This might seem very controversial and "sexist", but I don't believe there's any "political conspiracy" involved at all - it's just political reality. This can

This might seem very controversial and "sexist", but I don't believe there's any "political conspiracy" involved at all - it's just political reality. This can almost all be attributed to a combination of 1: gender gap in voting, and 2: media misreporting of the facts - particularly mothers with children who are not made constantly aware of the statistics involved with these events. http://grounds-strategy.com/files/gender-and-voting.pdf http://grounds-strategy.com/files/gender-and-voting.pdf > after 9/11, women became much more concerned with national security issues. Today, a significant majority of women, 43 percent, versus 11 percent of men, believe that a member of their family could be affected by a terrorist attack. Note that 43% + 11% is more than half the population; only 3000 people died in 9/11. That's 0.001% actually affected. Public perception of terrorism more accurately reflects the outcome of a full-scale nuclear war. Mothers are extremely protective of their children (and this is not a bad thing) but when terrorism is reported in the news without also giving the context of the actual size of the event relative to the size of the population, it leads some people into a false sense of what risk their children really have. What the media outlets do, instead, is play into fears and make every attempt to keep these events as looking as scary as possible, because that's how they get ratings. Perhaps mothers with children are more apt to pay attention to this. What is also interesting, and people here should try to consider this every once in a while, is that the comments on this site are almost exclusively young males. Most without children. So you won't hear things here from the mother-with-child perspective, which is a massive voting block.