Sounding the alarm is a crucial aspect of the double-game: Even as Bush officials have advised Americans to go about their normal daily business, they've often drawn a picture of approaching Armageddon.

When Tom Ridge put the nation on code-orange alert last December, he described the terrorist threat as "perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11th," with America's enemies anticipating "near-term attacks" to "either rival or exceed" those of 2001. On Jan. 14, Vice President Dick Cheney warned during a speech in Los Angeles that "terrorists continue plotting to kill on an ever larger scale, including here in the United States." If terrorists with weapons of mass destruction were able to hit us, Cheney inveighed, "instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives as the result of a single attack, or a set of coordinated attacks."

But during a routine press conference just two days later, on Jan. 16, White House spokesman Scott McClellan sounded a familiar refrain for reporters: "Our country is much safer today than it was on Sept. 11."

How were Americans supposed to react?

Brookes, at the Heritage Foundation, maintains that the administration's wartime message has been "very sober and straightforward," as well as pragmatic. "We can't let down our vigilance," he says. "We know al-Qaida has begun recruiting non-Arabs, especially in Europe. There were non-Arabs involved in the recent attacks in Tunisia and Morocco. They're changing their tactics to try to get at us."

But in lieu of strategic discussion, the president often reverts to evangelical language to frame the mission. "A light shines in the darkness, and the darkness shall not overcome it," Bush intoned during a radio address to the nation in December 2001, as thousands of U.S. troops were deployed in Afghanistan.

That message may play well with Bush's evangelical Christian voter base -- those accustomed to viewing global turmoil through an apocalyptic lens -- but what about mainstream America?

"It's interesting how much the term 'evil' has cropped up in the administration's rhetoric," says terrorism expert Jessica Stern. "The spiritual dread related to terrorism makes us extremely prone to overreaction, so Bush's rhetoric makes many of us profoundly uncomfortable. I do think 'evil' is an appropriate term for al-Qaida. But the real problem with the Bush paradigm is the idea that our mission is now ridding the world of evil. That's not a mission that takes decades, it's a mission that takes forever."

"I'm not sure I'd say that the Bush administration is trying to frighten us to death, that it's a deliberate strategy," she adds. "But I do think the fear serves them. If you're in permanent crisis mode, if you're ridding the world of evil, it gives you carte blanche to focus on that and ignore everything else."

In his State of the Union address in January, widely seen as a blueprint for his reelection campaign, President Bush made 40 references to terrorism, war, Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks. Though no Democrat has dismissed the terrorism threat, he implied that they were weak and unreliable, suggesting that they subscribe to a "false" hope "that the danger is behind us." Bush's message was clear: Vote for us -- we're the only ones who will keep you safe. Since that speech, Bush has continued that theme: "If America shows weakness and uncertainty, the world will drift toward tragedy," he told a gathering of Republican governors in February. "America must never outsource America's national security decisions to the leaders of other governments."

For the Bush administration, Armageddon is never far over the horizon. Time and time again, the White House has returned to a calculated language of fear, implying that compromise with foreign leaders is a sign of weakness, that questioning its anti-terrorism policies is unpatriotic, that certain circumstances justify secrecy and deception. It has fanned Americans' fears while promising to inoculate them at every turn. As bombs continue to explode from Bali to Baghdad to Madrid, and with Republicans set to convene near ground zero this fall for their national convention, Bush strategists hope that a fear-based strategy will win Bush reelection -- especially if John Kerry fails to convince the public he has a stronger, more enduring vision for national security.

The president's anti-terrorism message still retains considerable appeal. According to USA Today, a poll taken at the end of March showed a majority of Americans still think President Bush is doing a good job on national security, in spite of the political firestorm that followed Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission.

"The advantage President Bush has is that he's given the average American a ringside seat on national security," says Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster and strategist in Washington. "Your average 'security mom' may not feel like she can do much to affect things on the ground in Iraq, but you bet she can report suspicious activity, or refuse to open a packet of white powder, or look over her shoulder a little bit more. Whether it's getting flashlights and duct tape and all that, the war on terror is the place where the average American believes he or she can have a role."

But it's also possible that Bush's focus on fear could backfire this November. As Iraq threatens to slide into chaos, more voters are beginning to question Bush's handling of the war, while the missing WMD continue to undercut its primary rationale. The conventional wisdom is that another terrorist attack in the U.S. would ensure Bush's reelection -- but if enough voters lose faith in Bush's handling of national security and Iraq, even that could go the other way. The example of Madrid could be key: No one expects American voters to react the way the Spanish did, by punishing the incumbent war party. But if enough swing voters conclude that invading Iraq has actually made the U.S. less safe, whether by diverting attention from al-Qaida or turning Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorism, Bush could be hurt by the very thing -- terrorism -- that has been his political ace in the hole.

"It is a serious indictment of our political discourse that almost three-quarters of all Americans were so easily led to believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks of 9/11 -- that nearly half of all Americans still believe that most of the hijackers were Iraqis -- and that more than 40 percent were so easily convinced that Iraq did in fact have nuclear weapons," Al Gore argued in his recent speech at New School University. "The administration [did not] have any scruples about using fear of terrorists as a means to punch holes in the basic protections of the Constitution: to create a class of permanent prisoners; to make it possible to imprison Americans without due process; to totally sequester information not just from the people, but from the Congress and the courts -- all justified by recourse to fear."

President Bush's tone and leadership, his critics say, could have turned in a starkly different direction after 9/11. "Every other Western democracy that's faced terrorism has managed to accept a certain amount of low-level violence without completely changing the culture of national life," says author Jeffrey Rosen. "Ideally, the administration would help us achieve that stoicism, rather than pandering to our fears. We don't want to dismiss the serious threat from terrorism, and the administration is right to make it the main priority in the post-9/11 period. But there is something troubling about a war that by definition never ends, whose success can never be clearly measured and whose failure can never be disproved."

Still, so long as another terrorist attack on U.S. soil does not take place, the Bush administration can claim that it's winning the war on terror. And Bush supporters dismiss Democratic criticisms as empty partisan rhetoric.

For the Democrats to prevail, they would need to "attack less and solve more," says GOP strategist Conway. "They've been dismissive, if not vitriolic, toward the president's policies, but less coherent about their own vision."

In fact, John Kerry has laid out a blueprint calling for building up the U.S. military and strengthening international partnerships, among other steps, in the battle against global terrorism and WMD proliferation. But after 9/11, such nuanced policies may speak less to mainstream voters than constantly raising the specter of another major terrorist attack, or waging preventive war on America's enemies.

"For years, conservatives have had the advantage of a very coherent ideology for understanding the world," concedes Corey Robin. "The Democrats, and liberals in general, have kind of lost their bearings, particularly since 9/11. But if the Democrats play on Bush's terms on this issue, I don't think they can win."

"I think many Americans could respond to an argument that Bush's aggressive policies have made us less secure and more vulnerable," says Robert Lifton, the Harvard psychiatrist. "In psychological terms, it's of great significance that a careful, evenhanded analysis coming from the U.S. Army War College, argues this case." But defeating Bush, Lifton says, will require a coherent and fearless rebuke of the White House message: "Bush opponents must continue to address why 9/11 happened, why we aren't safer now, and what they're going to do about it."

The battle could reach its climax where it began.

Early in September, President Bush will accept the Republican nomination in New York City, not far from the gaping hole where the World Trade Center once stood. As the nation prepares to commemorate Sept. 11, 2001, once again, the symbolism of the GOP's chosen location will be inescapable -- both for Bush backers, and for the hundreds of thousands of protesters planning to confront him there.

The president will emotionally depict a nation still endangered by a terrorist menace, but made safer by his wartime policies. He will appeal to American patriotism, and resolve, and sense of destiny.

And as the delegates cast their votes, F-16 fighter jets will streak above the city, patrolling the skies overhead.

Recent Stories