Is there a difference between a neoconservative and a neoliberal?

[Crumpets]

Very much so, although one can be both (see George Bush). Neoliberalism is an extension of Classical Liberalism, emphasizing low taxes, deregulation, and free trade. Neoconservatism, unlike neoliberalism, is much less of a one-size-fits-all policy, and was essentially developed for a late Cold War and post-Cold War America as a way for us to expand our influence abroad. This included targeting authoritarian regimes, even those whose effects don't go beyond their own borders, preemptive war, and regime change, almost always directed at "destabilizing" states - states which are at risk of becoming failed states and bringing the whole region to war.

You can talk about neoliberalism's foreign policy, although only really in the context of economics. A neoliberal would support the TPP, support giving China MFN status, support the strength and expansion of pan-national economic and political groups like the EU, and generally be more likely to ignore things like poor labor laws and bad working conditions as a reason not to do business with a country. Furthermore, and unlike neoconservatism, the democratic standing of a country has little impact on how the US treats that country on the global stage, at least in an economic sense for a neoliberal.

However, it doesn't really make sense to talk about a domestic neo-con policy, since neoconservatism was specifically crafted as a foreign policy, specifically for the United States. Obviously the kind of person who would embrace neoconservatism is likely to embrace a certain slate of domestic policy goals (see the Bush administration), but there is really no logical extension of neo-conservatism to a domestic agenda.