Good thread. I like thinking about the political and philosophical undertones. BTW my thread on it (citing an awful WSJ op-ed piece) was one of those deleted.
I think the second link you give is better written and more persuasive than the first, but I do not really agree with either.
I think the Nolans intentionally avoided turning this into a strict political argument and to classify it as either libertarian or fascist (much less both with is impossible) is a disservice to what Nolan did.
He is not arguing any point is correct other than order is better than chaos and justice is more viable than nihilism, but that is more philosophical than political.
The political undertones I think are about what underpins the facets that allows society to operate and the governed to be controlled. What happens when you remove those underpinnings and if you have any moral values in your justice beliefs, are they compromised in the face of danger or insecurity?
The movie raises many questions along this line,, but provides few answers. Batman is a bit of an authoritarian figure, but he operates outside the law and has no illusions of that. The comparisons between him and George W. Bush or Dick Cheney I find invalid. Firstly Batman is competent at what he does for the most part, they are not, but also this is asking broader questions facing all of civilization throughout the course of human history. Yes the questions are viable to day and Nolan relates it by using words like "terrorist," but they begin and end far beyond the Bush Administration, as does the the threat the Joker represents. The trickster, the misanthrope, the nihilist and the anarchist has always been around in some form and Joker is just a modern comic book-styled personification of that idea.
The major difference is though, that Batman operates outside the law. He is that push that he thinks we need to survive as a community that you morally cannot go to. He is not elected and working within the system. Harvey Dent is and Batman prefers Dent's methods and wishes he could do it that way. When Dent begins to go outside the law and use "advanced interrogation techniques," he is disgusted. Even if Dent was faking the gun to the head, you cannot do that and be a legitimate force of good in a society. Dent is what the city needs and Batman has to be the outcast who can make sure things are on an even keel for Dent to assume the mantle of leader for Gotham.
When Dent compromises that for the first time, Batman scorns him. Dent wants to be like Batman and envies the way Batman tip-toes around the law and defends him, but when he crosses the line and tries to be Batman he fails and becomes a villain and risks losing everything he created in the name of good. Batman hides his sins.
Yes there is talk of a Roman First Citizen which gave way to Caesar becoming a dictator and the eventual fall of the Republic to the Empire, but Rachel calls shennanigans on Dent for speaking of that. It is really an attempt to provide a parable to Dent, Gordon and Batman being the classical Roman triumvirate and Dent supposedly to ascend as the leader of Gotham, which does indeed fail in the wake of the Joker's anarchy. It is more to plant the seeds of Dent himself wanting to work beyond what is considered just in this country and the faint lines of cracks in his White Knight armor which the Joker is about to explode.
Batman agrees with this political view on how to do things, but knows in the long-run you cannot save a civilization like that and what he does do makes things worse (a weak attempt of speaking about invading Iraq? I think not, but liberal theorists could argue that). His being Batman creates more of a problem than was there before, the rise of freaks who see Batman as their opening to taking over the city and they cause more disorder and violence than the mafia did. But Batman endures.
It then comes to the question of does a society compromise its values, agreeing to a terrorist's demands, in order to protect themselves. It increasingly raises the question do we sacrifice our liberties for a little security? A question that Benjamin Franklin damned those who do so, saying they deserve neither and will lose both. Batman seems to compromise on this with sonar tapping, but Dent at his best does not and does not turn the Batman in. He instead protects the Batman and reaches his highest moment of triumph by leading to the capture of the Joker by this and protecting Batman.
Batman uses torture or "advanced interrogation" and it yields no results as the movie suggests if the detainees (Maroni and Joker) doesn't want to talk, violence will not solve the problem. In fact, it is creating a reality for the detainee to accept the interrogator's methods that yields good results (Maroni agreeing to help Gordon). But the sonar does seem to work and help catch the Joker. Well was it right to use it? There is no easy answer to that and I really couldn't say.
I will point out that Batman had a distinct guideline for using it: catch the Joker. He also allowed it to be supervised and scrutinized by those who thought it was wrong, Lucius Fox, and destroyed it after it achieved its purpose. The current wiretapping fiasco has no definable of finite boundary of when it will stop being used or what threat it is looking for and there is no oversight into what the Justice Department and various government bureaus are doing other than "trust us." And that path lies giving up your rights and damnation as suggested by Franklin and illustrated by the Romans, which the movie straight out provokes.
What I love is it is not arguing any particular political school of thought as the essays in the first post suggest. It merely raises honest political questions without real answers. It provides ultimately I think the suggestion that authoritarianism in any form is ultimately futile and leads to more harm than good, but order and justice are more important and necessary than anarchy or total freedom and existentialist righteousness (something Miller and Moore, two famed Batman scribes, would disagree with in their visions).
But Nolan isn't telling you what to think. You can find enough to support or contradict your political views in the movie. Batman himself operates outside the law so that in itself supports current Republican positions, but the movie suredly damns anyone in government for doing so. It is more broadly raising questions about what society does to protect itself and how do we value our moral boundaries. Every character crosses their moral line in this movie at some point. Fox uses the sonar, Alfred burns the letter, Dent turns to vigilantism, Batman kills Dent and covers up his crimes as does Gordon. But none of them sacrifices them as the Joker intended (except Dent and he pays the price by dying). The only one who maintains their ideals all the way through is Rachel Dawes and she dies.
Perhaps it supports pragmatism to a degree, but where does society draw that line? It is up to the viewer to interpret.
And that is how a republic dies. The movie is certainly not saying keep your mouth shut and be grateful. After all, isn't Batman challenging those who we should "assume have our interests at heart," when he takes down corrupt leaders and cops? The same ones who scar Dent. Is it not Batman who says Dent should not cross the line and try to torture the schitzophrentic and did Batman's methods of torture on Maroni and Joker yield him any results (other than which Joker didn't intend for him to already have)? Nope. And while the wiretapping scenario worked did he do it alone unsupervised or allowed scrutiny of one who opposed it ethically? And did he keep it around for future use in case "of another supervillain attack?"
