Follow us on social

google cta
Neocons are melting down over JD Vance

Neocons are melting down over JD Vance

Some of the reflexive militarism of Bush-Cheney era is fading and many Republicans are having a hard time with it

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

On Wednesday, an image that went viral on X noted that some of the most prominent Republicans were not taking part in the Republican National Convention.

The names included former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Mike Pence, 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, former Rep. Liz Cheney (Wy.) and 2012 vice presidential nominee and former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

Each of these Republicans were, and are, committed to the neoconservative version of the GOP that guided and defined their party two decades ago. A fantasy world in which the Bush-Cheney administration remained the Republican archetype, the U.S. invading Iraq was the right decision, and, in that spirit, America’s number one mission today is to send taxpayer dollars to Ukraine to fuel an indefinite proxy war with Russia.

In their time, hawkish foreign policy was the primary definition of what it meant to be a Republican. That agenda is still definitely part of the party, particularly among its entrenched establishment. But at the top, the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has said the Bush administration “lied” Americans into Iraq in 2003. His vice presidential choice, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, served in Iraq, now fiercely opposes that war, and also loudly rejects the U.S. funding of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Something is different now.

That’s exactly why so many Bushes, Cheneys, Romneys and their political cousins aren’t in Milwaukee this week: neoconservatives don’t dominate the party anymore.

And they’re mad.

After Trump announced Vance was his VP choice, Liz Cheney posted, that Vance “would capitulate to Russia and sacrifice the freedom of our allies in Ukraine.”

“The Trump GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln, Reagan or the Constitution,” Cheney added.

It’s worth reminding readers that Reagan was absolutely despised by the neoconservatives of his time for negotiating with Russia.

Neocon godfather Bill Kristol wrote, “The opening night of the Republican Convention sent a clear signal: The balance of power within the GOP has shifted. This is an isolationist party. If Republicans win this year’s election, the first victim of this retreat from the world will be Ukraine."

The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin declared Vance a “Putin puppet” even before his nomination. After Vance’s nomination, former Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) parroted Rubin on Stephen Colbert’s late night show, saying “They are celebrating that choice, both in Milwaukee tonight and in Moscow.” Kinzinger accused Vance of using “Russian talking points.”

These are just a few of the neoconservatives who were openly stating their disapproval of Vance and the direction of the Republican party on foreign policy. There are likely many more of them who are upset but probably know better, politically, than to say it out loud.

Trump’s first vice president, Mike Pence, has said nothing, neither have Romney nor Ryan.

As Politico reported Wednesday, many Republican hawks are “scared to death” of the choice of Vance. “Former President Donald Trump didn’t just select a running mate here – he doused political kerosene on the raging Republican fire over foreign policy,” Politico reported. “By tapping the 39-year-old Sen. J.D. Vance, one of the party’s leading national security doves, Trump strengthened the hand of the isolationist forces eager to undo the hawkish GOP consensus that has endured since the Reagan era.”

When Republican Ron Paul ran for president in 2008 and 2012, he was often accused of siding with America’s enemies for his antiwar positions, in what was still a heavily neoconservative GOP. Those attacks often worked.

But they don’t fly anymore. At least not with the Republican base. Neoconservative Republican voices of the past like Cheney, Kristol, or Kinzinger calling Vance a tool of Putin or worse has no effect whatsoever at this point, if anyone even hears them. The party’s changed. As the Washington Examiner’s Jim Antle said of the GOP convention this year, “’No new wars’ has become the ‘no new taxes’ of this Republican convention, hopefully with better results.”

Like Trump, JD Vance is not a perfect non-interventionist. But right now his elevation is definitely upsetting the right people, at least for those of us on any part of the ideological spectrum who have long cared about America adopting a more non-interventionist foreign policy.

There is something wrong with a country that believes an eternal war footing is its reason for being. Now, some high-profile leaders are challenging that orthodoxy in a way that is making old power upset.

Enjoy the moment.


William A. Morgan/shutterstock.com and screen grab via abcnews.go.com

google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?
Top image credit: Sens. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) sit look on during a congressional hearing in January, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?

Washington Politics

On Wednesday, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) told CNN that he would support new funding for the U.S. war with Iran — but only if Israel and Arab Gulf states help pay for it.

“We’re using our taxpayer money to protect those countries,” Gallego said. “We’re using our men to protect these countries. They need to throw in and have skin in the game too.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.