HEROES, CRIMINALS AND
COWARDS
We’ve seen it all this week, haven’t we? The good, the bad and the ugly.
I think we can all agree on the “good.” I’m referring to the first responders up in
Boston who put their own lives on the line so that our collective national
nightmare could finally come to rest.
Do
you remember that classic Seinfeld episode, “The Fire,” when George Costanza noticed
a fire breaking out during a children’s birthday party, and proceeded to sprint
out of the house, pushing aside children, seniors, and even the clown in the
process? Our first responders are the
anti-Costanzas. They will gladly put their
own lives on the line to protect everyone else’s – and they’ll do it for little
pay and no fanfare. Hardworking,
risk-taking, selfless and anonymous – those are our society’s greatest heroes.
Twelve years ago in 9/11, we all saw exactly what can
happen when things go horribly wrong for our first responders. This week, thankfully, they fared
better. But we still must not forget the
heroism of M.I.T. policeman Sean Collier, who died in the line of duty, or his friend,
transit officer Richard Donohue, who was seriously injured. These men should become reminders of how
fortunate we are that so many people are still willing to serve as police
officers, fire fighters, soldiers, or security guards. We don’t particularly celebrate them,
remunerate them, or even pay much attention to them. Instead, we take them for granted. But my guess is that they wouldn’t mind
being taken for granted. They want us to
go about our lives without having to worry about the constant threats that
reside beneath the surface. They know
full well all of the dangers that lurk around the bend, but they want us to
feel secure nonetheless. They’re more
than happy to tackle those threats themselves.
And why? Because they are
heroes. This week, their behavior doesn’t
need any fuller explanation than that.
Men like Collier and Donohue are profiles in
courage. So, too, are men like the
Tsarnaev Brothers. I have no trouble
calling them courageous. Of course, I
also have no trouble calling them evil sociopaths, whose spirit has less value
to me than that of an ant.
In holding that perspective, I am probably in the
minority. Many would point out that even
“sick” men like the Tsarnaev Brothers are human beings, made in the “image of
God”, who for that reason alone deserve to be treated with respect – and should
never be compared unfavorably to a mere insect.
I won’t comment as to whether, as a legal matter, they should be granted
the same “rights” that are available to other human beings. But as a moral matter, I see these two young
men not much differently than I see cancer cells. When all is said and done, their purpose on
this planet is to destroy it – life, security, happiness, you name it. They have chosen the path of hatred, cruelty,
and even murder. So while, as an
abstract matter, I can acknowledge that they are cut from the same divine cloth
as the rest of us … I can say the same thing about the cancer cell, or the
ant. And personally, if we were allowed
in the future to have far more ants and far fewer people like the Tsarnaev Brothers,
I’d be thrilled.
As
for my claim that these two brothers are courageous, I recognize that this goes
against conventional wisdom. It has
become de rigueur to refer to terrorists as “cowards.” When that started I don’t know, but I was
recently listening to a tape of Bill Clinton’s post-OK City bombing press
conference, and sure enough – he referred to the then-unknown bomber as a “coward.” Similarly, that was the ubiquitous term that
the media used to refer to the 9/11 perpetrators. And it was trotted out again this week in
Boston.
Are
these mass murderers really cowards? By
engaging in these acts of unfathomable brutality, don’t these terrorists
immediately become marked men? Don’t
they immediately risk their lives and their freedom for their cause? And regardless of what we think of that “cause”
– and I cannot possibly think less of it – doesn’t it mangle the English language
to say that these people lack courage? That,
it seems, is the one classical virtue they do possess, though I should add that
their stories are grim lessons in how courage, when not coupled with empathy
and rationality, is actually a vice.
I’ve
been wondering this week why our politicians and media figures persist in using
the “coward” label to refer to terrorists.
Why is that word used above all others?
The answer, I believe, stems from the fact that an act of terror is an
act of war. And in a nation like
America, whose military is second to
none in size and which is geographically removed from the world’s major hotspots,
terrorist acts are the type of warfare that threaten us the most. As a result, when we are hit, our immediately
reaction is to lurch into macho mode.
We are “tough,” we are “strong,” we are “resolute.” And our enemies? They are “gutless” and “weak,” and we will “destroy”
them.
The problem with this talk is that it skews our
understanding of the situation. It causes
us to underestimate terrorists when we don’t even acknowledge that they have
the courage of their convictions. And
perhaps even more importantly, it prevents us from dealing with some of the root
causes of terror. When you take a world
with modern weapons technology and throw in an ample supply of seemingly
never-ending international conflicts, you’re going to have terror. So why not redouble our efforts to work for
peace? The answer is that every time a
terrorist act occurs, we don’t speak with the voices of peaceniks – we don’t chastise
our enemies for their lack of compassion, or talk about how we will be resolute
in working for just resolutions of international disputes. No, we call the enemies cowards, and talk
about how big and tough we are. And so,
the cycle continues – more mayhem, more macho responses, and no lessons get learned.
What do you say, for just a few minutes today, we stop
reveling in our toughness. What do you
say, for just a few minutes, we start thinking about compassion. I won’t ask that we feel that emotion for
the Tsarnaev Brothers – that may be too much to ask. But I’m thinking about all the innocent people
around the world who are being victimized by violence and oppression. Can’t we do something to help them? In fact, isn’t it our obligation to
try? Maybe we’re not heroes, like the
first responders, but even if we’re unwilling to risk our lives, can we not
devote a little time to a cause that is grounded in compassion? Think about it.
So, I’ve spoken about the good (the heroes) and the bad
(the criminals). But what about the ugly? We’ve seen that pop up this week as
well. And as is so often the case
lately, we’ve seen it pop up in none other than Capitol Hill.
Those who read my post last week could probably tell that
I honestly expected background-check legislation to pass. I assumed that since 90 percent of the
American public supported it and since the powers-that-be were allowing it to
come up for a vote, how could it fail?
Silly me. I should
have realized that when it comes to taking on the NRA, legislators in
Washington don’t vote their conscience.
I should have realized that given the current crop of homo sapiens who
populate the nation’s capital, anything the NRA will oppose is D.O.A. – unless and
until the American public demonstrates during an election that they will vote
out all moderates who side with the NRA.
The focus of my attention when it comes to the
background-check vote is precisely the moderates in the Senate. Unlike some, I don’t begrudge the hard-right
Senators for their decision to oppose the bill. I will give them the benefit of the doubt,
and assume that they are wildly pro-gun, they are legitimately concerned that a
victory for the gun-control movement on this bill would have emboldened that
movement, and for that reason alone, they needed to oppose the measure. In other words, I will grant them what I
granted the Tsarnaev Brothers – that they have the courage of their
convictions.
My issue is with those folks who truly supported the bill
but dared not vote against it, lest the NRA target them during primary
season. According to conservative
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, there were 15 Senators who would have voted for
the bill had the NRA not “scored” it.
That’s a polite way of saying that 1/3 of the Senators who blocked the
bill are, in fact, cowards. They – and not
the gun-zealots who joined them – are the true villains of the vote. They are the ones who have decided to put
their own re-election above not only the views of their constituents but their
own consciences.
So, who are these fifteen men and women? I honestly don’t know. And perhaps I don’t want to know, because if
I did, I’d probably throw money against them in the next election, and most
likely, they’d win anyway. So it is with
incumbents in Congress who are consumed above all else with
self-preservation. But let’s not forget
what these “statesmen” accomplished this week.
They pulled a Costanza. They saw
a potential fire (the NRA taking them on), got the hell out of harm’s way, and
in the process, made sure that children, seniors, and maybe even a clown or
two, will get shot and killed in the future because criminals will continue to
be able to buy guns without a background check.
When Costanza did it, it was funny. When Senators do it, it is just plain ugly.
