David Broder and Dan Balz have a giant article up at the Washington Post on the nation’s attitude towards terrorism and the war in Iraq. The article is at once mealy-mouthed, straightforward, and interesting. The most interesting feature is their discussion of a recent focus group experiment.

…a survey experiment commissioned by The Washington Post and conducted by Stanford University communications Prof. Shanto Iyengar showed that, even five years later, visual reminders of the attacks of Sept. 11 can — modestly — affect attitudes about Bush, the causes of terrorism and how to combat it.

“The best way of summarizing this pattern of results is that it appears as though President Bush has a 9/11 halo,” Iyengar said. “When people see 9/11, they immediately respond more positively to the president. In this context, given that his evaluations are fairly low, what we’re saying is, it makes them less negative.”

That makes it likely that reminders of those attacks and threats of global terrorism again will be seen in campaign ads for this fall’s elections and in 2008.

Conversely, images of Iraq (both positive and negative) have no effect on people’s attitudes.

…images of the war in Iraq failed to change attitudes. Whether images of success (the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue) or setbacks (U.S. or Iraqi casualties), the videos did not affect views about the war, about Bush, about the upcoming election. After more than three years of daily reporting from Iraq, public opinion now is difficult to sway.

I suppose that there is both good and bad news in this. On the positive side, it appears there is nothing Bush can do to improve people’s opinion of his decision to invade Iraq. People hate the decision. On the negative side, it does not appear that we can gain any more advantage by harping on it. At best, we can maintain the advantage we have.


As for 9/11, Americans still have a visceral reaction when subjected to images from that day.

The Twin Towers imagery also affected how Americans assess the causes of terrorism. The experiment found that 53 percent of Democrats who saw the video said Islamic extremism was extremely important in causing terrorism, compared with 40 percent of Democrats in a control group, who saw no video. Those in the control group were more likely to cite poverty and political oppression as causing terrorism than were those who saw the Twin Towers video.

Congresspeople running for office this year will have difficulty using 9/11 footage in their campaign commercials without inviting a backlash. But we can expect some of that, plus plenty of rhetoric about the importance of keeping America safe. Meanwhile, gas prices appear to be the most potent weapon available to the Democrats.

Different groups were shown images either of bad news (rising gasoline prices) or good news (jobs growth). Among those who saw the reports of gas prices, 42 percent said their family is worse off than a year ago, compared with 29 percent of those who saw the good news video. The spread was even greater among independents. Those who saw the gas prices video also were more pessimistic about the national economy.

“I wasn’t expecting the kind of effect we found on the economy, particularly because those are really large effects, on the order of magnitude of 10 percentage points,” Iyengar said. “Given what we know about the impact of perceptions of the economy on voting, those are consequential effects.”

Gas prices are not the only weapon available to the Democrats. They lead in every category, save terrorism.

In a late June Post-ABC News poll, when voters were asked which party they trust to handle certain issues, Republicans led on only one topic: the campaign against terrorism. Their 46 percent to 39 percent lead over the Democrats was modest, compared with the 2 to 1 advantage they enjoyed earlier, but it stands out at a time when Republicans are trailing on the economy, immigration, corruption and Iraq.

As events in the Middle East spiral out of control it is hard to gauge how the American public will react. Gas prices are likely to continue their upward trend, further strengthening the Dems’ strongest advantage. It will also threaten to erode even further the public’s view on how Bush is handling foreign affairs.

But, if the left splinters over support or opposition to Israel’s actions, and if there are more terrorist attacks on U.S. interests, events could favor the GOP.

More than anything, chaos and violence in the Middle East threatens to drown out discussion of kitchen table issues, like education, health care, and retirement security, while blunting criticism of Bush’s illegal surveillance, torture, and extraordinary renditions.

Put on your seat belts, it’s going to be a rocky ride.