It took just six years for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to go from horrific national tragedy around which revived patriotism grew, to the punch line of a presidential candidate’s joking jab at a rival. The joke, readers will recall, was Democratic Sen. Joe Biden’s, taking a shot at Republican Rudy Giuliani’s repeated allusion to Sept. 11. Sen. Biden quipped: “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence – a noun, a verb, and 9/11.”

The wisecrack got a big laugh at the Democratic presidential debate in the fall, but it begs the larger question of just what the landmark events of that day now signify. Has the threat of terrorism dissolved to the point that we can laugh about it? Or has the Bush administration hung so many of its dubious policies on Sept. 11 as to render it devoid of any clear meaning for Americans? In the year or so that followed Sept. 11, a hard-won understanding of how the U.S. was seen by some of the Islamic Middle East united Americans and prompted serious reflection on how it should comport itself in light of that knowledge. But the U.S. response to Sept. 11 – both abroad and at home – now divides us.

Jokes by candidates aside, Sept. 11 has transformed the world view of most Americans; perhaps less so for those living in rural areas such as Maine, where fears of dirty bombs, germ attacks and hijacked airliners do not haunt us the way they may for residents of New York or Washington, D.C. With the presidential campaign season in full tilt, terrorism is being recast as an issue by candidates anticipating the post-Bush era. The Republicans try to top each other in asserting they have the mettle to stand up to the radical Islamic threat. The Democrats, meanwhile, talk about economic and energy security, equitable taxation, using more diplomacy and seeking common ground on the world stage, while also reassuring voters they, too, have the mettle to take on Osama bin Laden and his ilk.

What should emerge in the post-Bush era is a more mature understanding of and response to the very real threat of terrorism. The next president and new Congress must understand that while they cannot capitulate to the demands of those who want to neuter the U.S. as a world power, understanding the motives of those who would fly airplanes into buildings is also essential. Our new leaders also must learn to match response to threat – invading Iraq likely boosted al-Qaida’s credibility in parts of the world, while pursuing the Sept. 11 planners in the mountains of Afghanistan probably undermined their cause.

Federal policies on transportation, immigration, border security and law enforcement should reflect post-Sept. 11 thinking. But waving the banner of terror over an already anxious public should not be part of the next president’s response to the attacks that came that fateful day. Instead, the next president’s score on the terrorism question should be measured by how well he or she wins citizen confidence. If implemented correctly, a vigilant national defense, while preserving constitutional civil liberties, should not produce a fearful public.