Does the absence of 9/11 really change anything significant?

[A Piece of History]

"The reason why we'd like to imagine a world without 9/11 was to think of a world that would've been better because those towers never fell. It's cathartic to believe if we'd prevented 9/11, the issues we face now wouldn't have happened....It's sadder. Istead of our world being a exception because of a dramatic terrorist attack, our world really is something that was going to happen anyway. In this timeline, we just get a decade more of peace",

So aside from being as depressing as all hell, this video by Cody makes me wonder if the absence of 9/11 would've really changed anything in our world, if the events that we recognize as being spawned by 9/11 were just going to happen anyway.

Aside from the détente that we get from there being no War on Terror, is there anything significant that the absence of 9/11 would've changed?

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

we'd still get the great recession and rise of populism. however it'd be in a context better civil liberties, a US less in debt, less inflation and evangelicals a 5-year boost. without the ability to point to iraq-related budget issues we likely end up with OTL's bush-era healthcare tweaks and obamacare in 2005 or 2006.

decent odds of it being the same potus list as OTL, but on the upside we'd get something better than OTL's obamacare, since obamacare was already done. obviously not fuil uhc but closer.

still trump in office but inflation only around 20% since 2001 instead of north of 30%

 

[dw93]

The Bush Presidency itself would be pretty different. Sure, they'd still push to invade Iraq, but would they succeed without 9/11? The Democrats would also retake Congress in 2002 without the rally around the flag effect, so Bush would spend 2003 and 2004 with a Democratic Congress rather than a rubber stamp congress of OTL.

 

[Bookmark1995]

Well, one obvious butterfly is the effect the 9/11 attacks had on popular culture.

The immediate impact of 9/11 was media that-in some way-involved the Twin Towers was often edited, if not censored.

The first Spider-Man had to be heavily edited, because the trailer featured the Twin Towers quite prominently.

One episode of the Simpsons, which had Homer having to recover his car from New York, also prominently featured the Twin Towers, and was banned for several years. One shot was the fodder of many conspiracy nuts.

But one very obscure effect on TV was the cancellation of a promising pilot, called Constant Payne. The public reason was that one shot of the cartoon uncomfortably resembled the destruction of the world trade center, although some say it was the pilot's creator trying to unionize Nickelodeon. But a lot of people agree it might've had the potential to become one of the greatest Nicktoons, perhaps even changing pop culture.

The destruction of the World Trade Center in such a graphic way shifted American history, because most Americans had never seen a major landmark destroyed in such a way.

Terrorism was nothing new in America. A 9/11 style attack was inevitable, but it would have to have destroyed a major symbol of Americana to have an impact.

 

[Megafighter3]

There was also an episode of Pokemon that got dropped from American airwaves for a while due to bearing the title "The Tower of Terror" right? And i think the episode with Tentacool and Tentacruel had to be re-edited due to Tentacruel smashing up buildings.

 

[The Wooksta!]

Funding for the IRA from naive Americans idealizing them as "freedom fighters" (rather than the baby murdering gangsters and criminals that they really were) would continue - after 9/11, most of these useful idiots realizes that terrorism on your own soil is a Bad Thing and funding dropped like a stone.

 

[A Piece of History]

The Democrats would also retake Congress in 2002 without the rally around the flag effect, so Bush would spend 2003 and 2004 with a Democratic Congress rather than a rubber stamp congress of OTL.

What could've changed as a result of that?

 

[Don Corleone]

What could've changed as a result of that?

Not a lot - they already had the Senate 51-49 and enacted No Child Left Behind, which likely would have been the same with or without 9/11. The airline bailout is unnecessary. There is no political appetite for the Unpatriotic Act which is a good thing.

But 2003-04 didn't see major legislation. Small followup to the tax cuts. Without the GWOT as a distraction there might be more domestic legislation but it would have to be bipartisan.

The biggest benefit would be that when the financial crisis occurs, we're in a stronger fiscal position and can deal with it more effectively. We also aren't as likely to get Obama in 2008, since he won't be able to hang the Iraq vote around Hillary's neck.

 

[A Piece of History]

We also aren't as likely to get Obama in 2008, since he won't be able to hang the Iraq vote around Hillary's neck.

Does that mean we get a Clinton administration or a McCain/Palin administration if Clinton loses in 2008?

 

[Don Corleone]

Does that mean we get a Clinton administration or a McCain/Palin administration if Clinton loses in 2008?

Assuming W won reelection, Clinton due to party fatigue. (Edwards might win in 2004 by flipping Ohio and NC if he gets the nomination...Gephardt is too wooden and Dean too radical and gaffe-prone).

With a less severe economic meltdown and thus a smaller bailout, you don't see the Tea Party and OWS rebellions. You also don't have the perception of both party establishments being failures like you do in OTL, so an insurgent/outsider candidacy isn't going to gain traction in 2016.

 

[Bookmark1995]

Assuming W won reelection, Clinton due to party fatigue. (Edwards might win in 2004 by flipping Ohio and NC if he gets the nomination...Gephardt is too wooden and Dean too radical and gaffe-prone).

With a less severe economic meltdown and thus a smaller bailout, you don't see the Tea Party and OWS rebellions. You also don't have the perception of both party establishments being failures like you do in OTL, so an insurgent/outsider candidacy isn't going to gain traction in 2016.

Did the Iraq War also play a role in the hyperpartisanship of OTL? What would politics be like without it?

 

[dw93]

What could've changed as a result of that?

The Democrats were 2-5 seats away from retaking the house by 2002 and as @Landmass Wave said, they already had a 51 seat majority in the Senate thanks to Jim Jeffords switching parties. With a weak economy, Bush being unable to shed the cloud of Florida and the Supreme Court Ruling without the Rally around the flag effect, and Enron probably getting more attention than OTL due to a lack of rally around the flag, as well as historical trends, the Democrats have a good year in 2002.

 

[darklordoftech]

What could've changed as a result of that?

No 2003 tax cut and no partial-birth abortion ban. Whether Bush won or lost in 2004, a Democratic Senate would insist on more liberal SCOTUS nominees than Roberts and Alito.

 

[SpookyBoy]

The people of Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places would have a lot to say about that

This thread seems extremely US-centric to me

 

[Bookmark1995]

The people of Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places would have a lot to say about that

This thread seems extremely US-centric to me

Because 9/11 transformed America a lot.

 

[Thon Taddeo]

I think there's a chance the Iraq War still happens. There was significant bipartisan support for doing something about Saddam and his (nonexistent) WMDs. Though without widespread paranoia about terrorism, it will probably be much less popular than OTL's war was.

In the long run, 9/11 doesn't seem to have had that much impact on popular culture, with other issues and events overshadowing it. For most Americans (especially Generation Z, whose members have no memory of the attacks) it's just some bad thing that happened in the past, like the Kennedy assassination. Sure people will agree that terrorism is bad, but most won't care about what happened on a warm Tuesday morning in September 2001.

 

[Bookmark1995]

I think there's a chance the Iraq War still happens. There was significant bipartisan support for doing something about Saddam and his (nonexistent) WMDs. Though without widespread paranoia about terrorism, it will probably be much less popular than OTL's war was.

In the long run, 9/11 doesn't seem to have had that much impact on popular culture, with other issues and events overshadowing it. For most Americans (especially Generation Z, whose members have no memory of the attacks) it's just some bad thing that happened in the past, like the Kennedy assassination. Sure people will agree that terrorism is bad, but most won't care about what happened on a warm Tuesday morning in September 2001.

Some say the 90s ended with 9/11, at least in America.

 

[Thon Taddeo]

Some say the 90s ended with 9/11, at least in America.

The dot com crash would probably be considered the end of the 90s in a timeline with no 9/11.

 

[Bookmark1995]

The dot com crash would probably be considered the end of the 90s in a timeline with no 9/11.

So what event could define the 2000s without 9/11?

 

[dw93]

So what event could define the 2000s without 9/11?

If it somehow happens, an invasion of Iraq, corporate scandals, the Financial Crisis, even though that shaped the 2010s.