THE SUMMER OF FALLEN HEROES

We Americans have learned some hard lessons lately about hero worship, creating cultural icons and expecting too much from our fellow humans. Exhibit A, of course, is Joe Paterno, the recently deceased former football coach at the embattled Penn State University. Paterno emerged, over decades, as the symbol of Penn State’s success, which was defined by its football program. Now we know that like many others at the university, Paterno was complicit in covering up child molestations perpetrated by one of his staff members, Jerry Sandusky. Paterno’s dead, Sandusky’s in prison, and the citizens of “Happy Valley,” PA, are left to clean up their mess. Oh, and those young boys who Sandusky molested? Well, they’re still young, but some of them are in young adulthood, and they are left to cope with what happened to them.

 In a scathing report issued by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Paterno is singled out as one among several powerful figures at Penn State who not only knew of the molestations as far back as 1998, but made a decision to do nothing about it. Paterno, with 409 career victories - the most in NCAA history among major college coaches, chose to ignore the illegality and inhumanity of Sandusky’s behavior, and simply protect the institution. Here is ESPN’s initial report regarding Freeh’s findings: Therein is the problem with heroes. Once we elevate someone to idol status, it is up to them to fight their own ego and stay on the straight and narrow, and it’s up to us to monitor their integrity. Had anyone bothered to monitor Joe Paterno’s real life, rather than the one his fans created for him, it would have been clear that he was a flawed human being, just like the rest of us. Instead, he was assigned some type of mythic status that resulted in his carrying the secrets of his complicity to the grave.

When hero worship runs amok, even low lifers like former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards are able to become symbols of the American dream. Back in 2006, when Edwards came to New Orleans to announce his candidacy, I already had my doubts about him. He went to a site in the Ninth Ward, where the recent Hurricane Katrina had done the most damage, to announce his candidacy. It was a well-orchestrated, strategic move designed to show Edwards getting down with the people. Ostensibly, Edwards was there to help rebuild a badly damaged home. Witnesses who were there say he never so much as picked up a hammer. It was a photo op only.

He announced the candidacy, got in a black SUV with heavily tinted windows and off he went. It was then I knew Edwards was not to be placed on a pedestal. Back then, a close friend of mine told me she was very impressed with Edwards and planned to support his candidacy.

I told her I did not trust him, and if I were her I would wait it out and see if he reveals more of his true self. The rest, as they say, is history. The important point here is that Edwards amassed a lot of support for his candidacy. His all-American good looks and megawatt smile were, for some voters, mesmerizing. Had there been no Hillary Clinton in the race, chances are Edwards would have amassed huge support. He was already gaining endorsements from organized labor, and his campaign appearances were rock-star like. Later, by the time the emperor (Edwards) had no clothes, campaign observers were able to shed their blind admiration for the candidate and see that he was indeed not a hero. In the National Review, writer John Geraghty said it best in a piece he wrote about the Edwards campaign: “The Edwardses warns us of the risk we take when we “fall in love” with a politician — and I don’t mean in a romantic sense, but when we conclude “I can trust that person, I know that person” based on some interviews and speeches.”

But it is not always about trust. Sometimes it is simply about a hunger for leadership, a public need for a return to civil discourse and the potential for positive change. Enter Barack Obama, whose campaign for his first term brought back memories of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 election.

For my part, I believe he ran a pretty straightforward campaign, and while he said things people wanted to hear, I think he believed in what he said. The list of individuals and organizations that endorsed his candidacy is long and now legendary. And talk about a rock star – Edwards was a mere Neil Diamond next to Obama’s Springsteen. It had been a long time since a candidate had been so lionized by the voting public. After his momentous election day, he really had nowhere to go but down. And down he went. Depending upon where and what you read, Obama is currently way down in support among women, young people, Jews, even fellow Democrats. What no one seems to want to admit is that we, the voters, really set him up to fail. Nobody could have fulfilled all of the promise that we entrusted with him.

 It is the incessant need for heroes in our culture that seems to do us the most harm. And it keeps happening. Was Lance Armstrong the super-human athlete we needed him to be, or was he simply an example of better cycling through chemistry? We were the ones who decided that baseball-betting, tax-evading, umpire attacking Pete Rose

was a baseball hero. The list is never-ending: Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Anthony Weiner, Rod Blagojevich, Gary Hart, Tiger Woods, Eliot Spitzer, and of course, our two all-time favorite disgraced heroes: O.J. Simpson and Richard Nixon. All of the above lost public support, and some of them lost their careers, all because they screwed up in spectacular fashion. Well, not “all because.” Perhaps it was partly our fault that caused these and other public figures to fall. They all exercised questionable judgment, but we decided each was way out of our league, because we needed to look up to somebody.

The moral of this story is simple: Because someone can speak or sing or throw a ball or run fast or dazzle a crowd or win football games does not make him or her bigger or better than you. And once they fail to live up to your expectations, perhaps it is best to simply acknowledge they were not perfect. Following last week’s release of the Freeh report on Penn State, Joe Paterno’s family released a lengthy statement denying its claims. Towards the end, it said, “It can certainly be asserted that Joe Paterno could have done more. He acknowledged this himself last fall. But to claim that he knowingly, intentionally protected a pedophile is false.” Although the evidence shows otherwise, there may be some truth to the statement. In fact, Joe Paterno may simply have been protecting himself, and the institution that formed the basis of his lifelong identity. In the end, he was nobody’s hero—he was just a guy who knew how to coach football.

THE TIME TO ASK AND TELL IS NOW

It is hard to believe it was 18 years ago that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) was first suggested by then presidential candidate Bill Clinton. It was promoted as a way to overturn the ban on gay Americans serving in the armed forces. In truth, it was a continuation of our society’s unspoken declaration that homosexuality must be a dirty little secret. The very idea that a homosexual person must hide his or her identity in order to fight on the front lines or fly life-threatening war time missions is absurd. Not unlike now, Congress in 1992 was populated mostly by older white guys all in matching suits who generally purport to be heterosexual. The law of averages tells us there are most likely several gay members of Congress, but very few people run for office waving a rainbow flag.

Still, DADT was passed and has been in place ever since. Since 1993, there have been five legal challenges to the law, but all five were unsuccessful in Federal court. Still, it is Congress that has the power to kill DADT and allow gay people to serve openly in the military. About a year and a half ago, a Washington Post/ABC News poll revealed that fully 75% of American citizens favor the repeal of DADT. If Congress works for us, it would appear we have spoken and the law is outdated and discriminatory. And get this: in the poll, 64% of Republicans favored overturning the law, along with the 80% of Democrats. That is a very strong majority.

So, why is DADT still in place? First, many elected officials do not want to touch anything that remotely regards gay rights. Although our culture has come a long way in the last 20 years, Senators and House members are always focusing on re-election, and all things gay tend to be viewed as hot button issues that could be overly divisive. You may consider that avoidance short-sighted and not fully representative of your views/needs as a citizen, but politics are politics. Second, although more than 100 retired generals and military officials have supported the ban on DADT, current military powerhouses have been reluctant to commit to overturning the law.

Even those who support the ban have not taken aggressive action. President Obama devoted exactly two sentences to overturning DADT in his recent State of the Union speech, and failed to outline a specific plan or timetable. Some months ago at the annual Human Rights Campaign dinner in Washington, D.C. he stated that the ban would be repealed, but offered no plan to do so. Meanwhile, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff finally came out in support of repealing DADT this month. Still, people in high places object. Senator Ike Skelton (D-MO), who was in on creating DADT in 1993, said this in an interview on C-SPAN: "I am personally not for changing the law.” His comments matter because he is the leading House Democrat on military policy.

Having lived long enough to see how these things go, I know that ultimately DADT will be obsolete and the law will be repealed. I don’t know when, but I feel confident it will happen. Social change that relies on governmental intervention comes slowly in our country. As recently as 1968, a law was finally passed that allowed black Americans and white Americans to get married. Still, every day that passes does so at the detriment of gay military personnel. Reportedly, the number of active duty military personnel discharged for violating the DADT policy is approximately 13,000. In the one year since Obama took office, 600 people have been discharged. Some military personnel are under investigation or awaiting a final decision on their cases. Watch:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The only documented step toward ending the ban is The Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR 1283), which would repeal the ban and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. It was introduced in March, 2009 and now sits in committee. It could linger there for a very long time, but it is at least a tangible step toward justice.
Meanwhile, after Obama’s SOTU speech, here is what none other than Senator John McCain had to say:

“In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress to repeal the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. I am immensely proud of, and thankful for, every American who wears the uniform of our country, especially at a time of war, and I believe it would be a mistake to repeal the policy. This successful policy has been in effect for over 15 years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our armed forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.”

How is this any different from the days when black citizens were not allowed to drink from the same water fountains as white citizens? How is this different from Asian or Hispanic citizens who were forced to work in sweatshops earlier in the 20th century? What distinguishes this discriminatory law from the one that outlawed women from voting until 1919? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. DADT was a mistake when it was enacted, simply because it categorized gay citizens as somehow less than straight citizens solely because of their sexuality. Did someone forget to tell the U.S. government that sexuality does not define a person? Shame on the Clinton administration for launching something that so blatantly diminishes one entire segment of the population. Shame on his successor for ignoring the issue for eight years, and shame on Barack Obama for continuing to dangle a carrot in front of the gay community, but failing to commit to serious action to end the discrimination.

INAUGURATION DAY 2009

THE INTERSECTION OF ART & HOPE

It will be a truly distinctive moment in American history - the inauguration of the first black President of the United States, celebrated one day after the commemoration of the 80th birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King. Barack Obama clearly feels a real connection with Abraham Lincoln, but I believe the timing of his inauguration and the obvious parallels in their influence on America will always somehow associate Obama with King. Each of these men has demonstrated the rare gift of being able to cause togetherness and meaningful commitment among the American people. It is akin to what we felt in the months after 9/11, but then there was no strong leader to inspire a sense of long-lasting intimacy among us. Now there is.

The coming together of the American people after so many years of deep fragmentation is a wonder in America right now. Sometimes, the most significant moments in our history cause art to emerge, as well. Witness the Works Progress Administration (WPA) artistry during the Great Depression (example at right). On numerous occasions historians have highlighted the relationship between social change or upheaval with the emergence of distinctive art forms. With that in mind, if you have not heard the name Shepard Fairey yet, you surely will. Fairey is the artist who created the now iconic HOPE posters so pervasive during the Obama campaign (left). Fairey also created the header art you see at the top of this piece.

I am not an art critic. But I am a great audience. And what I see, from out here is a real commonality between much of the WPA art and works by street artists like Fairey. They are both what you could call populist art. In both we see the real daily dreams and struggles of American men and women. On some level, no matter what your politics are, you have to step back and appreciate America's heart and soul starting to show itself again. We were neutralized for eight years. A little spirit couldn't hurt us about now.

It is that spirit that moved music producer David Foster to team with musician Will.i.am to write America's Song just days before the inauguration. It was reportedly easy to engage the participation of Faith Hill, Mary J. Blige, Bono and Seal to perform the song, first on the January 19 episode of our holy St. Oprah of Chicago's show. Like much of the WPA art and Fairey's works, America's Song is clean, straightforward and elegant.

Now, pump up the volume, go full screen and enjoy this shiny, new artistic collaboration: