Conservative Watchmen? Lessons on society in Alan Moore’s Work
What would happen in a society governed by superhumans? Alan Moore’s graphic novel Watchmen explores an alternate 1984 America in a society that had outlawed costumed vigilantes.
One of many questions raised by the novel seems particularly relevant after the events of the past decade: does additional power, intelligence or information give individuals the right to do all that is necessary to achieve a specific end?
From this point on, a thematic and character spoiler warning is in effect.
The characters of Watchmen reveal several differing positions on the issue. Dr. Manhattan (that’s the blue naked guy) holds virtually unlimited power. Yet rather than becoming intoxicated with his power, Manhattan begins to slowly withdraw from the world. Instead of overthrowing the world, destroying it, or even acting out of selfish motives, Manhattan becomes essentially apathetic—the abundance of his power creating little necessity to act on “smaller” nuisances of mankind’s worries.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, Ozymandias possesses unmatched intellect. The perfection of the human form, Ozymandias comes to the undeniably logical conclusion that mankind needs intervention to achieve a peace. Ozymandias provides a… violent solution to the unbalance and provides complete peace at least for the moment.
Rorschach provides the narration for the majority of the novel. With a strong belief in black and white morals and a refusal to compromise for the greater good, Rorschach ignores the theoretical greater good in favor of righting all wrongs. Playing the classic role of sleuth, Rorschach abandons his rules of contained justice upon gathering information on a kidnapper, whom he kills brutally.
Quite remarkably, Alan Moore has said to have written Watchmen with the intent to critique Ronald Reagan-esque heroes—people put in a special position to guard the world from seemingly inevitable demise. Indeed, there are numerous essential lessons that open-minded conservatives can glean about the very nature of social governance.
First, the Dr. Manhattan lesson. While power has proliferated since the days of an invincible America, the social influence of the United States continues to expand. In these times more than ever, America must unite in an effort to start caring about the greatest American export: culture. Rather than alienating ourselves from the world or giving up on society as a whole, Manhattan’s logical yet inhuman conclusion shows the necessity of taking an active interest in U.S. affairs. The common citizen must be involved in the government.
Ozymandias shows us a different side of the problem of power. Ozymandias reveals both the limited nature of governmental conclusions and the necessity of some form of democratic consensus. First, governmental conclusions are inherently limited in nature. Similar to the limitations of a field like math or science, it is impossible for governing figures to entirely take into account all factors to achieve an ideal solution. While an ideal solu-tion should not be avoided for this reason, its achievement is hardly the end of all problems.
Furthermore, Ozymandias shows the necessity of a democratic element to society. Though democracy is far from infallible (Winston Churchill: “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”), its inclusion in the decision-making process mitigates the effect of tyranny of the majority and protection of individual rights.
Rorschach emphasizes the need for checks and balances within the realm of the law. Rather than giving the authority to a single individual or group, power must be distributed so that information available only to a select few can be interpreted drastically. Though Rorschach emphasizes several admirable traits of conservatism, he ultimately fails by rejecting the heart of society he tried to protect.
Though Watchmen certainly contains liberal overtones throughout, valuable lessons can be gained for the observant conservative.
Related posts:
