The Wall Street Journal today published an op-ed by one Andrew Klavan, who makes the case that “The Dark Knight” is an allegory for the War on Terror. In this scenario, Batman is a stand-in for George Bush, the man who makes unpopular decisions to do what is ultimately right.

But Klavan somewhat misses the point of the movie. The Bush Administration isn’t Batman; it is Harvey Dent. Or more to the point, Two-Face.

According to Klavan:

“There seems to me no question that the Batman film “The Dark Knight,” currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.”

But Klavan ignores the fact that the film presents us with three models for responding to terror: 1) giving in to terrorists’ demands (which Batman considers and rejects), 2) continuing to do the right thing in the face of extraordinarily difficult choices (the path Batman takes at the cost of his own popularity), or 3) becoming so twisted by frustration and the desire for revenge that we disregard the law and turn to deadly violence as a means to an end (as exemplified by Harvey Dent).

Batman ultimately chooses not to give up, but he also rejects the dark path down which Dent, and Bush, traveled. By using torture and disregarding constitutional law in the name of “promoting democracy,” the Bush administration is closer to the twisted vigilante Two-Face, who turns on the very ideals he swore to defend. A violent disaster transformed the man of law and order into what he beheld.

Recall the scene in which Batman urges Two-Face not to torture and execute his captive in a shadowy alley; Dent had been the beacon of justice, and the effect of seeing its hero lose his moral compass would be devastating to Gotham. It is not hard to view this as a parallel for the way the torture memo, secret CIA prisons, extraordinary renditions, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and wire tapping have sorely tarnished America’s position as the world’s model democracy.

Yes, the film is a reminder that good people must fight for good, although it may not be easy, expedient, or popular. But it also urges us that, even in crisis, we cannot become the enemy in order to defeat it, even if it might mean our own deaths. Recall the (literal) prisoner’s dilemma faced by the two ferries; human goodness would not let the criminals blow up the innocent to survive, and more importantly, would not let the innocent murder the guilty to save their own lives, either.

The Dark Knight isn’t a defense of Bush. I doubt Christopher Nolan considers Batman to be an allegory for anyone. Most likely, he intended the film to be a great crime movie that will spark discussion. Like any good comic book, myth, or parable, it is a story about choices. We will interpret the story according to our own perspective. I choose to see “The Dark Knight” as an homage to muscular moral absolutism and an indictment of those who lose their way in crisis and transgress the values that make us who we are.