Too Many Heroes

I’ve ranted lately about the overuse of certain words to avoid directly stating the truth, obscure intentions or obfuscate agendas. Another pernicious form of word abuse is to use a word so often or out of context that it loses its meaning or renders ordinary an exalted concept.

Such abuse has been the fate of heroes. The word used to be reserved for those people who went so far beyond the normal expectations of courage and selfless action that no other appellation seemed adequate. Heroes were rare. But the hero bar has been lowered again and again over the decades, mostly by politicians eager to be solicitous of certain professions or groups, to the point where simply holding a particular job can qualify you for hero status.

Audie Murphy was probably the first Hero I remember my parents talking about. My father and uncles and other World War II vets told me about him anytime one of his movies came on Sunday afternoon TV. His combat exploits earned him a Medal of Honor, a Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Stars and Purple Hearts by the basket. Here is a description of the fight that won him the Medal of Honor:

The next day, January 26 (the temperature was 14° F with 24 inches of snow on the ground), the battle at Holtzwihr, (France) began with Murphy's unit at an effective strength of 19 out of 128. Murphy sent all of his men to the rear while he took pot-shots at the Germans until out of ammunition. He then proceeded to use an abandoned, burning tank destroyer's .50 caliber machine gun to cut into the German infantry at a distance, including one full squad of German infantry that had crawled in a ditch to within 100 feet of his position. Wounded in the leg during heavy fire, he continued this nearly single-handed battle for almost an hour. His focus on the battle before him stopped only when his telephone line to the artillery fire direction center was cut by either U.S. or German artillery. As his remaining men came forward, he quickly organized them to conduct a counter attack, which ultimately drove the enemy away from Holtzwihr.

Now, all a soldier has to do is don the uniform and show up to be a hero. Not that soldiers don’t deserve credit for their service, but calling a soldier a hero because he’s in theater would have qualified millions of men in World War II for hero status. Nearly all of them would have rejected the notion outright, saying they were only doing their jobs. And they would be right.

Again and again I hear fire fighters and police officers called “American heroes” simply because that is their job. I agree that it is possible, given the situations in which their jobs can place them, that they have the opportunity to earn the accolade. But to call both the rookie who so far has done nothing but wash fire engines and a ten year veteran who has pulled a family out of a fiery house collapse heroes is to diminish the courage and dedication of the veteran. When everyone who slaps on a badge or drags out heavy fire hose is a hero, does the word say anything in particular about the person so described?

The speed of modern communications, social networking sites, 24/7 cable news and the monkey-see-monkey-do stenographers that have replaced real journalists, all contribute to the degradation of the language, diminishing the power and usefulness of words at a rapid pace. I suppose someday very soon a politician will need to flatter bloggers and news media in his own interest, glossing them as “heroes of the information age.” At that point, we can officially retire the word as having any meaning other than someone who does something.