The French, who still don't have a clue, are calling Bill Kristol a neo-con. Now, since he was NEVER a Trotskyite, a lefty, nor even a Dem, but always Republican, it's a misnomer and further debasement of the term.
Obfuscation and confusion is one of the left's better tricks as is co-opting the language.
Neocon seems to be a one way street. From the left to the right. This cannot be, say the commies. After all, it is their agenda to convert all to the left or else. The left defines neocon as they please. They must be commies who convert to the right, therefore, they still are. Second, if they are hiding in the conservative movement, they have a world domination agenda.
On the second point. There are plenty of young conservatives who believe The Constitution is devinely inspired and it would be a good idea if more countries were guided by it. They might even have come to the conclusion that sooner or later there will be dire international tests of culture, we might as well get it over by the least costly means, including force. The left labels these realists who, may never have been anything but conservative, as neocon in the pejorative since (they must be former commies or are now nazis).
"Those who control language control minds." - - Ayn Rand. What is political correctness?
The Frankfort School is alive and well. Schwartz and this Trotsky dialog is the perfect example. The left spends a lot of time on the dialectic.
yitbos