I don't know if I'd call the National Review and the Weekly Standard annoyed. But when you say "vibrant", do you mean as in, "sensitive"? If you do, I agree. Truth is, certain folks on the right are overly sensitive towards those who follow traditional conservatism. The problem is sensitivity and intellect are somewhat at odds. Sort of like the liberal establishment, in both regards, equal but opposite.
And the idea that the USA under the leadership of PresBush is pushing an empire agenda, is ridiculous and outrageous. Few Republicans and even fewer conservatives support anything related to "empire" building. This idea that neocons are massing at the gates is another absurdity. True neocons are hard to find.
But there is a fiesty little group of conservatives from all over the map who question the foreign policy of this country since the end of the Cold War. And for "National Review" to attack them time again means they annoy them. And "Empire" is the goal. Heck - it has been admitted and written about in the pages of such journals- mostly "The Weekly Standard."
I agree with you.
What's generated the discussion is the perceived change from Bush's talk about a "more modest" America that would avoid "nation-building" experiments around the world, to a much more activist and interventionist vision. 911 had something to do with the change, but it's not the only cause. It does look likely now that "unilateralism" is something very different from non-interventionism. It may even involve getting into more conflicts around the world than legalistic or bureaucratic "internationalism." There may be perfectly reasonable explanations for the change -- it may not even be a change at all -- but the difference between what was implied by national "modesty" during the campaign and what looks like intense national self-assertion now, does call for explanation.
There has been a lot of positive talk about empire in the media. Not all of it's from recognized neo-conservatives, Republicans or conservatives. Indeed, so far as I know, much of it seems to come from the unorganized fringe of political discussion, people like Robert Kaplan, Niall Ferguson, Mark Steyn, Max Boot. But there are similarities to the thinking of others in side and outside the administration who favor a more active policy around the world, Charles Krauthammer, Robert Kagan, Dinesh D'Souza, for example, to explain why some have made the connection, between neo-conservatives and neo-imperialism.
This idea that neocons are massing at the gates is another absurdity. True neocons are hard to find.
To be sure. You won't find many who represent classical neo-conservatism (circa 1975 or 1979). History has moved on, and old groups have scattered, while new ones have formed. A lot can change in twenty years.
The word "neo-conservative" does tend to get thrown around a lot. But I think its use is not wholly arbitrary to characterize the changes that have come over foreign policy thinking on the right. Much of the talk one heard over the last year or so about American power and its place in the world differs not just from what the paleoconservative fringe says, but also from what one had long heard from the conservative grassroots. It may be that the conservative and Republican mainstream has been entirely swept up in the new current, but for some observers the change has been striking and impossible to ignore. Some vocabulary is needed to characterize the difference, though one may certainly criticize the actual terms chosen.
I just got a look at Ramesh Ponnuru's article in the latest National Review on this topic. It's worth a look, though I think quite mistaken. To me, it seemed to be a lot of clever hair-splitting aimed at concealing currents and trends that may be hard to pin down and characterize, but are nevertheless real.
What utter horse crap.