Are your Favorite Villains Right Wing or Left Wing?
Something you notice a lot on Reddit discourse and even public proclamations from sitting government officials is that people like to ascribe political slants that favor their side onto their favorite pieces of pop culture. It’s mostly unthinking projection and posturing to portray your own side as unambiguously good and vice versa. It’s way more interesting to examine the big baddies of movies and TV through a genuine analytical lens. I’m here to provide that lens. Why focus on villains specifically? First, to narrow the scope. Second, because it’s way more fun. So, without further ado, here’s…. Further ado. Context is needed.
Sometimes evil is just evil.
Not all villains have motives that can be analyzed through a political lens. Take Hannibal Lecter. He doesn’t kill and eat people because he has a moral disagreement with those who object to such practices. Moral/ethical considerations don’t factor into his actions at all. He does it because he likes it and is incapable of remorse. There is enough complexity to Lecter that we may deduce some ideological bents from his waxing poetics with Clarice, but that would just be his musings on the world. His motives are purely animalistic and, therefore, non-ideological.
Then there are just the characters that are evil incarnate. These are our Saurons, Maleficents, and Power Rangers baddies. These villains are not trying to take over the world to make room for their hordes to develop affordable housing or because they don’t like the good kingdoms tax code. It’s just what they are at their core. These are plagues with personality. Pure, destructive forces who do not have any motives that audience members can sympathize with. Obviously, you can read these figures as stand-ins for some real-world entity and extrapolate possible political opinions of the author, but the characters themselves cannot be placed on a real-world political spectrum. That requires some moral complexity.
Understanding the political spectrum
Before we go further, we have to establish our terms. Whenever people describe the political spectrum, they tend to do so in a way that puts their side in as favorable a light as possible and strawmans the other. “Left is for equality and right is inequality,” “Right is about freedom and the left wants to control.”, etc. These are, of course, useless in any political dialogue or for placing fictional villains on the political spectrum in any objective fashion.
There’s also a common misconception–particularly in American political discourse–that the primary point of disagreement between the left and right is that the left wants the government to be bigger and the right wants the government to be smaller. This is not only reductionist, but it doesn’t hold up to basic scrutiny.
The left in America does advocate for increased spending on social programs and tends to prefer public school systems to private ones, but this isn’t because the left views the government as an inherent good that should be expanded in all cases. Otherwise, you wouldn’t see so much of the left (particularly far and/or progressive left) put so much emphasis on cutting military spending, reducing the role of law enforcement (“Defund the police”), or excising regulations on substance use and sexual behavior.
To go further, there is hardly anything more anti-government than an anarchist. The understanding of the left-right political as being one of government vs. anti-government would lead one to believe that anarchism is a far-right ideology. I.e., “Anarcho-Capitalist,” which is a term to describe a person that doesn’t understand that a governing body is necessary for capitalism to function. Anarchism is, in fact, a far-left ideology.
This isn’t disputed amongst political scholars. Arguably the single most important anarchist thinker is Emma Goldman (1869–1940), a feminist icon known for her advocacy for atheism, gay rights, sexual liberation, killing rich people, and eliminating the state. She supported the October Revolution until it yielded the Soviet Union. She and her lover tried to assassinate an industrialist in hopes that it would inspire others to tear down the hierarchy. Antifa wishes they had that kind of commitment.
All this is to point out that the “big government/small government” split is bullshit. That isn’t where the divide is. Policy is complicated, and you can justify expansion or contraction of government with left or right-wing ideas. What really separates the left and right is why they are doing it.
So, what’s the actual divide?
The primary divide between the left and right put, is that the left puts a higher value on equality and the right puts a higher value on hierarchy. As you go further left you will find more antagonism towards societal structures that put some people above others, even if based on merit. This is why true anarchists are considered left-wing and have historically worked with communists and socialists, despite having wildly diverging opinions on the role of the state. Right-wing extremists seek to create a hierarchy based on something other than merit. Such as the divine right of a king or a “master race”.
Obviously, we could add nuance to this summary until the cows come home (please, don’t make me talk about Horseshoe Theory), but this is already going to be a long one, and I want to talk about Star Wars.
This may initially sound uncharitable to (or even biased against) the right-wing. However, that’s only true under the assumption that equality is an absolute good and pursuing equality endlessly has no downside.
A good illustration of equality taken to an absurd extreme can be found in the dystopian science-fiction short story, Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. You can read the story yourself in a few minutes if you didn’t do so in middle school, but suffice it to say that it depicts a society that in which equality is strictly enforced to the point where athletic people are compelled to wear weights, smart people have to wear buzzers in their ears that go off periodically to prevent them from completing complex thoughts, and attractive people have to wear ugly masks. The title character has to endure all of these handicaps.
Most people would agree that this is not an ideal society. Therefore, almost all people would agree that equality, while desirable in the abstract, is not an absolute good, putting them to the right of this fictional society on the political spectrum. You are to the right of this dystopia.
So, no. This is not me making a value judgment. This is me describing the political spectrum in the simplest way possible while still being objective so that we can explore whether your favorite Batman villain would have been more MAGA or Bernie Bro. Ok? Ok!
Most Villains are Right-Wing
Sorry if the facts hurt your feelings. Most villains and villainous organizations in the media are right-wing in some respect. The Empire from Star Wars can accurately be described as a Theocratic Stratocracy. Everyone who has power in the Empire has it because someone with more power gave it to them, all the way up to the head of a very exclusive religion. It’s ridiculously right-wing.
People make a lot of the Nazi imagery, but that's just generic shorthand for evil at this point. What really makes the Empire right-wing is how it functions. The Empire prioritizes hierarchy and order. There are no civilian officials. All the Governors are also military officers, and the Imperial Senate was dissolved so that the military has no one to answer to. All this on top of the fact that the Emperor is essentially a monarch (who George Lucas based on Richard Nixon).
It’s not the religious aspect either. While most despots–in fiction and real-life–have some sort of religious backing, you can use religion to justify left-wing societies. For an illustration of that point, you need to look no further than Avatar: The Last Airbender. The Fire Nation and Air Nomads are both governed by religious principles. But the Fire Nation’s religion, which is based on the Japanese Empire, manifests itself in a divinely designated ruler out of a royal family.
The Air Nomads, which have religious customs based on Buddhism, have a society so free of hierarchy that they don’t even have parental family units. Everyone at each of the four air temples was an equal part of the commune, with the only prominent authority being elder councils. The hierarchical structure of the Air Nomads is very flat. The Fire Nation, like the Galactic Empire or the Japanese Empire, is basically an obelisk. As are all absolute monarchies.
That and Firelord Sozin's entire justification for the 100 Year War is basically textbook Manifest Destiny. Fire Nation Exceptionalism, if you will.
Monarchy is a quintessentially hierarchical–therefore right-wing– form of government. You can be right-wing and not believe in monarchy, just as you can be left-wing and not believe in communism. All it means is that you are to the left of absolute monarchy, which we kind of all agrees on at this point.
There are still monarchists here and there, but generally, we all agree that absolute monarchy is a bad system of government and what monarchies remain are mostly symbolic. Meant only to serve as “The Face of the Nation’’ while the actual work of governing is done by elected officials. Most “good monarchs’’ in fiction are completely symbolic as well. No one wonders how Prince Charming and Cinderella are going to handle trade policy. That’s not the point. (Some people would still rather the monarchy not be portrayed positively at all in media, but that’s a whole other can of worms).
This is why most evil empires in fiction are right-wing. Not because the authors are necessarily on the left side of their society’s respective political spectrums, but because it’s an easy bad guy in the contemporary world.
Sure, every once in a while, you will get an oppressive society that strives for equality as in Harrison Bergeron or The Giver, but those are generally contemplative pieces, asking the reader to think about the dangers of equality itself. But not every story wants you to have to evaluate preconceptions about what’s evil about the bad guy. So, leaning into those preconceptions makes it easier to get to the action, or character development, etc.
Similar point for why the “Evil Businessman” is such a prominent archetype. Your Gordon Gekkos, Mr. Potters, and post-mad scientist Lex Luthors. Whether intentionally or not, this character type is a condemnation of capitalism. Does this mean the author is left-wing? Well, that’s certainly why Oliver Stone created Gordon Gekko, but otherwise, it’s simply because it’s an easy antagonist. It’s easy to get people to hate the greedy businessman screwing over the little guy.
The most common villain archetypes — be they the evil empire, the greedy businessman with unchecked ambition, and various bigot characters — are right-wing simply because it’s easier. Not more correct and not necessarily more in line with the views of people who make media. Often it’s just laziness. The author has to take time and guide the audience along to explain how equality in excess can be a bad thing or trust them to understand the ambiguity of this self-described rebel against the system. Some people don’t want to bother with all that — or want to focus their energy on something else — and make them Nazis.
And… do I even need to talk about Homelander? The character who so thoroughly embodies the American right that Republicans are openly identifying with and idolizing the explicit, psychopathic, mass-murdering manchild villain of The Boys? How about his Nazi girlfriend?
Already had that one figured? Great!
Are there left-wing villains?
The Joker has had many different incarnations throughout the comics, but the more thoughtful interpretations usually align him pretty closely with this line spiel from The Dark Knight. In the film, the Joker is depicted as a cynical anarchist. He’s not doing what he’s doing to get a laugh, but rather because society itself is the joke. He sees the structural and cultural preconceptions of Gotham, and presumably America at large, as unjust. He believes that violence is justified in exposing how rotten the system and the people who accept it really are and to bring the whole temple down on itself. Flatten it. “You know the thing about chaos? It’s fair.”
Cynicism is much more prominent on the left than the right because the left gets its kicks from the assumption that the institutions we live under are flawed, if not downright evil, whereas conservatives keep faith in our institutions — in one form or another — as a cornerstone to the philosophy.
I’d hardly be the first to point out that The Dark Knight is a right-wing movie. Whether Nolan meant it or not, he provided the intellectual justification for the PATRIOT Act and other spy programs by having the hero use what he acknowledges is an unethical, privacy-violating means to catch a terrorist. I would say that The Dark Knight is also a conservative movie in that the Joker attempts to expose that the “good people” of Gotham are actually vicious and almost succeeds. Batman is vindicated that the city (America) is “full of people ready to believe in good.”
You can see a similar strain in the speech given by Bane (who is nothing like his comic book counterpart and is clearly just here because they couldn’t just use the Joker again) in The Dark Knight Rises, which initiates an anarchic revolt:
Similar points can be made for Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker. Though, that film was much less thoughtful about it and certainly more sympathetic to the Joker’s perspective. His whole downward spiral begins after a cut to social programs deprives him of the help he needs. He grows resentful of rich people, kills “some “Wall Street guys” (even though this isn't supposed to be NYC… but dumb audience needs shorthand, I guess), and murders Robert De Niro, who is the voice of the established order, on live TV. He basically gives a long version of the “we live in a society line” before he does so. Edgelord anarchism.
The violent anarchist is probably the easiest left-wing villain archetype (aside from maybe eco-terrorist). It’s not as common as the evil despot because the writer has to at least gesture toward this person being complex, but it’s something a writer can lean on if they want the villains to be more “edgy™” and whatnot. You’ll find versions of this in Yorgi from xXx, the C-List Batman villain Anarky, and Tyler Durden, along with Project Mayhem.
The sequel series to Avatar: The Last Airbender, Avatar: Legend of Korra, actually does something interesting with its villains worth noting. Each of the show’s 4 seasons came with a completely new set of antagonists. While the antagonists for seasons 2 and 4 were like Ozai in that they were unambiguous right-wing autocrats, seasons 1 and 3 both present hard-left baddies.
The first season’s antagonist, Amon–who many have deemed the best villain of the franchise–has the explicit goal of taking the powers away from all the benders of the world (which he does with his own bending), thus making them equal to non-benders. Beyond his followers literally calling themselves “Equalists,” you can see the influence of left-wing radicals in their design. Amon’s white mask and black robes evoke the Guy Fawkes mask of V for Vendetta fame, and the underground methods of the group itself are reminiscent of Anonymous and even Antifa.
Amon is an interesting twist on the traditional fantasy villain. A sort of reverse Magneto from X-Men in that he directly points to the privilege that would come with superhuman powers as an evil. While the show does give voice to Amon's side of the argument, he is ultimately shown to be a villain in that he is not just taking away powers that give certain people an unfair advantage, but he’s also leaving them seemingly half-alive. Never mind committing a genocide of sorts.
In season 3, Korra and her friends have to face down with the Red Lotus, a group of powerful benders lead by Zaheer, another anarchist character with an interesting spiritual foundation. Zaheer believes that all political structures are inherently oppressive, and that removing political leaders, along with the Avatar — everything that maintains hierarchy — is essential to bringing true freedom. He and his followers believe in using violence to these ends. Emma Goldman would be proud.
What about Thanos?
Another hot topic item. This one is trickier than all the others. Thanos, and other villains (Bertrand Zobrist from Inferno, Richmond Valentine in Kingsman: The Secret Service, etc.) that advocate for killing a significant portion of the population for “good” reasons, subscribe to Malthusianism. A controversial idea was named for English Cleric Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834). Basically, Malthus postulated that the exponential growth of the human population will outpace the linear growth of resources and lead to catastrophe. A catastrophe that has to be prevented… somehow.
For some reason that I wouldn’t venture to guess, neither side has been eager to claim this idea. Critics of this philosophy are a fabulous rainbow coalition that ranges from obscure communists like Marx and Engels to right-wing libertarians and human rights activists in general. Probably the pithiest criticism came from economist Henry George in his hugely influential Progress and Poverty:
“Both the jayhawk and the man eat chickens; but the more jayhawks, the fewer chickens, while the more men, the more chickens.”
So, this is a tough nut to crack. Especially since Thanos, in particular, is mainly using this idea to provide a moral justification for his god complex, but let’s assume he’s sincere.
This could be framed as a question of Utilitarianism — ends justify the means — vs. Deontological ethics — every action should be based on the morality of the action itself. Though, plenty of utilitarians would object to this framing by suggesting that the ends of Thanos’ iconic snap did not materially improve anything.
If I HAD to put a label on it, I’d say that the way he frames it as indiscriminate — instead of picking and choosing which half of the universe dies based on some hierarchical standard — would place Thanos’ expressed ideology on the left. By contrast, Ebenezer Scrooge of Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol frames his Malthusianism in a decidedly more right-wing fashion when explaining why he doesn’t give money to the poor: “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
I’m open to having my mind changed on this one.
Conclusion
I think it’s worth understanding how our favorite characters from literature, TV, and cinema reflect our real world. I enjoyed this exercise a lot and hope that eliciting a discussion could both deepen the experience of consuming media, as well as the understanding of political theory. This is far from comprehensive, but hopefully, it can be built on. It’s also just what a nerd like me considers a good time.
Any thoughts? Feel free to let me know in the comments. See ya next week!
