Perhaps the most common these says is describing the fiscally conservative but socially liberal wing of the GOP.
I'll offer up my definition of neoconservatism and paleoconservatism (with my tongue only slightly touching my cheek) and let the arguements begin.
Paleoconservatism.
As you can see, I see the differences between paleoconservatism as primarly religious in nature, but then again, I may be wrong. Pro-capitalism, but not necessarily free trade.
Favors lower taxes.
Pro-life on Judeo/Christian grounds.
Favors traditional Christian morality: Patriarchal family structure, prayer in schools, ten commandments in schools, anti-homosexual, virginal until marriage, usually against divorce,anti-pornography, supports blue laws, is against non-christian religious and secular influences in schools, is offended by orange hair, tattoos on women, and earings on men.
Neoconservative
Pro-capitalism and favors free trade.
Favors lower taxes.
May or may not be pro-life, but is unlikely to be pro-life on solely religious grounds.
Believes morality is matter of conscience: Against prayer in school, tolerant of homosexuals, unlikely to place much importance on virginity, has no problem with Playboy or Penthouse, proponent of no fault divorce, against blue laws, doesn't care who has orange hair, body peircings or tattoos.
FR's very own Torie is an example of a neo-con. You may not always agree with Torie but it would serve you well to read what he has to say.
John McCain
Remember: join the conspiracy of your choice, while you still can.
The short founding phase was dominated by Irving Kristol's "The Public Interest," a magazine that examined policy questions and dissected liberal assumptions of the 1960s and 1970s. Kristol's collaborators included a liberal like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and a social democrat like Daniel Bell, but it's important to recognize that it wasn't a fully fledged political movement or ideology. It was a policy critique of the Great Society that could be applied by those of a variety of political stripes. There was much to be admired in such a critique of defective policy assumptions and practices.
Phase two focused on Norman Podhoretz and "Commentary," a magazine devoted to Jewish issues, foreign and domestic policy. The elder Podhoretz and his wife had been around earlier, but they weren't quite so prestigious as the elder Kristols. It was the turn to practical politics that benefited Podhoretz.
These were the years of the renascent Cold War and the Reagan administration. In these years the neo-cons were the intellectual vanguard of the administration and their influence spread throughout conservative journals and organizations. The Cold War was the key in these years, though the original critique of domestic policy and the effort to develop new approaches to domestic policy continued.
With the end of the Cold War and the passing of Reagan and Bush Sr., as well as Kristol and Podhoretz, from active life began phase three which is most closely identified with William Kristol, Irving's son, and "The Weekly Standard." The neo-conservatism of phase three is far less intellectual and far more political, focusing more narrowly on Washington, rather than New York or Cambridge. Intellectually, Bill is no match for his parents, but more of a practical politicians. Involvement with McCain hurt Kristol and his associates, but wartime brings them bounding back.
Neo-conservatism III no longer carries the same weight among Republicans or conservative organizations, though it seems to have as great an influence on conservative publications as before. Masters at using words and publicity, the neo-cons always plumped for a larger role for themselves and undercut those partners who didn't have political clout that they could make use of.
A lot of what one could accept in the Cold War, became harder to take in peacetime. To many of us in 1980 Old Poddy sounded like a patriot struggling against the destructive ideas of the time. By 2000, he looked much more like an egotist forever tooting his own horn and promoting his pet causes. John "Young Poddy" Podhoretz, Norman's son, starts at that point and devolves further.
Raimondo and the Rockwellites are right in a lot of what they write about the neo-cons, but the neo-cons would also be right in their condemnation of Raimondo and the Rockwellites, if they deigned to notice them. These political sects generally do accumulate vices over time. It's a result of inbreeding, opportunism and groupthink.
It seems to me that the neo-cons performed many useful services in the seventies and eighties which either aren't so necessary now, or aren't being performed by them. What sticks in the craw are the nepotism, the opportunism, and the attacks they make on fellow conservatives.
Whatever happens in the future, I doubt the neo-cons will be a major influence in ten years. Intent on manipulating public opinion and political developments, present-day neo-cons don't seem to have the shrewdness at discerning deeper, broader and more lasting trends that their parents and predecessors did.
Paleo-Conservatives are more small-government conservatives with a strong slant towards traditional values. They will support foreign policy activism when America's vital national interests are at stake, but they do not support involvment in most conflicts. They are more passionately pro-life and pro-gun. They believe in lower taxes and less government, but they have less patience for rich people whining about taxes. They tend to oppose free trade or at least see it as a sometimes useful policy as opposed to a guiding principle. Paleo-Cons like the idea of tariffs because they like confining the tax man's power to the end of a dock and because they see strong manufacturing as a component of a strong America. The most prominent Paleo-Conservative is Pat Buchanan, but I think most Paleo-Cons support Israel a little more than Mr. Buchanan does.
WFTR
Bill