« Uh Oh! | Main | What Might Have Been »
Who's Helped By A Terrorist Attack
Dan Drezner asks the question of the hour -- who wins politically from a terrorist attack? One thing that's interesting about this question is that it sort of encourages each side's partisans to say it will help the other guy. After all, if it becomes entrenched conventional wisdom that an attack will help Bush, then if an attack happens it will seem like it was partially designed to help re-elect Bush, which would hurt Bush. This is why GOP partisans have been running around town darkly implying that an attack may be in the works aimed at influencing the election "just like in Madrid." In other words, terrorists love John Kerry.
So that's one complication to add to a complicated dynamic. Folks on both sides of the aisle will be scrambling like hell to make the case that Osama has endorsed candidate X or candidate Y. Most broadly, though, I think that while the immediate impact of an attack would be to help Bush ("rally 'round the flag," etc.) that pretty soon afterwards that bounce would fade and Kerry would get the advantage. The reason is that a successful attack would (a) reveal that we're still unsafe, and (b) reveal that Bush isn't doing anything to try and make us any safer, he's busy fighting a counterinsurgency in Iraq. The president's not going to be able to go off on another three-year, two-war sequence in response to a second attack, which is going to wind up revealing the fact that there really isn't all that much "decisive leadership" forthcoming from this gang. Kerry, meanwhile, will get to say something vague about how this shows it's time for a new approached centered on doing good things in smart ways, or whatever it is you say on a campaign trail.
The question is -- how long would the bounce last? The post-Saddam bounce lasted six weeks, which I'd say is a reasonable estimate for a terror bounce as well. So starting in late-September, I think attacks help Bush, but until then they wind up helping Kerry.
That means that if an attack comes soon, the terrorists want Kerry to win and you should vote for Bush. If it comes later, they want Bush to win and you should vote for Kerry. Or maybe they know that's what you'll think and if they like Kerry they'll attack late and if they like Bush they'll attack early. But what if they guessed that, too? Well, then. . . .
July 13, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834565b2c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who's Helped By A Terrorist Attack:
» The Al Qaeda candidate from Gene Expression
Drezner and Yglesias are speculating on the question of who would benefit from a major terrorist attack near the election. Given the Madrid bombings and the recent Homeland security prep for possible election postponement (!), it is not possible to... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 13, 2004 9:39:58 PM
» "With enough doors and shovels" -- Terrorism and the Election from The 80/20 Club
As right-wingers in Spain discovered (after they tried to spam things up by claiming against rising evidence that it was the work of Basque separatists) the reaction to actual terrorism is unpredictable. The *threat* of an attack, on the other hand, i... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 14, 2004 2:30:42 AM
» What do the terrorists want? Who cares. from Lawyers, Guns and Money
First, this is a silly game of speculation, obviously. I can tell you that if I were Osama Bin Laden, I could certainly see an upside to the re-election of George W. Bush, on the grounds that I like my enemies lead by people who are a) as incompetent... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 14, 2004 3:58:54 PM
» Terrorism: Political Consequences from Paperwight's Fair Shot
The real answer is Al Qaeda wins no matter what the election outcome in November, if people think it's based even in part on Al Quaeda's actions. Other than that it doesn't matter what Al Quaeda actually thinks, or who will get the polling bounce, esp... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 14, 2004 5:30:59 PM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 9:58:06 PM
Comments
Somewhat like the prisoner dilemma...
Posted by: Q | Jul 13, 2004 5:17:46 PM
A) Very much depends on the size and nature of the attack. Or perhaps not, if ten major cities are rubble, perhaps for Kansans and Alaskans left alive your analysis still applies.
"GOP partisans have been running around town darkly implying that an attack may be in the works aimed at influencing the election "just like in Madrid."
I may have been hearing this at the time of Madrid, but recently I have been hearing right-wingers saying a terrorist attack helps Bush. And not simply a bounce, but that the fundamental perception of WoT will be changed. Whatever the Righty analysis, this switch is what I have been reading and hearing. It may simply be desperation.
I have no idea how the American people would react, and would not trust anyone else's prediction.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 13, 2004 5:27:34 PM
The entire issue is bogus. The candidate who won in Spain had been winning in the polls leading up to the election. The bombings made no difference. You wouldn't know this if you depended on US press coverage.
Posted by: Slothrop of Boulder | Jul 13, 2004 5:30:22 PM
What about this scenario: how does a thwarted terrorist attack the week before the election effect the outcome? This worries me--with all the homeland security "alerts" the current administration puts out, is it that unlikely that they'd pull out a Padilla-type "plot" on Oct. 30 to "demonstrate" how "effective" they are on terrorism? With all of the current worry about an successful terrorist strike, one forgets how the Bushies have trotted out warnings and even "plots" when they needed to keep something off the frontpage.
Posted by: thefxee | Jul 13, 2004 5:34:40 PM
Absent a terrorist attack or other wildcard Kerry will win (the major issues are Iraq and the economy; I don't see the Iraq situation changing much, and the economic recovery is at its peak and will only falter from here, yet even now the race is still dead even; therefore Kerry wins) so any unpredictable wildcard is good for Bush by default.
Posted by: tennin | Jul 13, 2004 5:39:16 PM
Didn't prime minister Aznar try to blame the basque separatist and this also could have led to his defeat. News that you don't hear on CNN
Posted by: jl | Jul 13, 2004 5:43:48 PM
Didn't prime minister Aznar try to blame the basque separatist and this also could have led to his defeat. News that you don't hear on CNN
Posted by: jl | Jul 13, 2004 5:43:49 PM
tennin got it right. Kerry will win. A terrorist attack helps Bush. There is always a rally-round-the-flag effect.
Posted by: epistemology | Jul 13, 2004 5:44:05 PM
What if the terrorists want Nader to spoil the election?
Oh, sorry, I guess you were referring to Al Qaeda.
Posted by: blah | Jul 13, 2004 5:47:24 PM
But remember the lesson of Spain: The terrorists' goal is to affect the electoral result. Therefore if Kerry is ahead in the polls at the time of the attack, we must on no account give the terrorists the victory by allowing Bush to win instead.
Posted by: KCinDC | Jul 13, 2004 5:47:40 PM
How do you think the terrorists want the Senate and House races to turn out? Do you think they would prefer Bill Jones or Barbara Boxer?
Posted by: blah | Jul 13, 2004 5:55:10 PM
Pointless speculation by people incapable of keeping their mouths shut. There is more vacuity per square meter in D.C. than any other town in the country.
Posted by: Will Allen | Jul 13, 2004 5:56:24 PM
Hi, Will. I'm not in D.C. It's really a joy to hear from you.
Posted by: Zizka | Jul 13, 2004 6:08:54 PM
the terrorists' goal is not to influence the US election. their goal is to topple the US. while it's a goal they have no possibility of achieving on their own, they might be able to do it if the US helps them out by going insane with internal fingerpointing and blame.
Posted by: cleek | Jul 13, 2004 6:30:29 PM
Ah, but what is the Nash Equilibrium here?
Posted by: praktike | Jul 13, 2004 6:42:16 PM
"Most broadly, though, I think that while the immediate impact of an attack would be to help Bush ("rally 'round the flag," etc.) that pretty soon afterwards that bounce would fade and Kerry would get the advantage."
Yes, I agree with this analysis. It's been clear since the September 11th hearings that Democrats (justifiably or not) will try to make political hay of this administration's efforts at protecting the country from terrorists. Indeed I think the "pretty soon" could nearly be immediate, depending on how things work out. Indeeder, I wouldn't be shocked if Bush got no flag-rally bounce whatsoever as a result of a succesful terrorist attack on the United States.
The problem for any sitting president in this situation is, even if everything possible is being done to protect the country, no policy or set of policies can possibly be 100% effective. Bush can't guarantee the country will escape the blows of our enemies indefinitely. Neither could a President Gore, or Kerry. So, when the blow finally arrives (should it arrive before election day) the focus will invevitably be on whether the attack could have been prevented, and whether the policies and practices in place were adequate. My own fear is that even if a reasonable person would judge that the policies in place were prudent, and could be expected to be effective, the fact that a terrorist attack got through will be viewed as ipso facto evidence of administration incompetence. In other words, in this political environment, nothing short of 100% freedom from terrorist incidents will be seen as acceptable.
Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Jul 13, 2004 7:12:09 PM
A major terrorist attack probably helps Bush. For one thing, the terrorists tend to attack blue states, as Michael Moore pointed out the day after 9-11. Hence either a lot of Democrats are dead, or may have more important things to do than vote.
Posted by: Brainster | Jul 13, 2004 7:14:24 PM
nothing short of 100% freedom from terrorist incidents will be seen as acceptable.
let's not forget that many of Bush's supporters have been touting that Perfect Record claim for a couple of years now. (ignoring the anthrax thang, of course)
Posted by: cleek | Jul 13, 2004 7:21:52 PM
let's not forget that many of Bush's supporters have been touting that Perfect Record claim for a couple of years now. (ignoring the anthrax thang, of course)
And the LAX thing, the perpetrator of which, it was claimed at the time, was linked to al-Qaeda.
Its a "perfect record" if, you know, you ignore the actual terrorist attacks after 9/11.
Posted by: cmdicely | Jul 13, 2004 7:42:00 PM
"Bush can't guarantee the country will escape the blows of our enemies indefinitely"
So, PB, by what objective standard are we voters to hold Bush on account in effort or competence?
If we don't get attacked, he is 100% effective.
If we do get hurt, well, shit happens.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 13, 2004 7:45:54 PM
So starting in late-September, I think attacks help Bush, but until then they wind up helping Kerry.
Unless he's dead from it, that is.
Posted by: DonBoy | Jul 13, 2004 7:48:39 PM
McManus is correct upthread; it depends on the nature--and to a degree, the timing--of an attack.
It's all speculation, however.
I could see an attack directed against our economic infrastructure helping Kerry. OTOH, an attack involving great loss of life might help Bush. Of course, should the attack be similar in nature to 9/11 (hijacked aircraft, buildings, etc.)--it may well work against Bush.
Posted by: Jadegold | Jul 13, 2004 7:52:01 PM
"That means that if an attack comes soon, the terrorists want Kerry to win and you should vote for Bush. If it comes later, they want Bush to win and you should vote for Kerry. Or maybe they know that's what you'll think and if they like Kerry they'll attack late and if they like Bush they'll attack early. But what if they guessed that, too? Well, then...."
Clearly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Posted by: fling93 | Jul 13, 2004 8:12:24 PM
Probably been stated here already, but yeah, the challenger in Spain was leading/tied, and the fact that Aznar said it was Basque terrorists, not Al-Qaeda hurt him. I think the margin of victory was also small, something like 5%, and Zapatero was running on the anti-war/pull out the troops platform. I think Kerry wins if the election is today. An attack at this point, I dont know, naturally you'd think it would favor Bush, but when his whole platform has been, "America is safer today", you gotta wonder how long the "rally round the leader" effect would last. Carter had high approval ratings for a couple of months after the hostages were taken, but we all saw what happened there.
Posted by: Tim | Jul 13, 2004 8:15:16 PM
If there's any possible way to seriously speculate about the intentions of Al Queda, et al, I'd say they should clearly want to help Bush win the election. Think about it: he's got US troop occupying a Muslim country; he has inflamed most of the world against America with his pointless, self-defeating unilateralist bellicosity; three years after 9/11, the U.S. still hasn't gotten serious about homeland security (i.e., ports, transportation, borders, etc.); and of course, the Abu Ghraib photos will help teach entire generations of Muslim/Arab children what they should think about America. What more could Osama bin Laden possibly ask of an American president? Bush is clearly Al Queda's most valuable ally.
Posted by: MK | Jul 13, 2004 8:19:35 PM
