This is the conclusion I have come to regarding the use of the word “neocon”: When “neocons” are spoken of in a derogatory or critical way, it is very often a “tell” regarding the criticizer. The criticizer is either an anit-semite, “anti-Zionist”, anti-Israel, or is repeating a mantra spoken by someone who is at least one of those things. It’s another permutation of “The Jews are controlling everything” myth.
Here's why, and I could be wrong: Neocons, at least as far as what I know of them, seem to stand for big government initiatives and increased government powers when it suits their purposes. Now, you can be "against" big government and still be a-okay with the Jews, can you not?
Like a poster downthread, when I hear neocon, rightly or wrongly, I think of Rove, GWB, and compassionate conservatism. And that reeks to me of Big Government, just of a different flavor than that of the progressives. I don't believe big we can Big Government our way out of our current problems, no matter what its flavor.
“The criticizer is either an anit-semite, “anti-Zionist”, anti-Israel, or is repeating a mantra spoken by someone who is at least one of those things. It’s another permutation of “The Jews are controlling everything””
That’s not the way I’ve seen it used (though I won’t deny that some may have that in mind). When I see the term, it is usually referring to someone who is in favor of heavy miliary use, particularly with American occupation and “nation building”, but who is not particularly a small government person. Often these types will point to someone like FDR as someone they admire. I think a lot of neocons (or pseudocons) were formerly Dims who could not abide the Dims antiwar positions and so joined the Republicans, but who are pretty comfortable with big gooberment.