we should keep using it to choose the short term "it benefits me" answer. The more people pick the "it benefits everyone" scenario, the better the world gets. There is still room for business. Still competition. Still room to chase goals and desires. Anyone who thinks there isn't is delusional.
Altruism is exhibited in almost every species of the animal kingdom. Can you really say that ignoring it is an evolutionary bonus?
Think about it. There's a reason Captain America is still an icon 70 years after his first appearance. He embodies all that is good about us, and was great about our nation in it's most golden days. If we can look at it and ask ourselves what made it great. We might be on the first steps toward changing things.
No comments:
Post a Comment