This diagram is totally wrong.
The Tea Party isn’t neoconservative — it was formed around a protest against the wars of aggression, not in support of them. Additionally, the Tea Party was mostly a grass-roots traditional Conservative campaign organized in protest at Neoliberal and Neoconservative plans to cut or privatize social services, as well as against the failure of the government to properly regulate corporate over-reach. In most (nearly all) fundamentals outside of domestic human rights legislation (LGBT and ethnic-minority Civil Rights), the Tea Party represented political attitudes to the left of Neoliberalism. On issues of illegal immigration, the Ta Party largely overlapped with Neoliberalism (Obama is responsible for more deportations of undocumented workers than any president before him — by many times over).
Neoliberals are to the right of traditional Conservatives on most issues (the environment, foreign policy, corporate welfare, government oversight and enforcement of corporate regulation) and overlap with traditional conservatives on others (trade protectionism, union busting, social services).
Meanwhile, Neoconservatives should instead be slightly to the right of Neoliberals, overlapping with Neoliberalism— Neoconservatism is mostly a subset of Neoliberalism (it grew out of the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party in the 70s), and it only diverges from Neoliberalism insofar is it rejects the idea that the US must abide by international laws against wars of aggression, and the treaties that require the US to gain broad multilateral support for military “interventions.”
Otherwise, Neolibs and Neocons advocate the same set of policies for domestic and international affairs.
Hillary Clinton demonstrated during her tenure as Sec. of State that she’s a Neoconservative. The evidence is ample and incontrovertible: her department’s covert operations in Syria, Egypt, and Ukraine; her contempt both for US and international law demonstrated in her support for and promotion of the transparently illegal coup in Honduras; her support for the internationally-condemned Israeli blockade and civilian massacres in Gaza; and her illegal arms sales and diplomatic promotion of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the UN and elsewhere are all obvious and inarguable Neoconservative actions that contravert the few principles that distinguish Neoliberalism from Neoconservatism.
All in all, this chart and accompanying“analysis” is totally fictitious nonsense.
It does make for good corporate propaganda, though.