How Common Ground of 9/11 Gave Way to Partisan Split
It was the moment that was supposed to change everything. But almost five years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, American politics has reverted to many of its old habits and patterns…. 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 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.
For a time, in the aftermath of 9.11, the rest of the world was WITH us. How sympathetic were the people of the world? A million people marched in the streets of TEHRAN in support of the US. Other countrues not normally or previously known for being overwhelmingly supportive of American foreign policy put their various and assorted grudges behind them in order to show their support. We had a very real opportunity to use this era of good feeling to show the rest of the world that the US could indeed play well with others.
So what happened? Well, we invaded Iraq- a country that had nothing to do with 9.11- and the rest of the world quickly realized that American foreign policy is thoroughly self-centered and really has little to do with what people in other countries think of us. It’s true; the American government really doesn’t play well with others. Of course, being the only remaining superpower in the world- the new Rome- reflects the New World Order. And what makes America look like the bully it’s become is that, by the neo-Conservative way of thinking, we don’t have to play with others- at all.
Here in the US, the neo-Con Amerika uber Alles philosophy has translated into the “If you don’t support the President, then you support the terrorists” attitude so prevalent in current Republican philosophy. That this attitude has completely cut off any rational discussion of our policy in Iraq only makes matters that much worse.
9.11 should have been an event that catalyzed this country into coming together to fight a common enemy, an enemy that is still out there and still has it out for us. Instead, it has been so highly politicized by those on the Right that this is no longer any possibility of have a rational, bipartisan discussion of how best to protect the Homeland.
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….
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 were 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.
The fundamental question now is what role our military should play. Should it be used to project American power around the globe? Must we be involved in events worldwide in an active and aggressive effort to protect American interests and security? Does being the world’s only remaining superpower give us the right to play moral policeman to the world? Do we have the right to use American military might to spread American-style democracy around the world in an effort to make the world a safer place for Americans…regardless of the citizens of the countries in question may think?
The war in Afghanistan, at least iniitally, was justifiable in the sense that it was a legiimate operation designed to bring those responsible for 9.11 to justice. Iraq, though, has never been anything but an exercise in naked aggression. While no reasonable person would ever argue that Saddam Hussein was a decent and honorable despot, we invaded a sovereign nation based on fudged intelligence, false pretexts, propaganda, and deception. The war in Iraq was sold to us as necessary in order to prevent Hussein from using the vast stash of weapons of mass destruction he had stockpiled throught Iraq. That no WMDs have ever been found, and that the Administration has been reduced to trying to sell alternate justifications for invading Iraq only serves to highlight how dishonest and manipulative this Adminstration has been. And if you think it’s bad now, just wait until the fall campaign season heats up.
While terrorism remains a constant threat, it has subsided in the minds of many voters as the principal issue that will determine their vote in November.
Still, a survey experiment commissioned by The Washington Post and conducted by Stanford University communications Prof. Shanto Iyengar showed that, even five years later, visual reminders of the attacks of Sept. 11 can — modestly — affect attitudes about Bush, the causes of terrorism and how to combat it.
“The best way of summarizing this pattern of results is that it appears as though President Bush has a 9/11 halo,” Iyengar said. “When people see 9/11, they immediately respond more positively to the president. In this context, given that his evaluations are fairly low, what we’re saying is, it makes them less negative.”
That makes it likely that reminders of those attacks and threats of global terrorism again will be seen in campaign ads for this fall’s elections and in 2008. Just as likely, given public attitudes, are images of America’s troubles in Iraq, with the first signs coming this month with an Internet ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee showing flag-draped coffins of U.S. soldiers.
These images will be put to work in the service of partisan advantage rather than national unity, a far cry from the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when extravagant claims about the lasting effects abounded.
You can count on seeing many Republican campaign commercials employing the imagery of 9.11 in an effort to convince the American sheeple that they are they party of strength and security. If they can do that, then Democrats should have every right to point out that our policy of aggression is an expensive one. It’s sad that the publica dialogue has come to this, but here we are. It ain’t pretty, and it sure ain’t right, but Democrats simply cannot allow Republicans to gain political advantage from exploiting 9.11 and the War on Terror.
In a perfect world, we’d be able to talk across the ideoloical divide and find a way to restore America’s reputation among the international community. As long as Republicans are in power, though, this will be impossible, and we will continue to be seen as the world’s biggest bully.
Still glad you voted Republican??
WE DESERVE BETTER.
