Thomas Fitzgerald: Decade after 9/11, voters are more concerned with the economy than terrorism

At recent town-hall meetings in Coudersport and Jim Thorpe, Pa., Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) fielded questions from constituents for a collective one hour and 45 minutes. They came fast and sometimes furious.

Will Congress cut Medicare? What can be done about the burdensome regulations choking small businesses? How about getting rid of those unaccountable "policy czars" in the White House? Why not raise the lowered Bush-era tax rates on the wealthiest? Can the congressional debt-reduction super-committee (to which Toomey was appointed) really get anything done?

Nobody asked a single question about the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, the status of the struggle against terrorism, or the internal security of the United States.

Ten years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which shattered the nation's sense of invulnerability, the day-to-day impact of that trauma has faded in political life.

Consider what happened during last week's Republican presidential debate when the conversation detoured to the post-9/11 Homeland Security Department and airport screening. Jon Huntsman, former Utah governor and ambassador to China, sought to refocus.

"I'm guessing there are a whole lot of people tuned in around this country who are saying, why are we spending all this time talking about the smaller issues?" Huntsman said. "We've got 14 million people unemployed. We've got millions more in this country who are so dispirited they've quit looking. This is a human tragedy. . . . Let's not lose sight, folks, of the bottom line here. We've got to get back in the game as a country. We've got to make this economy work."

A month after the 9/11 attacks, 46 percent of Americans viewed terrorism as the country's most pressing problem, according to a Gallup poll. Five years later, the figure had shrunk to 11 percent. Last year, only 1 percent saw terrorism as the biggest challenge.

With unemployment at 9.1 percent and the country struggling to break free from recession, economic issues once again top the charts. The economy also drove the elections of 2008, when a crash in the financial markets started a meltdown, and 2010, when Republicans won control of the U.S. House amid a voter uprising over the slow pace of recovery and exploding government debt.

Still, the attacks have left a lasting mark on the federal government over the last decade, leading to the creation of Homeland Security, loosened limits on domestic surveillance, and a doubling of defense spending.

All that in turn affected the political playing field. Spending on the new security measures and two wars in the Mideast helped swell the budget deficit and national debt to record levels. Concern with the cost, size and intrusiveness of the government bred the tea party movement.

Not long after the attacks, during the 2002 and 2004 elections, Republicans were able to use the threat of terrorism to portray Democrats as "soft" on defense in politically effective ways.

One ad for President George W. Bush, aired in the final weeks of the 2004 campaign, showed a pack of wolves prowling the edge of a forest as a narrator attacked Democrat John Kerry for voting to "slash" intelligence spending as a senator. "Weakness attracts those who would do America harm," it concluded. Some analysts believe Kerry's momentum stalled after Osama bin Laden released a threatening video days before the election.

Now there is at least an uneasy bipartisan consensus on how to fight the "war on terror," as the Obama administration has carried forward Bush policies, including military tribunals and enhanced interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects.

And, though mistrust of Washington in general is high, nearly 80 percent of people surveyed in a Pew Research Center poll released Aug. 31 gave the government good marks for handling terrorism.

There are strains in the consensus, of course. As Obama winds down the U.S. presence in Iraq and tries to figure the way out of Afghanistan, a chorus in both parties says it is time to address problems at home.

Meanwhile, the brewing presidential campaign is raising fundamental questions that have been at issue since the founding of the nation: What is the proper role of government? Should it get out of the way of job-creating businesses or cushion for working Americans the cyclical shocks of capitalism? Can it be a catalyst for prosperity or only a hindrance?

It may be hard to tell Sunday that 9/11's political salience has receded, with all the commemorations and TV specials. On Monday, though, when the Republican presidential candidates meet for their next debate in Tampa, Fla., expect Social Security and jobs to take center stage again.