Is the Dark Knight a Tribute to Bush's War on Terror?

What is it about The Batman of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight that reminds some people of George W. Bush's sham "war on terror"? A Wall Street Journal editorial puts this spin on the box office record breaker:

"[The Dark Knight] 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."

The idea that The Dark Knight is some sort of tip of the cap to the Bush Administrations "fortitude and moral courage "in implementing their "war on terror" is a stretch to say the least.

In the above excerpt alone there are a number of faulty interpretations that prove pretty thoroughly the simplicity and skewed view of the world many conservatives bear - that is if they really believe what they say at all. An even more pathetic revelation in the Wall Street Journal excerpt, is that these folks don't even understand the implications of the policies of their own hero - George W. Bush. In the movie, the Batman rigs his wiretap machine to self-destruct after his one-time "emergency" effort to stop a terrorist. The Batman understands the implications of such a program and knows it should not be made permanent. The Batman's machine was also far more advanced - able to zero in only on its intended target. The film makes clear its stance on wiretapping when Lucius Fox, CEO of Wayne Industries in the film, declares that he will resign if the eavesdropping Batman has rigged the machine for is not stopped after the one time use. In contrast to Batman's version of wiretapping that takes place in The Dark Knight, Bush's wiretap program has not been put in place temporarily until the "emergency" passes. In fact, Bush has attempted to make his intrusion upon civil liberties permanent by fear-mongering and bullying Congress into changing existing laws. As far as Bush is concerned, civil liberties, as they relate to wiretapping and beyond, have not and will not be "re-established... when the emergency has past", rather, in Bush's view they should be made permanent by law.

This is the most stark contrast between Batman's efforts and those of Bush - the permanency of the real-life "war on terror". At the core of most Bush administration critic's arguments, is the fact that the so-called "war on terror" - as it has been defined by Bush & co - is an endless war against a constantly evolving and shifting enemy that can never be entirely eradicated. There can be no peace treaty with the terrorists - a) because US policy is to not "negotiate" with terrorists-and-b) Bush's apparent desire is to kill all the terrorists - either on the battlefield or by death penalty after capture.

So, how do we know we have killed all the terrorists? Just how is the war on terror supposed to end? There have been no specific goals stated that provide any clue as to when this war will end. How do we know we have defeated terror, and who defines what is, and is not terror? Who is to define exactly who the terrorists are?

As it turns out, the sole authority to determine who the terrorists are lies with the president and the Secretary of Defense, as prescribe by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Then, once a person is determined to be a terrorist - or "unlawful enemy combatant" -- they can be held indefinitely, without any habeas corpus rights and no chance to mount a defense before a court of law where they would be innocent until proven guilty. Instead, the "unlawful enemy combatant" - who can also be a US citizen - would be tried by military commission, in which the rules would also be prescribed by the president. Therefore, in the view of the Bush administration, as long as there is a war on terror, the president - one man - will have sole discretion in deciding who is a terrorist, and how, when and where their trials by military commission should take place. Taking this a step further, this means that the war on terror can theoretically proceed forever.

How does all of this contrast with the circumstances surrounding the Batman in Dark Knight, and his actions and attitude in the face of terrorism? Well, the Batman understands that he operates outside the law and pushes moral boundaries, whereas Bush rationalizes his extra-legal and immoral actions while showering his actions and policies with heroic rhetoric. The Batman longs for a "hero Gotham deserves", and believes that District attorney Harvey Dent-so long as he is working within the rules and abiding by accepted moral codes - is that person - Gotham's "White Knight". He believes this so much that he literally sacrifices himself in order to protect Dent's reputation. The Batman holds no illusions that he alone should be the sole determiner of who the terrorists in his world are, and perhaps more importantly, how justice should ultimately be dealt. Bush, on the other hand, believes that all power in these matters should be centralized in him, and that he should answer to no one while eavesdropping, kidnapping, torturing and disappearing and killing anyone he wishes.

The essential theme that neoconservative believers in the Dark Knight/Bush parallel must have missed is the Batman's desire for himself - and especially District Attorney Harvey Dent - to maintain integrity and not succumb to bending morality the way the Batman often finds himself doing. The Batman's goal is to turn over criminal terrorists to Gotham's law enforcement officials, where they would be subject to a fair legal process to determine their guilt and punishment - not some made up system for which the Batman is the judge, jury and executioner, the likes of Bush's military commissions system. Does the Batman take it upon himself to kill the Joker when he finally has the opportunity? No, he does not. The terrorist in this film - the Joker - is himself impressed at the Batman's integrity - his resistance to sinking to the Joker's level. Indeed, the Batman subjects himself to a system of checks and balances, while Bush has resisted even the most basic checks on his power, and believes justice should be dealt in the shadows, by his henchmen, and by his rules alone. Oh yeah, and lets not forget that torture isn't even a reliable tactic in the film. When it truly mattered, torturing the Joker produced faulty intelligence.

Chadd de Las Casas, a content producer for Associated Content, has this to say of the film:

"The film, throughout its course, runs a gamut of themes that are surprisingly benevolent towards the currently unpopular president, bringing to light a cadre of issues that seemingly turn the moral philosophy of anti-war critics upside down when the shimmering camera light of the Associated Press is replaced by an IMAX theater."

So, "the philosophy of anti-war critics" is turned upside down by The Dark knight? How exactly? The so-called "anti-war critics" of the Bush administrations war on civil liberties, the rule of law and checks and balances, runs across the political spectrum. So who Chadd is referring to is hard to tell. In any case, his view is simplistic to say the least, but is a microcosm of how neoconservatives (or whatever Chadd calls himself) see the world.

But, at the core of this neoconservative con-job misperception of the world, and indeed their interpretation of The Dark Knight itself, is drawing some equivalence between the Joker and Al Qaeda in the first place. In the film, the Joker is interested only in chaos, mayhem and destruction - not money, not political power, not even respect - whereas Al Qaeda and other similar groups use terror as a means of achieving political goals, aimed at United States interests and driven by a smorgasbord of perceived injustices - a point which conservatives across the board refuse to acknowledge. They-hate-us-for-our-freedom-and-our-decadent-ways is the mantra - violence for the sake of violence, and any suggestion otherwise is to be considered "appeasement" - another commonly misappropriated term conservatives love to throw around.

The final nail in the coffin of this conservative attempt to appropriate The Dark Knight as a paean to their ideology is the very poignant sequence of scenes in which the Joker has rigged two ferry boats with explosives. One ferry is full of convicts that were evacuated from a prison, and the other is full of presumably law abiding, tax paying citizens of Gotham. The Joker, in all his diabolical splendor, presents a quandary for both boats - detonate the bombs on the opposite ferry and save themselves (although we infer that both bombs will go off no matter what). Ultimately, neither the convicts nor the good citizens of Gotham can bring themselves to play executioner, even in exchange for their own lives. The message if any is that most people are good-hearted, cooperative and unselfish, even when backed into a corner. This is fundamentally in opposition to basic conservative sensibilities - that most people are selfish, war-like, sinning creatures who can't help but slaughter each other, if not deterred by harsh conservative law & order governance.

It's pathetic really. Neocons and even run-of-the-mill cons, have become so desperate to justify their ideology and the crime and folly of the Bush administration, that they will latch onto anything they can twist and turn pro-Bush. Their eyes surely must have lit up when they had themselves an example from liberal Hollywood, in a film chock-full-'o the "liberal elitist" actors they loath so much. But it is just another trick, a mirage, a smoke screen, a distraction - just like "war on Terror" itself.