The recent entry by David Kurtz, quoting a "long-time reader" in A Victim of His Own Paranoia, revives a thought I have puzzled about since the Clinton administration.  Why did conservatives so hate (or fear) Bill Clinton?

Clinton was in many ways a moderate, balancing the federal budget, limiting entitlements, and strengthening the military.  And yet the attacks from the right were relentless, accusing Clinton of corruption, death squads (including the murder of Vince Foster), and even forcing an impeachment for allegations of actions that were not a crime and had nothing to do with his service as president.

The explanation might be that the conservative right is inherently irrational, but another explanation is that what angered the conservative right most about the Clinton administration was not that Clinton was an extremist, but that he was a popular moderate.

Which suggests that the real goals and real agenda of the conservative right is not about policy, but about cultural purity.  If you are part of a movement that has policy goals, such as less regulation, a balance budget, lower taxes, or greater national security, then a leader of an opposition party that will help you achieve those goals is a good thing, and not a bad thing.

But if your goals are political and theological domination, and cultural purity, then a moderate or reasonable opponent is bad thing, and not a good thing, because it might lead to compromise.

Bush 43 was often referred to as "manichean" because espoused a view of foreign policy, and perhaps also domestic policy, which recognized only right and wrong, or good and evil, and in which there was no room for compromise.  A completely dualistic world view in which there were only two possible ways of thinking, and one of those was of thinking was wrong.

It is possible that much of the right-wing animus to President Barack Obama is due to his liberal policies (or his race).  But like Clinton, Obama is in some ways a moderate, striving for compromise and moderation and bipartisanship, and it is also possible that much of the right-wing hostility to Obama is due to his moderation and not his liberalism.

In Obama, the right might have seen the perfect foil, the black liberal who would alienate whites and conservatives through extremist social engineering.  But Obama has stuck to the same relatively moderate and centrist platform that he used as his platform during his campaign, and has consistently embraced bipartisanship and the spirit of compromise, and so continued to appeal to moderates and independents.

And that has been driving (manichean) conservatives guano crazy.