Defining Heroism Down

A few days ago a policeman and a fireman in our town were killed in a car wreck on the side of a slick highway while working on another accident.  A third man was injured. On the basis of what is known, the men were two professionals doing a tough job under dangerous conditions when things went terribly wrong due to no fault of theirs. That is enough to earn people’s respect and sympathy. No drum beating or hyperbole would have been necessary, but we got plenty  anyway.   

 Local officials and people in the local media have tried vulgarly to turn the accident and its aftermath into something resembling   the three days between John Kennedy’s assassination and his funeral  in Washington.  It has not only been excessive. It also probably intentionally gave the impression that police and firemen are members of an elevated class of beings, and that something happening to one of them is far worse and more serious than harm to an ordinary human being. (A couple of young kids were killed this week in a wreck on the same highway, and pretty much nobody in town noticed or cared.)  This was not unusual. It goes on all over.  It is part of a general tendency to over-romanticize “first responders”.

Of course the men were called heroes.  Many people these days call all cops and firemen heroes ( and sometimes  throw in school teachers to boot).  In fact a hero is someone who does a great thing requiring exceptional  courage and effort.   Charles Lindbergh in 1927  was a hero, regardless of what he did later.  Audie Murphy was a hero. Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins were heroes. The use of language matters.  Heroism  is an important thing worth honoring, and the  appellation of hero should not be used carelessly or promiscuously as happens these days. Otherwise the meaning and distinction can be lost.