Andrew, I’m with you. As I mentioned Monday, I think it will be very interesting to see how people respond to JOS’s stewardship of The National Interest. For years, people have called the National Interest “neocon” solely, it seems, because Irving Kristol founded it and it is the sister publication of the Public Interest. But this has always been a superficial and lazy categorization. I mean, just look at the name. It’s the National Interest. If it were the “neocon” publication the ignorant claim it is, you’d think it would have some other title like maybe “The Human Interest.” The magazine has always been realist with a tolerance for certain neoconservative arguments when they dovetail with America’s national interests. Also, many observers have long misunderstood Irving Kristol’s foreign policy which has always been less “neo” than, say, Bill Kristol’s. Irving was for US withdrawal from NATO when such suggestions elicited cries of “isolationism” from Norman Podhoretz and the Commentary crowd when offered by others. In fact, it would make a great article to see how much Irving and Bill Kristol disagree over foreign policy. My guess is they disagree a lot.

As for John O’Sullivan, I may disagree with him on some issues, but the idea that he’s a “Paleocon” of the Buchanan variety is also a distortion and I’m surprised anyone at Claremont would say such a thing. As a close observer of the NI (Full disclosure: I dated three female editorial staffers there (at different times), and the best man at my wedding is a former Managing Editor), I think JOS is both an exciting and logical choice for the job.

Too many people talk about “neos” and “paleos” like they’re names on baseball cards — identifiable by a team name and a uniform and little else. But don’t get me started on that.