Keskustelujen arkisto

Did Carl Barks ever publicly or privately reveal his political leanings? Rereading some of his early ten-pagers gives the impression that he had distinctly (at least fiscally) conservative views. Two stories spring immediately to mind:
1) The ten-pager from WDC&S 124 (1951). Scrooge is still very early in his development here, and is portrayed as a hard-nosed, greedy, ruthless capitalist completely unmoved by the plight of the less-fortunate, straight out of the most extreme "Occupy Wall Street" caricature. And yet, there's a degree of cynicism in the portrayal of this "less-fortunate"; the old woman who begs him not to take away her washing machine because she has to "support her husband and three sons-in-law" (the implication being that these are three able-bodied men who refuse to work and expect the poor old woman to support them). Scrooge develops an allergy to his money and "bleeding heart liberal" Donald temporarily takes over his fortune, proceeding to be completely squandered out of large sums of (someone else's, in this case, Scrooge's) cash by lowlifes, moochers and deadbeats. It is hard not to read a criticism of perceived "income redistribution" here.
2) "A Financial Fable" from WDC&S 126 (1951). Just a couple of months later, but Scrooge is much better developed. Scrooge (and the boys) are portrayed as hard-working and industrious, whereas Donald is envious of his good fortune but averse to exertion. He and Gladstone basically "want something for nothing". Scrooge's wealth then gets "redistributed" (through an act of nature), leading to complete collapse of society until the "natural order of things" (the rich getting richer again) re-establishes normalcy.
Are there any other examples that hint at Barks' conservatism (or conversely, stories that carry liberal messages)?

I never met him or anything, but from studying his work I can say yes he did have strong views (ideologies if you will) and they where right-conservative-libertarian in nature.
One of the finest examples of Carl Barks' ideology fueling his art is in Walt Disney's Comics and Stories number 126, where his untitled story laid out not only the main economic principles of capitalism (supply and demand) but also displayed Adam Smith ideology of self regulation in free markets (the invisible hand).
In the story all of Scrooges money is scattered by the wind (his wealth was literally spread) and everyone around him suddenly found themselves to be (roughly) equally wealthy. Scrooge shows no fear or worry about losing his beloved money. He and his family all hold true to the Capitalist principles mentioned earlier and maintain their faith in these principles even in the face of opposition. They succeed completely and eventually every dime of Scrooges money is back in its ??Corn Crib? and the world is returned to normal. Barks himself has been quoted as saying that this story would have had in a cell in a Siberia gulag someday.
Barks?? used the Soviets as villains by creating obvious caricatures of them in the Brutopians. This name itself is not just a simple pseudonym, but a well thought out description. It combines the word Brute which is meant to represent the subjugation of their people (and their general approach to international politics) and Utopian which represents the ideals to which Karl Marx aspired. Barks has been called ??right of Ayn Rand? , but in reality his views where more moderate. He was a classical liberal in the purest form, believing in freedom as the ultimate right. Barks?? own summation ???¦it??s better to just have free government like we have, where everyone can do as they darn well please, rather than be locked up in Brutopia where you have to obey a bunch of rulers.?
This site here serves up several examples as well: http://www.cbarks.dk/thepolitician.htm

To me, Carl Barks shared some values with The Libertarians, but he was skeptical about the motives of most politicians, and even more skeptical about the motives of political parties. He was a reluctant (mostly Republican voter). But, at times he sided with The Democrats. He was a thinking person, who would consider each issue as a separate matter, and come to a conclusion independently, judging it on its own merits.

Quote from user: GeoXQuote from user: Morequackas recently as the 60s the Democratic Party was much less socialistic than the left-wing party that it is today.
:D

Oh, that's funny.
It shouldn't be.

Quote from user: MorequackQuote from user: Robb_KTo me, Carl Barks shared some values with The Libertarians, but he was skeptical about the motives of most politicians, and even more skeptical about the motives of political parties. He was a reluctant (mostly Republican voter). But, at times he sided with The Democrats. He was a thinking person, who would consider each issue as a separate matter, and come to a conclusion independently, judging it on its own merits.
The problem with assigning political labels such as Republican and Democrat to figures from past decades in American history is that in relation to what these labels mean today they have meant something quite different at different times in U.S. history. Perhaps Barks was Republican in that he was a conservative. I'm not sure how different the Republican Party may have been during Barks' adulthood, but as recently as the 60s the Democratic Party was much less socialistic than the left-wing party that it is today.
During the 1950s, The Republican party was less "extreme" right wingish than it is today. But, don't forget that Barks started voting during the early 1920s, and continued through the 1990s. I wouldn't try to "pigeonhole" him to a party philosophy of ANY period of history. He was a thinking, discriminating man (and voter), who assessed each issue independently, and sided with different political parties on different issues. One thing we CAN say is that he made fun of political demagoguery in EVERY American party that existed during his time, with the possible exception of the Communists (because that issue was very controversial (with the fear that they were directed from St. Petersburg, and later, Moscow).

Quote from user: Robb_KTo me, Carl Barks shared some values with The Libertarians, but he was skeptical about the motives of most politicians, and even more skeptical about the motives of political parties. He was a reluctant (mostly Republican voter). But, at times he sided with The Democrats. He was a thinking person, who would consider each issue as a separate matter, and come to a conclusion independently, judging it on its own merits.

I didn't ASSIGN "being a 'Republican' to him because of a guess that he was a Republican due to his 'conservatist' views. I was told he was a registered Republican, either by Carl, himself, or Garé, or Malcom Willits, or Leonard Brown, or someone. But, that label mattered little in understanding his character, as he stated many times that he didn't trust, nor have faith in most politicians. As I stated above, he was his own man, and considered each issue on its own merits, related to his own values.
My whole point was that in those days Democrats and Republicans were probably different animals than they are today. So, saying that you were a Republican, or that you voted Democrat, likely means a different thing than it does today.

Quote from user: Robb_KI wouldn't try to "pigeonhole" him to a party philosophy of ANY period of history. He was a thinking, discriminating man (and voter), who assessed each issue independently, and sided with different political parties on different issues.
Well, that's really speculation, no one really knows how a man votes.

Quote from user: Robb_KI think it is misleading and completely fruitless to try to get some understanding of Carl Barks' character, by trying to "peg" him to a political party and its platform (whether it be that from the period of Barks' youth, middle-age or advanced age).
Probably true. And like I said: Democrats and Republicans were probably different animals than they are today. So comparing apples to oranges would be fruitless--even though we're talking fruit.

Quote from user: MorequackQuote from user: Robb_KI wouldn't try to "pigeonhole" him to a party philosophy of ANY period of history. He was a thinking, discriminating man (and voter), who assessed each issue independently, and sided with different political parties on different issues.
Well, that's really speculation, no one really knows how a man votes.
I don't think that is speculation. Carl Barks told me several times that he didn't trust most politicians, be they Democrats or Republicans, or members of any other party. And, from the things he said, I could tell that he was conservative when it came to fiscal policy, and slightly liberal, when it came to human rights. Just like my parents, and many of the other people I know in Europe, Canada and USA, people who think and talk this way, generally don't automatically vote as their political party of registration, advises on every issue, across the board. They generally vote based on their beliefs and values, on each given issue. Most of the people in my extended family are generally conservative when it comes to fiscal issues, but very liberal, when it comes to human rights. If they lived in USA, I believe they would (on the whole) be for organising a more all-enclusive healthcare system and a better education system, and giving less tax breaks to the large corporations, and cleaning up many of the loopholes and complications in the tax code. I believe that they would consider some of the measures taken to avoid having to go through regular due-process of law when confronted with "suspected terrorists", threats to individual freedom, and be against them, even if it means not "capturing" some potential terrorists, to avoid the great potential for use of "racist profiling", as those are the tactics of dictatorships.

I believe that Carl Barks would probably have voted more in the Democratic camp on abortion than the current "mainstream Republican" camp, and yet, possibly closer to The mainstream Republican view than The Democratic view on fiscal policy (except that related to necessary functions, such as health care and education). This is "educated speculation". But, I don't think it is speculation to say that Barks would have considered each issue on its own merit, and not voted along party lines on every issue, like an automaton.

Quote from user: Robb_KCarl Barks told me several times that he didn't trust most politicians, be they Democrats or Republicans, or members of any other party. And, from the things he said, I could tell that he was conservative when it came to fiscal policy, and slightly liberal, when it came to human rights. Just like my parents, and many of the other people I know in Europe, Canada and USA, people who think and talk this way, generally don't automatically vote as their political party of registration, advises on every issue, across the board. They generally vote based on their beliefs and values, on each given issue. Most of the people in my extended family are generally conservative when it comes to fiscal issues, but very liberal, when it comes to human rights. If they lived in USA, I believe they would (on the whole) be for organising a more all-enclusive healthcare system and a better education system, and giving less tax breaks to the large corporations, and cleaning up many of the loopholes and complications in the tax code. I believe that they would consider some of the measures taken to avoid having to go through regular due-process of law when confronted with "suspected terrorists", threats to individual freedom, and be against them, even if it means not "capturing" some potential terrorists, to avoid the great potential for use of "racist profiling", as those are the tactics of dictatorships.
Not to get too off topic, and not to tip my political hand too much (hah!), but your quote of: "very liberal, when it comes to human rights" is very troubling. Really!? Why do liberals have an exclusive engagement with "human rights"? This blatantly implies that liberals are caring of human rights and conservatives are not. This, of course, is absurd. It is a perfect illustration of the common illusion that has been perpetrated by the mainstream media since the early 1970s and that many people have swallowed, hook line and sinker; that Democrats are the ones who care about the poor, the downtrodden and the "undocumented" while the Republicans are the rich fat cats who mostly care about getting richer and fatter. This is why Latinos and African Americans by a huge margin are more likely to vote for a Democrat, and Democratic candidates have historically played this up for advantage.

Quote from user: Robb_KI believe that Carl Barks would probably have voted more in the Democratic camp on abortion than the current "mainstream Republican" camp, and yet, possibly closer to The mainstream Republican view than The Democratic view on fiscal policy (except that related to necessary functions, such as health care and education). This is "educated speculation". But, I don't think it is speculation to say that Barks would have considered each issue on its own merit, and not voted along party lines on every issue, like an automaton..
That's all very nice, but in reality, when voting for the main "issue," the Presidential candidate, one has to vote either Republican or Democrat. In reality, there is no political bowl of cherries. There is no in-between or parts of each or a little of both. One candidate will win and one will lose. One is a Republican and one is a Democrat.