Neocons think the reason US has a duty to police the world is its greatness, liberals think it's the wickedness of the rest of the world
So far at least three high profile neocons have lined up behind Hillary Clinton for US president; Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and Max Booth, at least as preferable to Donald Trump. Surely the rest of them will follow when their boy, Marco Rubio, drops out of the race.
What this goes to show is just how little there is to divide cruise missile liberals like Hillary who gave us the (neocon-backed) US interventions in Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria. And neocons who gave us the (largely liberal interventionist-backed) US wars in Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia.
There is zero distinction between the two in their appetite for US wars – the distinction is only in the justification offered for them. Neocons bomb to spread democracy which supposedly thrives in the US. Liberal interventionists to defeat genocidal maniacs which supposedly abound in the world beyond US borders.
Being a neocon requires a very high opinion of the United States. Being a liberal interventionist requires a very low opinion of the world outside the United States.
However, the practical implications of both these inclinations are the same – a firm belief in American moral supremacy over the rest of the world.