Why James Gunn’s Superman Is More Conservative Than You Think
James Gunn’s Superman isn’t a “woke” film. This movie clings to a pre-Trump America that was far from perfect and offers great entertainment, but no solutions.
James Gunn’s Superman Is a Democratic Fantasy of Restoring America—But That Past Was Never Good Enough
Those who call James Gunn’s new Superman movie “superwoke” totally miss the point. Far from being a radical left-wing manifesto, the film is deeply conservative with a small “c.” At its core, Superman is a metaphor for liberal America—a symbol of its hopes, values, and anxieties. The movie reflects the Democratic Party’s fantasy that if we just restore pre-Trump institutions and defend existing norms, America can be fixed.
The story follows Clark Kent’s journey as he embraces his identity as Superman, raised by the kindly Ma and Pa Kent on a Kansas farm—a setting that symbolizes the nostalgic ideal of America as a place of simple decency and neighborly kindness. Clark’s struggle to live up to the moral clarity of his adoptive parents mirrors liberal America’s desire to uphold traditional values of inclusion, truth, and justice in a fractured world.
I really enjoyed the movie. There’s something undeniably hopeful about a story that champions kindness, inclusion, and a hero fighting for truth in a fractured world. It’s easy to get swept up in that fantasy, especially when so much of our real world feels divided and uncertain.
But the film’s longing for that older, more comfortable status quo ignores the fact that the America it romanticizes was never truly good enough. Beneath the nostalgia lies a history of injustice, inequality, and exclusion that the movie overlooks—and the urgent need to build a more just society, not just patch up a broken one.
The Kansas Fantasy: The Democratic Dream of a Kinder America
The movie leans heavily on Clark Kent’s Kansas upbringing as a symbol of innocence and kindness—the moral bedrock of America. Ma and Pa Kent embody simple decency, teaching Clark to use his powers responsibly and to blend in quietly with the world.
Critically, when Clark is injured—whether physically beaten in battle or emotionally shaken—he retreats back to the Kansas farm. It’s portrayed as a sanctuary, a safe space where he can heal away from the violence and chaos threatening the wider world. This return to Kansas isn’t just about rest; it’s a retreat into a nostalgic vision of America as a place of comfort, stability, and genuine kindness.
Throughout the film, we see the Kents’ farm as a place of refuge—from Clark’s early struggles with identity to his moments of doubt after brutal confrontations. The quiet farm and his parents’ wisdom provide grounding and hope in a world that often feels hostile.
But this idyllic Kansas is a fantasy. The real-world heartland is far more complex, marked by economic hardship, political division, and cultural conflict—conditions the film largely ignores. By showing Kansas as a refuge of innocence, the movie taps into a Democratic longing for a kinder, more welcoming America, but sidesteps the deeper struggles that make that kindness so rare.
This pastoral nostalgia feels comforting, but it risks papering over the structural challenges fueling today’s polarization. The film yearns for a kinder America but doesn’t grapple with why that kindness has been so elusive.
The Myth of Pre-Trump America as a Moral Force
In the film, Superman stands as the ultimate symbol of truth, justice, and moral clarity—a heroic figure fighting against clear-cut villains like Lex Luthor and the cosmic threat of Rogol Zaar. This mirrors the movie’s vision of America as a force for good, upholding Cold War-era ideals of righteousness and standing firm against evil.
A key subplot shows Superman intervening to stop an invasion of a nation that closely resembles Palestine by a more powerful aggressor reminiscent of Russia. The film doesn’t engage with the complex geopolitical realities of such conflicts. Instead, Superman acts because it’s simply the right thing to do—protecting the innocent from oppression without hesitation or political calculation.
Throughout the story, Superman’s battles aren’t just physical; they’re moral struggles meant to reaffirm faith in America’s traditional institutions and values. His unwavering commitment to protecting the innocent and fighting for justice reflects a nostalgic belief that the country can return to a time when its moral compass was clear and its role as a global protector uncontested.
But that pre-Trump “normal” America was far from perfect. The film’s whitewashed portrayal overlooks the era’s deep flaws—segregation, political scandals, covert surveillance, and military interventions that caused suffering abroad. By framing this period as a golden age, the movie glosses over the contradictions and injustices that complicated America’s history.
This nostalgic myth makes it easier to defend the status quo rather than confront the real need for change. It’s a fantasy that overlooks the urgent calls for justice and reform that continue to challenge the country today.
The Culture War Over Superman: “Superwoke” and Defensive Nostalgia
James Gunn’s description of Superman as “an immigrant” sparked fierce backlash from conservative commentators who branded the film “superwoke” and accused Hollywood of pushing political ideology. This label became a weapon in the ongoing culture war, with the White House even weighing in, turning Superman into a political symbol for Trump supporters.
Yet, the film itself is steeped in nostalgia for a sanitized, whitewashed America—a Democratic fantasy of the past rather than a bold vision for the future. Superman’s immigrant origin is portrayed as part of his moral core, symbolizing America’s ideal as a nation of refuge and opportunity. But this recognition is framed within a comforting story that largely avoids confronting the deeper systemic challenges America faces.
Interestingly, the movie complicates this immigrant metaphor by revealing that Superman was sent to Earth with a destructive message from his alien parents—a warning that immigration might bring danger and destruction. This subplot muddies the otherwise hopeful message of inclusion, suggesting that new arrivals could carry risks, even as the film champions kindness and acceptance.
The “superwoke” label distracts from the movie’s real message: a longing for a safer, more comfortable status quo, where the nation is run by kindly farmers, heroic billionaires, and clear-cut morality. This defensive nostalgia seeks to protect the old order by dismissing change as ideological overreach.
Those who dismiss the immigrant story miss that this is overdue recognition, not radical revision. The film’s failure lies not in embracing inclusion but in ignoring just how much America must change beyond restoring old myths.
The Missing Story of Class and Structural Change
One of the film’s biggest blind spots is its refusal to grapple with class and economic inequality. Lex Luthor is portrayed as the archetypal billionaire villain—greedy, corrupt, and manipulating America from the shadows. It’s a classic narrative of a rogue corporate overlord undermining democracy.
But in reality, powerful figures like Elon Musk have maintained close ties to the White House, serving as part of the establishment rather than as outsiders. This complexity is missing from the film’s simplistic portrayal, which casts corporate power as an external threat rather than a system deeply intertwined with government and both political parties.
While Lex Luthor fits the Republican corporate overlord trope, the film ignores the Democratic Party’s own corporate backers—wealthy donors and industries that shape policy quietly behind the scenes. Gunn’s Superman leans into a nostalgic vision where restoring pre-Trump institutions somehow fixes America’s problems, yet sidesteps the fact that entrenched economic elites operate on both sides, maintaining systems of inequality and influence.
This omission reveals a broader dilemma for Democrats, who often avoid confronting their corporate ties in favor of cultural battles and incremental reforms. By ignoring these structural forces, the movie’s restoration fantasy feels incomplete—offering hope without addressing the real power dynamics that keep many Americans marginalized.
Real progress demands more than nostalgia. It requires confronting economic power and building institutions that serve everyone, not just restoring those that have long favored the privileged.
Justice, Media, and the Limits of Restoration
In Superman, the media plays a heroic role, exposing Lex Luthor’s corrupt plan and ultimately bringing him down. Clark Kent and the Daily Planet represent an idealistic vision of journalism as a fearless defender of truth and justice, holding the powerful accountable.
But in reality, the media often plays a very different role. Powerful figures like Elon Musk and Donald Trump aren’t just exposed—they’re promoted, amplified, and turned into spectacles. Money shapes the message, and corporate interests frequently influence what stories get told and how. Rather than a pure pursuit of truth, much of today’s media thrives on sensationalism, feeding audiences what sells rather than what’s accurate.
This disconnect highlights a key flaw in the film’s nostalgic faith in traditional institutions. The hopeful belief that the press can restore democracy overlooks how media consolidation and commercial pressures have eroded journalism’s watchdog role. Instead of rooting out corruption, the media often helps build up the very figures who threaten democratic norms.
Building a just society means confronting these realities and transforming institutions like the media—not simply defending an idealized past.
The Fantasy of Humanitarianism and American Power
One of the film’s key emotional moments centers on Superman’s mission to stop an invasion in a nation clearly evoking Palestine, where innocent civilians face brutal aggression from a powerful invader resembling Russia. The movie presents this intervention as a straightforward act of justice—Superman steps in simply because it’s the right thing to do, without any political calculation or strategic interest.
This subplot reflects America’s self-image as a global moral force, a protector of the oppressed and a beacon of hope. It taps into the Democratic fantasy of reclaiming a benevolent America that acts on principle rather than power.
But the film skirts the messy realities behind international conflicts—the complicated histories, interests, and consequences that make such interventions far less clear-cut. Restoring the old narrative of American humanitarianism in this way ignores the contradictions and challenges that have long shadowed U.S. foreign policy.
The movie’s hopeful vision of justice abroad is part of its larger nostalgic fantasy—a yearning for a time when America’s moral leadership seemed unquestioned and pure. Yet, true progress requires grappling with these complexities, not just repeating comforting myths.
The Limits of Liberal Nostalgia: Why “Normal” Is Not Enough
At its core, Superman is a story about clinging to hope by longing for a familiar “normal.” The film’s vision of pre-Trump America is painted as a time of kindness, justice, and clear values—a world where good triumphs over evil and institutions function as they should.
But that “normal” was never as perfect as the movie suggests. The film’s nostalgic lens glosses over the social divisions, injustices, and systemic problems that persisted beneath the surface. It ignores the realities of exclusion, economic inequality, and political tension that have long shaped the country.
This longing for restoration is understandable—especially in a time of upheaval and uncertainty—but it risks turning hope into a comforting myth. Defending the past without reckoning with its flaws leaves us trapped in cycles of disappointment.
True progress demands more than nostalgia. It calls for confronting uncomfortable truths, embracing change, and building new stories that reflect the complex realities of American life today.
The Real Superman: Beyond Fantasy, Toward Justice
Clark Kent’s story begins in the simplicity of a Kansas farm, raised by Ma and Pa Kent in a world of hard work, kindness, and quiet values. This humble origin grounds Superman in a vision of America rooted in community and decency—the heartland many Democrats see as the soul of the nation.
But the film also reveals a tension: while Superman embodies these small-town virtues, the broader liberal vision of America is shaped by coastal elites who wield cultural, political, and economic power. This divide between heartland values and elite influence reflects a real political and social fracture that the movie only hints at.
The nostalgic fantasy of restoring America often centers on defending institutions led by these elites, sometimes at the expense of the communities that feel left behind. Superman’s journey reminds us that true justice and inclusion require bridging this divide—not just longing for a past shaped by a few.
If Superman is to inspire us today, he must be more than a symbol of restoration. He must represent the courage to confront America’s contradictions and fight for a society that truly serves everyone, not just the privileged few.