But the opportunity for Democrats goes well beyond the public's support for amore expansive government. During the two months following the attacks, myassociates 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, andtolerance--reflect the instinctive impulses of Democrats surely more than they doRepublicans'. Indeed, the short-term and consumerist perspective inherent in theRepublicans' aggressive tax-cut initiative seems oddly out of sync with theemerging mood.
The Post-September 11 Mood and Values
The first pattern in the emerging mood is the pride taken inthe country's unity. People think the United States is headed in the rightdirection because Americans have come together as one in the face of adversity:As people affirmed repeatedly in the group discussions, "United we stand." Aftersadness or heroism, this pride in unity is almost the first thing participantstalked about: "To me, it has brought people in our country together"; "UnitedStates of America, again behind the government"; "the country seems to havebanded together for the first time since World War II or Korea."
Participants explicitly noted that this is no Vietnam--a time when thecountry was divided and thereby weakened itself. In fact, people were reluctantto get into the blame game. As one participant said, there is "a lot of blame togo around." That would divide the country, they believe, and we cannot affordthat.
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 theunified national response. In some respects, then, the "security issue" has beenneutralized by popular request. When we asked whether Democrats are as patrioticas Republicans, respondents said yes without qualification.
The second pattern of thinking--a newly evident consciousness of community--isclosely related to unity. People were proud that in the aftermath of thetragedies Americans are working together, thinking about one another, and helpingothers. They noted: "Everybody [is] bonding together"; "I just feel we have morein common with people, knowing they feel bad too"; "[It's been] a long time sincewe pulled together to help each other.... We're going to help each other whetherit's our neighbor or a stranger across the country."
This emerging sense of community contains within it the notion that, at thismoment, 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 seewhat it means to be an American."
The third pattern is a new sense of seriousness, in both private and publicpurpose. Even two months after the attacks, the events of September 11 led manyto say that they "need to figure out what is really important," as one person putit. "I think it's darn time that finally this country got back to caring aboutwhat's important, which is, you know, your family and home and self, and youknow, stop being quite so materialistic."
The perceived need to refocus our priorities as individuals extends to thepublic level: We are at "a point in our history [where] we have some veryimportant things to do," one of the participants asserted. While people talkedabout dealing with many issues--"animal rights," for example--they suggested wehave "bigger things to think about right now." One person summed up with thesimple instruction: "Prioritize. We need healing and we need each other.... Turnyour attention to helping our nation."
The final pattern of thinking that has emerged centers on the freedom tochoose. We asked people in the focus groups what it means to be an American andwhy America is under attack. The great bulk of the responses raised the conceptof "freedom." In the face of the attacks by Islamic fundamentalists, people aredefining 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 oflife--and that it is now under attack. They consider this concept of choice to bemissing from those societies that would impose traditional patterns on theindividual, the family, and women. The focus group participants were ready toelaborate:
You know...you choose who you're going to marry, and you chooseif 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 whetheryou get on a plane. And that's why a lot of people want to come here...becausethere's a lot of choices.You could choose your religion; you don't have to be one thing or another. Ifyou're a woman, you can walk down the street; you don't have to hide under aveil.
But also under attack are freedom of religion and the concept of religiouspluralism: the ability of many religions to co-exist in the same society withoutdividing it. "We tolerate others' religion"; "we have a mix and nobody seems tocare what you are or what your faith is." In fact, someone said, "that is whatdrives them nuts...the fact we can show respect. You're a Buddhist, fine. As longas you don't harm me or force your religion onto me, let me make my choices--theycan'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 fairlytolerant attitude toward Muslims in America expressed in all of the focus groups.Respondents clearly favored tighter border controls and limiting the number ofimmigrants, views that are also reflected in the polls. But it is striking thatduring the many weeks of focus-group discussions, hostile comments fromparticipants toward foreigners and Muslims were few and isolated. The events ofSeptember 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. Theconcept of freedom that Americans are fighting to preserve, moreover, posesproblems for the fundamentalist religious forces in the United States that havesought to bring religion more forcefully into politics. Writing in the November 5Weekly Standard, David Brooks gingerly raised the idea that this may notbe the best moment for "faith-based initiatives and religion in the publicsquare." No wonder Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Franklin Graham seem so offbalance in the current environment.
Unity and togetherness; bonding and community; family and country overmaterialism and selfishness; freedom to choose in life and religion--these arethe elements that form the public consciousness during this period. Small wonderthat voters are having trouble understanding the Republicans' tax-cut approach ata time when the country faces so many challenges.
Compared to the GOP, the Democrats seem more aligned with this emergingconsciousness--above all, because of the centrality of community. British PrimeMinister Tony Blair understood this when he gave his speech on the "power ofcommunity" to a Labour Party conference. The attacks, he said, left us with arenewed respect for the public services because they represent our capacity toact together. After September 11, we dare not think that each individual and eachcountry can go it alone. The power of community, said Blair, infuses our "modernsocial democracy."
The public's renewed interest in government is a symptom of the powerfulimpulse to act together and protect our freedoms.
Tax Cuts and the New Politics
The Republican House and President Bush have made tax cutstheir central proposition for addressing the economy and meeting the country'sdomestic needs. But this position is at odds with the emerging national moodafter the September catastrophe. While voters clearly want tax cuts as part of anoverall approach, they oppose an aggressive program of tax cuts because thecountry faces other financial needs, because such cuts endanger the budget andeconomy, and because they are at odds with the emerging commitment to communityand nation.
Given a choice, voters have other priorities. They would delay the large taxcuts passed last year and use the money to fund Social Security, rebuild afterthe terrorist attacks, help the unemployed, and increase support for education.In a poll of 1,000 likely voters commissioned by Democracy Corps and conducted byGreenberg Quinlan Rosner Research from October 30 through November 1, votersgreatly preferred this choice (54 percent to 39 percent) to the Republican onethat 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, Americanssee Republicans' big tax cuts as irresponsible. The aggressive cuts PresidentBush supports clash with Americans' worries about federal budget deficits and theeconomy; many fear that the cuts may plunge the country into red ink again--andinto long-term financial uncertainty. For some participants, the connection andthe risks are very clear.
[The] biggest thing for me is the economy. As far as the taxcuts and things, I thought he [Bush] is going overboard on that. My biggestconcern is the deficit....We are paying so much interest on the deficititself....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 includetax cuts, we found particular public discomfort with tax cuts that areindividualistic and indulgent. The tax rebate for those who did not receive taxcuts in the first round has a progressive purpose and has been championed by bothDemocrats and Republicans. Yet Americans wonder whether even this rebate proposalcomports with their new sense of seriousness.
In fact, voters do not currently bring a strong partisan filter to the variouseconomic proposals being considered by Congress. Nonetheless, when given a listof individual Democratic proposals, a large majority of respondents support eachone. Two-thirds favor every Democratic proposal but one (the tax rebate). Thestrongest support is for providing unemployment benefits to the newly unemployed;delaying tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent in order to fund post-September 11rebuilding and Social Security; funding infrastructure projects such as airportimprovements and school construction to create jobs; accelerating the broad,middle-class tax cuts that are already scheduled; including the newly unemployedunder COBRA health insurance ; and offering tax incentives to businesses--ifclearly linked to new investment. The backing for construction of publicprojects--which wins the support of 85 percent of likely voters (more than forany other proposal except extending unemployment benefits, which also garners 85percent support)--is a particularly notable expression of the current publicmood.
Overall, the Democrats' proposals poll better than theRepublicans'--particularly those Republican brainstorms that have already becomepart of the public debate, like retroactively eliminating the "alternativeminimum tax" on corporations. One person in a focus group observed, to theagreement of many: "We've got the deficit, we've got increased spending, we'vegot military action going on, and don't really need to keep handing out moneyright now." That $600 may not add up to much for the individual, anotherelaborated, "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 ofmoney right now. And as far as I'm concerned, if it's there, if the government'sexpensive and it's not breaking us, leave it alone. It don't make any sense tokeep sending it back and we go further in the hole. Because we're going to be theones 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 thatconflicts with their thinking about the emergent challenges for the country. Thetax 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 aboutthe future." Another called it "a dumb thing" and continued: "I can't understandwhy they did that. It was in my benefit, it was in anybody's benefit. But in thefuture, it's not."
The argument that tax cuts spur spending and therefore help the economy alsoclashes with what some voters think should be the proper emphasis--community andcountry. What the president is calling for, one suggested, is for people "to goon a shopping spree," but if "he would have said education, that's important." Weare 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 absorbedit.... Did it go back into the country...or did...[we] just go out and buysomething like a TV or something?
Another participant, reflecting on past wars, recalled that people boughtbonds 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 seemsshort-term, diminished, individualistic, and consumerist at a time when citizensare looking for something more for the nation. People are thinking aboutcommunity needs, government, and the future.
A season for Democrats.
