It has been written that the difference between conservatives and liberals is the world view that these two groups have. Conservatives view the world as a dangerous place and human beings as inherently wicked. The society needs a stern father to teach discipline to the children (that is, us citizens). Government should provide only protection against foreign enemies, protection of property against thieves, and such basic social necessities as an efficient postal service, stable money, and highways for commerce. A disciplined citizen should take care of himself and not depend on public welfare or pensions or free health care. He should compete and not depend on others for assistance. Liberals, it is written, view the world as good and human beings as intrinsically good. Of course, they need to be educated. They also need to be nurtured and cared for. Society needs a loving mother who teaches the children (us citizens, again) not only to excel but to cooperate and care for each other.
Another feature of the conservative world view, I believe, is the need for an enemy. From the rise of industrialism in this country until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the conservative enemy was international socialism or communism. Socialism or communism threatened the very foundations of our way of life and had to be resisted at all cost. Labor unions were either the willing or unwitting tools of International Socialism. They had to be abolished, if possible.
The importance of the enemy is that the stern father protects his children from any and all enemies of the family. The principal obligation of the federal government is to protect us from the enemy, whatever the enemy is. That obligation takes priority over everything else that the government does.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, or more particularly since the collapse of Communism in Russia, conservatives have felt the need for another enemy. Of course, labor unions are still available for that purpose, but since organized labor is weaker today in this country than in previous decades, it isn’t really a big enough enemy. What’s needed is an enemy that is big and threatening enough to scare a voting majority of the public. Communism was such an enemy. What now?
Well, of course, the new enemy is Radical Fundamentalist Islam. In the Los Angeles Times for February 15, Jonah Goldberg writes as follows:
The idea goes something like this: If you believe that the war on terror is real — really real — then you think it is inevitable that more and bloodier conflicts with radical Islam are on the way, regardless of who is in the White House. If the clash of civilizations is afoot, then the issues separating Democrats and Republicans are as pressing as whether the captain of the Titanic is going to have fish or chicken for dinner. There's a showdown coming. Period. Full stop. My task isn't to convince you that this view is correct (though I basically believe it is), but merely that it is honestly and firmly held by many on the right and by a comparative handful on the left.
And, there you have it: the new enemy. In Goldberg’s view, Radical Islam is a much greater menace to our well-being than the lack of affordable health care to millions of our citizens. It’s a greater menace than millions of workers living in poverty because the minimum wage is so low. It’s a greater menace than the efforts by members of the Bush Administration to curtail some of our constitutional rights. It’s a greater menace than – well, you fill in the blank yourself.