Heroes

While driving from the Poconos to New Jersey today, I decided to give J'F'K some thought. I ended up settling my brain on two major points-what does Kerry's Vietnam service mean to us, and what makes a hero?

Let's start with what makes a hero. Courage is a huge part of heroism. Without courage, the heroic act is of course impossible. Selflessness. There are a lot of courageous people out there, but until you've risked something (like your life), it's tough for that courage to transcend itself into heroism. Then there is the one intangible that, to me, that cements someone as a hero: a sense of modesty. A true hero understands that they are not all that special, that any number of people would do what they did under similar circumstances. The real hero doesn't need to boast of their heroism, because if it truly was heroic, others will recognize it. Because of this last item, I do not see Kerry as a hero. Kerry pushes himself as a war hero so hard that it's almost as if he doesn't believe that he's a hero himself. In addition, his shameless self promotion makes saving a man's life seem like little more than a means to an end. Kerry's act comes off not as selfless, but very calculated, and that's without even bring up Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Next, what does John Kerry's service in Vietnam mean to us? This one is tough, because Kerry was even 'nuanced' in his youth. Honorably serving in war means that you could take orders well. Below the level of General, the leadership shown by a soldier has no significance to a Presidential race. At the level of General, there is a scale of leadership that is somewhat similar to holding an office as big as the Presidency. A General leading his troops is akin to a President leading the American people. A lieutenant leading his soldiers is like a President leading his cabinet. Those people have to obey you, and your leadership is only needed to keep them operating as a well oiled unit. In addition, it doesn't show very much leadership to go running away from your men at first chance, which is what Kerry did after the 3rd Purple Heart. Next, contrary to the Baby Boom ethics, coming back early from war and attacking the men who are still in war scrapping to get out of it with there life does not take courage, especially with mindset of the Vietnam era youth. In fact, Kerry's actions were little more than expedient. It would have taken for more courage for him to stand up against the prevailing beliefs of his generation than to line up in lock step with them. My conclusion: Kerry's service in Vietnam shows us that he is a man very conscious of what others think of him, that he loves himself very much, and than as a result of that, he looks out for himself by taking whatever path is least resistant at that time.

From this, what would we see in a Kerry Presidency? Paralyzation of the executive. A lot of half measures that could be pulled back in a pinch, but which could never truly be effective if passed. A revolving door cabinet. If Kerry were to get into any jams, surely an underling would be run out of the White House, because John Kerry does not take responsibility for his own actions. An Administration with no backbone in foreign affairs. In short, Jimmy Carter, part deux. Jimmy does a fine job building houses for the poor, and, although he is very misguided, deep down Carter seems to have the best of intentions, but he never should have been President. John Kerry shouldn't be either.