In the foreword of my recent book “The Quiet Hero,” former Senator and World War II hero Bob Dole wrote “The character of a nation can well be determined by how it pays homage to its heroes.”

“The Quiet Hero” (http://TheQuietHero.com) is the biography of George E. Wahlen, a Medal of Honor recipient who earned our nation’s highest honor at the battle for Iwo Jima. 

Allow me to briefly explain his heroism:

On February 19, 1945, George landed on Iwo Jima with his Marine company of 250 men. As a corpsman, his job was to go out beyond the lines and give medical aid to the wounded. He was hit several times and could have been evacuated on each occasion. But because he stayed on the battlefield, he saved the lives many Marines. His story remains one of the most incredible accounts of heroism in U.S. military history.

He received the Medal of Honor from President Truman, his official medal citation reads like a rejected John Wayne movie script too grand to be believed. After returning from Iwo Jima, he spent nine months in a rehabilitation hospital. After discharge, he came home and stuffed the Medal of Honor in a dresser and told no one about it. Even his wife didn’t know he was a national war hero until years after they were married. She only learned by chance after she curiously opened an invitation for George to attend the inauguration of President Eisenhower.

He spent almost six decades trying to forget Iwo Jima. Fortunately, the years have dulled the pain, and he agreed to tell me the sobering details of his story. Hence the book.

His actions sets the gold standard for heroism, at least in my mind.  But I have often wondered how others would attribute the word “hero” to someone who did not exhibit a similar level of valor or gallantry. 

I have yet to find a common definition of heroism, something I believed would be a no-brainer.  But I have since learned that the word is often defined by social context and political ideology.

I’ve seen the word hero follow words like “rock and roll,” “Dungeons and Dragons,” “dog,” “baseball” or  “dental.”

I’ve seen “hero” defined by various student groups, activists and political entities with such words as tolerant, generous, compassionate, philanthropist,  humble, or advocate.

Of greater interest to me are the people they consider to be heroes.  They include Muhammad Ali, Malcom X, Robert Mapplethorpe, John Lennon, or Bob Dylan. One site concocts the feminine word “shero,”  and infers a disdain for the predominance of heroes that are “traditionally dominated” by men. They cite “sheroes” like Betty Freidan, Gloria Stienem, and Barbara Jordan. Their definitions were also broad enough to include influential “social heroes” like AIDS, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the “Live Aid” benefit concerts of the eighties.  (http://www.heroism.org)

Because our language lacks sufficient terms to describe our ever-complex existence, the language has become increasingly muddled.  Think of how difficult it is for people who are learning English as a second language, to read a sentence like: “They were too close to the door to close it,” or “Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.”

If you harken back to your fifth grade English class, you may recall learning about homophones (words that are pronounced alike, but not necessarily spelled alike) and

homographs (words that have the same spelling as another, but can differ in meaning or pronunciation).

I propose that we should add “hero” to the long list of homographs like “bottom” (below) and “bottom” (your backside); or “bank” (for money) and “bank” (riverside).  By defining hero as a homograph, we could avoid the inherent conflict between those of opposing political and social ideologies who insist on diluting the word beyond the point of usefulness.

So, here’s my proposal: the word “hero” should become a standardized homograph with these three distinct definitions:  1- a person who acts selflessly while securing the safety of others; 2- a sandwich of generally Italian flavor; 3- a belief in a social ideal, role model, or desired social outcome.

With the hero being a homograph, you could reasonably say, “Be a hero, go to the deli and get a hero so we can honor this American hero.”

If we allow the Bob Dylan’s and Betty Friedan’s of the world to be mentioned as heroic equals to the George Wahlen’s of the world,  then we can only expect future generations to use words like “valor,” “bravery,” and “gallantry” to mean nothing more than doing a little above average