[stevepaa]

It seems to me it came to forefront in last ten years. It has a socially conservative part based upon local morals which in most areas means Christian fundamentalists promoting their view of life, marriage and family to the exclusion of other peoples civil rights.

On the foreign policy side, it has gone beyond the Kennedy era viewpoint of defending liberty where it exists, and has injected a moralistic view to promoting the violent overthrow of regimes deemed evil. While liberals like myself would deem these regimes that violate their peoples civil rights as abhorent, I would prefer peaceful means to achieve the desired goal of liberty.
I think neo-cons would say the ends justify the means, whereas liberals want the same ends but are not willing to accept the same means.