Why Captain America is conservative

by Rogério M. O. Filho

I’ve seen a lot of people arguing about the political leaning of Captain America. And after reading various texts and articles throughout the web, I finally have concluded: Captain America is conservative. Why? Well, before answer that question, I think we must begin by the definition of the central concepts: what does it mean to be “liberal” (in American sense of the word)? What does it mean  to be “conservative” (when such word is used inside United States of America)? – as David Hume wrote in his Enquiry concerning human understanding, when “a controversy has been long kept on foot, and remains still undecided, we may presume that there is some ambiguity in the expression, and that the disputants affix different ideas to the terms employed in the controversy”.

If by “conservative” we understand a jingoistic attitude, a blind optimistic nationalism, an egotistical obsession by the protection of own money and patrimony as if “freedom” had only an economical extension, a fanatical individualism, and the opinion according which the authority of government and the safety is more important than freedom, so I must say: Captain America is not conservative. But none of those qualifications can be considered a definition of true conservatism. Conservatism is not pure individualism:

“True Conservatism, conservatism uninfected by Benthamite or Spencerian ideas, rises at the antipodes from individualism. Individualism is social atomism; conservatism is community of spirit” (KIRK, 2001, p. 242) [1].

The image of conservative as simply the rich capitalist is a caricature:

“In America an impression began to rise that the new industrial and acquisitive interests are the conservative interest, that conservatism is simply a political argument in defense of large accumulations of private property, that expansion, centralization, and accumulation are the tenets of conservatives. From this confusion, from the popular belief that Hamilton was the founder of American conservatism, the forces of tradition in the United States never have fully escaped” (KIRK, 2001, p. 229).

According to Russell Kirk – maybe the greatest expert on American and English conservatism in all the world – the first founder of true conservatism in America was John Adams (p. 71) whose “primary concerns” were “private and public virtues” (p. 99). Conservatism is much more about morals than economical issues. That’s the reason why true conservatism has as greatest feature the belief in a moral transcendent order, which is independent of individual subjective opinions and momentary preferences. Such moral order is gradually revealed only through the concrete and reiterated experience; such kind of experience receives the name of “tradition”. That’s the reason why a true conservative is always an uncompromising defender of traditions and moral principles, "the permanent things", such as equal justice – or equality before God and courts of law, which is completely different from equality of condition and economical levelling  – personal freedom, private property, and recognition of own individuality (the last two are closely linked with freedom) .

Such rigidness which characterizes the conservative mind contrasts the progressive or liberal mind. For the american progressive or liberal – they mean the same in United States – the world must change according the new exigencies of the social and economical circumstances. That’s the reason why Bentham’s and Mill’s english utilitarianism is almost the complete synonym of american liberalism: because they share the belief that nothing but the satisfaction of the majority can be sacred. Because of that, they – American liberals and English utilitarians – must be progressives: as long as the opinions and moods always change, so the laws and moral principles which rule the society must be changed as well – except, of course, the principle of general utility or majority happiness. There’s no object of spiritual devotion here, except the general happiness itself.

I think now it is clear for the reader – who knows something about Captain America – in which side of american political spectrum we can put our star spangled hero. The Captain is a traditionalist whose concept represents a man entirely devoted to those principles on which America was originally created. He doesn’t represent the American government transitory policies; he doesn’t represent this or that party; these or those groups of interest. He only represents the American principles and the American traditions. Nothing less, nothing more. As Frank Miller said before[2], Captain America is “a wonder anachronism”. This means: he’s always standing for those principles and traditions which make what America really is in its core and essence, but which is always threatened by new transitory desires of novelties from naive people or radical governments. Captain America is the tradition itself when it is standing against radical progress. And such posture incorporates the truest meaning of conservatism. Besides, the modern American liberals uphold firstly economic equality - although I believe they do not support socialism - while the conservatives, since Edmund Burke in England and John Adams in USA, support firstly personal freedom. And Captain America is not the "Sentinel of Equality", but the "Sentinel of Liberty". 

I think the most emblematic instance of that conservative attitude is the Civil War story (2006), written by Mark Millar. What makes Civil War a good example is the fact that it is explicitly political. Civil War begins when American government promotes a radical change in legislation: it creates a “superhuman registration act”, according which the superheroes must act under official regulation, as long as they’re considered “living weapons of mass destruction”. The new law converted them in something akin to police officers. One dangerous and abusive effect of such law is the legal obligation of revealing the secret identities. The heroes who don’t obey the new law, are punished as criminals. Captain America leads an anti-registration group because he disagrees with the new law, basically arguing that it is against liberty and that “masked heroes have been a part of this country for as long as anyone can remember”. Therefore, according to Captain America, the new law violates the American traditions. On the other hand, the hero Iron Man, who supports the radical new law, is the reformer or progressive here. Civil War shows us another aspect of liberal thought: it is based on what I would like to call "bad induction" as long as the enthusiastic desire of novelties comes sometimes from an unique happening (here, the tragedy in Stamford). On the other hand, the conservative thought is based on "good induction", as long as the traditions are made up by very long and reiterated experience. Some people interpreted Civil War as a parable for the gun control problem, where Captain America would represent the conservative side against the gun control and supporting the personal freedom and personal responsibility, and traditions. I think it is a good interpretation.

I’ve seen some people saying that Captain America would be a liberal because he was created during Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal times, and so he would be a Democrat; that Steve Rogers grew up in Brooklyn and became an artist, and artists during that time were in general left-wingers and Democrats; and so on [3]. I think such arguments are logically vicious as long as they are based in generalizations and real-life assumptions. Besides, the character Captain America – so far as I know – never spoke in defense or favored any real political party, as the Republican Party or Democratic Party. The reason why he was never interpreted as a political party follower is because his concept is that of a man who represents the America, and not some partisan interest. When Captain America was created by Simon and Kirby, there was no serious political division inside United States of America. The internal problems in national economy were left aside because all the Americans had a common enemy: the National Socialist Party in Germany and its followers. America was never so united, except in its own Independence War. The legal and economical battles between Republicans and Democrats inside USA were left aside for the battle between the principles of freedom and nazi authority in international field. Therefore, Captain America is the product of the Second World War, and not of New Deal ideology [4].

Besides, the political parties as well their members are historically very shifting about their own political leanings, and the public itself in United States is always changing its own concepts about what does it mean to be "conservative" and "liberal". Franklin Roosevelt`s Foreign (interventionist) Policy could be considered "liberal" in 40`s, but today it would be easily called "conservative". In 18. century, Hamilton`s federalism was considered "conservative"; today, it seems much more "liberal"; and so on. That`s the reason why we can see so much people defending "liberal" ideas which are, in reality, conservative ideas, and conversely, so much people who imagine themselves as "conservatives", when they`re publically defending liberal conceptions [5].

On the other hand, I tried (predominantly based on Kirk`s work) throught this article to give an universal (and very abstract) concept about "American conservatism" and "American liberalism". The first means an uncompromsing attitude toward principles and fidelity to traditions; the second means compromissing attitude and progressive actions, always searching the circunstancial welfare and happiness of society. Anyway, in United States of America even some liberal people has a very traditionalist or conservative leaning because such people respect tha Federal Constitution - called by Kirk "the most sagacious conservative document in political history" - and supports traditional means of change, such as the parliamentary dialog and non-violent protests (that is, they can be progressives about the changes, but not about the means). (Therefore, it is very hard to find, at least in USA, people who are "pure" liberals or "pure" conservatives - as even conservatives sometimes can desire some kind of reform as well). In other countries which are much more radicals and progressives, the Constitutions mean something akin to mere pieces of paper [6].

A good instance of how Captain America doesn’t represent political parties, but simply traditional principles, is the classic Captain America #260 (1980), produced by Roger Stern and John Byrne. In that story, Captain America rejects the candidacy for US presidency, because as a politician he would be “ready to negotiate, to compromise”, but his duty is preserving “the dream”. In other words, Captain America could never put in relativism the “dream” – the American principles or the original project from the founder fathers – through the negotiating and compromising which is an essential part of political activity [7].

Therefore, when I say Captain America is conservative, I’m not affirming that Captain America is a supporter of any political party which by now is considered “conservative”, such as Republican Party, or supporter of any “conservative” movement, such as Tea Party. Such affirmative would be so incorrect as to say he’s a liberal because he would be a Democrat. Captain America could never represent a particular political party, because he doesn’t represent particular interests, but America principles and traditions. Because of his fidelity and uncompromising attitude toward those principles and traditions, Captain America can be easily considered a conservative.

[1] KIRK, Russel. The conservative mind. Seventh revised edition by Regnery Publishing.

[2] http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/06/frank-miller-would-like-another-stab-at-captain-america-would-marvel-let-him/

[3] This kind of opinion has found great expression through this interesting article: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/10/steven-attewell-steve-rogers-isnt-just-any-hero

[4] I know when the first Captain America issue was published, USA was not directly at war. But the plot was already about the battle against nazi Germany, and not some kind of New Deal proselytism.

[5] Therefore, it cannot be a surprise that Captain America co-criator, Joe Simon, who supported american interventionism at Second World War, supported George W. Bush and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks (see http://www.salon.com/2011/07/19/captain_america_politics/). In 40`s that was a "liberal"attitude; today, it is a "conservative" atittude. So I ask you: is Joe Simon "liberal" or "conservative"?  

[6] I can take my own country - Brazil - for instance. In Brazil, we have had 9 different Constitutions since 1822. Brazil is always trying to change... As a reflexion of political instability in Brazil - because of the absence of truly conservative ideas - we have political parties which represent all sort of interests and ideologies, from classical liberalism until marxism. For the most people who lives in countries as Brazil, the difference between liberals and conservatives in United States seems to be almost totally absent. 

[7] I think Mark Gruenwald`s long run on Captain America title is another excellent example of Steve Rogers unbreakable morality as well his uncompromising attitude toward political issues.