Here is what I find so abhorrent about neo-conservatism and its belligerent default intransigence: Their style of argument seems to go, "_______ is __________"; "____________ is not ____________"; and so on according to dogma, with simple blanks to provide the structure to an argument, and sudden flash and flourishes of appropriately flattering/unflattering adjectives gives you extra points. -wink, wink.
Political discourse worthy of its name, with its demands for higher standards in formulating and logically linking ideas together, regards such passivity and vacuity and its unreasonable expectation of same from the populace as a lack of any redeeming grace. Machiavelli rolls in his grave.
Don't get me wrong, an educated man of letters and a politically adroit one (nay, one with a penchant for well-placed flattery) like the venerable rational political theorist is rightfully deserving of being among the great writers/thinkers of history. What I'm saying is that in neo-con-ism Machiavelli would be first aghast and shocked, then his realization of possibilities would literally cause him to rub his hands in glee. But the Master is an entirely different creature. As they say: in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.