On Political Courage

There is a great expresion that popped up in France in the wake of WWII: maquis d’apres-guerre.

It means “resistance fighter . . . post-war.” This is a perennial psycho-drama of history; we stand heroically against already-conquered foes, long after a consensus has designated them as such. This is particularly true in the modern secular religion of honoring the victims of the Holocaust. At the time, few would stand for the hated Jews, Gypsies, and other outcasts of European society. But today it’s easy enough to say “Never Again” and imagine oneself as the protectors of Anne Frank and the martyrs of the White Rose. If Never Again only means that we must stand against nationalist Germans intent on murdering European Jews, it’s pretty much a meaningless commitment involving a highly-unlikely-to-be-repeated phenomenon.

After the war, the same Europeans, and in some cases erstwhile Nazi victims, would not stand up for the victims of Soviet violence in Eastern Europe. Today, the putative supporters of human rights for Saddam’s Shia and Kurdish victims celebrate the cruel victimization of Sunni Iraqis, many of whom have only committed the “crime” of having been born Sunni.

What is needed in all times, but particularly in times of conflict, and more particularly in democratic societies, is a specific type of courage that is hard to fine and is rarely rewarded: moral courage. This is the courage to do the right thing in the face of resistance, public pressure, and, above all, the will to vanity and flattery. We judge Germans, Poles, and others for their failure to rally on behalf of the victims of Nazi violence. But how much less courage does it take to stand up for the unborn and outcasts of today, when the only consequence is losing the chance to be re-elected? And yet, surprisingly enough, how much more effective is public opinion and vanity in suppressing morally courageous acts than outright violence?

This issue has come up in relation to the the meteoric rise of Barack Obama, who offers the seductive hope of a unifying nice-guy. But, so far at least, he has proven to be a man of tame convictions, complete with feel-good positions on things like school lunches and midnight basketball. (Tellingly, today he took a controversial stand against corruption.) One can’t always square the circle, particularly in a divided society such as ours. On issues ranging from Iraq to abortion, to have a position is to alienate half the country.

Even universally acknowledged nice guys, such as Gerald Ford, were not always seen as nice. He was reviled for his pardon of Nixon for example, though this is widely regarded today as a healing act that also sacrificed his political prospects. It’s true that stupidity and obstinancy can masquerade as political courage and that is arguably what we are witnessing in relation to Bush and his Iraq policy. It is still better to witness real courage, including the courage to admit mistakes, than to deal with dueling lukewarm sentimental hopes that all problems can be solved with compromise and hugs.

Dennis Byrne wrote today:

It is quite inaccurate to say that Ford’s greatest qualities were in the area of “ending divisiveness” and “bringing us together.” It’s more than inaccurate; it is a portrayal of Ford that fails to do him justice, even insults the man.

Courage was his greatest quality. For the nearly half of the American population that wasn’t around or too young to remember, Ford’s pardon of President Richard Nixon was one of the great divisive acts of the half century. Far from bringing us together, if further widened the great divide that drove Americans apart during Watergate and the Vietnam War. It enraged Nixon haters, and fueled conspiracy lunatics. “Moderates” were mystified, if not angered, by what appeared to be an inexplicable act of forgiveness of a criminal who did not ask for forgiveness. Some say that this single act cost him his re-election.

In retrospect, it proved to be a wise act, one that shortened what would have been a national crisis of confidence for years to come. But folks, such as me, who were outraged by the pardon, did not see it this way. . . .

What Ford did took courage, and courageous acts often go unrewarded and unappreciated. By definition, courageous acts alienate and divide. If the nation is looking for another Ford, it is not looking for a Barack Obama.

To be courageous is to take a risky position, to lead in defiance of prevailing opinion, to go where most don’t have the guts to go. Obama has shown none of that, which is not to say he does not have those qualities. Obama’s main issue has been himself, which is definitely un-Ford-like. His admirers can only go so far with their “oh-what-a-good-guy-he-is” campaign, before he actually has to come to grips with leadership. To say any of this, however, is in today’s popular fashion to turn oneself into Exhibit A of how badly this country needs a “unifier” like Obama.