I don't agree with his points though. He tries to take credit for the neocons embedding in Republicanism a love for economic growth. That is nonsense- that has been a major aspect of the Republican party from the day it was created (and it was a major defining characteristic of the Whig party which preceded it). I would go so far as to say that what Kristol describes as 'neoconservative' is just Whiggery with a smattering of 'social safety net' policies.