Rand Paul’s Eye-Roll Marked the End of the 9/11 Era

Rand Paul’s Eye-Roll Marked the End of the 9/11 Era

Rand Paul’s Eye-Roll Marked the End of the 9/11 Era

The attacks of 2001 are no longer the potent GOP rallying point they once were.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Republicans didn’t bother to hold their 2004 nominating convention in some far-flung purple state where every county was going to count that November. The Bush-Cheney campaign, which started running advertisements featuring a charred World Trade Center literally one day after the president announced his re-election bid, had a much more potent idea. The RNC happened only three miles from Ground Zero, at Madison Square Garden. Dick Cheney thundered from the stage that “if the killers of September 11 thought we had lost the will to defend our freedom, they did not know America and they did not know George W. Bush.”

Fast forward twelve years to Thursday’s Republican presidential debate, the first of the 2016 campaign. Chris Christie was eager to capitalize on his experience as a U.S. Attorney in New Jersey following the attacks, delivering a saccharine line about how “the hugs that I remember are the hugs that I gave to the families who lost their people on September 11th.”

Senator Rand Paul, at that moment engaged with Christie on a debate about mass surveillance, then gave what we’ll unilaterally dub as the most monumental eyeroll in presidential debate history:

Paul’s smirking get-a-load-of-this-guy dismissal of Christie’s ghoulish grandstanding is a nice final line for an important political chapter—-it’s the moment we knew for sure September 11 lost its currency in Republican politics. Paul wasn’t immediately booed, nor shredded by the moderators, nor condemned as a terrorist sympathizer or worse, as certainly would have been the case during the Bush years. In fact, in the Drudge Report’s insta-reaction online poll, Paul finished fifth and Christie was dead last.

The eye-roll moment was a long time coming. It was foreshadowed in 2008 by the spectacular failure of Rudy Giuliani’s “Noun, Verb, 9/11” presidential campaign and John McCain’s subsequent failure to use his support for the surge in Iraq as a ticket to the White House. In 2010 and 2012 the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were barely mentioned during national elections as concerns over the economy took center stage.

And Thursday night proved that September 11 has finally been stripped of its potency as an animating event for Republican voters. The two biggest “Wait, who are they?” candidates in the 5 p.m. debate were George Pataki and Jim Gilmore, united only in irrelevance and the fact both were governors of states that were attacked on September 11. Like low-rent Hollywood producers trying to remake a franchise everyone’s already sick of, Pataki and Gilmore gamely tried to highlight that experience as a rationale for their candidacies. Few (if any) Republican voters appear to be impressed.

The reasons for this transformation are pretty obvious: the joyless overuse of September 11 as a rallying cry by opportunistic politicians, and more importantly the disastrous overuse of the attacks as a rationale for bad foreign policy. The 150,000 American troops that were fanned out across Iraq when Cheney spoke at MSG, ostensibly as a response to September 11, have since withdrawn—-those that were lucky—-and many of them harbor grievous physical or mental injuries. ISIS has taken over much of the region and is more dangerous than anything we initially hoped to combat.

Losing this terror trump card has created a (slightly) more serious foreign policy debate among Republicans. Paul scored some strong factual points on Christie during that exchange; when Christie advocated hoovering up all U.S. phone data because “how are you supposed to know” who is a terrorist and who isn’t, Paul rejoined with the obvious answer that warrants guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment are a pretty good way of discerning who ought to be targeted.

Paul may not win the nomination, but his arguments reflect a growing segment of the Republican base, eye-rolls and all. After the debate, Sean Hannity—-who once wondered whether the country should “even be debating the Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping” during a 2006 interview with Cheney—-confronted Christie. “The original Patriot Act was never supposed to data mine American citizens. Only if they were connected to outside countries, people, and again, it went through the warrants,” Hannity informed him during a live interview.

And while Republicans are still surely hawkish on foreign policy, the presidential candidates either don’t advocate putting troops back into the Middle East or do so cautiously and infrequently. (The exception is Senator Lindsey Graham, who was also relegated to the kids-table debate and polls in the low-single digits.)

This change happened gradually, and is of course subject to change very quickly. But if you’re looking for an official end to a particular and dark chapter in American politics, it happened Thursday night in Cleveland.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x