I have been called many names in my career--few of them printable--but the most mystifying has to be "neocon."... The neocons, in the famous formulation of one of their leaders, Irving Kristol, were "liberals mugged by reality." Well, I haven't been mugged lately. I haven't even been accosted. I like to think I've been in touch with reality from day one, since I've never been a Trotskyite, a Maoist or even a Democrat. There's no "neo" in my conservatism. I don't deserve much credit for this, I might add, since I grew up in the 1980s, when conservatism was cool. Many of the original neocons, by contrast, grew up in the days when Republicans were derided as "the stupid party.""Quite ironic, really, in that the ones running around calling Republicans 'the stupid party' nowadays tend to be the same ones railing about some 'neoconservative' movement. But I digress. So Max Boot is not a 'neoconservative' as you stated.
But your point that some on the right look to Wilson as some sort of hero is not supported by the article either.
"Advocates of this view embrace Woodrow Wilson's championing of American ideals but reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives. ("Soft Wilsonians," a k a liberals, place their reliance, in Charles Krauthammer's trenchant phrase, on paper, not power.) Like Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, "hard Wilsonians" want to use American might to promote American ideals.This is akin to reducto ad Hitlerum- that agreeing with Hitler on anything makes one a Nazi. Call it reducto ad Wilsonium.
It's silly calling it Wilsonian anyway, since projecting American interests internationally was the policy under Presidents McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt.
Your argument basically says that Reagan considered Wilson a hero, by the way. Surely you can find some quotation by Ronald Maximus to support your contention. There is no dearth of material by Reagan on the net. Go to town!