Replies

I read the article, although I can't seem to find any real evidence that you did other than you providing an excerpt. You certainly don't seem to have comprehended the article.

The money phrase is one I agree with wholeheartedly:

The most prominent champions of this view inside the administration are Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz... Advocates of this view embrace... championing of American ideals but reject.. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives. Like Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan... [holders of these views] want to use American might to promote American ideals.
This is, in case you haven't guessed, my own view too. So I guess that makes me a neocon. It's a designation I'm willing--nay, honored--to accept, if it comes with a caveat: Neoconservatism... has entirely lost its original meaning. It no longer means that you're a Johnny-come-lately to the good fight, and--contrary to Mr. Buchanan's aspersions--neocons are no less conservative than anyone else on the right. [I edited out the labels and left the descriptors, so that it would be clear what Boot is agreeing to and what I am agreeing to]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. If neocon is the definition of anyone who champion American ideals abroad while rejecting reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives, then the label applies to distinct politicians from Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan- and as such is a meaningless label.

And if the definition of 'neoconservative' is one who embraces the championing of American ideals while rejecting a reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish it, then I guess by that definition I would be a neoconservative too, just like Ronald Reagan. Just like President McKinley. He certainly held what Boot would have characterized as a 'hard Wilsonian' view. Of course, it would be hard to say that Wilson was a hero of McKinley's, being that McKinley was dead by the time Wilson came to prominence. Which is why your attempt at using Boot's analysis (which you describe as idiotic) to prove your assertion is pretty funny.

Here's a hint- most people who believe in an assertive projection of power do not consider themselves to be Wilsonian, for good reason.

I am still waiting, however, for some proof that certain members of the right consider Wilson a hero.