|  |  |
 |  | |
| ||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
 Recent commentary from National Journal: Media: Being There (September 19, 2001) At times this week, viewers had a distinct advantage over many reporters on the scene. By William Powers. Social Studies: What Leaders Said About the Attack—And What They Meant (September 19, 2001) While the French babble about fighting 'causes' of terrorism, Hamas makes clear what the cause really is. By Jonathan Rauch. Legal Affairs: Thinking the Unthinkable: Next Time Could Be Much Worse (September 19, 2001) We must combine surveillance with protection of privacy, violence with restraint in choosing targets. By Stuart Taylor Jr. Media: The Bust That Bores (September 11, 2001) The high-tech bust isn't gripping news because, in part, the key characters are pretty boring. By William Powers. Political Pulse: Who Survives a Political Scandal? (September 11, 2001) Come clean right away, and all will be forgiven. Eventually. By William Schneider. On Books: About Bush's Last 5 Votes (September 11, 2001) We wuz robbed—or were we? A review of books by Richard A. Posner and Alan M. Dershowitz on the Supreme Court's extraordinary—and, among some Democrats, still snarl-producing Bush v. Gore ruling. By David G. Savage. Legal Affairs: Censoring 'Issue Ads': A Direct Assault on Free Speech (September 11, 2001) A greater affront to the ideal of protecting robust criticism of government could scarcely be imagined. By Stuart Taylor Jr. More from National Journal. |
Political Pulse 
Where Were You?Nearly 90 percent of Americans see attacks as 'an act of war' against U.S. by William Schneider .... Shock. Horror. Incomprehension. Can this be compared to any experience in America's collective memory? Americans will remember for the rest of their lives exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the terrible news—like on the day President Kennedy was murdered in 1963. Kennedy's assassination was shocking and terrible, as was the attempt on President Reagan's life in 1981. But it was easy to see those as isolated attacks by deranged individuals. They were tragedies, not national threats. The Challenger space shuttle disaster in 1986 was a terrible accident. There was grief; there was dismay. But there was no national sense of threat. The bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 was clearly the work of terrorists, as were the 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers residence in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and last year's bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. Americans were targeted in all of those cases. But they were not on American soil. The sense of threat intensified after the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, which killed American civilians on a commercial aircraft. But it happened overseas. TWA Flight 800 exploded just off U.S. shores in 1996, but no terrorist role was ever proved. Here's a closer parallel: the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, an attack now, sadly, to be known as the first bombing of that landmark. The 1993 bombing was a terrorist attack on American soil that killed American civilians. But the terrorists were eventually brought to justice. Then came the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. In that case, the real shock was that it was not an attack by foreign terrorists. The threat had come from within. During the 1990s, for the first time, terrorism had struck home. After the Oklahoma City bombing, polls showed that more than 90 percent of Americans expected similar attacks to occur. But few thought an attack would occur where they lived or worked. Most Americans did not feel personally threatened by terrorism, and most said they saw no reason to change their ways to avoid becoming a target. That was then. Now, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken Tuesday night, 58 percent of Americans say they are worried that they or someone in their family will become a victim of a terrorist attack. Want to see a real gender gap? Seventy percent of women, but only 45 percent of men, say they are worried. On the other hand, nearly 90 percent of both men and women describe the attacks as "an act of war against the United States." Fifty-five percent think they represent "the beginning of a sustained terrorist campaign against the United States." Tuesday night, President Bush described a country gripped by "a quiet, unyielding anger." And he warned, "The search is under way for those who are behind these evil acts." Americans are remarkably patient. More than 70 percent of those surveyed think the U.S. military should strike back only against the terrorist organizations responsible for the attacks, even if it takes months to identify them. Just one in five thinks that the United States should immediately attack known terrorist organizations, even if it is unclear who bears the blame. What's behind the public's patience? The fact that a majority of Americans think it's "very likely" that the U.S. government will be able to identify and punish those responsible. But one thing has not changed: Americans remain unreceptive to the idea of changing their way of life in order to cope with the threat of terrorism. The poll asked: "Do you think you will change any aspect of your personal life or activities in order to reduce your chances of being a victim of terrorist attacks?" When that question was asked after the Oklahoma City bombing, 83 percent of Americans said "no." The proportion who still say "no": 61 percent. But more than a third (36 percent) say "yes." Asked whether the hijackings make them "less willing to fly on airplanes," about 60 percent of women said "yes." About 60 percent of men said "no." For the closest comparison with September 11, 2001, you have to go back almost 60 years, to December 7, 1941. "A date that will live in infamy," President Franklin D. Roosevelt called it. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack on American soil by an overseas power. But Pearl Harbor was not an attack on New York or Washington, the capitals of U.S. wealth and power. Nor was it an attack on civilian air traffic. Pearl Harbor was an attack on U.S. military forces. There were fewer fatalities than there appear to be now. And it happened while the rest of the world was at war. One day after Pearl Harbor, an outraged United States went to war. A lot of Americans may want to go to war now. But with whom? The President warned, ominously, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." September 11, 2001, is another date that will live in infamy. "None of us will ever forget this day," Bush vowed. He was right.
What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. Copyright © 2001 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved. |
| ||
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Back Issues |
Forum |
Site Guide |
Feedback |
Subscribe |
Search
| ||||
