
	Top News: Napoleog's Cuirassiers and Carabiniers Early American Indian Tribes Bessarabia and Bukovina The North American Indian Founding of the United States (All About History) The Airplane Book Bomber: The Formation and Early Years of Strategic Air Command Rocket Fighter The Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789 Big Chief Elizabeth: The Adventures and Fate of the First English Colonists in America

Contact

15-07-2015, 17:00

The Impact of 9/11 On U. S. Public Opinion

National tragedies, such as the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, have a direct and profound impact not only on the immediate victims and their families but also the general public. An opinion poll conducted by Zogby International in September 2007 reported that a large majority (81 percent) of those surveyed either “strongly agreed” or “somewhat agreed” that the 9/11 attacks permanently altered how the American public “views the world.” Moreover, this same poll reported that, six years after 9/11, more than 60 percent of those surveyed thought about the events of that day at least “once per week.”

There have been several incidents in the history of the United States that have created a sense of unity and patriotism. The bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, are two such events. As the Zogby poll makes clear, the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were another such defining moment.

Initial Impact

The initial reaction of most Americans to the attacks was shock, disbelief, and anger. Among many there was an imminent sense that the United States was about to go to war. One of the few uncertainties in this regard was the place and time. A large majority of the population rallied around President George W. Bush and other leaders in government and the military services. Those individuals would be responsible for determining a course of action in response to this blatant act of violence perpetrated against the United States. Following that day, many Americans’ sense of security was gone, replaced by feelings of extreme vulnerability. The attacks also united the nation, and the diversity that was apparent prior to that day was largely replaced with a feeling of heightened nationalism, at least in the short term. Patriotism was at its highest level since the early days of World War II as a majority of Americans (65 percent) openly displayed the flag, compared to 25 percent who flew the Stars and Stripes prior to 9/11.

Interestingly, some studies indicate that American attitudes regarding minorities, specifically Muslims, were not changed as a result of 9/11. Generally speaking, among minorities Muslims have been “rated lower” than other groups both prior to and following the events of 9/11. Nevertheless, physical and verbal attacks on Muslim Americans did escalate in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Additionally, following the attacks law enforcement agencies focused their attention more heavily on individuals of South Asian and Middle Eastern origin. Thousands of Muslim men were detained without being formally charged with the commission of a crime—some for long periods of time—while others were arbitrarily deported for illegal behavior considered negligible. Furthermore, following the 9/11 attacks, a large percentage of Caucasians and African Americans supported the racial profiling of individuals whose facial features appeared Middle Eastern.

Media Effect

Modern communication technology allows the viewing public to observe events in real time and to continuously revisit them through 24-hour news programs and on the Internet, where news and opinions are shared between people all over the globe. Additionally, during and following national and international events, many self-avowed “experts” provide commentary on television, in print media, and through other venues. These forums provide additional perspectives that no doubt impact the public’s perception of the event.

Terrorism utilizes and manipulates national and international news venues, particularly television, which becomes a propaganda medium that impacts global and U. S. public opinion. Replayed images, numerous commentaries, and a variety of perspectives tend to heighten feelings of insecurity and alter or strengthen preexisting views relative to a national or global traumatic event.

Indeed, the media had a profound impact on how Americans viewed the 9/11 attacks and subsequent decisions and actions taken by the U. S. and foreign governments in response to these events. For example, in the days, weeks, and months after the 9/11 attacks, the decision to go to war in Afghanistan and then Iraq was largely supported by the news media and a majority of the American people. Support for these actions would eventually abate as time passed and the American public began to grow weary of the loss in blood and treasure exacted by these two conflicts. Additionally, after a period of time has elapsed—usually measured in months if not weeks, depending on the severity of the event—the media begins to focus on problems closer to home, such as the national economy, jobs, health care, and other issues that affect the average American’s daily life. Moreover, as time passes, people begin to gradually return to the daily routines that they were engaged in prior to the event, albeit more cautiously.

Civil Liberties and Public Policy

With respect to impingements on civil liberties, the attitude of many Americans was initially one of acceptance and tolerance. In their view, 9/11 demanded some curtailment of civil liberties and a more intrusive role by government in the lives and activities of the average citizen. For example, enhanced airport security screening and other measures that restricted certain items from entering an aircraft’s passenger sections, although irritating and inconvenient to travelers, were, for the most part, viewed as necessary in a heightened security environment. Most people realized that the “new normal” spawned by 9/11 necessitated some impact on activities that were heretofore taken for granted.

An immediate response to the 9/11 attacks was the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, legislation that, in part, increased the investigative powers of U. S. law enforcement agencies and provided additional tools and capabilities to those charged with combating terrorism. Among its provisions are measures to combat money laundering, further safeguard U. S. borders, and allow for interagency criminal information-sharing during the course of an investigation. Additionally, the act adopted specific measures regarding terrorism-related crimes. The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001, after garnering overwhelming support across the political spectrum. However, although the American public generally supported the act, opinions diverged according to its specific stipulations. While many viewed the act as a safeguard on civil liberties and an instrument that strengthened national security, others were of the opinion that some of the law’s provisions infringed and restricted rights guaranteed under the U. S. Constitution.

For example, a poll conducted by ABC News/Washington Post almost four years after 9/11 found that although 59 percent of those responding to a telephone questionnaire continued to support the USA PATRIOT Act and favored its continuation, the majority of these respondents were against the implementation of provisions allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) authority to have open access to private records and U. S. mail.

Another hotly debated subject in the weeks, months, and years following 9/11 was border and immigration control. It remains a very contentious issue and a consistent topic for discussion by the news media, as well as the general public. Indeed, heightened post-9/11 security put this issue on the floor of the U. S. Congress, which passed the Border Protection Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act in December 2005. In October of the following year, the Secure Fence Act was passed. This act authorizes the construction of a 700-mile fence with state-of-the-art tracking and monitoring devices to restrict the flow of illegal aliens crossing the border areas between Mexico and the United States. A telephone survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports in August 2007 found that 56 percent of those questioned supported the building of the security fence. Moreover, in the same poll, 71 percent said they would support a measure requiring “foreign visitors” to carry an identification card, and a greater number (74 percent) would support the

A U. S. Air Force serviceman welds together border-fence panels along the U. S.-Mexican border in Yuma, Arizona, April 24, 2007. (USAF Photo/Senior Airman John Hughel Jr.)

Establishment of a “central database” to monitor all foreign nationals visiting the United States. Government, law enforcement, and the average American have long known that the porous U. S. borders to the north and south have served as smuggling channels for terrorists, drug traffickers, and criminal gangs and, in the case of the southern border, as a conduit for Mexicans seeking employment. The debate continues regarding the effectiveness of these established and proposed security measures.

The War on Terror

Several polls conducted in the first few weeks following the attacks showed that the American public was generally supportive of and trusted the government’s response to 9/11; regarding the use of military force, this remained true 18 months after 9/11. On October 7, 2001, the date the U. S.-led coalition invaded Afghanistan (Operation enduring freedom), an ABC News/Washington Post poll indicated that 94 percent of those surveyed supported the U. S. attack on that country. In July 2008, however, this same organization reported that only 51 percent of those surveyed believed that the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting. Moreover, various opinion polls revealed that between 69 percent and 80 percent of those surveyed initially supported military action against Iraq. This support remained high into and following the March 2003 invasion. A CBS News opinion poll taken in March 2003, one week after the United States launched a ground and air assault on Iraq, found that 69 percent of those surveyed viewed the invasion of that country as the

Right course of action. This number differs significantly from another CBS News poll that in August 2008 reported that only 38 percent of those surveyed viewed the U. S. invasion as the right course of action.

As months of fighting extended into years and the costs in blood and treasure continued to rise, public approval for a continued U. S. presence in Iraq declined significantly. In a CBS/New York Times poll conducted in April 2007, 64 percent of respondents reported that the U. S. government should set a timetable of 2008 for withdrawing American forces from Iraq, and in a Princeton Survey Research Associates/Newsweek poll conducted in March 2007, 57 percent of respondents stated that they would support congressional legislation that would mandate the removal of U. S. troops by March 2008. Moreover, in an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in early December 2006, a majority (69 percent) of those surveyed supported the removal of “almost all” U. S. combat troops from Iraq by 2008. This survey also revealed that nearly 80 percent of those polled believed that the United States should revise its mission in Iraq to a more support - and training-based role rather than continue armed engagement with insurgent forces.

Clearly, U. S. public opinion varies as more time elapses since the 9/11 attacks; the “fear factor” lessens and the cost is internalized. Furthermore, other issues become more germane to the here and now. However, while this may be viewed as a reasonable assumption, there are various triggers and circumstances that have the potential to reignite the passions of 9/11. For example, a fairly recent issue that garnered quite a bit of controversy was a proposal by a New York imam to build an Islamic community center and mosque near the site of the 9/11 attacks. In August 2010, a public opinion poll published by Rasmussen Reports indicated that over 60 percent of the respondents were against the building of a mosque near Ground Zero, while an equal number considered the proposal to be “insensitive” to the family members of victims of this tragedy.

Additionally, nine years after the attacks, Americans are still engaged in two wars that have cost many lives and the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars. Regarding Afghanistan, many Americans question what it will take in terms of resources (military, civilian, and financial) to bring this conflict to an acceptable conclusion in a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, for Americans with family members or friends serving in the military, the sacrifices that these attacks demanded prompt reflection on that day in September 2001 and thoughts of those who are putting their lives on the line in an effort to prevent future attacks such as the one that occurred on 9/11. For many Americans, the events of 9/11 will always spawn feelings of anger, frustration, and a sense of vulnerability.

The events of 9/11 have altered the views and perceptions of many Americans on a variety of security-related issues. For the families of those who perished in the 9/11 attacks and those who lost their lives or sustained permanent injuries in the War on Terror, the tragedy of that day has profoundly illustrated that the rights and freedoms that some Americans take for granted come with a heavy price tag.

Finally, public opinion is a powerful catalyst for action. It has elected presidents, initiated wars, defined moral parameters and legislative agendas, and, to a large degree, determines how Americans live their daily lives. As a nation, the United States must utilize this powerful tool by collectively engaging in useful dialogue aimed at solving some of the world’s most pressing issues.

Frank Shanty

Top News:

The Impact of 9/11 On U. S. Public Opinion