eh? Characters in marvel comics have *never* lived in real time - over the first ten years or so (till about Peter gets to college), you have an appromixation of it - but that's over 30 years ago!
This smacks of generality and is the same league as "the liberal media." There have been comic creators who have had a more conservative bent as well. Steve Dikto, for example. He was a staunch Objectivist, the philosophy of Ayn Rand who herself was very capitalistic and popular in conservative circles. His characters The Question and Mr. A are the embodiment of that philosophy. You are lumping all comic book writers into on generalized category. And some writers are able to put aside their personal politics and write characters who are outside of it. For example, Alan Moore who wrote the pastiche Rorschach (a more hardline version of The Question and Mr. A).
I won't say that Tony's methods weren't shit. They were. But in the end I had to go with his side because of the benefits it offered. And I kinda feel like a bastard for saying this but since the superheroes had abilities that could be used to fight crime, why shouldn't they be drafted into service? IIRC, Tony said the trans-dimensional prison holding superheroes who resisted registration was only a temporary thing, meant to demonstrate the strength of a prison that would finally hold super-villains. One of his points was that it was getting ridiculous to have to keep putting sv's in jails that they kept breaking out of.
Only because after the events of House of M they were already essentially registered before the SHRA was put into effect.
Well.. since Civil War was written so differently by different writers we have two versions of the SHRA. One says that Superheroes need to register, be evaluated and then have a choice to either work for the government or forever suspend their superheroics. The other says the same only you don't get to make the latter choice..you either join the government or are imprisoned. Since the 2nd version apparently offered more drama and discussion the first version hasn't been seen anywhere except in Spiderman "Road to Civil War " (where we see the initial stages of the SHRA when Peter gets employed by Stark and goes to Washington to him to counter the SHRA). The underlying question however is if the ends justify the means. That question has to be anwered by everybody themselves and i believe it says much about the person which way he/she answers.
I'm no expert, especially on any recent developments in the comic books, but my impression is that he is an old-timey American liberal type of the New Deal Era, but whose values are still applicable to modern day. The underlying theme is to remind Americans of the consistency of our values and that this guy from old times is just as relevant today. Captain America = Barak Obama Iron Man = John McCain Who says comics aren't edumacational!
I am inconsistent as to whether ends justify means. Sometimes I say yes, other times no. In 616-verse, I said yes because I put myself in the place of non-super humans who wanted to be safer from Krees, Skrulls, supervillains, mutant villains, etc. I remember the less-fascist SHRA from the Spider-Man issues. It spoke volumes to me that Tony tried to prevent the Act and would have succeeded in staving it off if the school hadn't been blown up. That's why it seemed OOC for Tony to back the stricter SHRA. oy vey with this CW!
Both parties are essentially "liberal," so I find it hilarious that "liberal" is somehow a curse-word in some circles. Agreed, Tony Stark doesn't backpedal on his statements and Cap's ears are nowhere near that big.
Now that I think about it, John McCain is the equivalent to Captain America. He was essentially "frozen" for 5 years. For him, America went directly from 1967 to 1973.
Because, like anyone, especially any American, you should be free to live your life, within the law, as you choose, to place your talent towards whatever endeavor you wish. Just like Tony had the opportunity to do.
Why not? Though in my opinion Cap can be claimed by both sides. He represents all that is correct about America. Neither side is 100 % wrong or 100% right.
NAh, the point is that every one sees Cap as being on their side. Mostly because he has all the positives and none of the negatives. He is Obama and McCain. He can inspire and has endured hardship. He's a Maverick and stands for hope and change. He's community organizer and a reformer.
Oh ok. But the statement that he is Obama is still incorrect. Since he can't be both, he is actually neither.
616 Steve Rogers, the person most refer to as Captain America, is liberal and even somewhat socialist, a FDR democrat. 616 James Buchanan, the current Captain America, I peg so far as libertarian and liberal. 616 Grand Director, the Captain America of the 1950's, eventually went insane and became a Nazi. he recently reemerged, but last I read, was amnesiac. 616 John Walker, who served as Captain America in the 1980's and is now USAgent, is very conservative. I'm not sure if he's authoritarian or libertarian. there's two or three other men from the 616 universe who have been called Captain America, like Isaiah Bradley, but none survived with their minds intact into the modern era, so it's hard to peg where they'd fall under modern politics.
The second Cap (William Nysland aka the Spirit of 76) was pretty much killed out of the gate. The Third Cap (Jeff Mace aka the Patriot) took over for a few years till he got married and retired. He died recently. No idea where they fell politically. Though both greatly admired Steve Rogers so they might have similar beliefs.