WHO’S MORE FANATICAL — LEFT OR RIGHT? Responding to claims that Bush-loyalty is the ne plus ultra of the right, Marshall Wittman writes:

From his varied experience, the Moose questions whether this is true. The reality is that prominent conservatives have been critical of this President on a range of issues – the Weekly Standard has questioned Administration’s execution of the war, the National Review and the Heritage Foundation has been critical of the President’s big spending ways. And now, a range of libertarian conservatives have differed with the President on the NSA program.

Yes, there is an element of conservatism that attempts to apply a Lenninist discipline on ideological heterodoxy. In fact, the Moose was the target of their efforts. The Moose has enjoyed the distinct pleasure of being labeled both a Republican squish and a Rovian plant. But, based upon personal exposure to both sides of the political spectrum, this mammal can confidently observe that there is more tolerance for differences on the right side of the spectrum than on the left.

While Greenwald suggests that “loyalty” to Bush is the requirement for the right, the standard to to be a member in good standing of the liberal/left community is hatred of Bush. The Moose opposes most of the economic agenda of the Administration. However, he critically supports the President in the war on terror – including the NSA program. This has won the Moose the visceral opprobrium of the left. Because in the left wing universe, one must oppose everything the President supports. The truth is that a good part of the left believes that George W. Bush is a greater threat to America than Osama bin Laden.

I think that the part of the Left that feels that way is relatively small, but it has a disproportionate impact. Meanwhile, Megan McArdle has thoughts on moderation:

Now, again, perhaps I’m just insensitive to these things, but I haven’t found Ms Althouse to be an apologist for Bush. She clearly does not hate his policies as much as my more liberal commenters do. But of course, that would probably be why she voted for him. She, and Instapundit (who is also being singled out for opprobrium), have criticized the administration; it’s just that when they criticize the administration, it’s in a tone of “The Bush administration is doing something I don’t like”, rather than “The Great Satan is again unleashing the powers of Hell to destroy a Once Great Nation.” I haven’t noticed her, or Instapundit, criticising the administration’s conduct of the WOT, but–I’m going out on a limb here–maybe that’s because they generally agree with it, not because they’re “apologists” for the administration.

Well, I try to avoid the whole Great Satan thing even when I’m talking about the likes of Ted Rall — which I try to avoid doing anyway on the theory that they want to be talked about — but I do try for (with mixed success) moderate language; in particular, I try to avoid name-calling aimed at individuals.

Moderate language isn’t the same as moderation in ideas, of course. My ideas (I won’t speak for Ann Althouse) aren’t particularly moderate at all, at least on an opinion-poll basis. I mean, there’s nothing moderate in this: “Personally, I’d be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons.” Then there’s the whole transhumanism thing. . . . I try to use moderate language in part because I disagree with pretty much everybody on something big. This has led to claims that I “lack fire.” (You want “fire” from a law professor?)

So why are things so polarized? Maybe it’s because even though we tend to look at radical Islam abroad, we’re in a different sort of religous war at home:

Not all leftwingers in the US are as frankly religious as Hillary Clinton, and many don’t even realise that the ideas that they champion have deep religious roots. But even for these people, being leftwing has itself become a sort of religion, with those who disagree viewed as sinister, almost demonic forces, rather than simply as individuals holding different views.

The language of righteousness and sin, if not that of redemption and grace, remains a hallmark of the purportedly secular left, though I find it no more attractive than the language of the religious right.

I don’t fit into the religious right or the religious left. But, in America, you don’t get to choose a major political party that does not have some sort of religious strain to it.

And it strikes me that one reason why politics in the US have become so much more bitter over the past couple of decades is that two rather different threads of religiosity have come to dominate the two major parties in distinct fashion, where each party had previously incorporated major components of both. This has turned political battles into quasi-religious ones.

Add to this mix the inevitable effect of Jane’s Law (“The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.”) and you’ve got a recipe for polarization. That’s unfortunate, because this is a time when we’d be a lot better off without the polarization and division that we’re seeing. I’m not sure what to do about it, though.

UPDATE: Related thoughts here. Sounds like I’m screwed no matter what happens. . . .