Mostly, it is a matter of emphasis. Some traditional conservatives are more isolationist, some not. The Paleos disagree with most of what I listed. Beyond that, traditional conservatives of the WSJ editorial page ilk tend to be more anti-redistributionist, more hostile to a social safety net, more impressed about supply side economics, more concerned about the evils of big government qua big government, more into subsidiarity (the devolving power to states and localities and away from Washington), and more cautious about government initiatives in general.
I wish there were other neocons around here to add their two cents, or disagree with my take on this, but I think I am the only real card carrying neocon on this board. :)
You had to toss the "paleo's" in there didn't you! (LOL!) Oh my! I am missing in action on that one also.
At some point I would like to see a thread on this.. It's would be interesting to hear the self described "X-conservatives" define themselves and maybe dispute some of the other characteristics attributed to them.
actually, I am somewhat in the middle between Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke on most issues, but labels while interesting block reality as much as they illuminate.
I happen to be more of the liberal mugged by reality. I think that is why I as a "traditional" neo-con was very ticked off by Trent Lott. I stopped being a liberal because I realized that liberalism wasn't the best way to create justice in this world and a color blind society, not because I abandoned those ideals.
It is an interesting intellectual divide in the GOP. The paleos are on their death bed, but just don't know it quite yet. Of course I shall be flamed for this, but... c'est la vie. Viva Irving Kristol!