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

[หมูเด้ง]

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?

Anyone who was “afraid” of expressing these views were probably pussies anyways.

On the other hand, I was 16 and didn't care. Or at least I thought many of those things were up to reasonable discussion in my naiveté. I was pretty conservative on a few things and liberal or radical on others. My thinking is that a lot of people were like that. This all changed when I moved to Fremont County, Wyoming from Pinellas County, Florida.

[darklordoftech]

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.

Thank you for addressing the non-national-security-related political climate of the era.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I'll also note that Jerry Falwell's remark about gays being responsible for 9/11 by invoking God's wrath or whatever received a massive backlash. And that was just a couple days post-9/11.

[หมูเด้ง]

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?

Anyone who was “afraid” of expressing these views were probably pussies anyways.

On the other hand, I was 16 and didn't care. Or at least I thought many of those things were up to reasonable discussion in my naiveté. I was pretty conservative on a few things and liberal or radical on others. My thinking is that a lot of people were like that. This all changed when I moved to Fremont County, Wyoming from Pinellas County, Florida.

My parents are die hard liberal Democrats and lived in a district that was a 60-36% Bush in 2000 and the city of Huntington Beach likely voted 30+ points for him given that it’s a republican stronghold within the district limits.

They didn’t have face any backlash after 9/11 regarding their views on Iraq and Bush. OP is being hyperpbolic af. No surprise seeing atlas 13 year olds agreeing with OP’s sentiment.

The ironic fact is that in the lead up to the Iraq War, I was defending Bush's position in Civics class against a bunch of Republicans who wanted to leave the Middle East alone. This was all when I identified as a Democrat (though the stances I took back then would probably have made me a total fence sitter today) Great times.

[หมูเด้ง]

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.

Thank you for addressing the non-national-security-related political climate of the era.

We were pretty much done with it by the spring of 2004. Any sooner than that and Bush was still at Honeymoon levels of popularity despite the poor-ish economy. By election night itself, I was amazed that Bush was running away with the thing compared to what he did in 2000. I honestly thought that Kerry was on track to win with Ohio or at least get as close as Gore did with a win in NM and Iowa.

 2004 was definitely that transition period from the era of September 12th to what we had to deal with ever since with things basically swinging back and forth with the exception of a honeymoon period for Democrats for the few months immediately before and after the 2008 election.

[Brittain33]

As a Democrat, I definitely felt outnumbered from 9/11 through 2005. I have never once felt that way since, not even after Election Day 2016.

[courts]

definitely depends where you were

[darklordoftech]

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

It seems to me that the Democrats followed the "water's edge" rule, meaning that they gave Bush whatever he wanted when it came to foreign policy in hopes of getting what they wanted when it came to domestic policy.

[Blue3]

Inaccurate... only accurate in the cases of national security and foreign policy, not stretching to everything, though their approval ratings were very high.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I can't really say. I never really embraced identifying as a liberal until I was old enough to understand politics at its most basic level at like age 12, following the Iraq War, which I immediately thought was a dumb idea, and during the 2004 election.

[IceSpear]

I wasn't really cognizant of politics then, but I don't recall ever hearing any criticism of Bush in day to day life until 2003 or so.

[RINO Tom]

I wasn't really cognizant of politics then, but I don't recall ever hearing any criticism of Bush in day to day life until 2003 or so.

Living in a liberal area (Iowa City), there were certainly people who were going to hate Bush post-2000 election no matter what he did (with perhaps a feel-good post-9/11 "re-evaluation" that faded in about three months).