But as I understand 'neocons' they don't push in the opposite direction (of socialism), and that's your beef (or one of your beefs) w/em in the first place.
If they do, as you insist, push in the opposite direction, then I would have to call them "conservatives" and we're back to the original dilemma: I see no real way to distinguish between a "conservative" and a (wide sense) "neo-conservative" other than to consult you, inquest, to discover whether you approve of their position on such-and-such foreign policy thingie.
Which is really what "neocon" boils down to. Admit it.
Here's what's really going on. You have a genuine, sincere disagreement with a bloc of people in the conservative camp about the wisdom of doing something.
They: think doing X is a good and direct way to improve nat'l security.
You: don't, you think it's roundabout or "indirect" and too fuzzily long-term for you, and perhaps you have other problems with it.
My problem with you is, instead of actually engaging in and continuing that argument (which would be perfectly fair and acceptable), you're trying to bypass that argument by dressing it up as something different. You're trying to pretend that the argument is really something else altogether, along these lines:
They: "passionately want to Make The World Safe For Democracy", and (perhaps) are a little too infatuated with a certain foreign country which shall remain nameless. They're "neo-conservatives".
You: think that by golly that's all just wrong and counter to the wonderful traditions of our country. "Conservatives" shouldn't allow themselves to be fooled by these "neo-conservatives", they're "not really conservative".
Now, I can certainly see why you'd rather engage in the latter argument than the former. I would too. It's much simpler, and you don't even need any facts. The problem is, if I go and consult Them and show Them what you're saying They are saying, most of Them wouldn't recognize your caricature of Their position.
Know why? Cuz it's a straw-man. You've reduced their position to a cartoon for your convenience, and the word "neo-conservative" is so crucial to you here because it's the semantic trickery by which you think you'll be able to pull it all off. (Because practically nobody actually knows just what the hell it really means.)
What's interesting is that this all betrays a certain lack of confidence on your part in your own positions, whatever they may be. If you felt confident you could argue your positions without the crutch of "identifying the neo-con influence on conservatism", you wouldn't be so desperate to cling to the term. You'd just say what's wrong with doing X, and why.
Apparently, you can't, or don't think that you can, without reference to the term "neocon", and in particular calling various unsuspecting people "neocons" at your leisure. That's truly sad.
Sure they do. It's just been my complaint that they don't push hard enough. And even then, I didn't say it was a defining characteristic, and it may not even apply to all of them. It's just an observation I've made. You don't even have to accept it if you don't want to, since it's not critical to the definition of the word.
The rest of your post is just your typical psychologizing of the type you accuse me of.