Arthur Silber has a devastating takedown of neoconservatism, at least Irving Kristol's version of neoconservatism. I can't possibly reflect the scope of Arthur's arguments here, so if you have even a passing interest in the subject you should go read the whole thing. But even in his rather lengthy piece, (by blog standards) he notes:
It would require an even lengthier article than this to address all the points raised in Kristol's essay, so I will confine myself here to what I consider the major points he makes.
And I will touch on a minor point Kristol makes, because he inflames a particular pet peeve of mine. Kristol:
The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism.
The reason American conservatives have trouble reconciling these things is that there is no philosophical link between economic conservatism and social/cultural conservatism. The only reason traditional conservatives favor free markets is because the nation's founders favored free markets. It's an accident of history. Conservatives in other countries tend to favor whatever market system their forefathers favored, the most prominent example being Russian conservatives who pine for the old controlled economy.
Traditional American conservatives favor liberal economic policies, liberal in the sense of maximum individual freedom, the hallmark of liberal politics.
I won't blame conservatives for this confusion, since it was American 'liberals' who perverted the term generations ago by advocating a government controlled economy. That's a decidedly non-liberal concept.
I don't know that Kristol, who isn't liberal in any sense, would appreciate the nuance.