I agree about the elasticity of the neo-con label but there are three really annoying things about Kinsley’s column today:

1) Even if we were to grant that neo-cons have changed their minds about democratization, that they now support it in a way they didn’t when Jimmy Carter was president, it must also follow that that liberals have changed their minds equally, because nowadays they have no use for democratization if (a) it’s in a Muslim country and/or (b) it’s supported by President Bush. So if there is hypocrisy here, it’s on both sides, isn’t it?

2) There is a subtle but very significant distinction between attempting to “impose liberalization and democratization” (what Jeane Kirkpatrick accused Carter of doing) and assisting advocates of liberalization and democratization wherever they are found – behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, in Islamic countries today. Kinsley doesn’t appear to recognize that distinction. (Nor do paleo-conservatives such as Pat Buchanan.)

3) Kinsley’s kicker is that “neo-cons” are “not very good” at “admissions of error.” This is such a lame refrain. Who exactly is good at admissions of error? Carter? Clinton? (He was good at apologizing only for the errors of others.) Anyone on the left? And the left should be adept since they built up such an extraordinarily long and lethal long list of errors to which they ought to admit.