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
NATO Summit 2025
Top photo credit: NATO Summit, the Hague, June 25, 2025. (Republic of Slovenia/Daniel Novakovič/STA/flickr)

Will NATO survive Trump?

Europe

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump threatened to place new punitive tariffs on European allies until they acquiesce to his designs on Greenland, an escalation of his ongoing attempts to acquire the large Arctic island for the United States.

Critics loudly decried the move as devastating for the transatlantic relationship, echoing Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Fredericksen’s earlier warning that a coercive U.S. seizure of the semi-autonomous Danish territory would mean the end of NATO.

keep readingShow less
Tony Blair Gaza
Top photo credit: Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair attends a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, amid a U.S.-brokered prisoner-hostage swap and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 13, 2025. REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett/Pool/File Photo

Phase farce: No way 'Board of Peace' replaces reality in Gaza

Middle East

The Trump administration’s announcements about the Gaza Strip would lead one to believe that implementation of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan, later largely incorporated into a United Nations Security Council resolution, is progressing quite smoothly.

As such, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff announced this month on social media the “launch of Phase Two” of the plan, “moving from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.” But examination of even just a couple of Witkoff’s assertions in his announcement shows that "smooth" or even "implementation" are bitter overstatements.

keep readingShow less
Trump Polk
Top image credit: Samuele Wikipediano 1348 via wikimedia commons/lev radin via shutterstock.com

On Greenland, Trump wants to be like Polk

Washington Politics

Any hopes that Wednesday’s meeting of Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers with Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio might point toward an end of the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the semiautonomous arctic territory were swiftly disappointed. “Fundamental disagreement” remains, according to Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.

That these talks would yield no hint of a resolution should not be surprising. Much of Trump’s stated rationale for seeking ownership of Greenland — the need for an increased U.S. military presence, the ability to access the island’s critical mineral deposits, or the alleged imperative to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay — is eminently negotiable and even achievable under the status quo. If these were the president’s real goals he likely could have reached an agreement with Denmark months ago. That this standoff persists is a testament to Trump’s true motive: ownership for its own sake.

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.