Some people tend to use the term "neoconservative" (also "neo-conservative" and the colloquial "neocon") in the perjorative sense. Here's what the lexicographers have to say about it -
Merriam-Webster's Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE:
1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
IMMHO, 1: (above) is indicative of a liberal who finally read that pesky document called the "Constitution of the United States", and 2: (above) is pretty-much historically standard practice for any national ideology - if you remove the word "democracy" and replace it with socialism/Marxism/Communism/Islamism (or whatever a particular groups "ism" happens to be), and replace "United States" with a different appropriate national designation. The only change that I would make to the definition would be to either delete the final four words from 2: (they seem to give it the flavor of Imperialism), or add "when conditions demand" at the very end. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor would be a good example of imposing a demanding condition.
The Tea Party has been "infiltrated" by people of all poliitical persuasions, but conservatives - not just Republicans - seem to make up the majority. Many came to the Tea Party because of their personal disaffection with either of the two predominant political parties. Others came as "agents provocateurs" (somebody employed to gain the trust of suspects and then tempt them to do something illegal so that they can be arrested and punished) from liberal-"progressive" affiliations (DNC thugs), union organizations (such as the SEIU and NEA), and radical fringe elements such as the American Nazi Party. Their charter was essentially to "observe and report" and "do anything you can to discredit the Tea Party".
I spoke at a Grants Pass (OR) Tea Party rally on tax day several years ago, and saw those elements present. The SEIU wore t-shirts emblazoned with SEIU. The neo-Nazis (less than 10 of them) wore their cute little brown-shirt uniforms (complete with armbands), and displayed a fairly large Nazi flag. They lined up along the edge of the sidwalk, and began chanting their slogans of hate. There were attendees present who wanted to do the Nazi's harm, but cooler heads prevailed. A line of Tea Partiers formed directly in front of the Nazis and drowned them out by beginning the Pledge of Allegiance (immediately joined by the 750 other attendees). The Nazis left in frustration. Understand that it is not my intent to draw any political parallels between the Nazis and unions other than the intent to disrupt/discredit. I don't have any true demographics on the legitimate attendees, but the entire socio-economic spectrum of Grants Pass was represented. There were relatively few men in suits or sport coats, or ladies in dresses or skirts. On the other end of the spectrum there were relatively few who looked homeless or near-homeless. As far as outward appearances go, most people were dressed cleanly and very casually - t-shirts, pullovers and jeans seem to be the "uniform". There were, what appeared to me to be, a representative number of Americans "of color", and "white" Americans, and an almost equal number of males and females. There were even a few well-behaved children in the crowd. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that our particular group was not composed of the "white elitists" that the liberal-progressives would have the rest of the country believe is the entire make-up of the Tea Party.
Yes, the Tea Party is composed primarily of "political conservatives", but they are not necessarily "neocons" in the pure dictionary sense. My exposure to the Tea Party movement demonstrated it was, and may still be today, primarily a political "compound" of people who believe in our Constitution - as written by the Founding Fathers - and who wish to prevent the further expansion of government and its overly-enthusiastic approach to taxation, and also prevent the further decimation of our National culture, customs, and those freedoms which we so uniquely enjoy in this world!
The condemnation of any movement that threatens the status quo (the primarily two-party system) will come swiftly, and with all the tsunami-like power both predominant parties can muster. I don't see where either of those two parties have the best interests of the United States or its citizens as their primary objective. The RepubliCrats are like two drunks on the Titanic, arguing over whose turn it is to buy a round while our "Ship of State" is capsizing! But that's just how I see things, and unlike some folks, I don't expect everybody to agree with me. But, please do try to understand what I am saying, without becoming immediately contentious. Pax...
