One of his major points is one which I have made repeatedly-- the term neoconservative as it is used by the left and by the paleoconservatives has no meaning. You say he can't tell you what it is-- and that is because no one can. Any attempt to define neoconservatives omits the majority of the people who supposedly are neoconservatives.
I already know that. What concerns me is that there are people around who describe themselves as neo-cons, such as this author, who also have no clue what it means. All I can tell is that it is a tribal label. If it stands for something, this author sure doesn't know what it is.
Well done. Succinct and correct!
The attackers of 'neo-cons' have to use a bait and switch. They are attacking a robust pro-freedom interventionist foreign policy, one that most conservatives share; but they want to make it seem to be a narrow agenda of a bunch of Zionists. So "what they want" is defined in one way - broadly; "who they are" is defined another - narrowly. This makes a broad foreign policy viewpoint seem to be the product of a cabal.
It's the old Ad Hominem argument dressed up in fancy rhetoric.
I am a Catholic, Texan, pro-Bush, pro-War-on-Terror, pro-liberation-of-Iraq, anti-Communist, anti-Islamofascist-Jihadist, pro-freedom-oriented-foreign-policy, pro-traditional-values, small Government Conservative. Who happens to think Paul Wolfowitz would be ten times better as Secty of State than Colin Powell.... Am I a "neo-con"?