Who does heroism belong to? And what is it?

What is it about conservatives and heroism? They tried to adopt the purple-heart Ranger Pat Tillman into their ranks of military heroes until his parents' criticism of the White House and the Pentagon made that impossible. They have successfully touted the service and courage of tens of thousands of other Americans soldiers as a brand of patriotism belonging only to their party and encouraged only by their ideology. Yesterday, in John McCain's acceptance speech for the Republican nomination, we heard the same, well-known story of this heroism and bravery, of his remarkable resilience at the hands of the North Vietnamese, with even more detail and pathos. His base loved it, the crowd at the RNC was wild with enthusiasm. The metaphor, if metaphor there was, emphasized McCain's resilience not only physically but also politically. It emphasized a determination to never back down to the corrupt Washington insiders (those dark forces which are never overtly named). Glowing by the end of the speech, as the standard bearer against all things evil, the evil of torture inflicted by the North Vietnamese, and the evil of corrupt politics, were conflated into all things evil. The allegory was complete, and here was the man, the knight errant (that other great symbol of mavericky herosim), that would save us from the forces of evil.

Now I know I am making gross generalizations and I want to be corrected. But I can't help but look at this symbol of heroism and then listen to the bashing of community service leaders - foot soldiers of public servants you could say - and think, How do conservatives praise heroism to the heavens only to disparage the little efforts, the small acts of heroism performed by humbler people? How does this add up? In one breath, heroism at a grassroots or street-level is mocked while a great, almost untouchable parable of heroism is breathlessly revered.

Conservatives, I can't help but thinking, are comforted by these images of great heroism which are, for all intents and purposes, unattainable. Most people I know will not be tortured at the hands of Communists. And I can say with even more confidence that I will never meet someone who has not only been tortured but stood up to it and practically asked for more. It is at this apex of McCain's speech that the crowd seemed to respond the most. Not by sympathy, mind you. How does one sympathize with something unimaginable? How does one understand the unreachable? They clapped and praised by respect and by a recognition of the allegorical resilience which McCain is meant to exude to his followers. This is a guy who not only stands up to evil but absorbs it.

What then, is a conservative to do? How be a hero after the apotheosis of the ultimate hero? No need. After all, hasn't conservative dogma for the last eight years been to stick it to the terrorists by shopping more and filling up the family Humvee with pride? I can't help but think that all this balances out. McCain, in the conservative imagination, is meant look over his base, to comfort them morally. They've done their duty by voting for such an ubermensch.

For all the badgering of Obama and his "minions", it isn't so much some kind of mythical Obama worship, sterile and idolatrous, that brings out his supporters but the inspiration to do something, however small. Obama is not an end but a means for his followers, while from outside the conservative mentality, I can only see conservatives as comforted by McCain as an ends: the guy who will do it all, battle the dark forces of partisan bickering, etc. etc. There is a sense in liberal mentality that Obama will effectuate change in the White House, but it is a sense that the change he brings about will not just belong to him alone, but to all of us. His followers don't want to act for him but through him, hoping for what Isaiah Berlin has called positive liberty. More on that later.

This is all vague, but I'm trying to wrap my head around it.