This op-ed appeared in the American Prospect on December 17, 2001

Distrust of government is down and the public is clearly looking for an expanded governmental role in a vast range of areas related to the September 11 attacks. How else can we explain the big debate on airline safety? The U.S. Senate wants to federalize security workers and the U.S. House wants to subject them to intense regulation independent of the airlines. Federalize or regulate? This is a Democratic dream.

But the opportunity for Democrats goes well beyond the public's support for a more expansive government. During the two months following the attacks, my associates and I listened to people in 23 focus groups all across the country. The emerging mood and values in this new period--with a strong emphasis on unity, coming together, community, seriousness of purpose, freedom of choice, and tolerance--reflect the instinctive impulses of Democrats surely more than they do Republicans'. Indeed, the short-term and consumerist perspective inherent in the Republicans' aggressive tax-cut initiative seems oddly out of sync with the emerging mood.

The Post-September 11 Mood and Values

The first pattern in the emerging mood is the pride taken in the country's unity. People think the United States is headed in the right direction because Americans have come together as one in the face of adversity: As people affirmed repeatedly in the group discussions, "United we stand." After sadness or heroism, this pride in unity is almost the first thing participants talked about: "To me, it has brought people in our country together"; "United States of America, again behind the government"; "the country seems to have banded together for the first time since World War II or Korea."

Participants explicitly noted that this is no Vietnam--a time when the country was divided and thereby weakened itself. In fact, people were reluctant to get into the blame game. As one participant said, there is "a lot of blame to go around." That would divide the country, they believe, and we cannot afford that.

This unity has consequences that affect the current political terrain. First, the unity is all-encompassing; politicians of all stripes are seen as part of the unified national response. In some respects, then, the "security issue" has been neutralized by popular request. When we asked whether Democrats are as patriotic as Republicans, respondents said yes without qualification.

The second pattern of thinking--a newly evident consciousness of community--is closely related to unity. People were proud that in the aftermath of the tragedies Americans are working together, thinking about one another, and helping others. They noted: "Everybody [is] bonding together"; "I just feel we have more in common with people, knowing they feel bad too"; "[It's been] a long time since we pulled together to help each other.... We're going to help each other whether it's our neighbor or a stranger across the country."

This emerging sense of community contains within it the notion that, at this moment, individual desires should give way to the needs of community and country. Some see young people as the barometers of this new climate. Young people are "into themselves," said one respondent. "They're going to have a chance to see what it means to be an American."

The third pattern is a new sense of seriousness, in both private and public purpose. Even two months after the attacks, the events of September 11 led many to say that they "need to figure out what is really important," as one person put it. "I think it's darn time that finally this country got back to caring about what's important, which is, you know, your family and home and self, and you know, stop being quite so materialistic."

The perceived need to refocus our priorities as individuals extends to the public level: We are at "a point in our history [where] we have some very important things to do," one of the participants asserted. While people talked about dealing with many issues--"animal rights," for example--they suggested we have "bigger things to think about right now." One person summed up with the simple instruction: "Prioritize. We need healing and we need each other.... Turn your attention to helping our nation." The final pattern of thinking that has emerged centers on the freedom to choose. We asked people in the focus groups what it means to be an American and why America is under attack. The great bulk of the responses raised the concept of "freedom." In the face of the attacks by Islamic fundamentalists, people are defining freedom as "the freedom to choose." In America, we have "options." "We're free here. We all make our choice."

Many people think that this freedom of choice is central to our way of life--and that it is now under attack. They consider this concept of choice to be missing from those societies that would impose traditional patterns on the individual, the family, and women. The focus group participants were ready to elaborate:

You know...you choose who you're going to marry, and you choose if you're going to have children, and you choose if you're going to go to school, and you choose to move out of state to get a better job, and you choose whether you get on a plane. And that's why a lot of people want to come here...because there's a lot of choices.

You could choose your religion; you don't have to be one thing or another. If you're a woman, you can walk down the street; you don't have to hide under a veil.

But also under attack are freedom of religion and the concept of religious pluralism: the ability of many religions to co-exist in the same society without dividing it. "We tolerate others' religion"; "we have a mix and nobody seems to care what you are or what your faith is." In fact, someone said, "that is what drives them nuts...the fact we can show respect. You're a Buddhist, fine. As long as you don't harm me or force your religion onto me, let me make my choices--they can't stand it over there."

The central importance that Americans accord to freedom of choice, particularly concerning life choices and religion, was reflected in the fairly tolerant attitude toward Muslims in America expressed in all of the focus groups. Respondents clearly favored tighter border controls and limiting the number of immigrants, views that are also reflected in the polls. But it is striking that during the many weeks of focus-group discussions, hostile comments from participants toward foreigners and Muslims were few and isolated. The events of September 11 did not unleash expressions of pent-up prejudice.

In fact, freedom of choice is at the heart of what Americans are defending, and that is apparently elevating the value of tolerance in our country. The concept of freedom that Americans are fighting to preserve, moreover, poses problems for the fundamentalist religious forces in the United States that have sought to bring religion more forcefully into politics. Writing in the November 5 Weekly Standard, David Brooks gingerly raised the idea that this may not be the best moment for "faith-based initiatives and religion in the public square." No wonder Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Franklin Graham seem so off balance in the current environment.

Unity and togetherness; bonding and community; family and country over materialism and selfishness; freedom to choose in life and religion--these are the elements that form the public consciousness during this period. Small wonder that voters are having trouble understanding the Republicans' tax-cut approach at a time when the country faces so many challenges.

Compared to the GOP, the Democrats seem more aligned with this emerging consciousness--above all, because of the centrality of community. British Prime Minister Tony Blair understood this when he gave his speech on the "power of community" to a Labour Party conference. The attacks, he said, left us with a renewed respect for the public services because they represent our capacity to act together. After September 11, we dare not think that each individual and each country can go it alone. The power of community, said Blair, infuses our "modern social democracy."

The public's renewed interest in government is a symptom of the powerful impulse to act together and protect our freedoms.

Tax Cuts and the New Politics

The Republican House and President Bush have made tax cuts their central proposition for addressing the economy and meeting the country's domestic needs. But this position is at odds with the emerging national mood after the September catastrophe. While voters clearly want tax cuts as part of an overall approach, they oppose an aggressive program of tax cuts because the country faces other financial needs, because such cuts endanger the budget and economy, and because they are at odds with the emerging commitment to community and nation.

Given a choice, voters have other priorities. They would delay the large tax cuts passed last year and use the money to fund Social Security, rebuild after the terrorist attacks, help the unemployed, and increase support for education. In a poll of 1,000 likely voters commissioned by Democracy Corps and conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research from October 30 through November 1, voters greatly preferred this choice (54 percent to 39 percent) to the Republican one that offers expanding tax cuts to get the economy moving, help businesses invest, and create jobs.

At a moment when the country is looking for seriousness of purpose, Americans see Republicans' big tax cuts as irresponsible. The aggressive cuts President Bush supports clash with Americans' worries about federal budget deficits and the economy; many fear that the cuts may plunge the country into red ink again--and into long-term financial uncertainty. For some participants, the connection and the risks are very clear.

[The] biggest thing for me is the economy. As far as the tax cuts and things, I thought he [Bush] is going overboard on that. My biggest concern is the deficit....We are paying so much interest on the deficit itself....We were on a great path to get this knocked down to a reasonable level, if not eliminate the damn thing altogether.

While there is some understanding that a broad economic program might include tax cuts, we found particular public discomfort with tax cuts that are individualistic and indulgent. The tax rebate for those who did not receive tax cuts in the first round has a progressive purpose and has been championed by both Democrats and Republicans. Yet Americans wonder whether even this rebate proposal comports with their new sense of seriousness.

In fact, voters do not currently bring a strong partisan filter to the various economic proposals being considered by Congress. Nonetheless, when given a list of individual Democratic proposals, a large majority of respondents support each one. Two-thirds favor every Democratic proposal but one (the tax rebate). The strongest support is for providing unemployment benefits to the newly unemployed; delaying tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent in order to fund post-September 11 rebuilding and Social Security; funding infrastructure projects such as airport improvements and school construction to create jobs; accelerating the broad, middle-class tax cuts that are already scheduled; including the newly unemployed under COBRA health insurance ; and offering tax incentives to businesses--if clearly linked to new investment. The backing for construction of public projects--which wins the support of 85 percent of likely voters (more than for any other proposal except extending unemployment benefits, which also garners 85 percent support)--is a particularly notable expression of the current public mood.

Overall, the Democrats' proposals poll better than the Republicans'--particularly those Republican brainstorms that have already become part of the public debate, like retroactively eliminating the "alternative minimum tax" on corporations. One person in a focus group observed, to the agreement of many: "We've got the deficit, we've got increased spending, we've got military action going on, and don't really need to keep handing out money right now." That $600 may not add up to much for the individual, another elaborated, "but all our $600s would" add up to a lot of public funds--

and right now we need a lot of money. We're spending tons of money right now. And as far as I'm concerned, if it's there, if the government's expensive and it's not breaking us, leave it alone. It don't make any sense to keep sending it back and we go further in the hole. Because we're going to be the ones that's going to pay the taxes to make it up.

Voters talk about a tax rebate as "nice" but see it as an option that conflicts with their thinking about the emergent challenges for the country. The tax cut, they say, offers small immediate benefits at the expense of the future: "It's nice to get your little rebate back. Enjoy it now. I do have concerns about the future." Another called it "a dumb thing" and continued: "I can't understand why they did that. It was in my benefit, it was in anybody's benefit. But in the future, it's not." The argument that tax cuts spur spending and therefore help the economy also clashes with what some voters think should be the proper emphasis--community and country. What the president is calling for, one suggested, is for people "to go on a shopping spree," but if "he would have said education, that's important." We are missing the opportunity to invest in the country:

What did we do with the money after I got my little check? I didn't run down and buy stock or reinvest it in the country. I just absorbed it.... Did it go back into the country...or did...[we] just go out and buy something like a TV or something?

Another participant, reflecting on past wars, recalled that people bought bonds and were asked "to do something for the entire country. So, [by contrast,] Bush has asked us to lead our lives."

All across the country, what people told us is that the tax cut seems short-term, diminished, individualistic, and consumerist at a time when citizens are looking for something more for the nation. People are thinking about community needs, government, and the future.

A season for Democrats.

back