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

Does the absence of 9/11 change anything significant?

  • Yes

    Votes: 210 86.4%
  • No

    Votes: 3 1.2%
  • Debatable

    Votes: 30 12.3%

  • Total voters
    243
If it somehow happens, an invasion of Iraq, corporate scandals, the Financial Crisis, even though that shaped the 2010s.

Without 9/11, could Enron, the dot com bubble bursting, gas prices, and the 2008 recession basically lead to a stronger backlash against the neoliberal consensus by 2008?

Could we see a more economically leftist President by 2008. Maybe Russ Feingold over Hillary Clinton?
 
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.
The IRA disbanded in 1998, well before 9/11.
 
Without 9/11, could Enron, the dot com bubble bursting, gas prices, and the 2008 recession basically lead to a stronger backlash against the neoliberal consensus by 2008?

Could we see a more economically leftist President by 2008. Maybe Russ Feingold over Hillary Clinton?

Maybe Paul Wellstone could play a bigger role in politics. His death would probably be butterflied away.
 
The Religious Right might be stronger as they wouldn't be seen as having overreached by calling gays, athiests, and pro-choice people "unpatriotic" and claiming that invading Iraq was God's will and they wouldn't be seen as hypocrites if they didn't preach against Islam.
 
The Religious Right might be stronger as they wouldn't be seen as having overreached by calling gays, athiests, and pro-choice people "unpatriotic" and claiming that invading Iraq was God's will and they wouldn't be seen as hypocrites if they didn't preach against Islam.

There could also be an alliance between the religious right and conservative Muslims over issues like abortion, evolution and LGBT rights. OTL Anwar al Awlaki voted for Bush in 2000, and I could see many muslims vote for him on 2004.
 
There could also be an alliance between the religious right and conservative Muslims over issues like abortion, evolution and LGBT rights. OTL Anwar al Awlaki voted for Bush in 2000, and I could see many muslims vote for him on 2004.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz could appeal to refugees from Iran and Iraq the same way that Republicans appealed to Cuban exiles. Bush supposedly won with Muslim voters in 2000.

Also, INS wouldn't become ICE and there might be less fear of people entering America, resulting in immigration being less divisive.
 
Last edited:
There was a report on the subject of the Pentagon mishandling of a large amount of money that came out a day or two before 9/11.
Without the events of 9/11, Congress would be taking a serious look at the Defense Department and how they handled money.
We might have seen a audit of that spending.
 
- Condelizza Rice might be seen more positively today.

- America might stay in the AMBT.

- There might be more anti-China and anti-Russia rhetoric.
 
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.
View attachment 453345

It's always fun to imagine how the conspiracy theorists think these things actually went down. Did someone at ZOG fax that imagery over to Rupert Murdoch, and tell him to send it to FOX so that they could give it to the Simpsons writers with orders to incorporate it into an episode for no explained reason?

And why?
 
The Religious Right might be stronger as they wouldn't be seen as having overreached by calling gays, athiests, and pro-choice people "unpatriotic"

The thing is, for people who are consciously attracted to figures like Falwell, Robertson, or Santorum, they're not going to be alienated by one of their heroes saying gays and atheists are unpatriotic. They actually AGREE with that, and would easily vote for a draft-dodging backslider in order to prevent gays and lesbians who WANT to serve their country from doing so. Or deny Wiccans who have enlisted access to chaplaincy services.

The question mark is if there is a "soft religious right", ie. people who don't like extremist rhetoric, and think that gays and non-Christians can be as patriotic as anyone else, but might have a bit of trepidation about seemingly radical advancements in the social sphere(eg. "Well, some of my gay friends are great people, but I just don't know about allowing them to serve in a military that has its own culture to protect our nation" etc.) I don't quite know the answer to that question, but answering it would tell you how likely it is that the OTL's Religious Right alienated a lot of people by making fiedlity to the Old Testament a litmus test for Americanism.
 
The question mark is if there is a "soft religious right", ie. people who don't like extremist rhetoric, and think that gays and non-Christians can be as patriotic as anyone else, but might have a bit of trepidation about seemingly radical advancements in the social sphere(eg. "Well, some of my gay friends are great people, but I just don't know about allowing them to serve in a military that has its own culture to protect our nation" etc.) I don't quite know the answer to that question, but answering it would tell you how likely it is that the OTL's Religious Right alienated a lot of people by making fiedlity to the Old Testament a litmus test for Americanism.

Here's a saying I found to be particularly enlightening: "The Moral Majority is neither".

The majority of Bush voters, IHMO, are not Phyllis Schalfly-style moral guardians. Most Christians live on a spectrum, between full scale tolerance and Y'all Qaida. A lot of Evangelicals, IMHO, are pretty polite and humble people who, like any person with strong beliefs, is troubled by something new. Hell Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt were, despite being polar opposites pretty good friends.

It is possible to have certain attitudes without being consumed by them.
 
one thing I've wondered about... in OTL, of course, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and embarked on a War of Terror around the world. Without 9/11, might the US's inclination towards isolationism kick in again, with an idea of 'forget about policing the rest of the world, let's fix problems at home." It's tempting to think about that huge amount of money spent on the WoT being spent at home instead...
 
one thing I've wondered about... in OTL, of course, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and embarked on a War of Terror around the world. Without 9/11, might the US's inclination towards isolationism kick in again, with an idea of 'forget about policing the rest of the world, let's fix problems at home." It's tempting to think about that huge amount of money spent on the WoT being spent at home instead...

Not if the Republican Party has anything to say. However organically things seemed to develop after 9/11 with regards to the public falling in behind the Neoconservative project for the Middle East, the gears were already moving towards that direction whether the people were on board for it. Now, could that strain of politics have gotten OTL levels of momentum and influence without 9/11? I'd actually say it's a toss-up.

The Rumsfeld's and Cheney's don't go away just because the world doesn't fall into their laps, they're scrappers and they'll fight for their wars at every opportunity. There will be more diplomatic incidents to exploit. Fox is always around to serve as their platform for shaping the national debate. They might not be able to take advantage of a national trauma for it ATL, but they have the tools to get those ideas out there. Remember, this is still post-Gulf War/ Grenada US. There is always a militarist strain in our politics and it's only tempered by keeping the memory of death and defeat fresh. That doesn't exist ATL, in either of the parties or the public.

The prospect of an air-war looks pretty likely even without a 9/11, and were there a sufficient excuse for it, Iran or Iraq could end up being invaded if the butterflies flap in the wrong direction. 9/11 was a VERY useful political moment, but it doesn't change much beyond the levels of support. And should the Republicans lose the midterms come 2002 that's still not an assurance of peace. Democrats watch Fox too.
 
one thing I've wondered about... in OTL, of course, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and embarked on a War of Terror around the world. Without 9/11, might the US's inclination towards isolationism kick in again, with an idea of 'forget about policing the rest of the world, let's fix problems at home." It's tempting to think about that huge amount of money spent on the WoT being spent at home instead...
I could see this causing conflict between Bush and the less "humanitarian"-minded people in his own party.
 

nbcman

Donor
one thing I've wondered about... in OTL, of course, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and embarked on a War of Terror around the world. Without 9/11, might the US's inclination towards isolationism kick in again, with an idea of 'forget about policing the rest of the world, let's fix problems at home." It's tempting to think about that huge amount of money spent on the WoT being spent at home instead...
This. The US would more likely try to respond differently to the Hainan incident with the Chinese than try to attack Iraq even if W and some chickenhawks wanted to attack. There was no domestic appetite to go after some nebulous WMDs in 2001 especially since those WMDs surely couldn't be used on CONUS. [mild sarcasm on underlined statement]
 
Top