Feature Story

mean-spirited businessman, such as the despicable, prune-faced banker played by Lionel Barrymore in Frank Capra's classic film, It's a Wonderful Life. Throughout the film, Barrymore tries to financially (and spiritually) ruin the good-hearted hero of the story played by Jimmie Stewart. He almost succeeds too, but an "angel" helps a suicidal Stewart realize what is really important in life, and ultimately good triumphs over evil.

In the 1960s and 1970s, however, the dramatic paradigm of good triumphing over evil was no longer so clear-cut, even in the movies; after all, this was the era of the alternative hero, and many of the villains during this period were no longer portrayed as stereotypical, mustache-twirling businessmen obsessed with schadenfreude. Instead they were often depicted as nondescript members of "the establishment" who were just like your next-door neighbors. Remember the movie Magnum Force? Who would have guessed at the beginning of the film that the clean-cut motorcycle cops who sucked up to Dirty Harry would turn out to be maniacal vigilante killers? In real life, many Americans had the same difficulty believing that political leaders like Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger were responsible for creating enemies' lists, lying to the public, and supporting government coups and mass executions in Third World countries. (Many Americans still have difficulty believing it!)

During the 1980s and 1990s, the image of the villain changed again. It had to change, since the corporate hero from the Reagan era, who supplanted the traditional hero and alternative hero, was really a traditional villain in disguise! As a result, villains could no longer be nondescript members of the establishment; they had to become super villains in order to balance the scale with the traditional villains who were masquerading as heroes. And who would combat these super villains? Well, super heroes, of course! (Calling Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarennegger, Chuck Norris!) Perhaps this is why Ronald Reagan always reminded us that the "Godless Communists of the Evil Empire" were the greatest villains of them all. Therefore, in contrast, the ruthless corporate heroes who were running the affairs of the United States seemed downright decent and noble!

But once the Soviet Union disintegrated, a void was created, and our corporate heroes needed a new enemy to step in before the American public discovered their charade and demanded accountability. This became even more urgent after the Enron scandal broke and our corporate heroes were perceived as a bunch of sleazy crooks and unethical scam artists, i.e., traditional villains. But then 9/11 happened-- some have said a little too coincidentally!-- and the corporate hero/villains of America got a reprieve as Muslim terrorists filled the void as the new super villains. Soon after, the Bush administration, comprised almost exclusively of corporate hero/villains, announced that America had two new super villains to fight: Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. But not to worry! America had the greatest superhero of them all in its corner to meet the challenge, the mighty U.S. military machine, magnificently equipped with a super arsenal of super bombs and super high-tech weapons. Unfortunately, the soldiers who risk their lives in combat to implement our super military machine do so at the behest of the corporate hero/villains who run our government and sit on the boards of our largest companies. Well, perhaps it's unfair to brand all of them as corporate hero/villains, since some of them fall into our final category of arch types: the "coward."

A coward is a person who lacks courage, one who is unable to control his fear and shrinks from danger, or fails to live up to his principles or responsibilities. To use a literary example: In Joseph Conrad's novel Lord Jim, the main character of the story is a ship's captain named Jim who must make a crucial decision during a typhoon at sea. His ship is in imminent danger of capsizing, and his officers have already lowered the lifeboats into the choppy sea, but there are not enough lifeboats for everyone on board, only enough for the officers and the captain. As the captain stands on the deck watching his officers board the lifeboats, he turns and looks at the passengers aboard the ship who are looking to him for leadership and begging him for help. Caught in an ethical crisis, Jim reluctantly turns his back on the passengers and jumps into one of the lifeboats. But the next day, when Jim and his officers arrive at the nearest port, they discover that their ship did not sink after all, and it was saved by another ship. Jim is then found guilty of cowardice by a military court and stripped of his captain's rank. For the rest of the novel he does penance for his act of cowardice by working at the lowliest of low jobs and taking on the most dangerous assignments available. By the end of the book, he redeems himself and becomes a hero, and finally a martyr.

In modern society, most individuals are not often faced with as dramatic a decision as the one the captain has to make in Lord Jim; nevertheless, we are all faced with similar decisions at one time or another in our lives. The firemen and police who risked their lives on September 11 at the World Trade Center are good examples of individuals who chose the hero's path rather than the way of the coward. But it isn't always that simple. In fact, it is often easier to act on instinct and display physical bravery in a life and death situation than it is to display psychological courage or ethical resolve when it involves one's career or relationship or duty to one's country, especially when there is time to think about the consequences and weigh the options.

For my generation, the baby boomers, the biggest decision we had to make regarding heroism was whether to go to Vietnam. Using the definitions I have outlined, I believe it was a heroic choice for young men to enlist in the service or allow themselves to be drafted in order to fight for our country. No one can ever take that away from them, and it was wrong for some people on the left to scorn them when they returned home, or call them baby killers. On a personal level, I had friends who went to Vietnam, and I know they believed they were doing the right thing and acting as good Americans, just as Senators John McCain and John Kerry believed at the time. In my estimation, they were all traditional heroes.

But I also believe it was a heroic decision for college students to avoid the draft and protest and demonstrate against the war, as I did, along with many of my contemporaries. It was an unnecessary war that destroyed or divided everyone it touched, and it was not fair for those on the right to ostracize protestors or call them cowards or traitors. For the most part, the Vietnam War protestors that I knew were not cowards or unpatriotic Americans; in fact, many of them were emulating their spiritual or alternative heroes and were acting in accordance with their principles.

During this time, however, there was a third category of eligible young men who decided to take the coward's way out regarding the Vietnam War. They were the rich or well-connected kids whose daddies got them special deferments or into the National Guard. In truth, they were the ones who didn't have the guts to fight in the war, or the integrity to protest against it, but they were able to keep their skirts nice and starched and clean so they wouldn't hurt their future prospects in the business or political world. Today, they are known as "war wimps" or "chicken hawks," individuals who never went to war themselves, but have no problem sending the sons and daughters of less privileged Americans into battle to fight for them. President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney both fall into this category, as do many U.S. Senators, Congressmen, and media pundits.

In ancient times, military leaders like Julius Caesar actually led their men into battle and fought alongside them, thereby gaining their soldiers' respect and unflagging loyalty. Perhaps if this were still the custom, we would have fewer wars, or at very least braver leaders whom we could truly respect. Imagine, for a moment, if at the beginning of the war in Iraq, a reporter at a press conference had asked President Bush these questions: "Mr. President, since you are Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces and feel so strongly about invading Iraq, even before you get widespread international support, do you intend to personally accompany our troops into battle? In addition, sir, are you going to encourage your own daughters and the sons and daughters of your family and friends to enlist in the military and fight in Iraq?"

The fact that these questions seem absurd illustrates how far removed Americans are from the traditions and values of our heroic forefathers. George Washington, for example, actually did lead his men into battle, and Alexander Hamilton actually did fight and die in a duel to uphold his honor. But that was a different time, a time when many political leaders lived by absolute standards and were willing to die for them. For the most part, today's political leaders (both foreign and domestic) are too "sophisticated" to adhere to absolute standards or risk their own lives for anything as quaint as honor. In their view, absolutism is reserved for religious fanatics, or well-indoctrinated soldiers, or just plain chumps. Which explains why Saddam Hussein, a secular pragmatist, hid out like a rat during the war in Iraq and ultimately gave up without a fight, even though he had a gun in his possession and could have died in a blaze of glory.

Regarding the current war on terrorism, Bill Maher, the host of Politically Incorrect, got booted off network television when he said that the Islamic suicide bombers who crashed into the World Trade Center on 9/11 were not cowards. Strictly speaking, he was right; they were not cowards. Obviously, they were fanatics who were prepared to die for their cause. But were they heroes? Well, this depends on one's perception. To paraphrase an old joke: An American and a Brit are having a conversation when the name Benedict Arnold comes up. "You mean the American traitor?" the individual from the United States responds. "No, the British patriot!" his counterpart from the United Kingdom counters.

To many Muslims, America is perceived as an evil oppressor who wants to destroy the entire Muslim world. As a result they view the suicide bombers who attacked America on 9/11 as heroes. Naturally, most Americans find it difficult to perceive our enemies as "heroic," especially when they kill innocent civilians, but it is not correct to dismiss them as cowards either. It's not that simple. Our government leaders and media pundits cannot insist that our enemies adhere to absolute standards of good and evil, right and wrong, and heroics and cowardice, when they themselves do not abide by these same standards. This is what is known as hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is not heroic. And if our leaders want to be treated with respect and honor and trust by Americans and citizens around the world, they can start by becoming heroes themselves. Then maybe, just maybe, the rest of us will follow.