Chart of the Day: We’re Still Living With the Toxic Political Legacy of 9/11


Via Larry Bartels, here’s an interesting chart from James Stimson that tracks the public’s level of conservatism over the past 60 years. You can click the link to read about his methodology, but what this chart basically shows is that “the public tends to act as a ‘thermostat,’ shifting to the left when the political climate in Washington shifts to the right and to the right when policy shifts to the left.” In other words, when the president is a Republican, the public tends to tire of conservatism and become more liberal. When the president is a Democrat, the public tends to tire of liberalism and become more conservative.

Until recently, the only real exception to this was the 60s. But now there’s a second one: the George W. Bush administration. And this is interesting, I think, because it shows the enduring effect of the war on terror. My interpretation of this chart is that Bush managed to avoid the normal public backlash during his first three years in office, and the obvious explanation for this is 9/11 and the Iraq War. Eventually, the political mood did start to trend more liberal, but because of the initial 9/11 effect, the public ended up in 2008 about where it had started in 2000. As a result, Obama began his presidency with an unusually conservative public. Thus, instead of merely bouncing back from the previous presidency in the usual yo-yo fashion, the conservative backlash against Obama took us into the right-wing stratosphere.

There may be other explanations for this. Have at it in comments. But George Bush did everything he could to politicize 9/11, and it looks to me like it paid off. Whether we realize it or not, we’re still living with the toxic legacy of 9/11 and the war on terror.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate