Long-time comic book writer Chuck Dixon and long-time comic book illustrator Paul Rivoche went off on a rant in The Wall Street Journal this past week. For those of you who haven’t read the article, you can find it here. For those who don’t feel like reading it, I try to sum up their main points best below.

Dixon and Rivoche start by talking about how terrible modern comics are by saying “perhaps the most dramatic example of modern comics’ descent into political correctness, moral ambiguity and leftist ideology.” when Superman gave up his U.S. citizenship a couple years ago. They go on to say ” Our fear is that today’s young comic-book readers are being ill-served by a medium that often presents heroes as morally compromised or no different from the criminals they battle. With the rise of moral relativism, “truth, justice and the American way” have lost their meaning.”

Dixon and Rivoche then regal readers with a short history of Superman being a moral crusader in comics throughout time. Then they go on to mention about Batman how he “became dark and ambiguous, a kind of brooding monster.”

There are still several problems with their article.

1.) Batman being dark and ambiguous isn’t Liberalism or Liberalism’s fault

First, I have to question how or why Batman being “dark and ambiguous” or a “brooding monster” is Liberalism. If anything, Batman’s treatment of criminals and surveillance activities have gotten praise from conservative circles. There was a bit of controversy surrounding The Dark Knight because some people (whether they’re right or wrong is up to you) felt that Batman using a program that tracked everyone in Gotham was in defense of the Patriot Act. Not exactly a Liberalism darling to say the least. Even Cracked has taken notice and wrote about it a couple times, including here.

Furthermore, Batman becoming “dark and ambiguous” started with The Dark Knight Returns, a story by Frank Miller. Considering Miller’s recent words about Occupy Wall Street among other numerous statements, I don’t think anyone is going to say that he’s a Liberal.

Also, Chuck Dixon himself is noted for creating Bane. The same Bane that put Batman through living hell for multiple issues, broke his back, and which led to the rise of 90’s Batman (Jean Paul Valley) who was even more brooding and dark than Bruce Wayne. Not exactly kid friendly or light hearted.

2.) The article is filled with vague phrases they don’t back up

This is one of the biggest vague statements in the entire article that I previously quoted: ” “perhaps the most dramatic example of modern comics’ descent into political correctness, moral ambiguity and leftist ideology.”

Except Dixon and Rivoche don’t really prove their point. They mention the case about Superman giving up his citizenship and a couple of leftist graphic novels while failing to mention how well they sold or were distributed. What exactly is leftist and so wrong with comic books that it’s hurting them? Dixon and Rivoche don’t really mention any other notable examples. Instead, we’re left with a lot of smoke but no fire.

Furthermore, the same holds true about the “descent into political correctness.” The only example of where this is somewhat apparent in the article is where Chuck Dixon didn’t want a story about AIDS because it was marketed to children. Furthermore, this is another vague term they’re seemingly using to try and scare people but don’t mention how or where this is happening. What kind of political correctness do they wish to get rid of? I’m not really sure where they’re getting at here.

3.) Where is the “Liberalism” in comics?

I don’t see superheroes beating up abortion clinic protestors or helping immigrants across the border. Although, there is the case of the immigration status for Clark Kent, who was not born in the United States. I find it amusing that Dixon and Rivoche complain about Superman giving up his U.S. citizenship when Superman was an illegal immigrant to begin with.

If anything, the most obvious signs of influence from “Liberalism” in comics these days is the growing diversity with the characters. Non-white superheroes, more women superheroes, gay superheroes, etc. This is one of the most positive things that has happened to the comics industry in the last 20 years and needs to continue happening.

4.) Moral ambiguity is realistic, not the Comics Code Authority (CCA)

Once again, quoting from the article: “Our fear is that today’s young comic-book readers are being ill-served by a medium that often presents heroes as morally compromised or no different from the criminals they battle. With the rise of moral relativism, “truth, justice and the American way” have lost their meaning.”

Dixon and Rivoche seem to want to return to a time where the CCA ruled comic books. Of course, the CCA ruined many wonderful comic books among other problems. There is a wonderful book called The Ten Cent Plague that covers this topic.

Why teach children that the world is black and white when it’s not? That’s doing them a disservice in several ways. It’s not only lying to children but it’s treating them like they’re dumb.

5.) The article seems to exists to promote their new graphic novel

I can respect the opinion of someone if they truly believe in what they’re writing for the sake of writing it. However, if you felt like this article was written a couple years ago, you wouldn’t feel alone. As previously mentioned, Dixon and Rivoche end the article with a call to “take back comics” and say ” we hope conservatives, free-marketeers and, yes, free-speech liberals will join us.” How can you do that dear reader? By buying their graphic novel based on a conservative view of the New Deal.

Because remember folks, while Liberalism taking over comics is wrong, teaching kids that the New Deal was evil is just fine.

Follow the blog on Twitter @pcguesstimate for updates on future reviews.