Timothy Carney, who works for Robert Novak, has written an article arguing that neoconservatives do indeed continue to exist as a distinct political faction. He offers three examples of neocons. William Kristol is more tolerant of big government than most conservatives. Max Boot is less opposed to cloning, abortion, and the welfare state than most conservatives. Charles Krauthammer doesn’t look all that fondly on Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign. Carney concludes that “to argue that this collection of men—who subscribe to principles and policies mostly foreign to the right—are not a distinct sect of conservatism with a clearly different philosophy is hocus-pocus.”

But Carney hasn’t even identified a movement of three. On abortion and cloning, for example, this trio has three positions. Boot is untroubled by either (although he almost never writes on the subjects), Krauthammer wants to restrict cloning but not abortion, and Kristol is for outlawing both. Where’s the distinct philosophy?

If Carney wants to use the term “neoconservative” to refer to people who share Kristol’s view of “national greatness”—assuming someone can figure out what that view is—I suppose that’s his right. But then he’s referring to about five people.