There would definitely be much more focus on domestic issues, although which ones specifically is a matter of debate. Personally I think the discussion about internet privacy and such would have taken off earlier.
WI: Pop Culture in a world without 9/11?
- Thread starter woweed
- Start date
Speaking of privacy, I wonder if security cameras would be as common as they are in OTL.
Depends. I imagine they would still get pretty common but there may be more of an outcry against their spread in public places.
Most likely I'm thinking so. Now part of it was the Dotcom Bubble, which was probably gonna be inevitable even without so much de-regulation, if due to how "wild west" it all was. But yeah, the early 2000s is gonna serve as the beginning of people cooling down on the economic prosperity, though the devil's all in the details as I noted. While both parties may be caught in the thralls of neoliberal economics, who wins at one time will still determine what will come. Who wins the presidency and who wins Congress.
Without 9/11, Bush II wil have a much harder time trying to justify the Iraq War and I don't think any Democrat victor would consider it. This does mean we save a fair load of money from that venture along with not gettng into Afghanistan.
This leads into 2004.
Bush Jr's reelection leads us down a similar route to OTL. GOP suffers from Katrina and further economic troubles, with the Dems gaining big wins. However, Obama or Hillary will continue similar neoliberal practices. That said, devil's in the details and unsure who'd win. Obama has the HOPE speech and Hillary has the nostalgia from Bill in charge, so kind of unsure. And of course, we may see a GOP victory in 2016, but without 9/11, alot of it will be culture war stuff and that'll just increasingly turn people off here. So we'll see stuff of OTL happening earlier, minus most of the Middle East conflict.
Jr losing is where things can become interesting. We'll say Kerry is the candidate and beats him. This puts pressure on Kerry to try and do something with the economy. Alot of his economic stances is on keeping jobs in America, middle class taxcuts and so on. One key thing is on him wanting to increase jobs and money in infrastructure, which would help a fair bit. However, whether he'd tax big companies or go after big banks is... difficult to say.
We need to keep Congress in mind. Without 9/11, the GOP may start losing their numbers in the House and Senate. They might lose the Senate in 2004 to the Dems and possibly the House in 2006. This would leave Bush a lame duck if he won reelection and Kerry not that much to work with.
Of course, Kerry facing the Great Recession would still mean he'd be expected to handle the situation somehow. I'd expect he'd do better than Bush though and the election would create additional pressure for the whole situation. Whether or not it'd cost him the election is up to debate. I don't think it would since I don't see him screwing up badly enough and he is still the incumbent. Additionally, whoever the GOP is running is likely gonna make points that Kerry could counter, especially by pointing out Bush's and the GOP's failure with the Dotcom Bubble and Enron.
Most likely case is Kerry winning reelection in 2008 and probably have to put more fixes, that may or may not succeed. 2008 may see the Dems increase their holds in the House and Senate though begin declining in 2010 though perhaps not as bad as OTL. Also depends on John Edwards' and his approach to housing given his desire to end poverty. I am not well-versed in how the whole housing market, subprime mortage thing and so on works. Someone more knowledgable than me can go there.
A Kerry victory in 2004 and 2008 may see the GOP win in 2012 if Kerry doesn't do good enough with the economy. Mitt Romney seems like the best shot they have. McCain beating Kerry in 2008 will see a swing to the Dems in 2012 and possibly someone like Sanders winning. So a bunch of routes it could take.
Romney winning in 2012 would probably have the economy sorta healed by then and afterwards, well, unsure what the GOP would do. There's the Arab Spring, but what else beyond that? Maybe continue trade fights with China or what? This one I have no clue on, and it depends on what ya'll think. Culture war stuff would be in the cards, but oof, that would make things increasingly ugly fo them and without a 9/11 or the like to draw on for foreign things, it's gonna get more and more tense. No Trump here I suspect. But yeah, the increasing emphasis on the culture war will make things uglier. However, without a Trump-like figure rising, it's gonna take on a different approach. I'd say sorta what's going on now, though alot more uphill and divided because of the lack of Trump coming in to enable the worst aspects.
If say Edwards as Kerry's VP turned candiate wins over in 2012, then it would still be sorta similar though 2016 would definitely be a fair bit where all bets are off. I don't know if Trump would run, but if he did, then I don't know if he'd beat Edwards. Edwards has incumbent advantage after all and being in the VP would likely mean his extramarital affair is butterflied away. Trump could be a magnet for the various outliers, but I don't think it'd be enough to have him win. He would still potentially end up screwed as he'd have to fight off oncoming financial lawsuits. I could see Edwards handling COVID (if it comes up) better than Trump obviously, which could buoy the Dems winning in 2020. But OOF, if that happens, then their 5th victory for the White House would begin cracking at the GOP's morale and changes and things may get very ugly in a hurry there. If Trump beat Edwards, it'll be by a small amount, and unsure who'd run against him. Obviously not Biden and Hillary may not be relevant, so difficult to say there. Could be who Edwards chose as his VP.
If Kerry loses in 2008, then unsure who beats him. Some suggested George Allen would be candidate and others think could be McCain. Regardless, it'll be classic neocon austerity measures that will blow up in their faces and leave 2012 pretty open. I definitely see someone like Sanders potentially running and winning there, capitalizing on the economic frustration. Frustration that has been building up since Enron, creating this pressure vessel.
This leads into 2004.
Bush Jr's reelection leads us down a similar route to OTL. GOP suffers from Katrina and further economic troubles, with the Dems gaining big wins. However, Obama or Hillary will continue similar neoliberal practices. That said, devil's in the details and unsure who'd win. Obama has the HOPE speech and Hillary has the nostalgia from Bill in charge, so kind of unsure. And of course, we may see a GOP victory in 2016, but without 9/11, alot of it will be culture war stuff and that'll just increasingly turn people off here. So we'll see stuff of OTL happening earlier, minus most of the Middle East conflict.
Jr losing is where things can become interesting. We'll say Kerry is the candidate and beats him. This puts pressure on Kerry to try and do something with the economy. Alot of his economic stances is on keeping jobs in America, middle class taxcuts and so on. One key thing is on him wanting to increase jobs and money in infrastructure, which would help a fair bit. However, whether he'd tax big companies or go after big banks is... difficult to say.
We need to keep Congress in mind. Without 9/11, the GOP may start losing their numbers in the House and Senate. They might lose the Senate in 2004 to the Dems and possibly the House in 2006. This would leave Bush a lame duck if he won reelection and Kerry not that much to work with.
Of course, Kerry facing the Great Recession would still mean he'd be expected to handle the situation somehow. I'd expect he'd do better than Bush though and the election would create additional pressure for the whole situation. Whether or not it'd cost him the election is up to debate. I don't think it would since I don't see him screwing up badly enough and he is still the incumbent. Additionally, whoever the GOP is running is likely gonna make points that Kerry could counter, especially by pointing out Bush's and the GOP's failure with the Dotcom Bubble and Enron.
Most likely case is Kerry winning reelection in 2008 and probably have to put more fixes, that may or may not succeed. 2008 may see the Dems increase their holds in the House and Senate though begin declining in 2010 though perhaps not as bad as OTL. Also depends on John Edwards' and his approach to housing given his desire to end poverty. I am not well-versed in how the whole housing market, subprime mortage thing and so on works. Someone more knowledgable than me can go there.
A Kerry victory in 2004 and 2008 may see the GOP win in 2012 if Kerry doesn't do good enough with the economy. Mitt Romney seems like the best shot they have. McCain beating Kerry in 2008 will see a swing to the Dems in 2012 and possibly someone like Sanders winning. So a bunch of routes it could take.
Romney winning in 2012 would probably have the economy sorta healed by then and afterwards, well, unsure what the GOP would do. There's the Arab Spring, but what else beyond that? Maybe continue trade fights with China or what? This one I have no clue on, and it depends on what ya'll think. Culture war stuff would be in the cards, but oof, that would make things increasingly ugly fo them and without a 9/11 or the like to draw on for foreign things, it's gonna get more and more tense. No Trump here I suspect. But yeah, the increasing emphasis on the culture war will make things uglier. However, without a Trump-like figure rising, it's gonna take on a different approach. I'd say sorta what's going on now, though alot more uphill and divided because of the lack of Trump coming in to enable the worst aspects.
If say Edwards as Kerry's VP turned candiate wins over in 2012, then it would still be sorta similar though 2016 would definitely be a fair bit where all bets are off. I don't know if Trump would run, but if he did, then I don't know if he'd beat Edwards. Edwards has incumbent advantage after all and being in the VP would likely mean his extramarital affair is butterflied away. Trump could be a magnet for the various outliers, but I don't think it'd be enough to have him win. He would still potentially end up screwed as he'd have to fight off oncoming financial lawsuits. I could see Edwards handling COVID (if it comes up) better than Trump obviously, which could buoy the Dems winning in 2020. But OOF, if that happens, then their 5th victory for the White House would begin cracking at the GOP's morale and changes and things may get very ugly in a hurry there. If Trump beat Edwards, it'll be by a small amount, and unsure who'd run against him. Obviously not Biden and Hillary may not be relevant, so difficult to say there. Could be who Edwards chose as his VP.
If Kerry loses in 2008, then unsure who beats him. Some suggested George Allen would be candidate and others think could be McCain. Regardless, it'll be classic neocon austerity measures that will blow up in their faces and leave 2012 pretty open. I definitely see someone like Sanders potentially running and winning there, capitalizing on the economic frustration. Frustration that has been building up since Enron, creating this pressure vessel.
With pop culture, alot of twists it can take. I think it'd be a slow decline from the 1990s America good feels as the economic issues begin looming over the whole thing, with the Great Recession being the straw that breaks the back. I don't think things would be as cynical since there is no Iraq War backlash, but there would be growing concerns and so on with the economic troubles creating an anxiety that would cause it all to burst out in 2008-2009. We wouldn't see this big boost and then decline with patriotism/jingoistic stuff and things would be contained domestically for the most part.
We may still see the rise of superhero films as a feel-good thing, and things may not become as gritty as OTL because of it without the 9/11 spectre. While there would still be this turn to realism, it isn't gonna be defined by foreign violence and the like. YA craze may still grow, because anti-authority stuff remains cool among adolescents. Unsure with video games though perhaps shooters may lean more to the fantastic/sci-fi to remain revelant.
One likely thing is we'll probably see Epstein get doomed over in 2008. OTL, he got arrested, but got some serious leniancy. I doubt he'd get it ITTL, either from Kerry's US Attorney pick or whoever is in 2008's. Only way he escapes is if Bush Jr wins reelection and keeps Accosta.
If he does get arrested and things go poorly for him, we may get a MeToo movemet happening by 2009 or so online, which would be one of the things going on over in social media like Facebook and Twitter. This would definitely have some large changes, though to what end, I am not sure.
Everything else varies on how things like the Recession is handled, whether COVID happens and so on. That said, US wouldn't have as big of issues over with the Middle East, at least for a while. This may change if a hawkish leader is in the White House by the Arab Spring, but even then, unsure if they'd go that far.
I think the 2000 election was a harbinger of our political polarization, and I feel that without 9/11, we might have seen Tea Party-style obstructionism earlier than we would've without the brief "rally around the flag" movement that followed it.
How would our national mood be affected by the economic malaise of the 2000s with it becoming apparent that American politics is going haywire?
I think the roots for cinema's increasing "Marvelization" can be laid at the feet of the Star Wars prequels, which premiered in 1999.
According to this impressive video essay, the massive box office returns of the prequels, despite lukewarm reception, it was led to Hollywood to embrace franchise movies. So its likely we would've still seen this happen, especially since, at the beginning, the Spider-Man and Harry Potter films were still pretty good.
I think that while we would have seen some Tea Party-style obstruction earlier, it wouldn't be as effective. The whole reason alot of these anti-democratic tactics are adopted is as a response to the fact that said group is losing support and know that in fair elections, they'd get creamed. All of the obstuction stuf are half-assed means to consolidate power, but well, if they can't even get that... that's the issue.
As for the mood, I would call it a decline of good feelings with the drop-off being the Great Recession. The sheen starts wearing down and people begin noticing the issuesd as without 9/11, other things need to be focused on. That said, also depends on who's in charge. Folks would probably be more frustrated at Bush II's second term than in Kerry's first term.
Political polarization is a bit of a misnomer. The OTL GOP is run by the same sort of people who simped for the 1950s (or I supposed the legacy of the opposition of the New Dealers) and were then buoyed by Reagan's timely victory in 1980 and the economic success coincidently associated with him in spite of his policies. The GOP then became angry at Clinton winning and taking what they saw as what they were entitled to and then Bush Jr squeaked a win and only got prominence from 9/11. And then kept afloat by you-know-who further enabling the worst aspects. It's basically by luck they have not yet been forced to change.
Agreed! This would still happen, but the tone would likely be different.
Prequels were beloved,I was there when they premiere and the hype was real
Speaking of Marvel, the MCU (assuming that doesn't get butterflied away) might be a bit different. Didn't part of Iron Man's plot have something to do with 9/11 and terrorists?
The plot that caused him to adopt the "Iron Man" persona involved him heading to Afghanistan to demonstrate a new weapons system Stark Industries developed to the US troops stationed there, before his convoy is ambushed by local insurrectionists, the Ten Rings, and he is taken hostage by them to build them a copy, causing him to implant a Palladium Reactor into his chest due to shrapnel, and to build the Mark I suit to bust out of captivity.
You could substitute the "Afghanistan" part for any other region, while keeping the plot more or less the same, since the original Iron Man plot was, iirc, the same just with Vietnam instead, provided the US has troops somewhere there. The Ten Rings, for instance, referred originally to the Ten Rings of the Mandarin, one of Iron Man's villains in the comics and at least one cartoon, and while they were turned into a Taliban-analogue in the movie (however, they were also multinational, due to input from the actor that played their leader), they could easily be switched out for any other paramilitary terrorist force and you wouldn't lose alot.
Like, if Russia remains the go-to villain for pop culture, I could easily see the Ten Rings resemble the Wagner Group or Raman Kadyrov's Chechen Militia/Kadyrovites ITTL. Or, if China is the boogeyman, then they remain closer to their original iteration as some terrorist organization with roots in Chinese culture. Hell, it could even be Central or South American Drug Cartels. It all depends on which region has notable US military involvement, or had one in recent memory when the movie is being written.
Really? I am not exactly a Star Wars fan(atic), and the only prequel movie I saw was Revenge of the Sith, so I don't get the hatred the prequels got.
But for better or for worse, these movies inspired the franchise boom that has consumed movies in the early 21st century.
TTL, it would probably be the same.
On the other side of the coin, could the aforementioned political and economic problems that would be more prominent without 9/11 also become prominent in the franchises.
Could a few Marvel movies cover the issues of political polarization and rampant income inequality?
I also think our media has gotten nastier. With the rise of the likes of Morton Downey Jr., Rush Limbaugh, and Howard Stern, screaming the loudest politics became more and more prominent, and the rise of Fox and Internet has made a huge chunk of the populace drink the Kool-Aid.
I doubt it. Political polarization is just the name given to the various litany of unaddressed issues. Putting it off made it worse. As for income inequality, probably not.
As for the whole thing with Iron Man, it may stick closer to the comics and adopt a sort of general "secret society" cabal sort of deal. Not go and approach the real world as much. Being a bit more general/fantastic to not ruffle feathers.
Well, Fox News actually came out in 1996 and alot of its intense rise was tied to 9/11 beyond from what I understand. As such, I can Fox News being mildly to moderately smaller compared to OTL, especially if their attempts to support Bush Jr don't go too well.
But in the absence of a serious external foe, would you see Fox News going throw throttle into culture war buzzwords?
Yes, that was partially their business model right from the start even before 9/11.
I just got a lot of Summer 2008 nostalgia reading this post. Been a while since I've seen the first Iron Man which was just basic suit. It's funny to see the stereotypical terrorist/insurgent in that movie was armed with the H&K G36 rather than the stereotypical AK-47.
Now going back to the subject, without 9/11, the setting of Iron Man may be any of the following:
- Val Verde (stereotypical Latin American country of drug lords and cartels)
- Mexico (same as above)
- Venezuela
- Iran
- Iraq (assuming Saddam is not disposed here)
- Serbia
- Hong Kong (let the Chinese Triads be the bad guy instead of the insurrectionists)
Were there any specific groups singled out as villains in 1990s media?
I mean, 9/11 still provided alot of the modern backdrop for the Middle East as a threat and I doubt cartels would be given the same sort of focus or level here. They wouldn't be able to provide the same sort of threat.
I think Hong Kong could work, if they spin the Mandarin as this sort of super mob boss, which isn't too much of a stretch. He has his ambitions against China and goes after Stark Tech for it, making it a personal feud. Could be reinforced with Tony having a Chinese ally to help deal with the Mandarin throughout the earlier films.
That I could see, but how effective would that be without 9/11 to supercharge them is debatable. Heck, if Bush Jr's administration is tepid and mediocre at best, it's definitely gonna cause them to stagnate and not be propelled to the same level as OTL. While he might get a boost either in Kerry in 2004 with the Great Recession or Obama in 2008, it still wouldn't let them catch the same sort of prominent highs.
I don't think they'd be able to get the same results as OTL and without it, it could lead to other issues for them.
I don't see Obama running in 2008 and he likely stayed in the Senate. 08 might just be Hillary Clinton path to the White House. Then again, a lot depends on 04 and whatever Bush win a second term, or if Kerry can pull off a victory even if his Presidency isn't a sham dunk. (The man still being stiff and boring a lot like Al Gore was before.) Heck maybe Clinton pulls a fast one,and steals the primaries right out of Kerry's hands while he gets burned by the Great Recession. (Think back to 76 and just how close Ronald Reagan came to beating Ford's place in the election.) Even all the way back to Bill's first inauguration in 93 people saw Hillary as Presidential and a future candidate for the White House and many thought she be the first woman president.
If W pulls a victory off in 04 and is left a lame duck, the field would be pretty wild to say the least.
2012, or even 2016 would be Obama's year, but that much more guess work.
The smart and safe money would be on Hong Kong and China itself. Heck, before 2001 everyone foresaw a supposed Second Cold War between America and China. The Hainan Island incident was made out to be the second 1960 U-2 incident by the news at the time, but then came 9/11 and the War on Terror and the rest is history.
So TTL Iron Man Movie would be much more closer to the comics.
If W pulls a victory off in 04 and is left a lame duck, the field would be pretty wild to say the least.
2012, or even 2016 would be Obama's year, but that much more guess work.
The smart and safe money would be on Hong Kong and China itself. Heck, before 2001 everyone foresaw a supposed Second Cold War between America and China. The Hainan Island incident was made out to be the second 1960 U-2 incident by the news at the time, but then came 9/11 and the War on Terror and the rest is history.
So TTL Iron Man Movie would be much more closer to the comics.
Last edited:
What would've been Bush's political trajectory in his first two years without 9/11? I'm guessing that the most prominent issues of the day, without a major terrorist, would've been the sluggish economy and issues like same-sex marriage and his tax cuts.
Bush's record is a bit more spotty, especially since the most prominent issue of alt-2001 is his best buddy Kenny boy running his company into the ground. In this case, Bush is already seen less favorably then the Clinton years, especially since the President is only adding to deindustrialization with China entering the WTO?
Would the above issues have led to the Democrats winning in the 2002 midterms, and Bush having to contend with Democrats rallying around Dick Gephardt? Would this have led to some kind of government shutdown in 2003? Would Bush cave and roll back his tax cuts? Would the
By that standard, would Putin's actions make Russians the TTL bad guys again, especially Putin was already beginning to lash out at NATO expansion?
It hard to say. It easy to forget, but Bush did run on a domestic policy first and foremost. The big things would be reeling from the dot-com bubble popping, his attempts on school reform, and tax cuts plus the issue of same-sex marriage. Also he was big on reducing the DoD budgets of all things before 2001 made a 180 on that hard.
It a general rule the ruling party does poorly in midterms and the other party does well. 98 and 2002 was the big flips to that rule. The latter due to the Rally Around the Flag around Bush and the War on Terror and his still high approval rating.
Without any of that, the Dems would win big in the midterms, winning the House/keep the Senate, or even both top of deal Bush dealing with all the big company scandals, not just Enron. Rolling back his tax cuts/failure to pass the second one could be something.
Although Kerry is unlikely to run in 04 himself without 9/11 and Iraq. You may actually have a rematch between Bush and Gore of all things instead.
As for Russia, there would be no Russian reset and you see a hardline still aim at Moscow and Putin.