>>>
How exactly can one be classified a 'neocon' when one has been a conservative for nearly a half century?
How exactly do you define the prefix, 'neo?
<<<
Well the prefix "neo" and the suffix "con" are both incorrect. There is nothing new about them and they are not conservative. What we today refer to as "neocons", should really be considered part of the left (from whence they came). Neos are big government types, fully comfortable with the welfare state at home and the warfare state abroad.
The mistaken "con" suffix is related to the fact they came from the anti communist left. They make nice noises about tax-cuts and smaller government but that is not their driving belief. The driving belief is in the restorative powers of government especially abroad and especially through the use of the military.
To be fair, unlike others on the left they want expansive government to make America stronger whereas as leftist internationalism aims to make America weaker.
The fellow was including in his definition a whole lot of long time conservatives. Get it? Neo? Long-time?
It's an incorrect, trite, and meaningless insult of people that you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to debate.
But thanks for the essay explaining what I didn't need to be told.