So I have to conclude the jury is still out on whether Stark is having the same sort of epiphany that Rogers did. The question your letter raises, however, is whether Rogers' epiphany proves he was right. I don't agree. Rogers' feelings don't speak to the debate between the two men about the proper relationship between law and freedom: Cap was wrong on the arguments and Iron Man was right, irrespective of how either man feels about each other.

I will agree that Cap's epiphany speaks well of his character. Some readers have complained that having Captain America surrender is a violation of his fundamental concept. Captain America, these people say, is in essence the man who never gives up. I think this criticism is way off of the mark. If Captain America does indeed have an unalterable core, it consists of those qualities Americans like most about themselves: perseverance, yes, but also strong commitments to liberty, justice, and truth. Look at the U.S. Bill of Rights: the very first Amendment to the Constitution enshrines a commitment to the search for truth, to the endless questioning of received ideas. Cap didn't give up because he was afraid or because he thought he couldn't win. Indeed he surrendered on the cusp of victory, with Iron Man at his mercy. He gave up because he suddenly realized that he was wrong and Iron Man was right. To embrace defeat because victory would mean victory for an error is not only noble, it is consistent with that virtue that Americans claim to revere most of all. So Cap's surrender was not only praiseworthy, especially because it meant mortifying his own instinct to never give up, but it was also consistent with his essential nature as the embodiment of the U.S.A.

P.S. Do you really think that Tony Stark is a liberal? Maybe in the nineteenth- century sense; he certainly insists upon the rule of law. But in the twenty- first-century sense, he strikes me as being quite conservative: he

* is a plutocrat who became rich off of government contracts;

* is comfortable with big government spending provided it is funneled to the military and justice sectors;

* seems to see law, order, and security as the key policy issues of the day; and

* has no scruple about restricting individual liberties, often drastically, in the pursuit of thwarting terrorists and criminals.

I don't know about war-mongering Republicanism, but he certainly strikes me as being neo-conservative.