There is nothing wrong with the hero, per se. The concept began in antiquity as explained by Joseph Campbell to illustrate man's journey into new areas of experience or knowledge. The hero is the paradigm breaker. The western conception of the hero is still often a rule-breaker, but the American idea of a hero is one that advances the current ideology. Superman is an excellent example. In the beginning, Superman as American will to fight the Nazis. Later, Clark Kent represents the 50's company man and Superman, the extension of American military might and economic power Post-WWII. Truth, Justice, and the American Way. AMERICAN WAY. This is not a politically neutral character. Since the American hero, such as Superman, upholds the current way of thinking and the power structures that keep that ideology in place, they are not heroes by definition. They are merely symbolic embodiments of the status-quo meant to maintain and prop-up the status-quo.
I could list some modern heroes here in the areas of human rights, but these people are not heroes proper. The hero is really just a device to transmit stories that illustrate the value of knowledge and traditions that are combating mainstream notions and ideals. The stories are larger-than-life by design, therefore people are really not heroes. People may do good things and make incredible sacrifices but that does not make them heroes, at least in this strict definition of hero.
That said, I will merely reiterate that the hero is an iconclast. That ain't Superman, thus he ain't no hero.