Debating the Politics of the Dark Knight

Two interesting articles break down the political message of the decade's biggest movie, and give nearly opposite interpretations.

At alternet.org, Michael Dudley sees the Dark Knight through the new lens of a post- 9/11 narrative in American politics. From violent but futile interrogations, to an intrusive but ultimately useless surveillance system, to the redemption of prisoners clad in Guantanamo- orange jumpsuits-- Dudley argues the movie's popularity is a sign that America has gotten wise to dangerous tactics of the past 7 years.

He concludes:

"Even in the face of incomprehensible, implacable evil, The Dark Knight reminds us that [principles of law, fairness and justice] are our only anchors, for without them we betray both them and ourselves.

America may still have that chance. At the moment, however, its Constitution has been mauled, and politicians of both parties long ago surrendered their capacities to stop an illegal war and the looting of the nation's wealth. Now, however, The Dark Knight warns against both abandoning our principles out of fear, grief and hatred, as well as abdicating our moral agency to external authorities -- both of which comprised the hallmark moral syndrome of the years following 9/11."

Meanwhile, Andrew Klavan of the Wall Street Journal sees things exactly the opposite way:

He begins:

A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .

Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "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.

English Only?

In today's opinion section of the Wall Street Journal John Fund takes Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to task for "holding up a $53 billion appropriations bill funding the FBI, NASA and Justice Department solely to block an attached amendment, passed by both the Senate and House, that protects the [Salvation Army] and other employers from federal lawsuits over their English-only policies."

The assimilation argument is on.

Fund points out that the assimilation was the policy of the US government, even as immigrants poured over the boarder in the early 1900s.

The U.S. used to welcome immigrants while at the same time encouraging assimilation. Since 1906, for example, new citizens have had to show "the ability to read, write and speak ordinary English."

Fund points out that English-only policies are still very popular (77% in a new poll support the right of employers to have English- only policies), but says that "hardball politics practiced by ethnic grievance lobbies is driving assimilation into the dustbin of history."

This showdown comes as a result of a lawsuit filed by the EEOC on behalf of two Salvation Army employees of a thrift store in Massachusetts. The employees were given one year to adjust to the company's English- only workplace environment, and were fired after they did not comply.

We'll see how far Pelosi is willing to take this battle, but judging by the numbers it could be a winning cause for Republicans.

WSJ: Affluent Voters Switch Brands

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece today on the shifting voting patterns of the wealthy. The Journal traveled to traditional- Republican- turned- swing state, Colorado, and spoke with people who have altered their allegiance in favor of Democrats.

Take James Kelly, an executive at the $7B firm Vistar, who supports Barack Obama. For all the Democrats' talk about rolling back the Bush tax cuts on top wage earners, Mr. Kelly still writes big checks to Democrats.

From the article:

"The Democratic Party stands more for creating equal opportunity," says Mr. Kelley. He says the party "speaks more to me on issues of the environment, and even more to me on national security," while he criticizes Republican stands on "so-called moral issues" such as gay marriage.

As for proposals by Democratic congressional leaders and presidential contenders to raise taxes on high earners, Mr. Kelley says: "The pocketbook, the taxes, that's issue 11. And the balance has swayed so far in [favor of] the 10 other things."

It's a pattern that has developed nationally over the last four years. In 2004, voters making at least six-figures favored President Bush 58% to 41% over Democrat John Kerry. During last year's Congressional races the margin was cut to 51% to 47%. According to a new Wall Street Journal- NBC News poll, "Americans earning more than $100,000 want Democrats to win the White House next year by 48% to 41%, and want Democrats to win control of Congress by 45% to 42%."

And don't think that shift hasn't already been felt in the '08 fund-raising race, where the top 5 Dems have raised $242M to their conservative counterparts' $167M.

In my opinion, the shift seems to be the product of the deep division the Republican party has dealt with post- Reagan, between social and fiscal conservatives. The uneasy truce between the two appears to have faded, and we now see the fallout. The social conservatives are having a hard time backing a candidate like Rudy Giuliani, and the fiscal conservatives are so turned off by the party's recent priorities that they've defected.

The old adage says that people will always vote their pocketbooks, but it seems that, like much of the traditional wisdom in this election cycle, has undergone a profound change.