On the debasement of "courage"

More on yesterday's big topic....
Dan Gillmor made the remark that people had called him brave for deciding to leave his job in corporateland to start a new venture - and that, by comparison to the other guests, he hardly deserved it.
Here in Blue America, the whole notion of risk has gotten distorted, and with it the concept of courage.  We live with the urban bogeymen: rampant crime, greedy corporations, evil politicians who are of the wrong party, small objects that children might choke on, coyotes lurking in the hills, pointy objects that might put someone's eye out... with trivial risks commonly inflated beyond all recognition.  In our nice safe lives, we inflate the smallest risks.  Politicians seeking to increase their power make use of this, seeking to stir up panic over things which in reality represent minimal threats.
As we lose our capacity for risk assessment, so we lose sight of who is truly courageous.  Is it an act of heroism to quit one's regular job with a big corporation, and join a startup?  What, after all, is the worst that can happen?  You work like a dog for a couple of years, the company lawn-darts, and you have to go back to working for a boring old corporation again.  Does it require awesome courage to stand on a street corner in Metropolis, USA, and shout slogans denouncing The Establishment?  What can happen?  You may be mocked, asked to move along and stop harassing the passersby, or even - the horror! - completely ignored.
Compare the situation for Mohammed, Omar, and Ali.  By their own assessment, the areas where they live and work are pretty safe.  It follows, then, that if they simply kept a low profile and went about their lives, they would have a good chance of avoiding harm.  Their dedication to freedom, however, has led them to raise their profile: by blogging under their own names, and founding a political party, they have become public figures.  So, in Baghdad, without (or even with) bodyguards, what's the worst that can happen?  The "latter-day Minutemen" could take a dislike to them, kidnap them, and saw their heads off in front of an al-Jazeera camera, that's what.
These folks are taking a very big, very real risk for what they believe in.  Their cause is classic liberal democracy, rooted in the belief that the common folk are worthy to govern themselves.  Their methods are communication and education, not guns and bombs*.
These ordinary guys, who wouldn't get a second glance if you saw them at a Silicon Valley tech company, are risking their lives for a vision of a brighter future, of peace and liberty for all.  Now, that's real courage.

* Al Burghard may use guns and bombs when needed, but he clearly favors communication over confrontation, and construction over destruction.  Anyone who thinks the U.S. military is as bad as the "insurgents" should have a half-hour non-confrontational talk with him.

Comments

[vinod]

Hey - totally agree with you that courage has been debased of late. I'd say a good % of this is that many of the elite view the physical sort of courage either antiquated or, perhaps more directly, "accidental" to human existance. I blogged about this (as did ESR) a little while back - you might be interested in the post -

http://vinod.com/blog/News/ESRSneeringatCourage.html

(BTW - great meeting you @ spirit of America!)

[Eric Wilner]

Hi, Vinod!
Reading your post, and ESR's, I feel a largish essay coming on... for One Of These Days, when I have several hours for a big polished essay. It's on the "to write" list now (along with so many other things, many of which call for actual research).