Continued from part 4, book 3...

Book Four

Book four is Dr. Manhattan's origin story. It delves further into his disconnect with humanity and explores his super abilities. Other than furthering that character development, there are only two things that helps us understand the masked politics behind the story.

The first is on page 19 where Dr. Manhattan is describing the glee The Comedian got from killing during the war in Vietnam. Dr. Manhattan calls the war "madness" and "pointless butchery."

Firstly, It is quixotic that Dr, Manhattan would use such emotional terminology to describe the war in Vietnam because it seems so out of character. Everywhere else he is dispassionate, even callous, about the fate of man for most of the series, yet resorts to emotionalism to describe the Vietnam War. This uncharacteristic display in one of the series' characters is really just the writer's emotionalism being inappropriately spoken through the character. It's not in keeping with the character and is out of place on the page. With his own emotionalism against the war, Moore used the wrong character through which to be so effusive.

But, this sentiment ties into the left's version of what happened in Vietnam perfectly. As the war raged, it became universally assumed that US troops simply went about the country indiscriminately massacring civilians. It was assumed to be so common as to nearly be prosaic and was believed by the left in America without question or investigation. Of course, this is and always was pure anti-war propaganda. Certainly, there were instances of abuse that occurred during that war -- as there is in any war -- but widespread murder of civilian populations just was not the case. And when they did happen, the US army prosecuted its own in response as few other armies ever have.

Moore's attitude and ignorance of reality also belies the true reasons for the war in the first place. It also conveniently ignores the many millions that were murdered or imprisoned by the communist victors after the US left the region, something war supporters warned about for well over a decade before the pullout and something that anti-war activists have never taken possession of as a result of their own efforts.

The second item appears on page 21. Here the writer proves to have an utter lack of knowledge about how the US Constitution works. He portrays Richard Nixon sponsoring a new Constitutional amendment allowing him to run for a third term. While Moore may know that the 22nd Amendment 10 prevents a third term, he doesn't display an understand that a new amendment to the Constitution could not be proposed until the old one was either changed or repealed. Nor does he seem to understand that it isn't a president that handles such a procedure.

The Founders made the Constitution a difficult document to change, and no president could find it so easy to present an amendment that would allow him to run for any number of terms. In fact, when FDR ran for a third and fourth term, even FDR's supporters raised an eyebrow at his arrogance. But many were wary of "changing horses in mid-stream" as the American euphemism for not wanting change in the middle of a crisis holds -- and the crisis of WWII was a wide stream, indeed. There is an important American tradition started by George Washington who refused a third term proving that he could turn away from becoming a president for life, thereby proving to a skeptical world that Americans didn't need a de facto monarchy. FDR still remains the only president who ever violated this American tradition.

Clearly, Moore must have felt that Nixon could easily have wrangled such a change and this shows that Moore really lacks any understanding of the system of politics in the USA. This is a major problem if one is to take seriously the writer's critique on politics in the 1980s. After all, if he gets such a fundamental point so wrong, it so easily throws his interpretations on other issues into doubt.

It also distorts the real ability of power in the USA, leading unwary readers into imagining that politicians can just do anything they want without answering to anyone. Like many conspiracy buffs, Moore seems to be positing that no boundaries constrain our politicians in the USA, not even the Constitution itself. With as foolish a feeling as that, I'd be curious to know how Moore explains Nixon's ultimate disgrace and resignation! After all, if Nixon was so powerful, why did he have to leave office in disgrace?

Click to continue to book 5...

Home|Prelude|Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Book 1|Book 2|Book 3|Book 4|Book 5|Book 6
Book 7|Book 8|Book 9|Book 10|Book 11|Book 12|Epilogue|Footnotes