Age of the Geek

By: 
Travis Fischer

Pick a side
 
     Now that I’ve sufficiently gushed over “Captain America: Civil War,” there’s still one question that must asked.
     Whose side are you on?
     Spoiler Alert: I tried to keep things vague in last week’s column. This week though, I’m getting into the nitty gritty so if you haven’t seen the movie yet, what are you waiting for?
     The crux of the conflict in the movie centers around a United Nations resolution known as the Sokovia Accords, named in honor of the fictional eastern European nation that was all but destroyed in the second Avengers movie.
     It seems the world governments aren’t particularly thrilled about the amount of collateral damage that the Avengers leave in their wake and give the Avengers an ultimatum, submit to UN authority and oversight or hang-up the costumes and retire.
     In defense of the policy is Iron Man. It’s been a long time since Tony Stark bragged about privatizing world peace in “Iron Man 2,” and his viewpoint has dramatically changed.
     Since the fall of S.H.I.E.LD. in “Captain America: Winter Soldier,” the Avengers have been running paramilitary operations across the globe, breaking who knows how many local and international laws in the process.
     Make no mistake, what the Avengers do is absolutely illegal and Tony Stark is at the greatest risk of all of them. If Bill Gates put together a team of mercenaries and had them traipsing around the world getting into firefights, you can bet there would be consequences.
     Tony Stark is lucky he’s American. Elsewhere in the world, independently wealthy people who finance and train soldiers in private compounds and send them out on secret missions into other countries generally aren’t thought of as “heroes” by the general public.
     Under that light, the basic idea of the Sokovia Accord seems fair enough. The Avengers get legal authority to do their thing, but they get their marching orders from the United Nations.
     And there’s the kicker that becomes the center of the conflict. Captain America immediately objects to the idea that a committee of people with their own political agendas will have the first and last word about when the Avengers act. It’s pretty easy to see a scenario where the Avengers would either be prevented from taking action where they’re needed, or ordered to take action against an unworthy target.
     This is a valid concern. In the real world, the United Nations Security Council is hardly known as the most effective peacekeeping force. It’s hard to imagine that the Avengers would be allowed to investigate a half-dozen sleeping soviet super soldiers if Russia was given veto power.
     It’s even worse within the context of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. We’re talking about a world where it’s a safe bet that any political body of power has at least one member of Hydra in its midst.
     And this is what makes the conflict in the movie so compelling. Both sides have very valid points.
     Iron Man is right in that the Avengers need to be held to some form of oversight. Otherwise they’re just globetrotting vigilantes.
     At the same time, Captain America is right not to trust the governments of the world. A point proven by the movie’s villain, who immediately manipulates the newly legitimatized Avengers for his own purposes.
     Once again, like virtually every political conflict in history, it all comes down to pragmatism vs. principle.
     Iron Man is being pragmatic. He knows the Sokovia Accord is a bad deal, but the alternative is worse. If the Avengers don’t play ball, they risk alienating the world they’re trying to protect and becoming fugitives, which is exactly what happens to those on Team Cap.
     Captain America, on the other hand, doesn’t have time for those kind of games. He sees no point in signing the accord when he knows his team is going to inevitably disregard their orders and go rogue the first time they are told they should or shouldn’t act on something, which is exactly what Iron Man does near the end of the movie.
     In the end, neither side is entirely right or entirely wrong.
     In hindsight, the entire issue probably could have been avoided had Tony Stark thought to contract with world governments ahead of time. Some futurist he turned out to be.
     That said, Captain America probably would have been better off working within the system rather than against it.
     Of course that would have made for a far shorter and less interesting movie.
     So what do you think? Is Iron Man too authoritarian? Is Captain America too libertarian? Or do you just want to see them punch each other?
 
     Travis Fischer is a news writer for Mid-America Publishing and picks Team Spider-Man.

Hampton Chronicle

9 Second Street NW
Hampton, IA 50441
Phone: 641-456-2585
Fax: 1-800-340-0805
Email: news@midamericapub.com

Mid-America Publishing

This newspaper is part of the Mid-America Publishing Family. Please visit www.midampublishing.com for more information.