I’m not quite sure that this is right. If Captain America’s stance during Civil War, its that he isn’t just a personified America. Captain America, like every other superhero, is corporeal and with real flaws and real problems. We can’t assume that just because Marvel is throwing him out, however bizarrely, against teabaggers, that they are using their trump card – draping themselves in Captain America’s flag. As readers, whatever our political inclinations, we should be trusted to take his criticisms with a grain of salt, just as we did when he essentially made the argument during “Civil War” that superheros WERE the government, and shouldn’t have to abide by its rules.

This is also part of the problem with the Tea Party movement. Not only are they saying that that this government is un-American, they are saying that they ARE the government. This ties into the whole narrative of “real America” and everyone else. The main reason why they’re pissed about the Captain America reversal is because they think he’s supposed to belong to them too.

Wait, you mean that Cap was saying during Civil War that he wasn’t a symbol of America? Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand your point.

I wasn’t saying that he didn’t think of himself as a symbol of America – but rather, he thought of himself as much more than just a symbol, in some ways, a replacement for the government.

The point I was trying to make is that Captain America and the teabaggers wrongly think that they could BE America. Progressives thought Captain America was wrong during “Civil War”, just like teabaggers think he’s wrong now. The primary fallacy for the audience in all of this is ourselves assuming ownership of Cap as a symbol.

Here’s why Cap was right. The proposal as laid out in Civil War very quickly moved from one of registration and licensing (undeniably right) to one of conscription and essentially forced labour. At least that’s how I remember it. The entire superhuman community was going to become indentured servants of the US government – and this is the kicker – whether they were practicing superheroes or not. If you were a mutant with a completely non-violent power set (say, you were a living universal translator, to pick an example completely at random), you had to register and be conscripted, or go to jail

The mutant issue is, indeed, where the registration act grew problematic. But if I recall, Tony came to a modus vivendi with the X-Men where he said it basically wouldn’t be enforced. Cyclops said we’re still not registering and Tony figured it wasn’t worth the fight.

As for the conscription — I mean, how is it any different than saying to a retired cop we’re keeping your name on record if you want to pick up the badge & gun again?

The xmen did it better with the Mutant Registration Act , but the concept (if not the execution) is the same ; criminalizing the inherent nature of a specific class of citizen. In each case, it is an over reaction by the government to a horrible incident . It’s collective punishment on a whole group (i.e. race) of people based on the horrific actions of a few individuals within that group .
Speaking of controversies, I don’t recall any great uproar when Marvel published the excellent “God loves ; Man kills” which , one would think would inspire much more controversy than simply including teabaggers as they have presented themselves in reality.

Now Marvel’s trying to renege on how Iron Man turned out to be (tragically) right by having Norman Osborn displace him and assume all the power Tony Stark accrued. But no deal!

Yeah, and Communism would have worked if that Stalin guy didn’t show up to ruin everything.

Both sides of this argument are broken. They’re assuming a background of this-universe democracy and talking about a civil liberties vs. security tradeoff that only makes sense in our universe without superpowers.

Of course I’d rather that our current government retain it’s monopoly on legitimate force than a band of unregulated vigilantes be given superpowers and made accountable to no one but each other. But democratic government just isn’t compatible with superpowers. Even with a monopoly on legitimate force, our government has no monopoly on the capability of force. Someone like Osborn in the real world, without superpowers, would face not only the Second Amendment, but the refusal of military and security forces to follow orders. We only retain our democracy because power is distributed even when legitimacy is concentrated.

So the real argument is: if superheroes were real and thus democracy were impossible, would it be better to be dominated by a single, superpowered absolute sovereign, or should we prefer to see those with powers divided into factions and fighting amongst each other? Anyone defending the former should be prepared, as Hobbes was, to argue why they would still be right if the superpowered absolute sovereign in question were evil–because, more likely than not, they would be.

Oh yeah, God Loves Man Kills is a stone-cold classic. Marvel is a pretty leftwing company, historically! Iron Man is a huge critique of American imperialism!

I’d buy your argument that Iron Man was right, except for the fact that, ultimately, Stark was more interested in the government contracts he would get from the SRA while Captain America was more concerned with civil liberties.

As for the Teabaggers, it always seems to me that they are only interested in their own rights and not those of others especially when the rights of “others” directly conflict with Teabagger’s right to their own entitlements.

Oh, and not for nothing “Captain” is more of a title, than an actual military rank.

The other thing to point out here is that most of the super heroes that were being required to register are people who maintain secret identities. Spider-Man specifically was worried about handing over his identity to a government database that could be hacked by any villain with enough motivation to use that information to attack the people he loved. They’re basically saying, if you have special abilities, or a fetish for dressing in spandex and beating people up, then you have to not only be trained and work for the government, but you also have to surrender a lot of personal information, which I think is a arguable violation of the 4th amendment.

The devil’s in the details on this one, though, because the Stamford incident was proven to be a plot conjured up by greedy executives from Damage Control do drive up premiums on super hero damage insurance. Just like in real life.

Also, fun fact: The X-Men got out of registration by claiming protections under the Endangered Species Act. Thanks, President Nixon.

I think She-Hulk was in favor of registration and Daredevil’s been somewhat off his rocker for a while now.

Finally, I also think it’s interesting that in the Ultimate universe, Fury flat-out told Spider-Man that when he turns 18 the government will own him and he will have to become a federal agent. That has yet to play out, but I think Brian M. Bendis hit the nail on the head with how Spider-Man would be perceived by those in power in today’s world.

I was reading this, and I decided I had to get in on the action. First of all, I believe that the whole Captain American + Tea Baggers ordeal has nothing in common. The tea baggers are a bunch of “regular” so-called Americans who think the government is a bunch of Socialist radicals who are out to destroy America. In essence, these people make me sick. I agree with some of their principles, but they way they go about them just backfires on them and makes them look stupid.

Captain America, I believe, did not think the government was evil, however, I believe he thought the Registration Act was a violation of individual rights. The idea of the government “owning” someone [as delgrungo pointed out about Spiderman] is wrong. Why should we treat someone because they are different? We shouldn’t. This is very common in today’s society with gay-Americans, and the laws banning their rights. Now, by all means, I don’t see Captain America holding a rainbow flag anytime soon [yeah he's dead, but you know they'll find a replacement], but my whole point in this jumble of thought is that the government “forcing” a certain group of people to “train,” or to be secluded is wrong. A hero, I believe, as in a regular everyday person, needs to lern his/her mistakes firsthand. They need to figure out on their own what their powers are. This builds the character into what they will become. Superman anyone? The fact is, the government would not allow these heroes to be “people.” It’s all strictly buisness with them. And the fact that they would have complete dire robitic-like control over them [reason why I loath S.H.I.E.L.D.] The fact that a corporation or government training superheroes just gives me goose bumps. If you are going to do it, look deeply into the mind of Charles Xavier. He hit it right on the spot. His team is just not a team, but a family. And that is something I believe a government couldn’t provide.

There are a few problems with the premise of the Superhuman Registration Act as stated in this and other linked pieces: The SHRA was not analogous to the USA PATRIOT Act, but instead more like gun control. Every being operating on U.S. soil who possessed superhuman abilities or “exotic” technology (tech further-advanced than those commonly possessed by the human race) was deemed a living WMD and required to surrender his or her secret identity to the U.S. government. There were also some qualification tests devised, and government employment beyond the standard deputation was offered, but not mandatory.

Steve Rogers, the original Captain America and the man wearing the mantle during the Civil War story, had been burned by corrupt government officials before and ultimately decided that he should embody and be loyal to American ideals, not the American government. Rogers felt the Act was an unconstitutional encroachment on civil liberties and a threat to the protection that a secret identity provides a superhero; at no time was he worried that superheroes would be used as domestic Brownshirts by Bush (who was president when the story was published and in the story line itself).

In a climactic battle against the pro-Registration forces (who maintained an extradimensional gulag much like Guantanamo, BTW) Captain America surrendered when he saw the risk the battle was posing to civilians and was later assassinated by someone brainwashed by his Nazi archnemesis, the Red Skull; he was succeeded by his former sidekick, Bucky. It’s Bucky who recently decided to go after the “Watchdogs” militia group — and not the first time someone wearing the Captain America mantle has targeted and fought right-wing extremists. The character has fought Nazis, neo-Nazis, and militia groups many times. Also, extraterrestrial invaders. I guess those aliens were really just stand-ins for illegal immigrants and it’s time for those of us on the left to have a hissy fit.