Boot is, of course, absolutely right. But I’m furious — at myself — because I’ve had a similar piece in my computer for months that I promised to another publication. Anyway, the only place I’d disagree with Boot is his willingness to adopt the label neocon. The term does more damage than good because it allows people to hide their real intent. People who want to denounce the influence of Jews get to use the word “neocon” when they really mean “Jewish conservatives” without being held accountable. Doves refer to neocons when they mean “hawks” — when there’s no evidence that all neocons are hawks or Jews. The paleos — when they don’t mean Jewish conservatives — claim that neocons are more beholden to the welfare state, i.e. more liberal (a silly bit of analysis which endures beyond its Cold War context), but Pat Buchanan is vastly more statist and anti-free-market than virtually any known neocon in captivity. The neocon term distorts more than it reveals and should be thrown over the side. If you want to refer to hawks, call them hawks. You want to talk about Jewish conservatives, talk about Jewish conservatives. But don’t hide behind one word when you mean another.