Twenty-five years after the September 11 attacks, the author of a recent Time article argues that Americans must remember the unifying force that emerged from tragedy rather than succumbing to current political polarization. The piece reflects on the decade the writer served as the founding CEO of the National 9/11 Memorial & Museum, during which they collected countless personal stories from strangers.
According to the former director, these narratives rarely remained focused solely on the day of the attacks. Instead, they typically described the weeks and months that followed, highlighting acts of civic duty such as volunteers driving hundreds of miles to Ground Zero, children enlisting in memory of victims, and hosts opening their homes to displaced travelers. These accounts illustrate how grief was channeled into service and communal purpose.
While it may be tempting to view pre-9/11 America through a nostalgic lens, the author notes that the country was already deeply divided. The Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision occurred just nine months prior, and the impeachment of President Bill Clinton had shaken the nation three years earlier. However, the attacks temporarily bridged these partisan divides, reminding citizens of a common cause beneath their disagreements.
The text emphasizes that the 2,977 victims represented 92 nations and a wide spectrum of backgrounds, faiths, and political views. Their diversity embodied the American experiment, and the collective response to the tragedy underscored a tacit acknowledgment that this pluralistic society was worth protecting.
Today, however, the author expresses alarm not over a loss of solidarity, but over an erosion of consensus regarding the rules of political engagement. Recent data indicates that only 66% of Americans consider democratic governance extremely or very important to national identity, a decline from 80% in 2021. Furthermore, surveys suggest that approximately one in five Americans supports harassment or violence against political opponents, and merely 14% of adults aged 18 to 34 express strong pride in being American.
These statistics reflect a troubling trend toward moral absolutism in political discourse. The author draws parallels to the construction of the 9/11 Memorial, which faced intense debate over the arrangement of names, the depiction of the hijackers, and the portrayal of America’s response. Despite these conflicts being rooted in grief and deep conviction, stakeholders remained committed to the process.
The experience demonstrated that pluralism does not require agreement, but rather the willingness to accept losses in debate while remaining engaged. The author stresses that democracy depends on distinguishing between legitimate dissent and the abandonment of democratic restraints. Foundational principles such as the rule of law, free expression, and equal citizenship are not partisan preferences to be renegotiated after every election, but essential terms of societal cooperation.
As the 25th anniversary approaches, the article calls for a renewed commitment to the idea that freedoms apply equally to political opponents and allies alike. It concludes that democracy is valuable not because it eliminates differences, but because it provides a mechanism for living with them, preserving the union despite divergent visions for its future.
Skeptical about this ‘shared values’ framing. My party doesn’t agree with half the decisions that followed that day.
Sixty-six percent supporting democracy is a drop, but surely there are ways to re-engage disaffected citizens beyond nostalgia?
I recall the volunteer efforts well. That spontaneous civic duty was powerful, but can we replicate it without catastrophe?
Interesting point about pre-9/11 divisions. History shows unity often blooms from tragedy, but that shouldn’t be the only trigger.
The decline in democratic pride among younger Americans is genuinely alarming. We need to address this now.