That's what worries me. I've never been a Democrat. I've never been more than moderate as a Republican. I don't think I am a "Paleo-Con", but I am a "Conservative". Having said that, it begs the question; Why should "Moderate Conservatives" (Mod-Cons?) trust "Neo-Cons"?
With this in mind, it also becomes easier to identify the true neoconservative models in the field of power politics: Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Ronald Reagan, and Winston Churchill. These were tough-minded men who were far from "conservative" either in spirit or in political pedigree. Jackson was a Democrat, while Reagan switched to the Republicans late in life, as Churchill did from the Liberals to the Tories. All three were staunch democrats and no less staunch believers in maintaining the might of the democracies. All three believed in confronting democracy's enemies early and far from home shores; and all three were paragons of ideological warfare.
And you can add G W Bush to that list. He told Brit Hume that he believed that spreading freedom through the world would lead to peace and so was in our interest. A world of freedom and democracy would have fewer wars and conflicts than a world of tyrants and dictators. Fancy that!
So - Why should you trust 'neo-conservatives' like Winston, Ronnie and George W.? Because history has proved them right!!! On his last visit to London George W Bush picked up a bust of Winston Churchill, and praised the man. I am sure that leading up to the Iraq war, Bush really did ask the question "What would Winston do?" .... and the world heard the answer in March 2003.