I hate neoconservative

No, not neoconservatives but the phrase "neoconservative". I mean, really, who buys this? The attachment of "neo" to anything is simply lazy; It enables people to distinguish the difference of a group without really having to justify it or account for the lack of similarities to the "original" group form which it supposedly sprung. After it's just a "newer" or different form of the group. Bullshit. The similarities between the power base and political platform of so called neoconservative in American society is radically different than that of the traditional American Conservative movement. Just because this group of neocons built their powerbase in the political party most associated with American conservatism (a credit that I find dubious as well) their message is automatically assumed to be compatible with that of the traditional Republican Party at some basic level. The only real traits that neocons share with the American conservative is xenophobia, stringent national sovereignty, and a very basic social populism in the realm of religion and select ethical issues such as abortion and, arguably, the role of the judiciary (a hold over of the civil rights movement and the forced desegregation of the 60's).

The two groups diverge on spending and the budget, the national debt, the power the role and the size of the federal government and state's rights, executive power, trade and tariffs, civil liberties, the role of the military at home and abroad and finally and most importantly foreign affairs. The last is the biggest and most diverged from the position of American conservatism. A "real" conservative would never have dreamed of taking or enduring the position of the Bush Administration or that of prominent neocons that the world seen since September 11th. Anywhere but America these would be two different parties.

So why do we contine to label these people as neoconservative, as if they are fundamentally the same as "paleocoservatives" on their most basic issues. The obvious and simple truth is they are not. My only guess is that the Republican Party simply can't afford to be split. A true alternative party that could take votes from the Republican Party would devastate their position in Washington and locally as we saw with Perot and in some ways with Nader and the Democrats. It's the great scare of the two major parties seeing the American people having real choices in their representative government. So we all just chug along, the Republicans acting as if they are just happy as clams with their new "friends" on the Hill and in the White House. Still, the Democrats finally have a term they can use with the mindless venom that was previously reserved only for "liberal".