I caught an article on CBS discussing the difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the threats facing our nation. As would be expected, I generally agree with the explanation of the right’s view, but I think the description of the left is slightly off-base. Surprise surprise, no? So let’s get to the meat and potatoes of things. The difference begins with what each side sees as the biggest threat to our livelihood.

The Republicans want to protect us against Islamist terrorists. The Democrats want to protect us against climate change. Each side believes the other’s fears are largely imaginary. Rush Limbaugh regularly treats global warming theories as a “hoax.” A prominent political scientist dismisses Republican candidates’ appeals as sounding “like the day after September 11.” When asked about possible new attacks, Democratic candidates — with the exception of Hillary Clinton — talk about seeking international support and understanding. Asked about climate change, Republican candidates — with the exception of John McCain — talk about getting more information.

The right fears terrorists, the left fears global warming. I don’t like the “climate change” euphemism since that smacks of conservative bias, which Michael Barone could certainly be accused of. But so far so good. Conservative figures talk about how they’ll fix terrorism, liberal figures discuss fixing the environment. I’ve written in the past concerning why we’re more in danger of stingrays than terrorists, generally speaking, but again I’m a bit biased. Moving on to his assessment of the right, where we get into the meat and potatoes of the left/right divide.

The difference between the two parties’ constituencies reflects two different views of America and the world. Those who see Islamist terrorists as the proximate threat see a world in which Americans are largely blameless. Rep. John Murtha may think that the recently foiled plot against JFK Airport was a response to American intervention in Iraq, but September 2001 came before March 2003. What we are guilty of, in Republican voters’ view, is at worst a botched attempt to spread freedom and democracy in the world. And the people who would attack us are, in this view, truly evil. Negotiation, propitiation, appeasement, confessions of guilt — none of these will reduce the threat. Vigilance and going on offense will.

Indeed. I remember directly after 9/11, one of the Backstreet Boys of all people got hit with a massive backlash for having the temerity to wonder what angered the attackers to the point of flying planes into our buildings. What bothers me here is that Barone, for no fixed reason, decides to take a potshot at John Murtha. That little bit in the middle serves no purpose other than to shoot a hole into the very theory he’s presenting, as if to say that guys like Murtha are misguided because, hey, we weren’t in Iraq on 9/11. Apparently we’d never been involved in the Middle East prior to that. Moving along.

In Barone’s attempt to describe the right, he puts on the kid gloves and paints the gung-ho anti-terrorism brigade as freedom fighters who are periodically misguided, along the way making sure to remind us all that Democrats are America-blamers who forgot about September 11th. Starting to drift into headache territory here.

Those who see climate change as the proximate threat take another view, one that has evolved into a kind of secular religion. Debate on the science of climate change must be shut down: You must have faith. We Americans have sinned, and we will be punished unless we repent and change our ways. We have been selfish, and we have failed to heed the advice of the more enlightened and sophisticated nations of the world. We must do penance by sacrificing some of our comforts (though not the gigantic houses and private jet travel of Al Gore or John Edwards). We must reduce carbon emissions by some tremendous percentage. Left mostly unspoken is which of the two mechanisms to reduce emissions will be used: a carbon tax, which will impose significant costs on everyone and big costs on some (coal miners, steel manufacturers), or a cap-and-trade system, which can be gamed by sharp operators (it was central to the business model of Enron).

Now I’m just pissed off. Every word in this paragraph drips of malice. From the religious language to the blatant assertion that there is no reason to be had from those who want to repair the environment, Barone makes no bones about his opinion of environmentalists. We’re dogmatic and blind-faith followers of a doctrine, we hate America and Americans and we worship European nations. I’m surprised he didn’t make a comment about France.

Then again we have the potshots at liberals. Gore and Edwards this time, apparently forgetting that many, ThinkProgress amongst them, have debunked the smear campaign on Gore many times over. Then the proposed ’solutions’ are laid out, both of which are described as failed prospects either because they hurt the common man or they’re the model of Enron, and obviously we don’t want to model ourselves after those guys.

This article started off well, but finished poorly. I see insults on three liberals, no conservatives. I see painfully patronizing language of describing belief in global warming as a “religion” (undoubtedly in no small part because of the left’s general antipathy towards religion), and I see a description of why the left’s solutions are bad without once discussing the same of the right.

I agree that the right is afraid of terrorists, the left is afraid of global warming. The nuts and bolts of that is fodder for another article, though I will say this: there are absolutely zero liberals I know of who think we should ignore the threat of terrorism. There are mountains of conservatives who see absolutely no threat from global warming. The left wants to protect us from terrorism without going crazy, while at the same time doing all in our power to help the environment. The right wants to focus all of our resources on terrorism and put the country on lockdown, while absolutely ignoring any warnings about the planet’s condition.

So screw you, Michael Barone.