Kristols (and Himmelfarbs), Poddys (and Decters), Kagans (may be primus inter pares in terms of sheer numbers), Feiths, Goldbergs, Perle/Wohlstetter… not to forget the lovely Wurmsers.

The visible part of the iceberg is what, one tenth?

(Although Ramparts can also be seen as an early example of the co-option of a dissenting movement by the media class.)

Horowitz may have followed Irving Kristol in the realization that attacking the so-called "New Class" could raise lots of money from conservative foundations.

Anyway, as I have pointed out elsewhere there is not much difference in the mentality of Soviet and Zionist Ashkenazim while Milton Friedman's economic ideology like Marxism produces a withering of the state, the latter in a dictatorship of the proletariat, the former in a dictatorship of global capital.

Horowitz and Kristol appear to have concluded that serving the plutocracy produced a better life than serving the revolution.

Friedman and the Pipeses, who came from Jabotinskian families, did not even have to make the choice.

I point out in The Israel Lobby and American Society [references work in the hyperlinked section]:

Implications for the Jewish Financial Elite

Of all the transnational Jewish political elites Zionists offered the most to wealthy Western Jews with increasing capital resources while the Marxist transnational political elite promised the least.

Yet, there was a tremendous similarity among the first generation Jabotinskian Zionist and Jewish Marxist leaders and later events[l] have indicated that some sort of Jewish identity has persisted among Soviet Ashkenazim even including those that remained members of the Soviet elite after the founding of the State of Israel.

Despite membership in the former Soviet elite, Russian Jewish oligarchs hooked up with incredible alacrity with both the international organized Jewish community and with the Friedmanites (or Neoliberals), whose movement is in many regards the negative mirror image of that of the Marxism even to the point of being characterized by a mostly Jewish leadership with a mostly non-Jewish following. (See Re: Report: Finkelstein Lecture at MIT.[322])

Not only have Friedmanites as members of a predominantly Jewish movement proselytizing to non-Jews found it easy to collaborate with Jabotinskian Neoconservatives on the basis of shared principles and assumptions, but many Jabontinskian Neoconservaties are also Friedmanite Neoliberals.

The target Zionist constituency has always been Jewish wealth while Jews without major capital resources in Zionist ideology, whether Labor or Jabotinskian, serve simply as a resource (except of course for the Zionist intelligentsia) or simply as "useful idiots."

Somehow I would like to know more about the "left-factional understanding". How would he define it.

And Phil, how would you define the "left element" in neoconservativism?

The only part were I can discover it is in the "bringing democracy rhetoric". Admittedly I think it is only PR gloss over the older authoritarian mindset. These guys are highly aware that democratic rules in the ME–in many places–might produce a disaster from the Western point of view.