The thing to understand about this whole conservative divide thing is that neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, whatever, emphasize different parts of Edmund Bourke, but they still have a place in his intellectual lineage. Many times, for instance, paleoconservatives or traditionalists idealize the past, even though they thought the past was no longer recoverable. Southern agrarians facing a more industrialized south in in the first half of the 20th century wanted a return to what it saw as traditional values: free from the fast-paced world of industrial commerce and travel, free from the materialism of capitalism, and so on. Religion also struck with unrecoverable traditionalist tones at times, because Americans were so distanced from the greatness of European religious institutions of centuries past. Many conservatives wanted a U.S. free from the concerns of the welfare state, even though it was here to stay in Eisenhower U.S. society. There was even a desire to jam back near the end of the 1980s, because of the climbing influence of neoconservatives and the post-industrial society.
To seek an unrecoverable past is often a dramatic, radical act, because it refuses to acknowledge the status-quo and the gradual nature of change. It wants the change now. So to is the push from free-marketers. There is an idealism that seeks to eschew the status-quo and slow change in favor of dramatic, radical change, with an often-times utopian vision.
I think the problem with the Neo-Reaganites is that while they proclaim to be a hard-nosed Wilsonianism, it's too misty-eyed about America's ability to change global affairs and institute complimentary political institutions internationally.