The LA Times story on the problems of the “neocons” offers this by way of definition:
“Neocons” — best known for advocating aggressive foreign and military policies — are in the painful zone between distinction and disfavor in Washington. They are losing battles on Capitol Hill. Their principles have stopped appearing in new U.S. policies. And where neoconservatives were once seen as having a future in Republican administrations, the setbacks in Iraq could make it difficult for the group’s leading members to win Senate confirmation for top posts in the future.
Let’s see. Goldwater talked about winning nuclear wars and lobbing warheads through Kremlin windows. National Review called for rollback, not containment. Meanwhile, Krauthammer and Frum opposed the war in Yugoslavia while National Review supported (and Pat Buchanan wanted to send the US Navy to protect Croatia). When Bill Kristol offered his plan for a new foreign policy, he deliberately did not use the word “neoconservative” but neo-Reaganite. Etc, etc, etc. Is anybody seeing my point yet?