The state of Maine has some history of electing moderate Republican women with a streak of righteous independence to the U.S. Senate. This past weekend, the two senators from the Pine Tree State, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, were among seven Republicans who “broke ranks with their party…voting for a procedural motion to kick off debate on a nonbinding resolution passed by the House last week that expresses support for the troops but criticizes Bush’s decision to increase the number of combat troops in Iraq.” More than half a century ago, Margaret Chase Smith, who represented Maine in the Senate for 24 years, took a strong public stand against the smear-and-fear tactics employed by her Republican colleague, Joe McCarthy. At some point, Senator Smith offered the following sage words:
“Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character.”
Indeed, it takes considerable courage to speak out and stand up for what’s right when it goes against the grain of what’s popular or mainstream. For a young adult, adrift in the turbulent and peer-pressured waters of adolescence, taking a principled yet unpopular stand is not only remarkable but highly laudable. But that is exactly what Matthew LaClair—a 16 year old who lives some 300 miles from the Maine border in Kearny, New Jersey—has done. His “moral courage” is documented by the New York Times:
Student, 16, Finds Allies in His Fight Over Religion
NEWARK, Feb. 19 — A Kearny High School junior on Monday drew some legal heavyweights into his battle with school officials over a teacher’s proselytizing in class.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the People for the American Way Foundation and a partner from a large Manhattan law firm stood beside the student, Matthew LaClair, as he and his family threatened to sue the Kearny Board of Education if their complaints are not resolved. Last fall, Matthew, 16, taped the teacher, David Paszkiewicz, telling students in a history class that if they do not believe that Jesus died for their sins, they “belong in hell.�
On the recordings, which Matthew made surreptitiously starting in September, Mr. Paszkiewicz is heard telling the class that there were dinosaurs aboard Noah’s ark and that there is no scientific basis for evolution or the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.
Since Matthew turned over the tapes to school officials, his family and supporters said, he has been the target of harassment and a death threat from fellow students and “retaliation� by school officials who have treated him, not the teacher, as the problem. The retaliation, they say, includes the district’s policy banning students from recording what is said in class without a teacher’s permission and officials’ refusal to punish students who have harassed Matthew. [full text]
Kmareka.com 
Wouldn’t you agree, particularly after the last election, that it’s popular to be against the war in Iraq, and therefore a vote to continue would be courageous? If you refer, rather, to standing up to one’s own party, then I assume you agree that Sen. Lieberman is quite courageous, as he was the only Democrat to stand up for what he believes is right.
The student you cite is indeed brave, and should be commended, although taping the teacher without permission might not have been the best idea. Reminds me of other brave people, like Linda Tripp, who taped conversations exposing a President’s lies and inappropriate behavior, only to be prosecuted for taping illegally. Or how about URI student Nathaniel Nelson, who exposed the harassment he endured as a Christian and a conservative from a professor who promoted the gay agenda throughout his history class. (here)
Courage isn’t exclusive to one side of the political spectrum.
True enough that “courage isn’t exclusive to one side of the political spectrum.” That’s why I noted the courageous stand taken by past and present Republican senators from Maine. But I believe that there is a difference between “standing for right when it is unpopular”—as Matthew LaClair seemed to do—and standing for what you believe is right but is, in fact, morally questionable when it is unpopular—as Joe Lieberman has seemed to do in his persistent support for the war in Iraq and other dubious Bush administration policies and practices. Yes, it may take guts to swim against the tide of what’s popular or mainstream. In that sense, vocal bigotry against African Americans, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, et al. could be construed as courageous. But the seeming courage of a stand does not make it right or laudable.
So you would define courage as behavior that moves a person closer to your political or moral beliefs? Seriously then, would you consider Linda Tripp courageous? How about Nathaniel Nelson?
It makes for an interesting discussion. I think it’s courageous for President Bush and Joe Lieberman to stand firm against terrorists and in favor of a free democratic Iraq despite the difficulties and the rising public opinion weary of such. But I also think it was courageous for Russ Feingold and Lincoln Chafee to vote against the war when all others did not. Those jumping ship because things are going as well as hoped, like Snowe, Collins, H. Clinton, and Edwards, seem the least courageous. do you think Hillary Clinton has shown any courage?
Sorry, Crowd Surfer. Speaking out in a college class isn’t nearly as dangerous as in HS. That’s kind of why you’re there.
Plus, there’s courage and then there’s self-righteousness. The line may be thin, but it’s real. And, seriously, despite all the wrong-wing hoo-ha to the contrary, a Christian viewpoint is still more mainstream than a gay viewpoint. And please spare me the whining about how persecuted Christians are. Close to half of Americans identify themselves as born-again; that pretty much makes them the majority against all the other possibilities.
And then dragging in Bush and Lieberman is a bit much, don’t you think? But what would really have been brave is if GW Bush had volunteered to go to Vietnam, instead of hiding behind daddy’s connections and joining TANG. That was a really cowardly thing to do.
And it takes no courage to “stand up to terrorists” by sending other people’s kids to go fight while your own family stays safe and sound. That’s the worst kind of cowardice.
And then pretending that he’s all for the soldiers now is also cowardly, especially since he’s never shown the courage to be honest with America about the reality of the situation.
Hey, you brought him up.
I would be lying if I said that my opinion regarding what is “right” was without bias. I do not believe anyone is without bias, We each possess a subjective lens, shaped over time by our environment and experiences, through which we view and interpret the world.
Having said that, I agree that the votes of Feingold and Chafee were courageous. Those who have more recently “jumped ship,” per se, appear less courageous. As far as Senator Clinton, I believe that she has consistently placed politics ahead of principles and, as such, has been anything but courageous in her public stands.
David, of course my view of what’s right is subjective. I agree. But it shouldn’t prevent you from realizing the courage that exists in those with whom you may disagree. Why can you see the courage of Chafee, who bucked his party and popular perception back in 2002, but not the courage of Lieberman who does the same today. It’s precisely the problem with current political discourse. One only needs to read the response of “klaus” above to see the effects of such tunnelvision. The answer to everything is “Bush is a liar” and “Bush hid from Vietnam” and “Blame those darn Christians”. This requires no courage at all.
OK, let’s see what a match does to your straw man.
I didn’t “blame” Christians for anything. So stop casting yourself as a poor, helpless victim. I simply pointed out that Christians–and Born Again Christians–represent by far the largest religious group in the country. As such, the onus is on you to explain how it takes oh so much courage to defend the majority opinion.
That’s all I asked for.
And you were the one who brought Bush into this.
I didn’t call Bush a liar. I said he is is a draft dodger and a coward. He dodged the draft, and nothing can change that. He supported the war, but was too cowardly to risk his own life, and now he’s willing to send thousands and thousands of brave men & women off to risk theirs. And then he’s willing to ignore their problems when they return.
And all the while he’s wrapping himself in a flag–or a flightsuit–and telling everyone how much he supports the troops. Even as he cuts their leaves short, extends their tours, and refuses to let them leave the military when their hitch is over.
I have to admit I am grateful that you did bring Bush into this. He is such a great example of what courage isn’t that I almost feel a bit guilty taking advantage of you by pointing out what a bad example he is to your position on courage.
The difference between Chaffee then and Lieberman now is three (almost 4) years of actual experience on the ground in Iraq. Count ’em: Four Years. Dec 7, 1941 to August 15, 1945 was less time than 3/20/03 to present.
Lieberman wants to pursue the failed policy of the last four years. That is the difference. It’s not that he has no right to say what he does; rather, it’s that what he says makes no sense in any rational world.
So if you’re not comfortable defending Bush’s record, or Lieberman’s position, don’t bring them up. Just don’t whine about the big meanies who drive a Humvee through the holes in your “arguments.”
And speaking of which–four years later, and our soldiers still don’t have Humvees that are fully armored. Remember the soldier who asked Rumsfeld about that…how many years ago? I sure do. Apparently, these soldiers aren’t important enough to make this any kind of priority for our president.