In Canada, neoconservative is a dirty word, and when used as an accusation, is difficult to refute since most folks can’t say what it means. In other words, “I know it when I see it”.

The best known definition may be Irving Kristol’s: “A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.”

James Q. Wilson, in a remembrance of Kristol, coins another definition:

I chaired a White House task force on crime for the president. It was a distinguished panel but after much effort we made very few useful recommendations. It slowly dawned on me that, important as the rising crime rate was, nobody knew how to make it a lot smaller. We assumed, of course, that the right policy was to eliminate the “root causes” of crime, but scholars disagreed about what many of those causes were and where they did agree they pointed to things, such as abusive families, about which a democratic government can do very little.

The view that we know less than we thought we knew about how to change the human condition came, in time, to be called neoconservatism. Many of the writers, myself included, disliked the term because we did not think we were conservative, neo or paleo. (I voted for John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey and worked in the latter’s presidential campaign.) It would have been better if we had been called policy skeptics; that is, people who thought it was hard, though not impossible, to make useful and important changes in public policy.

…

(And now, for no apparent reason, here is FPinfomart offer number 138207291204 .)