Does anyone seriously think Bruce Wayne can just fix Gotham with his money?
So a criticism of Batman that has come up off-late is the idea that Bruce Wayne, if he really cared about 'saving' Gotham, would simply spend his billions fixing the city and its socioeconomic issues, rather than funding a one-man war against crime.
James Tynion IV has in fact stated that this is one of the reasons why he 'defunded' Batman in his run.
[QUOTE]"First, let’s bring him back to being a less problematic kind of Wealthy. Bruce Wayne, Millionaire, rather than Bruce Wayne, Billionaire," Tynion continued. [B]"He’s not so rich that he could effectively buy Gotham City and fix it overnight.[/B] There are a bunch of much wealthier people than him in the city trying to maintain their power and influence and Batman is from their world and fighting against them, he doesn’t have the ability to just buy and sell them and walk away."
[/QUOTE]
Now, admittedly, I haven't been following his run, so I don't know how this has all played out. Nor is the focus of this post his run.
But this got me thinking - does anyone seriously believe that Bruce Wayne could just single-handedly 'fix' Gotham with his money, making Batman redundant?
Apparently, in Tynion's run, Lucius Fox now has control of the Wayne fortune and he's using that money to fund philantrophic efforts across Gotham. Which is great...but isn't that what Bruce Wayne had been doing anyway all these years? And Thomas and Martha Wayne before him?
Can the philantrophic efforts of one man/company (or hell, [I]all[/I] the philantrophists in Gotham put together) really 'eliminate' crime in Gotham? Or anywhere for that matter? Yes, it can certainly reduce, to some extent, the socioeconomic factors that turn some people towards crime. But will it really strike a blow against organized crime? Or violent psychopaths? Or eccentric criminal masterminds?
Of course, part of the problem is trying to apply real-world logic to Gotham - a city that is supposed to perpetually be a hive of crime and corruption. But in the real-world, if we look at violent street crime, or organized crime for that matter, its usually policy decisions at a city or state (or federal) level that make a difference - policy decisions with regards to the legal/justice system, police powers, the economy, social security, mental health awareness etc. Philantrophists can help out by funding governmental or private initiatives, or supporting political candidates with the right ideas (assuming there are any one-size-fits-all 'right ideas'), but the notion that one man can single-handedly 'fix' a city by throwing around billions of dollars is a bit absurd.
And that's before we consider the fact that Gotham's problem is often not 'normal' crime, but the likes of the Joker, Scarecrow, Riddler, Penguin etc.
Ultimately however, the important thing to remember is the nature of Batman's mission, and his motivation. When he talks about 'saving Gotham' he talks about spending his life 'warring on all criminals'. He's a man who's been psychologically scarred by the loss of his parents to a violent criminal in a dark alleyway...his mission, boiled down to its fundamentals, is about stopping other people from being victims to a Joe Chill. It was never about socioeconomic and political reform in Gotham, even though he does try to contribute to those efforts as well, the way his parents did before him (and its something he likely would have done anyway even if he wasn't Batman).
Would be interested to hear some thoughts about this...