But it takes a true neocon to believe that cynicism is a better form of leadership than optimism, openness and hope.
That rationale, as General Clark put it today, is that President Bush has been "reckless and radical" and that General Clark has the leadership, the optimism and a plan to set things right.
It's difficult to recall two so different elections, so close together in time and so distant in substance: In the US, a campaign that was much about leadership, change, optimism, and "that the old hatreds shall someday pass".
"I had always blamed Kesselring", Hitler later explained, "for looking at things too optimistically... events have proved Rommel wrong, and I have been justified in my decision to leave Field Marshal Kesselring there, whom I have seen as an incredible political idealist, but also as a military optimist, and it is my opinion that military leadership without optimism is not possible".
These appear to show high levels of trust in the central leadership and of optimism about the future under party rule.
The economic recovery helped, but interviewers and exit pollers found a preference for Reagan even among voters who disagreed with administration policies, because for them he represented leadership, patriotism, and optimism.
Add to it a highly educated, urban population, known for its leadership, work ethic, optimism, and willingness to take risks.
The party viewed the leadership campaign with optimism, announcing that its membership was growing rapidly as Albertans grew increasingly frustrated with the Stelmach government's performance.
If only Poland, with its stoic leadership and cheery optimism about Britain's place, were a nation of a hundred million people and the fourth biggest economy on the planet, then we'd be closer to Blair's "Britain at the heart of Europe".
Yet, even with all that, even after all that, the American belief in the power of hope, optimism and leadership unaccountably remains.
