By Paul A. Ibbetson
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Every great movement and accomplishment that has taken place in America, even those supported by thousands of people, was at its most basic inception born of a single individual who said, "I can." Those who stood up first when others remained seated and said, "I can make a difference, I can fight for what's right, I can help those in need... and the list goes on and on. As surely as birds of a feather flock together, the "I cans" of this country find each other when their services are needed and, like magic, the "I can" philosophy is transformed into the "we can" philosophy and grand innovations are conceived, wonders of construction are built, epic battles are won, and heroes are born.
I was perplexed to read the August 3, 2007 article, "Heroism and the Language of Fascism" by Rosa Brooks, in the Los Angeles Times, as her inaccuracies of what makes a hero simply demean a populace least likely to call her to task. I'm talking about real heroes. Brooks alludes that former NFL star Pat Tillman does not meet her criteria of a hero, at least in part, because the bullet that took his life was a product of friendly fire. This line of thinking goes beyond petty and straight to pathetic. Think about it for a moment. Tillman left the lavish life and monetary rewards of the NFL to go to a place where people want to kill you, where death walks with you all day, every day. No Rosa, Tillman was not shot by Osama bin Laden while wrestling a rhino to save a hospital full of babies, but he did go to Iraq when his NFL compatriots stayed safely behind, and despite the dangers, he gave the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield for his country. Why? Because Tillman was an "I can" man, the fundamental building block of what heroes are made of and the clear delineation between conservative and liberal thought today. Of course, if you exclude service, sacrifice, and suffering on the battlefield as a pre-requisite for heroism, as Brooks requires, you can probably exclude everyone.
Brooks attempts to cloud the issue by saying that the few true heroes of today are not heralded while legions of the unworthy are given all the glory. After generally disparaging the military, along with all the emergency services, she insults everyone's intelligence by telling readers that she really has respect for the groups she has proclaimed unfit to be called heroes. In doing so, Brooks assumes that readers have the mental capacity of an acorn which simply adds insult to injury when reading her article.
Knowing that people will most likely see her analysis as liberal tripe, Brooks prepares to be rejected, if not ran out of town, by those who hold the military and emergency services dear. I would admit that this was the knee jerk reaction that came to my mind as well. However, as a former law enforcement officer, I learned a long time ago that simply running out of town those who would undermine, if not hurt society, simply passes the problem on to another city. It is always better to expose and deal with folks like Brooks directly, despite the human nature to simply reject them and move on. You might call it going above and beyond the call of duty.
What we see with the Brooks analysis is simply another version of the same old liberal defeat policy. Yes, these are the "I can'ts" of the Democratic party. Those who scream by their actions and statements, "I can't support America, I can't seek victory... and, of course, Brooks' I can't handle too many heroes in a time of war.
While conservatives fight to ensure the future of this nation, the "I can'ts" have consistently been sowing the seeds of pessimism and defeat. Some shout defeatist rhetoric from the activist picket lines while others, fancying themselves more clever, attempt to sell the idea that an over abundance of heroes in a time of war is the equivalent of the beginnings of a communist nation. Are you buying it? This is the big question, because as I stated earlier, the victims of Brooks' hero stripping philosophy will not be the ones most likely to challenge her. The police officers, fire fighters, and military men and women are trained to claim as routine even the most heroic acts as part of their jobs. While those on the outside of this work sometimes find it strange, in reality it is a very practical policy as it helps to rationalize what is often extremely stressful work and stabilize normal men and women to have careers that most can't begin to fathom. Rosa Brooks has more than proven she is part of that latter group.
Unfortunately, simply exposing the liberal defeat policy of Brooks is not enough. It is the responsibility of all conservatives who do not wear the uniform to avoid being led astray on this issue, and to champion those who have stepped forward and are fighting and dying for our freedom. This is most certainly a time for "extraordinary courage, fortitude and greatness of soul... and a most necessary time for the gathering of those embracing the conservative philosophy of "I can""
Paul A. Ibbetson is a published author and lecturer on the Patriot Act. He is aformer Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and is currently completing hisPhD. in sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the book"Living under the Patriot Act: Educating a Society" that will be available for purchaselate January 2007 from www.patriotactresearch.com as well as other major bookoutlets. Paul is a regular writer for the Conservative Crusader as well as several other online websites. Paul may be reached at : letters@canadafreepress.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement