To prove your point, you get off the bus ten blocks from your house and walk the rest of the way home in the rain. Better to get soaked and ruin your new shoes than to have all those people staring at you, thinking you were some kind of self-righteous goody-goody.

The Demise of Virtue

Ironically, "virtue" has gotten a bad name. I know itís not cool or sophisticated to discuss virtue these days. To do so is to seem old-fashioned, humorless, and conservative. But to understand why you and I so often pass up the opportunity for heroism, it is important to look virtue straight in the eye.

If you have any doubts about the unacceptability of virtue today, try this experiment. The next time you are in a group of peopleóit doesnít really matter if they are friends or strangersómake this announcement: "I just wanted to remind everyone to be Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent." See how people react to that.

Whenever Iíve read that list to my college classes (sociologists can do anything), Iíve noticed that my students fidget a lot, study their fingernails, and pick lint off their clothes. Thereís something uncomfortable about confronting such a heavy dose of virtue all at once, and I want to look at why thatís so.

To begin, I think we could agree that virtually all the individual characteristics making up the Scout Law are, on the whole, desirable ones. Given the choice between entering into a business deal with someone who is trustworthy versus someone who is untrustworthy, for example, I suspect weíd both choose the former over the latter. Given the choice between friends who defend us versus those who cut us down behind our backs, Iíd guess that loyalty would pretty consistently win over disloyalty. 

Lost in a strange city, I think both you and I would prefer to have someone show us how to get where we wanted to go instead of making an obscene gesture or pointing us toward the shortcut through Muggersí Lane. Friendly, courteous, and kind people are surely more enjoyable to be around than are hostile, rude, and cruel ones. By the same token, all of us would prefer sitting down on an airplane beside someone basically cheerful rather than someone intent on filling our airborne hours with stories of how badly life had been treating him or her.

The notion of "obedience" is a little more problematic because of the authoritarian-submissive connotations it sometimes carries. Still, weíd probably agree that young children do well to obey their parents, and employees have some obligation to do what their supervisors tell them to do.

By the same token, we might not honor the image of the miserly skinflint, but in general, responsible financial management is to be preferred over mismanagement and bankruptcy.

I know that both you and I would rather walk down Muggersí Lane with someone brave than with a coward. And while we might disagree on how close cleanliness is to godliness, we would probably chooseóall else equalócleanliness over filth.

And finally, we might have a discussion over the importance of reverence as long as that was attached to specific religious rituals, but I doubt that weíd have any trouble agreeing on the desirability of a having a decent respect for our value and dignity as human beings.

In short, with the possibility of some minor quibbling here and there, we could probably agree that the Boy Scout Law goes a long way toward describing the qualities weíd value in associates. At the very least, we could agree that each item is preferable to its opposite.

But suppose youíre at a party. Youíve gotten all dressed up, and you look really good. Moreover, youíve worked hard at being an intelligent conversationalist, discussing all the right topics knowledgeably and expressing all the right opinions with conviction. You know youíre doing great. Then, your host says "Oh, hereís someone I want you to meet." You look up and there is the one. Bells ring, fireworks explode, a symphony orchestra begins. This could be the person youíve been waiting for all your life. I mean, this is Prince Charming or the Fairy Princess. Then you host begins touting your virtues: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendlyÖ.You slowly die a thousand deaths. Itís worse than finding youíve got broccoli in your teeth. As soon as you can escape your host, the first thing youíll clarify is that you are not really like that.

The reason we donít want people to think weíre so virtuous is because of how we despise virtuous people. Their virtues seem to highlight all our own failures and shortcomings. While I regard myself as fundamentally trustworthy, for example, if I became convinced that you were absolutely trustworthy, you would be a constant reminder to me of all those times I proved to be untrustworthy. Meeting you and being around you would lead me to recall all those times I had broken my word, gone back on a promise, or failed to meet an obligation. All that would bring up the uncomfortable fear that perhaps Iím not really as trustworthy as I think I am. There are two possible solutions to this problem.

First, I can put you down for being "too" trustworthy. That is to say, you are too zealous about this trustworthy business, too uptight. I suspect you probably donít have a sense of humor. Given your rigid commitment to absolutes, you probably have authoritarian tendencies, a closet fascist. Iíll bet your children donít really love you.

The second alternative is to discover youíre not as virtuous as you pretend. This is better, actually. Nothing sells newspapers faster than the exposure of self-righteous hypocrites. Itís always a comfort to know that a wealthy person cheated to get ahead. If it had been only a matter of hard work, you and I might feel lazy by comparison. When someone rich and famous gets divorced, we can comfort ourselves in the righteousness of having put our families ahead of success. 

John Kennedy and his presidential Camelot made a lot of people like us feel pretty lowly until we heard that he had been cheating on Jackie. What a relief! Jimmy Carter was an even greater threat until he confessed to lusting in his heart. That was better than nothing.

Blaine Harden suggests this pattern had been around for a while.

If you act on your opportunity for heroism, therefore, if you choose to take personal responsibility for public affairs, about the best you can expect is that youíll be despised for your apparent virtue. More likely, however, others will deny your virtue altogether.

When Samantha Smith, the eleven-year-old from Maine, began getting media coverage for her correspondence with Yuri Andropov, Nicholas Daniloff labeled her a "Pawn in Propaganda War," in the conservative U.S. News & World Report. In the liberal New Republic, on the other hand, Charles Krauthammer would write, "I concede that Samantha is not a Communist dupe. My question is: Who cares?"
 

My Motives Will Be Suspect

A few years ago, when I first ready something about the Guardian Angels, my immediate thought was: "What a great idea." I was really pleased that someone was doing what Curtis Sliwaís people were doing. Shortly thereafter, I began reading negative reports about the Angels. In particular, the press began suggesting that the Angels were only in it for the personal glory. Sliwas was on an ego trip. The proof of this lay in the high public visibility of the Angels, and Sliwa was characterized as a "publicity-seeker."

The later, negative reports were depressing to me. Like many others, I suspect, I was disappointed that the Angels werenít what they first seemed to be. I suppose I was mildly annoyed that I had been taken in again by a slick con man. Iím sure I wasnít alone in those feelings.

Sometime later, however, the absolute absurdity of the "publicity-seeking" charge hit me. As we saw in chapter 4, the purpose of the Guardian Angels is to create a "visual deterrent" to street crime. Their intention is to make it known that they will intervene in rapes, muggings, and other street violence if they see it happening. Their presence on the streetódramatized by their red berets and white T-shirtsóis a signal that crimes could not be committed with impunity.

When I recalled this fundamental purpose of the Guardian Angels, I immediately recognized the stupidity in the criticism of "publicity-seeking," Of course they wouldóand shouldóseek publicity. Otherwise, how could they be a visual deterrent?

If you recall the movie Dr. Strangelove, you may recall the ultimate, bizarre joke in the film. The Russians had created a Doomsday Machine that would destroy the world if Russia were attacked. This has been a semiserious fantasy for years among those who seek to achieve peace through bigger bombs. The bizarre joke was that the Russians in the film kept the Doomsday Machine secret. Having created the ultimate deterrent, they didnít tell anyone.

Obviously, the alternative to "publicity-seeking" for the Guardian Angels would be to hide in the shadows and hope for trouble. Then they could spring into action and create the cycle of violence and violent counter-violence that others have sometimes feared the Angels represented.

Virtually every publicized act of heroism will be regarded by some as only publicity-seeking. There are two reasons for this. First, you and I have lived through enough genuine publicity-seeking to be wary of anything that may fit the pattern. Second, as Iíve pointed out repeatedly, we have trouble believing anyone would simply do good. Automatically, we ask, "Whatís in it for them?"

Near the head of the list of possibilitiesóalongside ego tripping and publicity-seekingóis money. We have a treasury of cliches to warn us that you canít get something for nothing, everybody is out for number one, and so forth.

Thus, if you act on an opportunity for heroism, it is likely that others will think you have some financial angle. When Werner Erhard first initiated The Hunger Project, it was firmly believedóand proclaimedóin some circles that he had found a way to make money out of the misery of the worldís starving people. Years later, with a string of unqualified financial audits and no evidence of wrong-doing, the criticism slowly faded away, but Iím sure the suspicion remained for some. After all, why else would anyone commit himself or herself to helping others?

The current state of American politics is such that it is virtually impossible for a politician to do anything genuinely for the public good without suffering snide rumors about his or her "true" motivesóusually seen as seeking higher office. I do not mean to suggest that politicians donít often behave as cynically and dishonestly as we tend to think they do. The point is that you and I would have trouble recognizing a genuine act of heroism if it appeared in the political arena.

When George Washington turned down the opportunity to become king of the United States, saying we should be a republic rather than a monarchy, I am certain there were some who were convinced that George was working a special angle. And when he refuse a third term, saying the presidency should circulate, there were some convinced that he had a better offer from the colonial equivalent of Bechtel or Boeing.

The point of all this for our present discussion is that you need to expect that your motives will be questioned and the worst thought of you if you choose an act of genuine heroism. It might be useful, at the same time, for you to be more conscious of your own reactions to the heroism of others.

Itís Not My Responsibility

This is perhaps the most convincing reason of all for not taking responsibility for public problems. If you didnít cause the problem why should you solve it? In fact, somebody else is probably being paid to solve such problems, as we saw in chapter 3. Itís simply not fair to expect you to solve the problem. 

If you take on a public problem, chances are that people around you will assume you caused it. This was dramatically demonstrated in the case of several student projects. One student was walking across campus when he noticed a trash can with trash scattered on the ground around it. He decided this was a good opportunity for his project. While he was picking up the trash and putting it in the can, three strangers walked past; one paused long enough to snap: "Clumsy!" Obviously he must have made the mess, or why else would he be picking it up?

If you take on a public problem and can convince people you didnít cause the problem, you are likely to be thought a fool for cleaning up someone elseís mess. If the whole thing was your own idea, you are simply weird. If you got the idea from someone else (from this book, for example), you will be seen as having been duped or conned. You can expect to find yourself described as naïve and unsophisticated for not seeing how you have been taken in.

The fact that a particular public problem is not your responsibilityóthat is, you didnít cause the problemóis a powerful reason for doing nothing. You will need to rise above that reason if you are to be a modern hero. Each of the heroes weíve considered in this book has had to do that, however. Neither Rosa Parks nor Martin Luther King, Jr., started segregation in the South. Curtis Sliwa didnít cause street crime in New York, any more than Beowulf caused Grendel to terrorize the castle. Heroism requires taking responsibility for a problem you didnít cause.

I Donít Know What to Do

As we saw in chapter 3, life has gotten pretty complicated in many of its aspects. Thus, there are surely many problems facing the nation and the world that you are not equipped to solve. I would guess, for example, that you donít know how to make nuclear power plants truly safe (aside form shutting them down). Few of us have special expertise in the realm of cleaning up chemical and nuclear wastes. "Not knowing what to do," then, is an excellent reason for doing nothing. Like the other barriers to public responsibility, however, it is simply a sellout of your opportunity for heroism.

When you recognize a public problem and donít know how to solve it, you can always demand that those "officially" responsible do something. Consider the example of Judy Piatt, a Missouri horse-breeder. After watching dozens of her horses die in agony, she became convinced that the oil sprayed on her stable floor to keep the dust down was involved.

Piatt began following the trucks that delivered the salvage oil and discovered a number of dangerous chemical dump sites. She sent a list of the sites to state and federal officials. Nothing happened.

She persisted in her demands that action be taken, and after a decade of her insistence, the federal government finally looked into the matter. What they discovered has horrifying. The oil used to spray the roads and private stables was routinely mixed with a sludge rich in dioxin, one of the most toxic compounds on earth. Suddenly a national alert was sounded to uncover and remedy dioxin sites throughout the South and elsewhere in the country. There is no way to guess how many people are alive today who would have died from dioxin poisoning if Judy Piatt had let her lack of technical know-how stop her from taking responsibility for what she perceived as a public problem.

At the very least, you can always make other people aware of the problem you recognize. Even if you canít offer an easy solution, you can draw attention to the problem and the need for a solution.

I May Make Things Worse

The only thing worse than not knowing what to do is thinking you do when you donít. There is no end of stories about well-meaning people who try to do good and inadvertently make matters worse. Seeking smoke rising from the back of your neighborís house, you start spraying with your garden hose and wipe out a barbeque party. All of us have made mistakesósome big, some smallówhere our good intentions have gone awry, and such mistakes often make us wary in the future.

Those scholars who study the operation of systems have added to this fear through their research and through some of their concepts. Thus, for example, the notion of "unintended consequences" points directly to the heart of this problem. We take an action with a particular purpose in mind, and, whether the action serves the intended purpose or not, it can have other consequences we never imagined. There are numerous examples from the field of national development.

Suppose you came across a developing country that lacked effective sanitation systems, such that wastes were seeping into the drinking water, causing death, and keeping death rates high. The obviously appropriate action would be to improve the sanitation systems. If you were to do this, as has been done in numerous nations around the world, water pollution would be reduced (good), disease rates would decline (good), as would death rates (good), except that population would then increase (bad), outstripping food supplies (bad), and resulting in mass hunger and starvation (bad). This scenario has been repeated in country after country.

To continue, letís take the example of a rural village in a developing country where the local agriculture is simply insufficient to support the population. Letís say that local farming methods are inefficient and need upgrading. Children are going hungry and dying. The obvious solution, from the standpoint of a rich and generous neighboring nation, would be to provide emergency gifts of food to the village. This action would be taken as a temporary measure, until the local farmers could begin producing enough food for the local population. Unfortunately, the gift of free food means that no one in the village will be interested in buying food from the local growers, thereby destroying an already troubled industry.

In view of such situations, Professor Jay Forrester and his "system dynamics" colleagues at MIT and elsewhere have coined the term, "counter-intuitive reasoning." Since solutions to problems that seem intuitively appropriate so often cause more problems than they solve, Forrester and his colleagues argue that we must be willing to question what seems intuitively correct and be able to move beyond it. For the system dynamicists, computer simulation is the likely method for accomplishing this. By creating computer models that behave like real-life processes, it is possible to make changes to the computer model and see what happens in the long run, prior to taking real-life actions that may be irreversible.

I say all of this to dramatize the power of "I might make things worse" as a reason for doing nothing, as an excuse for turning away from responsibility for social problems. Now, Iíd like to counter that reason with two comments.

First, concepts such as "unintended consequences" and "counter-intuitive reasoning" are intended to empower more effective action, not to make us comatose. Our history of past mistakes should make us more effective. Every mistake should add to our knowledge of what doesnít work, so we donít have to make the same mistake again.

Second, picking up litter, calling the street department to report a broken street sign, demanding that your senator do something about nuclear wastesónone of these actions is likely to destroy the ecological balance of nature.

I May Look Stupid

Not knowing what to do and the fear of making things worse both have a common base that actually extends to most of the barriers to taking responsibility for public problems. This is perhaps the foremost obstacle to heroism: "I may look stupid."

In my observations of myself and other people, none of us is terribly threatened by being stupid or doing stupid thingsóbut we are terrified that others will think us stupid. I have done thousands of stupid things that no one knows about (and Iíll never tell). For the most part, Iíve totally forgotten about them. You probably have a similar list of irrelevant past stupidities.

But when you step out of live and take on a public problem, you expose yourself to public view and possible public ridicule. Suppose, for example, you had learned about the rural village I mentioned earlieróthe one whose agriculture couldnít support the local population. You might have been deeply moved by the starving children, moved enough that you could speak out in a public meeting and urge that the United States send emergency food supplies. Someone more experienced than you in such matters might point out the negative impact the gift would have on the local economy. They might even add an observation about the danger that corrupt government officials might siphon the food off into the black market, with the profits going into their own pockets. You could look stupid and naïve, and thatís a powerful reason for keeping your mouth shut.

Unfortunately, real heroism is inextricably linked to the possibility of looking stupid. Thatís true of excellence in general, however. Thereís an old baseball adage that says you canít steal second without taking your foot off first. There are always risks, and we need to weigh the potential costs and benefits.

Nothing I Do Makes a Difference

If all the barriers I have discussed above are the reasons we donít accept opportunities for heroism when they arise, the box those reasons come in is "Nothing I do makes a difference." In my view, this is the primary tragedy of our time. I suggest that you and I live our entire adult lives within the fundamental view that we do not make a difference. This operates in all aspects of our lives, not just in the domain of personal responsibility for public problems.

Every time you have broken your word, you have telegraphed the view that you do not make a difference. So you said youíd come to a dinner party, and then cancel at the last minute because you just donít feel like going. Your cancellation says that your presence at the party doesnít matter. People will get along just fine without you.

Any time you cut a class in school, you sent along a message that your being there wouldnít have mattered. This applies equally to every committee meeting you skipped, every place you didnít show up. The fact that life proceeded without you probably justified your view, but it also drove a secret stake into your heart. 

This view of not making a difference, which most of us are too polite to discuss, is compounded to the extent that you believe others do make a difference. It parallels exactly the view that others are perhaps more righteous than you, and the consequences are the same. Our crab-pot mentality force us to drag others down, denying that they make a difference either. Ultimately, we emasculate ourselves as a human race.

I am neither prepared nor inclined to jack you up and convince you that you really do make a difference. Ultimately, making a difference is not a function of evidence, as much as we may seek it. It is a function of personal declaration. You must choose for yourself whether your life will be about making a difference or whether it will be about getting by until you achieve the release of death.

Each of the heroes we have examined in this book has had to make that declaration for himself or herself. Each has had to say, evidence to the contrary perhaps, "I do and will make a differenceóbecause I say so." Every morning for ten lonely years, Sidney Rittenberg awoke with the crushing realization that he was still in prison. Every morning, he rededicated his life to making a contribution to his planet. That is the fundamental opportunity available to you right now, today, this minute. No matter how many times you have passed up the opportunity in the past, that opportunity for heroism persists. I invite you to take it.