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
South Africa: Between Iran and a hard place (Donald Trump)
Top photo credit: President Cyril Ramaphosa (Photo: GCIS/Flickr) and Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

South Africa: Between Iran and a hard place (Donald Trump)

Africa

South Africa is struggling to unfurl its wings as a leading middle power and advance its relations with its fellow BRICS members while keeping out of the cross hairs of the U.S. president. This has been particularly hard considering that one member of the Global South grouping — Iran — is on Donald Trump’s current list of potential military targets.

South Africa joined BRICS in 2006. The organization is supposed to serve as an intergovernmental forum for member countries to connect on issues related to diplomacy, security, and economics. But the bloc has angered President Trump, who sees it as a threat to American leadership, particularly given China’s membership in the group.

keep readingShow less
Trump Khamanei
Top image credit: Bella1105/shutterstock.com

Could Trump bomb Iran before settling on a rationale?

Middle East

Shifting justifications for a war are never a good sign, and they strongly suggest that the war in question was not warranted.

In the Vietnam War, the principal public rationale of saving South Vietnam from communism got replaced in the minds of the warmakers — especially after losing hope of winning the contest in Vietnam — by the belief that the United States had to keep fighting to preserve its credibility. In the Iraq War, when President George W. Bush’s prewar argument about weapons of mass destruction fell apart, he shifted to a rationale centered on bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.

keep readingShow less
James Holtsnider
Top image credit: James Holtsnider, U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee to be ambassador to Jordan, testifies before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on nominations on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 11, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

New US ambassador's charm offensive is backfiring in Jordan

Middle East

Since arriving in Amman around three months ago to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Jordan, James Holtsnider quickly became one of the highest-profile envoys in the Hashemite Kingdom. In addition to presenting his credentials to King Abdullah II, Holtsnider has met with Jordanian soccer players, attended weddings, and joined tribal gatherings.

However, a January 14 request by a U.S. Embassy delegation for the ambassador to offer condolences at the family home of former Karak mayor Abdullah Al-Dmour showed that many Jordanians have little interest in participating in Holtsnider’s public relations initiative. Dmour’s relatives rejected the U.S. ambassador’s wish to visit. Dmour’s tribe issued a statement noting Holtsnider’s request “violates Jordanian tribal customs, which separates the sanctity of mourning from any political presence with public implications.”

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.