Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review June 6, 2002 /25 Sivan, 5762

Bill Schneider

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

White House warnings were effective tactical move | The controversy over the Bush administration's handling of the pre-9/11 terrorism warnings has had no impact on President Bush's standing with the American public. In the April Gallup Poll, Bush's job-approval rating was 76 percent-just as it is now. The president's rating for handling world affairs has likewise held steady-at 70 percent.

So, what has happened to the president's rating on terrorism? Nothing. Americans' approval of Bush's handling of terrorism was 83 percent in April and 83 percent in May.

A majority of Americans think that the White House did the best it could with the information available. Among people who say that the White House could have done a better job, almost half call the shortcomings understandable. Only a quarter of Americans say they think there was enough information to have prevented the September 11 attacks. And polling suggests that those people were already hostile to Bush.

Are Americans taking the Bush administration's warnings about new terrorist attacks seriously? Apparently, they are. The proportion of Americans who say that a terrorist attack is likely in the next few weeks has gone up-from just over half in March to nearly two-thirds now.

Conservatives are much more likely than liberals to be worried about new attacks, possibly because the White House has more credibility among conservatives. Moreover, some liberals may think that the White House warnings are politically motivated.

A less-cynical interpretation of the split between conservatives and liberals is that the two sorts of people have different agendas. Conservatives give top priority to the war on terrorism, while liberals are more concerned with domestic problems. Whatever the reason, the fa ct is that how seriously you take the terrorist threat depends on your politics.

There is no question about what kind of terrorist threat worries Americans most: suicide bombings in crowded areas, such as restaurants and shopping malls. In the May Time magazine poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans say they think that suicide bombings in the United States are very likely within the next year-far more likely than other kinds of terrorist attacks, including some threats that the government has been warning about.

Forty-two percent say they think that attacks on national landmarks, such as the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge, are very likely. Thirty-one percent think it's very likely we'll see apartment bombings. Only 27 percent think it's very likely there will be another 9/11-style attack in which hijacked airliners are crashed into large buildings.

Suicide bombings are perceived as the biggest threat because they're the most difficult to prevent and because they are happening in Israel. If Israel, with its elaborate security precautions, can't prevent suicide bombings, what can the United States do?

Most Americans continue to have at least some confidence that the U.S. government can protect its citizens from future attacks. But that confidence has slipped a little. In the March Gallup Poll, 82 percent expressed confidence that the government could protect Americans.

Now 76 percent are confident. Confidence has gone up among men and down among women. That change appears to be more psychological than political: Men have more confidence in the military than women do.

Recent polls reveal another change. Today, only 7 percent of Americans consider Russia a very serious threat, down from 19 percent two years ago and from 65 percent 19 years ago.

September 11 pulled the United States and Russia closer together. The old Cold War adversaries find themselves on the same side in the war against terrorism. "This treaty will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War," Bush said on May 13, when he announced his intention to sign a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia.

The principal perceived threats today are Iraq (59 percent of Americans) and Iran (50 percent). North Korea, the third country in Bush's "axis of evil," is viewed as a serious threat by only 19 percent. Americans no longer feel particularly threatened by communism: Just 19 percent see China as a serious threat; 13 percent see Cuba as one. But Americans do feel threatened by Islamic terrorism.

The public firmly rejects the idea that politics is behind the Bush administration's new terrorism warnings. By more than 2-to-1 in the Time poll, respondents think that the government's recent warnings were based on intelligence reports and were not issued to divert attention from the government's handling of pre-9/11 warnings.

Nevertheless, the new warnings do have a political impact. In the January Time poll, twice as many people said such domestic issues as the economy and Social Security would determine their vote for the House of Representatives this year. Now domestic issues and foreign policy are virtually tied in importance in voters' minds. The White House warnings have ratcheted up the political salience of national security-to the Republicans' advantage.

People who say their vote will depend on domestic issues plan to vote Democratic in the House contests. People who say national security is more important give Republicans the edge.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

To comment on JWR contributor William Schneider's column, please click here.

05/23/02: Giving the Dems an education on education
05/16/02: Power to the swing voters
04/23/02: The secret formula
04/09/02: Politics Remain Stalemated
03/31/02: Values and gas mileage?
03/25/02: Truly oppressed minorities
03/14/02: Reciprocal hostility
03/07/02: Bush's prudence
02/28/02: Is the 'clash of civilizations' becoming a political reality?
02/28/02: 'Cowboy' or not, Bush has the 'axis of evil' running scared
02/20/02: Could it be that the era of Big Government really is over?
01/31/02: 'Daddy issues' grab center stage
01/15/02: And, they're off
01/09/02: Three 'War Stars' are born
01/04/02: California cluelessness?
12/17/01: Congress' life or death issue
11/27/01: Our reinvigorated spendthrift Congress
11/27/01: Out of War, Peace?
11/14/01: The other war --- the one for public opinion
11/09/01: The mayor of New Yawk and the King of the World
11/07/01: An insurance policy on America
11/02/01: A nation of defiant optimists
10/30/01: Has Bush has flip-flopped on 'nation-building'?
10/23/01: The new political world
10/16/01: The return of big government
10/08/01: On political war
10/01/01: The "born-again" president
09/25/01: Making America squirm
09/14/01: The American spirit will not wane
09/10/01: What Dubya knows about the budget
08/13/01: Japan becomes the latest country to see its politics become personalized
08/09/01: Bush backers out to remake prez yet again
07/30/01: Will the GOP's mandate of 1994 finally runs out?
07/23/01: Both political parties are full of ....
07/16/01: Empowered moderate Republicans
07/09/01: As goes New Jersey, so goes the nation?
07/02/01: Dubya: Like father, like son?
06/15/01: The new soccer moms
06/05/01: Deals or deadlock?
05/29/01: The War Between the States is heating up again
05/21/01: The answer is men
05/10/01: Bush v. Carter?


© 2002, William Schneider