Matt is right on this. Too many hold claim to the One, True, neoliberalism. In my interview with Charlie Peters, for instance, he took hold of the theory, defining it as an ideology of dynamism and technocracy centered around The Washington Monthly of the 70s and 80s. In popular punditry, however, it's also used to define a sort of counter-intuitive liberalism centered around Kinsley and The New Republic. Occasionally, it refers to Kaus-like liberals, who retain a sort of vestigial identification with "liberalism," but take as their role as a destruction of every group, politician, and policy ever associated with the ideology. Other uses put it with the DLC, or with a certain school of economic development that held sway in the 90s. In the end, its most common usage denotes liberal ends achieved through conservative means, and is generally about separating good lefties from bad lefties. But it's certainly no great sin to use it imprecisely. Everyone else does.
