The shallow and ahistorical reading is Johann’s alone; I once noted an earlier case where, in choosing his enemies (many of whom I share), he caricatured and seriously misrepresented them as a monolithic force. He’s done the same here. I’m not a neoconservative: on issues as various as welfare policy, race, homosexual equality, separation of church and state, and numerous others, I’m very much out of sympathy with the neoconservative case. But I don’t regard it as an insult to be termed a neoconservative, and there is a particular type of neoconservative stance in foreign affairs that I regard as the natural ally of the Left. Johann’s insistence that this stance is a “1990s rhetorical creation” shows that he hasn’t been following the intellectual debate within and about an important influence in foreign policy.