But Bolton's complaint is that neocons believe in "democracy promotion" and that this is not far from what Democrats call "humanitarian intervention". He asks "how much differentiates [neocons] from the ‘responsibility to protect' doctrine", and slaps "expansive, unrealistic theorising, and a penchant for intervention seemingly for its own sake". His own formula is "advancing and defending American interests" in an "interest-based approach" without the human rights and humanitarian elements. He strongly opposes what he calls "the new isolationism" and warns that those on the Right who take this position find themselves "imitating their leftist doppelgangers".

Leaving aside the snarkier parts of his description ("intervention seemingly for its own sake") as unworthy of serious argument, Bolton is attempting to stake out ground between what he sees as the neocon territory and the Paulian isolationists. His magic word is "interests" but it is insufficient. Those in both parties who argue for intervention in Syria (as I have for two years) do not do so primarily because we favour free elections there, but precisely because we thought it in America's interests to bring down a key part of Iran's and Hezbollah's defence perimeter, and because we feared the growing arrival of jihadis in Syria to fight what they viewed as Sunni battles. That conclusion could be reached without the slightest reference to democracy in a future Syria or even to a humanitarian crisis so large that, by now, it threatens stability in Jordan — whose stability is an American "interest". 

Bolton may argue that generally, the development of democracy is not an American interest. But take a look at Egypt. There are democrats, liberals, secularists, Christians, and moderates in that country; one should recall that Mohammed Morsi was elected with only 51 per cent of the vote and polls show a steady decline in the popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood because it has not delivered economic progress and its rule is increasingly repressive. Is it not in America's interests to speak out in favour of freedom of speech, press and assembly there, and loudly to oppose arrests for "insulting the president"? 

"Responsibility to protect" doctrine is about military intervention, but neoconservatism — from its roots in Henry Jackson's efforts to liberate Soviet Jewry, to Reagan's push for transitions to democracy in places like Chile, the Philippines, and South Korea and his creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, to Bush's espousal of democracy in Lebanon, Palestine and Burma and his support for the Dalai Lama — is caricatured if its emphasis on ideological warfare and on verbal and programmatic support for the expansion of freedom is forgotten. War-weary Republicans (and Democrats too) may seek to avoid new military commitments; that does not mean they believe the expansion of freedom is unrelated to American "interests".