Centerfield

It's an interesting thought that Beslan and other things have awoken a latent concern among women. Everyone should be concerned about islamic fundamentalist terrorism and how we approach it. If it's true that personal/family safety concerns are the cause of women trending towards Bush, it nevertheless presents a conundrum. If you vote for Bush as more likely to pursue policies of aggressive action to protect America for little Johnny, what about when someone calls upon Johnny to go marching off to war?

It's been suggested by many that wars often end due to exhaustion. So this effect, if real, may play out by women intially supporting Bush but later (much later, after a few years) turning decisively against such policies. I think hawkishness is still the winning policy, but it's got a sell-by date on it.

It's trends such as this one that make me think it's likely that Bush gets re-elected on the strength of a visceral feeling that it's not yet time to lay down the sword. But suppose that over the next 4 years there's no substantial domestic terrorism and our overseas efforts continue to be costly, painful, and show few signs of grand victory. In this case, I'd expect that a more realpolitik sense of acceptance of the dangers of 21st century Earth will make Americans willing to accept a savvy politicker for the new cold war, so that we can pay more attention to domestic policies. Is Hillary Clinton already concocting that brew? Think "clever mother weasel with white house experience and training at the knee of grampa weasel..."

BK,

I think you are right about the effect of terrorism on this election. We can argue about Bush's effectiveness until we are blue in the face but it's clear that he has an advantage among people who are concerned about terrorism. And I think the concern about "Johnny marching off to war" are mitigated by the fact that it's a volunteer army, at least for now.

The problem is I think the danger of terrorism is overstated, at least for most Americans. Let's face it, the most likely terrorist targets are NY, Washington, LA and perhaps a few other places. Most Americans are unlikely to really be in danger. Moreover, it's somewhat of a leap to suggest that aggressive foreign policy means less danger of terrorist attacks. Even if you agree that this is necessary as part of a long-run strategy against terrorism, it's not obvious that we are less vulnerable to attacks TODAY because of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not even the Administration believes that the wars have so disrupted the terrorist networks that no attacks are possible or likely in the US (as evidenced by the continuing terror alerts). Obviously, the Republicans have managed to convince a lot of people that that Bush's policy is making us safer, but you could certainly argue that homeland security (broadly construed as intelligence and security measures)is a more direct protection. On this score, I don't think Bush's record is so great.

Sure. But I placed my focus as I did because of my continuing sense that most people are going to choose based on their visceral gut-level response. You can make all the arguments you want, and people might agree with much of what you say, and then still vote for Bush because it makes them FEEL safer.

So even if it may be arguable whether we are in fact safer after invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, it doesn't seem arguable that a majority both feels safer and is glad that our nation responded to domestic attack with multiple shows of force on foreign soil, regardless of how connected Iraq was to 9/11 or the level of threat they represented.

Terrorist danger overstated? Perhaps physically, but I don't think people are SO self-interested and shortsighted that they'd consider terrorism unworthy of concern as long as attacks were confined to urban areas far from them. In the case of terrorism, I think the threat makes us all feel like Americans first. I think that a solid 90-95 percent of Americans would agree with the idea that "if New York is in danger, I am in danger." My opinion is that this is the right way to look at it.

The way I construe it, and the way I think most other people construe it, is that the terrorist threat is not simply a physical threat to us and the ones we love most but to our very way of life. A threat not just to life, but to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to name a couple. So while Bismarck, Omaha, Des Moines, Podunk, Attleboro, and a thousand other american locales might be unlikely to be targeted by suitcase nuke, the people that live in these places understand that our basic interconnectedness as a nation is such that a leveling of NY would harm us all. Just look at how many suffered indirectly in the wake of 9/11. I think all who lived saw a decrease in liberty and an impariment of their pursuit of happiness.

If you vote for Bush as more likely to pursue policies of aggressive action to protect America for little Johnny, what about when someone calls upon Johnny to go marching off to war?

Honestly, this is where I am at now on this whole issue. I don't know that either Bush or Kerry can or will make us all that much safer from terrorism. Bad guys bent on doing evil will always find a way to do it. But the possibility of a draft--now that's something that makes me prick up my ears. There was an article in yesterday's Washington Post that quoted John Kerry as saying that under W., the draft could be reinstated. Then he said something along the lines of, "will this happen? I can't tell you."

Now what, exactly, does "I can't tell you" mean? Does this mean, "I don't know," or does this mean, "I know, but I'm not at liberty to say." And what is my gaurantee that a draft wouldn't be initiated under Kerry?

I know that HR 163 and S. 89 are sitting in subcommitte right now (and have been since 2003). I've read both bills at THOMAS, and those bills would reinstate and expand the draft. Those bills are not dead (I checked the status on THOMAS as well), although no vote or hearings are scheduled. I also know those bills were drafted and sponsored by Democrats, supposedly to make a political point. My concern is, why aren't those bills dead? Why are they just sitting there, as if waiting for the right moment to resurface? Will they come back and haunt us? Do the mothers of this nation know of the existence of those bills? I imagine that many (most?) do not.

Well, until passed, a bill is just an idea that someone wrote down. We could tear up the bill, but the idea would persist. Other than that, there's really not much substantive difference between a bill with no action scheduled and a glint in my eye.

If the government enacts military policies that require a greater number of troops than volunteerism provides, you get a draft. I think it's a function of circumstances much moreso than a function of whether or not a bill exists.

In other words, despite the existence of a bill, there really isn't the existing will to make it a law, so it doesn't matter much that someone took the trouble to write it down, other than that maybe it exists so it can be quickly acted upon should the need arise quickly.

I think Beslan was a wake-up call for a lot of women, a reminder that the people we're fighting are not just capable of violence in the abstract (i.e. toppling buildings), they are capable of murdering children in cold blood face-to-face.

I am puzzled by this notion that terrorism is something like the weather, and that we shouldn't be too concerned because it's only going to affect certain areas. These acts do not take place in a vaccuum. They are motivated by a violent, fanatic ideology that wants us all dead, wherever we are. It is aggressive and on the march.

Like Nazism in WW II, there is no place to hide from it, and retreating behind our borders will not make it go away. Like it or not, we can only aggressively confront it. We can do so now while it is still possible to defeat it, or we can wait until it has metastasized all over Europe and Asia and every country in the world is fighting a desperate war or has fallen under its dominance.

PurpleStater,

I am interested in what you said in your post. By "aggressively confront it," do you mean militarily? What would be your suggestion for how we ought to go about doing that?

I personally think this a red herring.

If women were really gravitating toward Bush, the polls would show a much less tighter race than we have, especially given that Bush does better with men than Kerry does.

Bush has done very little to protect us on the Homeland Security front..and most women know that from watching television and reading the papers. When all that money is poured into Iraq and the Republican legislature and Republican President talk about cutting the Homeland Security budget...women understand what that means.

I think the idea that there will be draft is really unlikely, regardless of who you vote for in November. The skillset necessary to be in the military takes more training than it used to, and the way we wage war requires less warm bodies with little training. The bills in Congress are outright frauds if you ask me, and they are just trying to make a political point. If you are concerned about the draft, Amy, perhaps you should vote GOP since it's only Dems who are talking about it. I can also guarantee you that if Kerry were president and we had a large land invasion by China on our soil, Kerry would break his promise.

Breslan I'm sure had some effect, but I believe the polls shifted before that occurred. Kerry definitely had more female support prior to the RNC, but I think there are a variety of reasons women voters feel more comfortable with Bush on national security issues. Take away the national security issue and they'd like move back to where they were before.

AmyE,

I mean the whole spectrum of options: military, financial, diplomatic, rhetorical. It does not mean going Roman on every country where some kid is wearing a Bin Laden t-shirt, but it does mean looking at fighting terror as more than law enforcement.

Ann Althouse has a related post; she's a bit steamed that the campaigns see her as a swirling vortex of hormones:

See, you terrorists, what happens when you go after children! It makes women want to vote for Bush. Show me some "provocative scenes" and then some suffering children and, suddenly, I am caught in a estrogen undertow sweeping me to the right.

estrogen undertow, that's a good one!