Well, first of all, I wouldn't categorize Benson's philosophy as "neoconservative". It is classical conservative. Neoconservatives believe in government intervention and war when it suits them and blind party loyalty; see Bush, who pushed through a couple rounds of bailouts and had all of the neocon pundits singing his praises, but when Obama does anything remotely similar, it's this big horrible thing, as just one example.

One might be correct in saying that many misinterpret Benson's statements as endorsements of the Republican Party, seen in America as the "conservative" party. This is really disappointing because today's Republican Party represents almost nothing that Benson espouses, but I don't think this is Benson's fault; the blame lies on the uninformed masses that accept punditry without question and take Benson's remarks as implicit perpetual endorsements of what the common psyche deems the "conservative" party.

I think that when the Lord elevates an apostle to President of the Church, it's an elevation of their previous work as well. Everyone pays more attention to the prophet's teachings, whether they were given before or after his assumption of that calling. As such, I think that when the Lord suffers a certain apostle to become Church President, the Lord is intentionally placing additional emphasis of that specific apostle's teachings over the entirety of the apostle's tenure, not just any forthcoming teachings after the assumption of the office.

In light of all this, I think that Benson's political rhetoric is an important guideline for Church members, but I think that only insofar as it is appropriately applied. As discussed earlier, members who assume that Benson's teachings imply or necessitate continued patronage of "apostate" political creeds are obviously misapplying the teachings of the Prophet, because no such statement was ever made.

Likewise, those who assume that Benson's "proper role of government" forbids negotiation with those of differing persuasion are misappropriating the teaching as well, as are those who assume that we must pretend we have a legitimate free market and operate as if a hypothetical ideal capitalism free from government interference exists in our nation.

I think the best thing to do is just to encourage depth-of-thought among members. That would solve many of these problems. I don't know if it's generational or what, but people by and large, including church members, seem to find external propaganda channels authoritative and do not really question the claims they hear from TV. There is such an abundance of misinformation and a propensity to lick it up, and we need to find ways to stop that.