While the comparison is crude and outrageous if not crass and careless—of course neither John Cena the person nor the wrestling character is in any way sympathetic to a genocidal totalitarian—a pivotal aspect of the muscular culture that abetted 20th century state fascism was its separation of charismatic authority from morality through this very process of might proving might, unencumbered by right. Encouragingly, a large portion of the wrestling audience continues to reject this amoral cultural shift. So go ahead, as long as he remains an unrepentant amoral fascist, chant “Cena Sucks” with pride.
Doug’s argument is that John Cena exudes fascist tendencies because he is right and true regardless of context, and he generally comes out on top (though, really, in 2012 he’s 2 for 5 on ppv) regardless of whether that’s the right thing to do in the story. This makes him a superhero, or super-something, and super-beings are inherently fascist (or at least, very powerful vigilantes). They belief in their own sense of right and wrong, and this doesn’t change based on circumstance (though, really, a well-written superhero does change with the times).
It’s convoluted, because he opens up a dialogue about fascism, superheroes, Hulk Hogan, and cultural tolerance without really unpacking any of it (but not every article about politics has to be a book, you know?). Willcocks makes a well-reasoned point about Cena’s might-equals-right motivations, though: what is Cena actually fighting for? If you look at the text they’ve presented us, John Cena is without “any moral position.” That might not matter to 8 year olds, but it’ll matter to them in a few years. They’ll have to wonder just what the hell they were cheering.