So this is not a thread about "pussification" or whatever. I've just noticed that the war heroes we tell are no longer about "bad-ass" soldiers defeating his enemies, but usually about a guy who stuck his neck out further than he had to and saved people because of it.
In no way am I saying that one hero less worthy than the other but just immediately visually this Medal of Honor recipient looks a hell of a lot different than the guys in this Cracked Article.
If I had to guess, I would think that opinions changed after WWII which is usually when people looked back and thought "Wow war really sucks." But some of the people in the cracked article are post-WWII. So I'm sure that it's hard to pinpoint an exact time, but I'd be interested to hear some insight on this.
The main reason is simply lack of opportunity.
This lack of opportunity manifests itself in different ways.
Infantry battles are rare - they happen rather unexpectedly (raids, ambushes) and are over rather quickly (the insurgents either hit and run or get absolutely wiped out by modern reinforcements and firepower). The situation in which a squad of guys is surrounded by a hundred rampaging enemy is nowhere near common because we have better ways of doing so now.
The wars themselves are smaller. In WW2 it was necessary to kill thousands of Japanese dudes every single day and someone had to do it. Nowadays its more about picking out targets and finding leaders and all sorts of other ways of killing that don't involve thousands of men chucking grenades at each other.
Society is less tolerant of violence in general. (That is to say Actual Violence and not Tv/videogames/etc). It is no longer politically correct to brag to the press about storming in a room and shooting up 12 guys.
In 1944 that would have been considered something really badass to do, even if those 12 guys were a bunch of underage Korean conscripts with no training and poor morale. Nowadays the press would wonder if all of them were armed, were they wounded first, were any of them attempting to surrender?
These sort of "badass" things happen but they are less reported as before because it is considered too jingoistic/bloodthirsty etc.
There are zillions of anti-war anti-military people that would get pissed off to read a report about how Sgt GI Joe killed 4 terrorists with his bare hands. But generally everyone is okay hearing about GI Joe rushing out into a mortar bombardment to Save Lives at the risk of his own - many people hate killing but everyone loves rescues.
All of those listed in the article did crazy stupid things because they were caught in crazy stupid situations. Perhaps what you are pointing to is that the US military is not as reckless in it's actions as in the past or other nations less professional militarized currently are, and so soldiers do not get caught in these crazy stupid situations and have the necessity of doing crazy stupid things. Just because no American or Western soldier has never climbed a 100 foot ice sheet while being shot to knock out three bunkers doesn't mean that they wouldn't, a modern western nation would have the professional knowledge and capability to air strike them or hit them with an artillery barrage and this it is just not necessary.
To say modern soldiers are not as brave or "bad ass" is near offensive, especially considering most modern soldiers are volunteers and many in the past were conscripted. Keep in mind many wars in the past lost mental casualties faster than actual casualties, and with soldiers who had been deployed for extremely short times and many times nowhere near any actual danger.
EDIT: Excessively putting yourself in danger to kill is insanity, excessively putting yourself in danger to save people is bravery.
usually about a guy who stuck his neck out further than he had to and saved people because of it.
First off, most MoH recipients will see themselves as exactly this; just doing what they had to do in order to save their brothers-in-arms or their mission.
Secondly, there have been a number of recipients since WWII that would fit what I presume to be your "bad-ass" standard of taking it to the enemy with a vengeance, such as Roy Benavidez (Vietnam, 1968, who reads like a G.I. Joe character), Shughart and Gordon (Somalia, 1993, who voluntarily jumped in to the downed UH-60 in Mogadishu in an effort to slow down several hundred militiamen), or even Paul R. Smith (Iraq, 2003, who reads like a less lucky version of Audie).
Unless you can show some real evidence that the MoH has somehow been reduced in standard, than this question is pretty unfounded.