“For example, Neocons are / were pro-interventionist. Fine. That has nothing to do with border security and trade.”
I beg to differ. I used to subscribe to Commentary back during the Reagan days, and if nothing else Commentary was the flagship of the neocons. An almost religious enthusiasm for mass immigration has always been a neocon hallmark. You can still hear it if you listen to Dennis Prager or Michael Medved. For a lot of neocons the opposition to mass immigration, legal or illegal, makes you nearly a nazi. And I’m not exaggerating for effect.
I subscribed to Commentary during the run up to Iraq, when the term “Neocon” was in full use. I recall no such predilection for lawbreaking.
Medved is Establishment Boehner, IMO, less Neocon pro interventionist. Medved is clearly pro-law-breaking.
Praeger was clearly a lead Neocon. I haven’t listened to him in a long time. When I did listen, I never heard pro-law-breaking.
So, even with these two, I see difference.