How accurate is this description of the politics of post-9/11 2001 and 2002?

[darklordoftech]

I've heard people say that in post-9/11 2001 and much of 2002, they were afraid to tell family and friends that they were Democrats, that they opposed the Bush tax cuts, that they were pro-choice, that they wanted stronger gun laws, that they cared about the environment, etc. because the popular sentiment was, "You either think Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are the second coming of Jesus and his Disciples, or you're a terrorist." Is this an accurate description of the political climate?

[KingSweden]

I was kind of young but yeah, it was you were with Bush or you were al-Qaeda to a lot of Republicans

[|˶˙ᵕ˙ )ﾉﾞ]

Very true. Democrats were very easily bullied back then. Bush Jr basically got everything he wanted because he knew Dems were weak

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When I criticized Bush, a friend of mine said I shouldn't criticize him because he was a great guy. A couple of years later the same friend said "Bush is a war criminal".

[Sestak]

Just look at what happened to Max Cleland and you’ll have your answer.

[Crumpets]

It of course varied a lot depending on where you were in the country, but knowing that there was plenty of this even in godless pinko commie Seattle, I imagine it was all that and more in the deep (non-Atlas) red parts of America.

[darklordoftech]

Just look at what happened to Max Cleland and you’ll have your answer.

I'm talking about people who disagreed with Bush on issues that weren't related to 9/11 and/or Iraq. Notice that the issues that I listed in the OP were issues unrelated to 9/11 and/or Iraq that Bush and the GOP had certain views on.

[Mette Frederiksen Stan]

As for criticizing Bush, perhaps. But in general, it didn't seem to be much a liability to be a Democrat at that point, Dems won both gubernatorial elections just 2 months after 9/11, and look at the huge number of red state gubernatorial wins for Dems in 2002.

[SingingAnalyst]

I've heard people say that in post-9/11 2001 and much of 2002, they were afraid to tell family and friends that they were Democrats, that they opposed the Bush tax cuts, that they were pro-choice, that they wanted stronger gun laws, that they cared about the environment, etc. because the popular sentiment was, "You either think Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are the second coming of Jesus and his Disciples, or you're a terrorist." Is this an accurate description of the political climate?

Accurate, and not far off (if not worded quite that way). Issues not directly related to national security took a way-back seat. One poll I read showed that nearly half (43% I believe) felt any criticism of the President was unpatriotic, with a majority (52%) of Southerners feeling that way.

[SingingAnalyst]

As for criticizing Bush, perhaps. But in general, it didn't seem to be much a liability to be a Democrat at that point, Dems won both gubernatorial elections just 2 months after 9/11, and look at the huge number of red state gubernatorial wins for Dems in 2002.

Interesting take, and true to a great extent. For example, the suburban enclave of Huntington Woods in Metro Detroit voted 68.8% - 31.2% in favor of a gay rights ordinance, less than 2 months after 9/11. News of Mark Bingham's heroism may have created a sympathy vote effect--but still.

In neighboring Southfield, however, Mayor Don Fracassi, who is white and who had narrowly been re-elected in 1997 by less than 1% of the vote, was voted out in 2001 in this city with a then rapidly-growing Black population-- but only by about 5%, a much smaller margin that expected given the growth of the Black (and decline of the white) population. It is as though white voters "rallied 'round the flag" and voted for Fracassi, who had been in office since 1972. (Footnote: the winner of that 2001 race, Brenda Lawrence, is now a US Congresswoman).

[Sir Mohamed]

Didn't the word "liberal" turn into a dirty one two decades earlier?

[SingingAnalyst]

Didn't the word "liberal" turn into a dirty one two decades earlier?

Yes, toward the end of the Carter years in fact. The term had come to mean soft on Communism, soft on crime, supportive of welfare dependency. Reagan ran against "liberalism" in 1980 and won big.

Dukakis ran away from the term until the final weeks of his 1988 campaign, but Bush 41 used the term all the time to describe Dukakis.

Clinton's pivot after the 1994 midterms took some of the sting out of the word. Today, I understand the term is viewed much more positively, again.

[dead0man]

no


maybe in certain places at certain times, but not in general, no.

[Brittain33]

Set aside how you talked about Bush and Giuliani vs. identifying as a Democrat and supporting Democratic policies.

It was ok to talk about being a Democrat and supporting Democratic policies. You might not get taken seriously or seen as relevant, but it wasn't something under attack.

Being critical of Bush or Giuliani, or how they and other Republicans fronting the response to the terrorists, was heavily suppressed as we were all supposed to rally behind our brave leaders. This later extended to how you talked about the run-up to the war in Iraq. Nevertheless, as we got into 2002 and 2003 and the drumbeat for war in Iraq was starting, people protested and spoke out. They just weren't taken seriously by anyone in government.

[dead0man]

Nevertheless, as we got into 2002 and 2003 and the drumbeat for war in Iraq was starting, people protested and spoke out. They just weren't taken seriously by anyone in government.

indeed.  In the same way Trump has shown us today that nobody in the GOP has a spine or integrity, the Iraq War showed us the same thing about Democrats.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Didn't the word "liberal" turn into a dirty one two decades earlier?

"Liberal" became a dirty word after the McGovern debacle of 1972.  It was assumed McGovern was too "liberal".  Lots of Democrats tried to portray themselves as something other than McGovern, in order to preserve their viability as Presidential candidates.

[darklordoftech]

Didn't the word "liberal" turn into a dirty one two decades earlier?

"Liberal" became a dirty word after the McGovern debacle of 1972.  It was assumed McGovern was too "liberal".  Lots of Democrats tried to portray themselves as something other than McGovern, in order to preserve their viability as Presidential candidates.

And as far as I know, the only way in which McGovern was more liberal than Lyndon and Humphrey was the Vietnam War.

[darklordoftech]

The GOP's inability to distinguish its political opponents from national security threats is part of why Trump happened.

[Beet]

No; that wasn't accurate at all. Bush's popularity at that time was bipartisan and nonpartisan. You could be a Republican, a Democrat, or independent, and have six different possible views on the environment, and it wouldn't matter. Laura Bush actually said in 2000 that Roe v. Wade was settled law, and Bush was a supporter of the Assault Weapons Ban. There was a lot less Islamophobia too, ironically enough. I remember asking one Muslim friend after 9/11 if he felt discriminated against, and he said "It's never been better."

9/11 didn't start becoming politicized until Bush started campaigning on it in late 2002, and then tried to sell the war on it. There was a huge increase in polarization in late 2002/early 2003. This finally broke into the political world in late spring 2003 when Howard Dean gave a speech where he borrowed from Paul Wellstone, "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." This eventually started progressive activists down a path to move the Democrats to the left which continues all the way down to AOC. At that time, Dean was considered a faaaar left kook. He was considered so far left, his infamous "scream" was actually taken as a sign of derangement. The ironic thing is, he would probably be forced to resign today if he said anything like "we need [the votes of] the guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks."

[Brittain33]

No; that wasn't accurate at all. Bush's popularity at that time was bipartisan and nonpartisan. You could be a Republican, a Democrat, or independent, and have six different possible views on the environment, and it wouldn't matter. Laura Bush actually said in 2000 that Roe v. Wade was settled law, and Bush was a supporter of the Assault Weapons Ban. There was a lot less Islamophobia too, ironically enough. I remember asking one Muslim friend after 9/11 if he felt discriminated against, and he said "It's never been better."

9/11 didn't start becoming politicized until Bush started campaigning on it in late 2002, and then tried to sell the war on it. There was a huge increase in polarization in late 2002/early 2003. This finally broke into the political world in late spring 2003 when Howard Dean gave a speech where he borrowed from Paul Wellstone, "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." This eventually started progressive activists down a path to move the Democrats to the left which continues all the way down to AOC. At that time, Dean was considered a faaaar left kook. He was considered so far left, his infamous "scream" was actually taken as a sign of derangement. The ironic thing is, he would probably be forced to resign today if he said anything like "we need [the votes of] the guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks."

Just for the record, since we all recognize Beet is a troll, this is about 15% accurate, and not worth engaging with.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Democrats got bullied in 2002 for being unamerican and for the "tarrists" while the economy floundered and the GOP blamed it on 9/11 and Bush encouraged us to take the kids to Disney World.

The GOP did well in the 2002 elections and were flying high in 2003 with Iraq and the economy finally turning around.  2004 was very divisive and the GOP kept trying to go on the "yer fer the tarrists her der" thing and squeaked out a victory.

Then 2005 happened and it all went to hell for them and by 2006 everybody made fun of the GOP with comments of a fat elephant knocking on your door in a scary costume and saying BOO! To try and scare you into voting for them.

[หมูเด้ง]

Just look at what happened to Max Cleland and you’ll have your answer.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I think most people misunderstood the OP's question.

To answer the question, not as described.

It's true that criticism of Bush was very frowned upon in the time immediately following 9/11. However simply expressing views on non-"national security" issues contrary to his was just as mainstream as before. Of course using them to attack Bush would still be frowned and even liberals weren't too concerned with abortion or tax cuts on Sept. 12, 2001...

As noted the Democrats did pick up two governorship following 9/11, a bunch more in 2002 and despite losing the Senate that year picked up a seat in Arkansas. Max Cleland isn't a good example, he was attacked on national security. Mary Landrieu still got re-elected. Support for Bush was kind of non-partisan, he was seen as the American President, not a Republican President.


This period also didn't last long. Bush's approval ratings were record breaking after 9/11, but by the time the anniversary came he was "only" in the mid-high 60s. Way better than anything in his second term, any of Obama's, or anything Trump will ever get, but close to 1-in-3 people hating Bush again is hardly fringe and meant Bush was quite unpopular in the most liberal enclaves. I remember The Daily Show was back to savage and frequent Bush bashing by the summer of '02. Of course by this time the focus had shifted to Iraq and Bush drumming up support for that war and while he got pretty massive support at first, opposition was very mainstream. A majority of House Democrats voted against it. The post-partisan era was never going to last and Bush did everything he could to expedite the decay.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I was kind of young but yeah, it was you were with Bush or you were al-Qaeda to a lot of Republicans

I remember this vividly. Look what happened to the Dixie Chicks.

[RINO Tom]

As someone who wasn't in pre-school during that time, that is nothing but hyperbole.