Skip to main content

The Bravery of Those Who Died to Defend Us Highlights Our Cowardice


Memorial Day commemorates those who died in military service to our country. These people died not for a chunk of land, for the natural resources available on that chunk of land, nor for any such simple material possession. They died for an idea, a way of life, as well as for each other. We used to be the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave. Now we're the land of the lockdown and the home of the trepidatious. 

The bravery of heroes past has been replaced by dirty looks for those who dare to go outside without a mask - even in their own cars – where mask wearing, at best, can only be justified as a sign of solidarity. But solidarity for what? Certainly not freedom. That solidarity happens when people stand shoulder to shoulder against the jackboots who would take someone to jail for what now appears to be the shocking desire to earn a living to feed a family.

What follows are three stories of heroism, and four contrasting acts of cowardice. May the deeds of the past awaken in us a spirit of true courage, or at least help us to remember where our spines are located. 

During the American Revolution, everyone who fought was risking not only death in war, but worse, being branded a traitor to Britain, which would end in hanging, drawing, and quartering. These heroes fought for basic freedoms. They believed in freedom of movement, freedom to protest, freedom to worship, and the duty of the people, after every peaceable measure was extinguished, to throw off the yoke of tyranny. They would be appalled at the draconian measures implemented by one-man fiat in states and cities to prevent a disease that may prove less deadly than the flu, when all is said and done. They would also be embarrassed at the timid responses of many willing victims, who want nothing more than for government to stroke their hair and tell them everything will be okay. 

During WWI, Sergeant Alvin York was part of a patrol charged with capturing a German machine gun nest. After losing several of his comrades, including the commanding officer, and being pinned down by German fire, then-Corporal York took command, single handedly capturing the machine gun, as well as dozens of soldiers. A hero who acted both bravely and decisively under extreme pressure when seconds counted, I doubt Sgt. York would look favorably on government officials who jumped the gun so significantly - overreaching, trampling liberties, and then coming up with the excuse that they didnt have time to make the best decisions. 

In Sergeant York’s case, seconds mattered. With Covid we had days and even weeks of warning, and we still scrambled like decapitated chickens when the disease finally reached our shores. We still made the wrong choices, acting out of fear rather than a presumption of liberty, treating everyone as if we are all equally at risk and neglecting taking the right precautions to protect the truly vulnerable. Italy recently reported that over 99 percent of the Covid dead in that country had pre-existing conditions. This vulnerability was known early on.

It takes incredible bravery to go into long odds with an uncertain outcome, doing your job in spite of the danger. The early landing parties on D-Day’s Omaha beach during WWII exemplify this kind of courage. But it takes another kind altogether to accept certain doom, especially to volunteer for it. The airmen of the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo fall into this latter category. There was no uncertainty as they took off - they flew land-based bombers off an aircraft carrier, a purpose for which the planes were never intended, knowing full well that the best case scenario would be running out of fuel behind enemy lines, on a volunteer mission. If they could see the shortsightedness with which we have condemned more people to death as a direct result of the virus, and even more from the expected poverty bomb, they would surely dismiss us as frightened children hiding under the blankets from ghosts. 

One last note: in all fairness, not every tyrannical act undertaken during Covid can be attributed to cowardice. There are also those who have found that a dash of fear sweetens the flavor of their power. We should not be surprised if they are trying to maintain it by whatever means they can. They bring a different shame to heroes past. 

Mike Davis is a Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org. 

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Insider Dealing: Car Dealer Protectionism Run Amuck

Imagine you wanted to open a restaurant. Imagine you were allowed to cook the food yourself, but you were prohibited by law from serving it to customers yourself; instead, you were forced to hire a waiter. Next, imagine that the waiter wasn’t pulling his weight, but you weren’t allowed to fire him unless you could prove you had good cause, and the people you had to prove it to were the waiters friends, who also happened to be employed as waiters. Finally, imagine that you had to get permission from the waiter before you could hire another waiter. If he refused, you could appeal his decision… to that same group of his waiter friends. Each of these imaginary scenarios is a close analogy to the very real laws that hinder the distribution of new cars.   Car manufacturers are not allowed to sell directly to consumers. They can make the vehicle, but then must hire dealers (a.k.a. waiters) to interact with consumers. These state-mandated middlemen will surely want a cut of each s...

Even If Pandemic Models Were Right, Were Covid Lockdowns Wrong?

1889 has been quite critical of pandemic modeling that government officials have relied on for their Covid-19 response. We have also criticized shutdown orders in light of flaws in the models. But let’s assume for a moment that the worst predictions really would have come true if nothing was done. Even in those worst case scenarios, it’s fair to ask if our governments did the right thing. Were involuntary shutdowns justified, or would people have found a way to both limit the contagion and maintain some level of productivity? Was putting healthy citizens under house arrest acceptable even if they were willing to risk infection?   While large groups of people are often compared to herd animals, we are not sheep. We don’t behave like animals. We can, have, and will step up when our communities are in danger. When government and journalists give incomplete or false information, people will act irrationally. Depending on the situation, some will blindly follow the first aut...

Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

HBO’s mini-series,  Chernobyl ,  is a drama depicting  the disastrous  1986  explosion ,  and  hero ic efforts to control the  resulting  meltdown ,  of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine  (then part of the Soviet Union ).  A flawed man, but true hero,  Valery  Alexeyvich   Legasov , worked tirelessly to ameliorate the disaster’s consequences and  chiefly  investigated its cause. He was  Deputy Director of the  Kurchatov  Institute of Atomic Energ y , a Soviet elite, who  is portrayed at the end of  the  series making a dramatic speech at a trial about how the nuclear reactor exploded, when  such an explosion in that type of reactor  should not have been possible. In the course of the series, the audience  learns  that the reactor had a design flaw that had been covered up by the Soviet State (true).  The audience also learns  that...

The Legislators in Black Robes Strike Again

Once again, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has usurped the Legislature’s constitutional authority. This time, it has legislated new election rules, behind closed doors, on a compressed timetable, and without public input. All with an election looming in which the new rules will apply. On Monday, the Court eliminated the requirement that citizens voting by absentee ballot have their identity verified by a notary. If left unaddressed by the Legislature, absentee voters will be permitted to vote with little more than a pinky-swear promise that they are who they say they are, while in-person voters will still be required to show ID at the polling place. The Court’s decision not only harms the integrity of our election process, but was arrived at through a highly unusual process. The legal challenge to the notarization requirement was launched by a coalition of progressive organizations calling themselves “Let the People Vote.” Their stated reasoning for allowing unverified voting is...