I think you come close to putting your finger on an important phenomenon regarding fear. However, I think the use of the word "we" is too broad. If you are referring to the people generally I think the term misapplied.

There were a sizable number of people (and sometimes small majorities) who were frightened by the 9/11 attacks to the point of being scared into doing some things they wouldn't otherwise have done. A significant number to be sure, succumbed to the incessant terror talk of the talking heads and the efforts of the Republican Party to scare people into submission. But I firmly believe the fear lay primarily with our elites and not with the average citizen whose life was virtually unaffected unless he/she had to get on an airplane. I also believe that the fear factor on the east coast was much, much greater for obvious and understandable reasons.

As a resident of "flyover country" I was literally, from day one, appalled at the transparent cowardice of our government and media leaders in response to 9/11. I know I wasn't the only one. Starting with the knee jerk on-air pronouncements by media and government figures about the necessity now of restricting liberty and how "the world has changed" that was going on before both towers had even fallen, our elites were in a panic. The common people were concerned, confused, and in shock, but people were not so terrified they were in a panic about what had occured. After hiding all day like the coward he is, it was apparent that night in his speech that Bush was scared and shaken. That all of our nation's elite leadership followed suit was undignified and unnecessary in my opinion.

But that highlights the real problem with counting on constitutionalism to protect us from demagoguery in this day and age which is the failure of our leaders (Congressional leaders in this case) to do anything within their constitutional authority to block the unwise and often illegal activities of the Bush administration after 9/11. Bush repeatedly used demagoguery to the hilt to bully and intimidate the handful of people who were in a position to use their constitutional authority to stop their irresopnsible power grabbing and overstepping of their constitutional bounds. The Democrats, sadly, failed to do their job in opposing much of the Bush program that critics knew very well would end up just as it has: in disaster.

The failure of Democrats in the Congress to use their constitutional authority to block the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq is just the most glaring example of how their pussilanimity rendered constitutionalism nearly useless. Senate Democrats particularly failed to do their constitutional duty with respect to authorizing the Iraq war and we all know it was out of fear of electoral consequences and the White House led Republican Party using an anti-war vote against them in the elections that fall. The constitution itself did not fail us, but constitutionalism did not work in that instance and look at the horrendous consequences that have resulted. Even if the Iraq invasion had been legal, it was certainly and clearly inadvisable and should have been opposed on those grounds alone. Democrats had the constituional power. Because of their temerity it may as well not have existed.

The majority of people at most times since 9/11 have not been filled with or motivated by fear as the chattering classes like to portray circumstances unlike our leaders and the elite classes who failed us all round. Personally, I see their failure of leadership in response to 9/11 as just another aspect of their overall loss of credibility that is now apparent as we deal with the consequences of the complete failure of the economic leadership of the nation whose unending greed so irresponsibly destabilized the economy and led to the economic catastrophe we now find ourselves in.

Ms. Hurlburt, I am a fan. Thanks for your contrubution.
For those at TPMC who are not aware of the sight, Ms. Hurlburt has a converstion up right now at Bloggingheads TV debating with Eli Lake.