The 'Neo' Makes a Big Difference

There is a BIG difference between neo-conservatism and traditional conservativism, which is discussed in this article from The American Conservative:

Neoconservatives care about one thing—war (and where they can wage it). Says contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, neocon Max Boot: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad,” a progressive, Wilsonian vision, if there ever was one. As for traditional conservative concerns like limited government, fiscal responsibility and constitutional fidelity, these are ideas neoconservatives will occasionally pay lip service to, so long as none of these principles interferes with their more important task of global military domination. It is no coincidence that George W. Bush—the first full-blown neoconservative presidential administration—did not limit government, was not fiscally responsible and shredded the Constitution, while still implementing the most radical foreign policy in American history. Writes conservative columnist George Will “The most magnificently misnamed neoconservatives are the most radical people in this town.”

Conservatives now seem more willing to question their recent radical past, and a populist rightwing movement consisting of tea parties, town hall protests and states rights’ rhetoric is not conducive to neoconservativism. With traditional conservatism being represented in its modern form most prominently by so-called “paleconservatives” like commentator Pat Buchanan or libertarians like Texas Congressman Ron Paul, Boot recently described such non-“neo”-conservatives to Newsweek: “A lot of them tend to be libertarian cranks: neo-Confederates, really insane, racist, xenophobic types.” “Libertarian cranks” could describe the current crop of constitutionally minded, anti-government protesters, and so-called “neo-Confederates” primary concern has always been states’ right, an increasingly hot topic. As for his portrayal of traditional conservatives as “really insane, racist, xenophobic” types, Boot’s criticism is not unlike the Left’s attempts to portray anti-Obama tea partiers as “racist,” and serves as a reminder of neoconservatives’ progressive inclinations.

Neoconservatives never have been conservative, neither was Bush on “national security,” and these points must be hammered home before the Right can achieve a sturdier ideological footing. Laughably, Boot complains that neocons have been “vilified as being barely human beasts who have to be kept chained in a cage somewhere,” and yet without hesitation slanders real conservatives as “libertarian cranks,” “neo-Confederate” and “racists.” It’s time for the Right take “neo” out of conservative, chain neoconservatism to progressivism, and put these liberal beasts back in their cages.

There is a lot about traditional conservativism that I like, but there's very little about neo-conservatism that I care for (I say that as a former, converted neocon).