Neoconservatism has the same appeal as communism really. It builds on the idea that one "side", or more basically one person, knows how to cure all the ills of the world. In the case of neocons, the believe that imposing an american order on a country will allow it to develop, regardless of the local culture, in the same way that communists believe that the government should decide what is the best way to live your life regardless of personality. That is why both ideologies keep failing and why they retain their appeal. The are not practically feasible as there are too many variables in a given scenario for any person to control, but that does not stop every other arrogant university freshman from believing they can figure all those variables out. In the end, it is best to leave people to their own fates. It may be bloody and violent, but at least they will be the masters of their own fate as a country and as people.

"...patriotism, American exceptionalism, a belief in the goodness of America and in the benefits of American power and of its use, and a conviction that democracy is the best system of government and should be spread whenever that is practical." I can practically hear echoes of "The White Man's Burden": Take up the White Man's burden-- The savage wars of peace-- Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought, Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought. This article, while brimming over with self-righteousness and triumphalism, has no answers to the substantive criticisms of, for example, intervention in Syria. It does not elaborate on why the fate of Jordan is an "American interest." It does not elaborate on why containing Russia is important. That the author treats these assertions as self-evident is symptomatic of an ideology that is driven by feeling more than fact.

Neoconservative philosophy has nothing to do with Judaism, but that doesn't stop Abrams from smearing the idealogical opposition as anti-Semites. Its revealing that a once popular foreign policy now responds to reasoned and evidence based criticisms with wild ad hominem. But just look at the 2012 GOP primary - neoconservatives everywhere! Therefore it must be popular, right? Wrong. The reality is that Mitt, Newt, and Rick were pandering for Sheldon Adelson's money. A shrewd move, and it worked; money generously flowed into Mitt's coffers after he secured the nomination. But it did not matter how many GOP buffoons expressed their affinity for perpetual war, because at every debate, every campaign speech, every media appearance, Representative Ron Paul thoroughly exposed the moral, constitutional and fiscal disaster that is neoconservative foreign policy. And he connected, especially with the younger Republicans who have borne the emotional and spiritual consequences of this armchair interventionism. For example, in the Virginia primary last year, there were only two candidates: Paul and Romney. Romney won the 65+ demographic 83-17, but among voters younger than 45, Ron Paul dominated Romney 65-35. Although Mr. Abrams talks about neoconservatism being the zombie that never dies, I think he is playing the roll of Baghdad Bob - spewing propaganda to keep the few remaining neocons from abandoning the foreign policy equivalent of the Titanic.