Open Question: What should 9/11 mean?

Quite appropriately, today is a day remembering the victims of the September 11th attacks. In New York and Washington DC, family members are once again gathering to remember fallen loved ones at ground zero and the Pentagon. Thankfully, the presidential candidates are also stepping back from politics to participate together in a forum on public service at Columbia University. The day itself remains sacrosanct.

However, our memory of September 11th is not so holy in American politics the other 364 days of the year. Politicians use their roles on that day or what that day now symbolizes in the war on terror for their own gains on a regular basis. Perhaps we are still not far enough removed from that day politically for us to have the proper perspective. A good indication of that is the fact that Giuliani and George W. Bush, the mayor of New York and the President on September 11th, are still very active in American politics. I think we are already starting to see from McCain and Obama that politics is moving on, albeit at a very slow pace.

Personally, I think the day should eventually be remembered as an everyman’s version of December 7th 1941. Something that unites us as a country into remembering that there are bigger things than politics. That we are all citizens of this country, that at our core we all stand together, and that we all have the potential to stand for something heroic.

That´s just my opinion though, and I think this merits some discussion.

Gates and Bloomberg: praiseworthy, but it raises questions…

First of all, I want to say that I personally appreciate the principle behind what these two are doing to curb smoking. A true libertarian might argue that a campaign like this on what is essentially a lifestyle choice is oppressive, and cigarette smokers might just think that these two guys being up on their high horse telling them what they shouldn’t do is as annoying as 8th grade D.A.R.E. class, but I’m not either of those, so I say kudos. Cigarette smoking is addictive and unhealthy and at the very least someone should make sure that people are well-informed about that worldwide. Nonetheless, I think this raises some interesting questions.

I’ll start with Bloomberg. Yes, he’s a billionaire, but he is also the current mayor of New York and an oft-discussed potential presidential candidate. Is it right for him to publicly use his money in a way that could influence voters–even if it is for charity? Let’s imagine that instead of funding an anti-smoking campaign he purchased lunch for a number of poor voters in Ohio and Florida, would that be alright? How different are these two? Referring back to avschwarm’s post on campaign finance, is this also an unfair political use of money?

Alright, on to Gates. Its hard to argue that what he has been doing with his money isn’t a good thing, and I don’t intend to do so. However, I think there are some broader questions about him that deserve some discussion: is it a socially beneficial outcome for someone to be able to accumulate such wealth (through arguably monopolistic behavior) so that they can then decide how to spend that money trying to fix the social problems of an unequal society? Rockefeller and Carnegie were both quite philanthropic with their money and society benefitted tremendously, but would we have been better off had they not become rich through monopolistic means? Does Gates have an obligation to give money away through his foundation? On a personal level, what obligation do we all have to be public servants-billionaires or not?

Finally, what does it say about society that we tacitly depend on the whims of billionaires to address some of our most pressing global problems?

Alright, so the last question is certainly heavy-handed, but nonetheless important. They are all tough questions, but I do not think we should shy away from them.