Partisanship
There's a rather long article in the Washington Post today that explains a "survey based experiment" that the Post did relating to how 9/11 effects politics. Starting from the strong, almost universal unity that occurred right after that day it traces how quickly - how stunningly fast - politics reverted to business as usual. Or possibly worse partisanship.
The bipartisanship that appeared spontaneously in the aftermath of the attacks was quickly swallowed up by a resurgence of partisan differences among voters and politicians. National security emerged not as a source of unity, but as a new fault line between the two parties, creating a set of issues that have led to bitter disagreement.
The events of Sept. 11, 2001, and their aftermath played out in two national elections, in 2002 and 2004, as President Bush and his team skillfully used the issue of terrorism to expand Republican congressional margins and to retain the White House. And with midterm elections looming in November, Sept. 11 still resonates politically, with fears of terrorism and memories of a nation bound together in shock and sadness capable of affecting the attitudes of some voters.
But in the intervening period, the war in Iraq has assumed a far more prominent role in the political debates and in shaping what have become the negative views of Bush's presidency that have defined much of his second term.
Whether the return to national rancor and partisan conflict was avoidable or inevitable remains a topic of debate, although the evidence tilts in the direction of inevitability. The deep divisions that produced the disputed election of 2000 never disappeared and quickly reasserted themselves shortly after Sept. 11. In a 50-50 America, the lust for political advantage overwhelmed calls for consensus and cooperation.
More fundamentally, the reemergence of security issues highlighted long-standing and heartfelt differences between Republican and Democratic voters over the use of military force and American power to deal with threats old and new. Once Bush fixed his eye on taking out Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, there may have been no way to avoid the political clashes and subsequent divisions that followed.
Somehow it's all Bush's fault. And he manipulated the issue of terrorism. Wow. Just wow. I wonder how this story would have been written without the reporters wearing their dislike for the President out on their sleeves? The rest of the article point to what I think the real conclusion of the article should have been. Images of 9/11 still have a powerful effect on people's attitudes. Those who have chosen to forget 9/11 have reverted back to partisanship, I think.
The media, shortly after 9/11 made a conscious decision to suppress the 9/11 images. People who did not want to think about the issue were able to revert to other patterns of thought. That made the divide seem even greater than it was before, I think. That reversion to old thought patterns allow people like Bill Keller to override the good of the country and publish the details of secret programs. That's my analysis of the Post's experiment. I don't think it's any less valid than Post's.
Like it or not, believe it or not, we are at war with terrorists. One party right now is fundamentally unserious about the defense of this nation because they do not have the courage to face up to the furthest fringe elements who frankly blame America for all that is wrong in the world. They stand by and let those fringe elements go after one of the few people that have credibility on national defense. They let that fringe dominate political discourse.
By jpe, Sunday, 16 July , 2006 @ 8:38 am
Like it or not, believe it or not, we are at war with terrorists.
That’s what the left was trying to tell Bush before Iraq. What took you so long to figure it out?