Think about two dramatic events in American history:  (1) the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941; and (2) the terrorists’ attacks on September 11 2001.  Now consider how different were the nation’s leaders’ and ordinary people’s responses to those attacks.

The differences in how America’s leaders – particularly Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush – and ordinary people reacted to attacks on their nation speak volumes about how America and Americans have changed since 1941.

FDR appeared before a joint session of Congress the day after Pearl Harbor, denounced the attack on our military bases in Hawaii, and asked Congress to declare war.  Congress responded positively, with but a single dissenting vote.  American men and women flocked to Army and Navy recruitment centers; a few insisted that they be enlisted although they could not meet the armed services’ physical criteria regarding height and weight.  A nation that had been bitterly divided on December 6 1941 over whether or not to enter World War II rose up in almost unanimous wrath.  Between 1941 and 1945, Americans, whether in uniform or not, were over-whelmingly united in pursuit of victory.  Those years saw Americans united as one nation, perhaps for the last time.

Fast-forward to September 12 2001.  In one sense, Americans should have been even more aroused than in 1941.  It took hours for news about Pearl Harbor to reach most people.  Anyone with a TV could see the towers fall in New York City and the Pentagon burning in Washington, DC.

Even so, George W. Bush didn’t call for a declaration of war.  He asked Americans to “hug their kids and go shopping.” 

Granted, most Americans were initially united in seeking revenge against international terrorism generally, al Qaeda more specifically, and Osama bin Laden especially. American flags were prominently displayed on cars and elsewhere.

National unity, however, rather quickly broke down, and in less than 24 months, a portion of the nation’s leaders – especially liberal Democrats – and parts of the public, were carping about the Bush administration’s policies.  The mainstream media (MSM) stopped replaying scenes of 9/11, and – to many – seemed in left-wing Democrats’ corner.

By 2004, John Kerry was reassuring people that he had voted against Bush’s effort to oust Saddam Hussein, after he had voted affirmatively. 

There are fundamental differences between Pearl Harbor and 9/11.  I still contend that the paragraphs above point to some very important lessons we need to learn about our nation and ourselves.

One big difference between the World War II era and post-9/11 is that Americans seem to have become much more casualty-averse than they were 70 years ago. 

A total of 405,399 Americans were killed in World War II.  Nearly 20,000 Americans were killed during the Battle of the Bulge alone.  Another 20,000 were captured, and 40,000 were wounded.

Think back to how the MSM covered U.S. battle-deaths in the War on Terror so long as George Bush was president.  When the total reached 4,000, Wolf Blitzer of CNN couldn’t contain himself.

Once Barack Obama was president, MSM reportage of U.S. battle deaths in the War on Terror virtually ceased.

As of 2015, the number of Americans killed in wars on terror was 6,852.  That’s still only a little over 1% of the number killed in World War II.

One reason why American deaths in World War II may have been much higher than since 9/11 – never mind differences of strategies, tactics, technological advances in killing-power, etc. – was that 12% of the U.S. population served in the military between 1941 and 1945.  As of 2015, less than 1% of the nation’s population was serving on active duty or in the reserves.

Those two figures alone probably go some way toward explaining why so many more Americans lost their lives between 1941 and 1945 than in wars against terror since 9/11.

Another reason why today’s Americans are casualty-averse is that the typical U.S. family of 1941-45 was larger than now.  Census Bureau statistics indicate that the size of the average family was 3.76 in 1940, but 3.14 in 2001.  The average family of 1940 consisted of 2.52 individuals 18 and over in 1940, but 2.18 in 2001. (These seemingly small declines indicate important, ongoing, changes in the American family.)  Unless it was the Sullivans – who lost five sons in 1942 – a family might send more than one young man to war between 1941 and 1945; even if one were killed, others would come home.

If family units are smaller now, as they were in 2001, parents (and relatives) might feel very differently about losing an offspring in combat.

One also needs to consider changes in America’s family structure since 1941.  Families were mostly intact 75 years ago.  Today, more than half of kids live in non-traditional homes.  That may also shape how some Americans feel about losing an off-spring in combat.

Hostility to the military probably begets outrage when people in combat are killed.

Naturally, conservatives also feel badly when American lives are lost, but they are much less likely to attack the military. Today leftists feel no compunction about decrying wartime casualties.  Given the sympathies of most of the MSM’s denizens, those cries are rapidly amplified.  The final ingredient of today’s toxic mix vis-à-vis combat deaths are those among the public who reflect the Left’s dispositions, particularly if the leftists are prominent Democrats like Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, who give legitimacy to cries about wartime casualties.

Unless there are changes in our country and our politics, Americans are unlikely to give full-throated backing to a wartime government as they did in World War II.