Is it okay to talk politics if a comic gets political?

In the solicitations for July, we have JLA 83. Here is how DC solicits it:

President Luthor has Qurac on his hit list, and heaven help any hero who stands in the way. Now Superman finds himself in a living nightmare as his fellow Leaguers fall one by one to Lex’s executive order: support the war or be “neutralized!”

This is accompanied by a cover where the JLA members are drowning in a sea of blood issuing from Superman’s cape!

I don’t mind Kelly’s exploration of bullying power and intervention set against a galactic war that seems out of JLA jurisdiction, the plot which is currently in the books. But throw in a story about an American president’s vendetta against the DC-equivalent of Iraq, his squelching of opposition, the bloodbath cover…agree with his take or not, I’m surprised that DC is allowing Kelly to be this preachy with one of DC’s main titles.

Let’s leave off the politics in terms of discussing whether it’s well-timed (he couldn’t know the war would be successfully over by the publication date). What is astounding is that this is JLA, once DC’s true shot in the arm to sales. JLA sold better than hotcakes with Morrison at the helm. It did well under Waid. I would have thought that anyone taking the reins of JLA would be under incredible pressures to keep this book HOT (or restore the heat, rather, lost since Morrison’s swan song). Instead, much of the last year has been spent on a confusing time-travel arc hip-deep in mysticism and centering on Aquaman, ending in a JLA which has several unpopular characters as members. And now, Kelly gets political with the title.

And not just political…but essentially espousing the politics of a minority opinion which may seem a lot louder in DC’s New York City HQ. I don’t mean just anti-war – lots of good, intelligent people have anti-war opinions – but the “Bush is a ruthless warmonger oppressing another country and anyone dissenting is crushed” opinion which is more often found in mags like The Village Voice and amongst marxist-funded protest groups like A.N.S.W.E.R.

Does this seem like a great way to get JLA back into the favored mainstream? Forget politics…what about the target audience? I mean, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins can say whatever they want because their fans agree with them. The Dixie Chicks, however, appeal(ed) to a different fanbase with other opinions and paid the price. In the same way, Joe Kelly is free to say whatever he wants in a comic book, and this storyline sounds interesting, I’ll give him that. I’m surprised that DC would go along with letting him use the JLA to do it, though, unless they’ve totally lost interest in making JLA a hit with the general public.