When I read it, I did not conclude that the writer was using the term incorrectly. In fact, he seems to understand the neocons very well, having also identified a rift between two factions:
The result has been something of an identity crisis in the ranks of the neocons. Like not a few revolutionary movements that have fallen on hard times, neoconservatism is experiencing a schism. Two camps are starting to face off over the question of the true faith, with the first embracing orthodoxy and the second heresy. The question they face is simple: Should the neocons continue to move right, serving as the advance guard of an embattled GOP? Or should neoconservatism become true to itself by returning to the center? Will the movement, in fact, morph back into what it was at its inception in the late 1960s when it belonged firmly to the Democratic Party—moderate on domestic issues and mildly hawkish on foreign policy?
I continue to sit out here in the cheap seats doing my level best at educating my fellow citizens.
What were they called when they were in the democrat party?
neodems?
“Will the movement, in fact, morph back into what it was at its inception in the late 1960s when it belonged firmly to the Democratic Party—moderate on domestic issues and mildly hawkish on foreign policy?”
What were they called when they were in the democratic party? Neodems?
Surely you can spare the time to give us the historical grouping before they left and became famous.
Socratic method--- nice going.