The threat of international terrorism has moved from the periphery of our national radar to center stage once again. For much of last year, home foreclosures, health care costs, layoffs, and other economic issues stole the spotlight away from the malevolent machinations of terrorists.
A couple weeks ago, we learned that authorities arrested Najibullah Zazi, an immigrant from Afghanistan, on allegations of plotting an attack on the New York City subway system on Sept. 11. Two men were spotted taking extensive photos of the Philadelphia subway system, but have not yet been identified. Earlier that week, a Jordanian was charged with trying to blow up a skyscraper in Dallas, while a citizen was arrested for trying to blow up a building in Illinois.
In short, these events reminded us that the threat posed by international terrorism is far from over. Does such a shift in the media's focus on terrorist threat carry political implications? The findings of our new book reveal that this type of news coverage can profoundly affect how the public engages with politics.
For the last five years we have researched the connection between times of terrorist threats and public opinion. In a series of tightly designed experiments, we expose subsets of research participants to a news story not unlike the type that aired last week. We argue that attitudes, evaluations, and behaviors change in at least three politically-relevant ways when terror threat is more prominent in the news. Some of these transformations are in accord with conventional wisdom concerning how we might expect the public to react. Others are more surprising, and more disconcerting in their implications for the quality of democracy.
One way that public opinion shifts is toward increased expressions of distrust. In some ways this strategy has been actively promoted by our political leaders. The Bush administration repeatedly reminded the public to keep eyes and ears open to help identify dangerous persons. A strategy of vigilance has also been endorsed by the new secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.
Nonetheless, the breadth of increased distrust that the public puts into practice is striking. Individuals threatened by terrorism become less trusting of others, even their own neighbors. Other studies have shown that they become less supportive of the rights of Arab and Muslim Americans. In addition, we found that such effects extend to immigrants and, as well, to a group entirely remote from the subject of terrorism: gay Americans. The specter of terrorist threat creates ruptures in our social fabric, some of which may be justified as necessary tactics in the fight against terrorism and others that simply cannot.
Another way public opinion shifts under a terrorist threat is toward inflated evaluations of certain leaders. To look for strong leadership makes sense: crises should impel us toward leadership bold enough to confront the threat and strong enough to protect us from it. But the public does more than call for heroes in times of crisis. It projects leadership qualities onto political figures, with serious political consequences.
In studies conducted in 2004, we found that individuals threatened by terrorism perceived George W. Bush as more charismatic and stronger than did non-threatened individuals. This projection of leadership had important consequences for voting decisions. Individuals threatened by terrorism were more likely to base voting decisions on leadership qualities rather than on their own issue positions or partisanship. You did read that correctly. Threatened individuals responded with elevated evaluations of Bush's capacity for leadership and then used those inflated evaluations as the primary determinant in their voting decision.
These findings did not just occur among Republicans, but also among Independents and Democrats. All partisan groups who perceived Bush as more charismatic were also less willing to blame him for policy failures such as faulty intelligence that led to the war in Iraq.
The Bush phenomenon is not unique. We found a similar projection of enhanced leadership qualities onto Arnold Schwarzenegger, among those exposed to our terror threat news story during the 2006 California gubernatorial election. We even found the same type of effect in Mexico during their 2006 presidential election in support of Felipe Caldéron, a conservative candidate representing the incumbent party.
Why these leaders? The public's tendency to rally around the sitting executive when confronted with an external threat has been well documented by political science research, as has the Republican Party's ownership of national security issues. It is unclear whether the threat of terrorism will similarly enhance evaluations of Barack Obama. On the one hand, his incumbency status may benefit him; on the other, his party does not carry the mantle of national security policy.
A third way public opinion shifts in response to terrorism is toward greater preferences for policies that protect the homeland, even at the expense of civil liberties, and active engagement against terrorists abroad. Such a strategy was advocated and implemented by the Bush administration. Again, however, we found that preferences shifted toward these objectives regardless of one's partisan stripes and, as well, outside the U.S.
While some of these changes may differ in the post-Bush era, they still have the potential to place stress on the quality of our nation's democracy. When increased media attention on terrorism sends a chill up our collective spine, our research cautions us to take pause, and consider whether our desire to cope psychologically with the fear of international terrorism is changing our political attitudes, evaluations, and behaviors in some ways that are more detrimental than useful.
Jennifer Merolla and Elizabeth Zechmeister are the authors of Democracy at Risk: How Terrorist Threats Affect the Public (University of Chicago Press, 2009).
Tom Engelhardt: Who's Next? Lessons from the Long War and a Blowback World
"The Long War" merely exchanged the shock-'n'-awe geographical breadth of the President Bush's chosen moniker ("global") for a shock-'n'-awe time span.
Craig Alan Silverman: Sheriff Jim Saves Chistmas, Guns and Solves Heene Balloon Hoax
When Falcon let loose the truth on prime time to Wolf Blitzer, even Barney Fife could have figured it out. By his own admission, that was the first moment the light came on for local Sheriff Jim Alderden.
Jeff Stein: How They Cracked Zazi
The feds cracked Najibullah Zazi without laying a hand on him, according to most news accounts. But some people still wonder if the rough stuff...
Diane Dimond: The Terror Threat Still Exists
Crime happens when we least expect it. Criminal activity festers in places we can't imagine and in the minds of those we least expect. We...
Stop saying this. The only faulty intelligence was inside Bush's brain. They wanted that war and "sexed up" the intelligence to justify it. Remember the Downing Street memos? 937 lies? The truth: they lied us into the war. Whether many Americans were too frightened to care is another matter.
When did Drug CZAR become common language for us? To this day it make me CRINGE when I hear it.
We reap what we write and what Tvee tells us.
Ask yourself did you fall for the dear leader in 2004 because you felt pushed to fright and were looking for security and stability in a sitting official?
The scariest thing to me in this article is that it is know, tried and true manipulation and it is used against the best of our nation, it's people!
I agree too about the rhetoric. What's with the dramatic 'homeland' term? Please. What country are we in and what year is it?
Sure, be cautious and vigilant -- by all means. But come ON already, people, get a grip and think logically!
It does explain the illusion of unity we experienced after 911. Sadly, it's only an illusion. Take away the threat and you take away the unity. Justification for war without end... maybe.
I think many of us realized this soon after 911. Some probably were way ahead of the curve.
Anyone remember the "terror alert tango"? – when support was slipping they knocked it up a notch.
"Goldenrod Alert"... wait...
"Tangerine Alert"... wait...
"Vermilion Alert!"... Uh...
What comes after "Vermilion?"
The problem is that people can't exercise critical thinking skills and realize that USA PATRIOT is a bunch of hogwash that does nothing to protect the country, while savaging our constitutional liberties (which, by the way, aren't some radical liberal fluff - they're things put there by the founding fathers in 1787).
You'd be better off looking at why people - afraid as they are - are so quick to hand decisions of import off to people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
I highly recommend the book "Beyond Fear" by Bruce Schneier, which looks more closely at the security aspect of our terrorism 'problem.'
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
But I got some real news for you:
Terrorism is a nuisance – at best. Terrorism cannot defeat this Country. When terrorist bring down a building or attack other “places of interest” they can cause damage and people may even die, that is true. But Terrorist have no Army, they don’t have the means to strike on a larger scale what so ever. So this whole terrorism thing is completely overblown and when you look closer and find out who is profiting from it than you are actually making serious steps to find out what’s really going on.
Buy the way we need to get out of Afghanistan – we have no business down there what so ever. Plus we can’t afford it!!!
You know what else would really irk me? Imagine if a fanatical theocracy were to secretly provide a terrorist organization with a nuclear device. Can you imagine the traffic jam if such a device were detonated in Manhattan?
There's a point at which rational beings stop believing in manufactured boogiemen.
If a guy wants to drop his money-losing overbuilt real estate, but can't get the demo permits because of the asbestos; it would have to be removed first, making the project just too darn expensive. Well that wouldn't bug me but it would bug me real bad if he got together with some of his old army friends and their psychologist buddies who were upset about an impending investigation into Pentagon funding.
It would piss me off real bad if they designed a new little 'pearl harbor' plan to drop his buildings cheaply over drinks or a game of golf. You'd have to think military insiders involved in such a wacky plan would have thought about the what next, their highly trained psychologists would be knowing full well the major psychological impact it would have on the people and the media.
You would expect the planners of it to be prepared to take full advantage of that, so it is not a stretch to say the best indicator of who did it, is who benefited.
Of course to really make me irked, finely ground anthrax (US Military grade) could be sent through the mail, like frosting on a cake, it's message clear: submit or else.
Dude, the "fanatical theocracy" did take over. They run our military.
The manufactured threat, and,
The manufactured 'terrorist'.
=================================================
[1] This was known decades ago by some guys in Germany:
"...it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
[2] A study of psychiatric outpatients found a correlation between the severity of a person"s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more PSYCHOTIC the voter, the more likely they were to vote FOR BUSH.
Lohse"s explanation -- "Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader," Lohse says. "If your world is very mixed up, there"s something very comforting about SOMEONE TELLING YOU, "This is how it"s going to be."
http://thismodernworld.com/3359
That is so simple, I will email Rush LImbaugh and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck right away.
I am sure they can get 70 to 80 million people voting any way they want next year.
you WILL vote for conservatives."
====
Only the simple minded would do be doing so (predominantly those on the Right?). They are the ones that almost always bring up "the Fear Card". As the article and my links show, under times of duress (like threats of terrorism), people look for comfort in an authority type figure; to tell them everything will be OK.
-- Explains Dubya being re-elected
-- Explains support of the myth of Repubs and US military support
-- Explains Rush stating that the GOP members need to be TOLD what to do
"I am sure they can get 70 to 80 million people voting any way they want next year"
====
Or so they tell themselves..! [such delusions of grandeur..!]
-- Operation Chaos ring a bell..?!?
-- People continually spouting FOX News ratings; yet, ineffectual in winning the past few election cycles
Put it all together and this is THE lasting legacy of 9/11.
They were completely innocent and we bombed them, raped and tortured them, poisoned their country with uranium for absolutely no good reason. How are we not the monsters?
PS, we are still doing it.
Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA, Al Qaeda means 'phone book' when literally translated. Al Qaeda did not exist as any sort of strong or organized force until AFTER we invaded.
Bush basically created these terrorists as an excuse to fight. Or to dump uranium, both of which are international war crimes, exactly what the neocons wanted us to do.
The only thing that's changed 50 years later is the names of the threats. Worse, today executive privilege to start or escalate wars, despite constitutional safeguards, resides outside of Congress and in the White House.
The real terrorism for most Americans is getting or keeping their job, getting decent health care and educating their children. What they're not seeing is an escalation in the war that really matters.
I do not see any relevance to whatever argument you are tying to make if your premise is wrong from the onset.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#33336509
The Palestinians are used as pawns by their Arab neighbors to fuel the hatred of the Israelis who give more charity and do more for the Palestinians than any other Nation.