I guess a neo would love to claim Reagan as his "father"--but many conservatives would rather RR just be a conservative. He certainly didn't talk about a New World Order and I never read any essay he wrote on hegemony, and the "intelligentsia" of the neos seldom evoke his wisdom. Peggy Noonan doesn't seem very neo to me, either.
It also seems to me that neos are absurdly hung up on one pale ole paleo--Pat Buchanan. Simply deranged on the subject--which butters PB's bread every day. I guess there are so few of his breed that he's all you have left to hate. To be frank, the only purpose he serves for THIS post-neo conservative is the rage he can arouse in the "intellectuals."
I have a pretty good RR library on my shelves. If you'd like to refer me to any of his Partisan Review writings, please do. Until then, I'll continue to revere him as a man who avoided such destructive loyalties and struck a truer course.
Why am I stuck on definitions?
Seems to me that you initially jumped in on this thread defining neocons.
I've just gone about correcting you.
I could care less what "many" would want, but Reagan's policies fir perfectly into the paleocon's definition of a neocon...of course, most paleocons would rather not acknowledge the fact that Reagan was in fact, the very picture of neocon ideology that they so despise.
I can't make you accept the truth, I can only lead you to it.