Is Rousseau a conservative or liberal?

Our resident paleocon, Capt. Pierce, often throws out Jean-Jacques Rousseau as an example of a historical Neocon. So I ask this question: Is Rousseau a conservative or a liberal or a neocon? Consider the following thoughts:

According to Rousseau, by joining together through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free.

According to Rousseau, when a state fails to act in a moral fashion, it ceases to function in the proper manner and ceases to exert genuine authority over the individual. The second important principle is freedom, which the state is created to preserve.

Rousseau claimed that the state of nature eventually degenerates into a brutish condition without law or morality, at which point the human race must adopt institutions of law or perish.

Rousseau questioned the assumption that the will of the majority is always correct. He argued that the goal of government should be to secure freedom, equality, and justice for all within the state, regardless of the will of the majority.

Rousseau is often cited as the forefather of socialism and one of the first philosophers in the modern era to attack the idea of private property. However, Rousseau expresses a lot of ideas we now know to be contradictory. We now know through experience that socialism leads to less freedom for all. Perhaps Rousseau's true failure was his misunderstanding of how natural rights (i.e. the free market) can actually lead to more efficiency, order, and civilization rather than less. Maybe you can't blame Rousseau for this failing, because Adam Smith didn't publish the Wealth of Nations until two years before Rousseau's death. Further, if Rousseau had the opportunity to study quantum physics he would have learned that the natural state of matter only appeared on the surface to be ordered. In detail the natural state is "do whatever you want."

Cpt. Pierce is probably right. Based on Rousseau's superficial vision of man, I would put him squarly in the liberal camp. Nevertheless, his life story shows that he changed his mind a lot -switching to catholicism and then back to calvinism. Therefore, considering his capacity for intellect, if he were given the evidence of the factual failures of liberalism, he probably would have seen the light and abandoned liberalism. I guess, this would make him a neocon.