David S. Broder and Dan Balz have a must read piece in the Washington Post titled “How Common Ground of 9/11 Gave Way to Partisan Split.” It must be read IN FULL to be appreciated but here are two key sections:
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 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.
Today, the war in Iraq and the economy’s mixed signals rank higher than terrorism as voting issues. Public attitudes on Iraq are by now well fixed, to the detriment of the president. Those on the economy are subject to change, depending on whether the dominant news of the summer and fall is good or bad.
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.
But, the WaPo reporters note, a survey by the paper and a Stanford University prof show that 911 reminders DO still play to Bush’s (and by implication the GOP’s) favor, in the eyes of voters:
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 in 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.
In reality, it was a historic, unprecedented opportunity for strengthening national unity and for using an unspeakable tragedy to help foster a greater sense of bipartisanship. The piece details how the GOP successfully used the national security issue in 2002 and 2004 against the Democrats and the spiraling political division. Did it have to end the way it has? Here’s another key section:
Could the reversion to the partisanship that prevailed before Sept. 11 have been averted by different presidential leadership?
One view comes from Lee H. Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman from Indiana who was co-chairman of the commission that investigated the events that led up to 9/11 and recommended sweeping changes in America’s counterterrorism strategy and organization.
“You would not expect the massive unity we saw in the immediate aftermath of the attacks to continue indefinitely,” Hamilton said in an interview. “But you would also not expect it to dissipate as quickly as it did. The president could have consulted more with Congress and with allies, and generally been more inclusive, rather than expand executive power as much as he did. Rather than go off on his own on Guantanamo and national surveillance, he could have done a lot more to maintain unity. But he would not have been entirely successful, even under the best of circumstances.”
There’s a lot more in this long, Sunday piece –including the serious challenge facing Democrats who must still convince the electorate that their party is trustworthy on national security issues. But, overall, it’s an account of the truly sad tale about how national unity was within the nation’s grasp and how it was lost amid the bitter struggle for partisan advantage. A struggle that accentuates with every passing day.
For the Democrats the bad news is that the party still has to prove itself. For Bush and the Republicans the bad news is that the White House and GOP have lost the trust of some Americans who feel their willingness to set aside partisanship was seen as a sign of weaknesss and used against them — Americans who therefore might be disinclined to trust the White House and GOP that much again if there is another 911-style attack.
UPDATE: Here’s a NEW EXAMPLE of a truly reprehensible partisan use of 911 images. (Thank yew Americablog for the tip.)
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.