Will JD Vance Submit to Neoconservative Influence?

The Siren Song Of foreign policy interventionism is strong.

Jul 23, 2024

As JD Vance steps into the spotlight as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, the stakes for America’s foreign policy approach couldn’t be higher. Vance, known for his ostensive criticism of neoconservative hawks, faces a critical juncture where he must either stand firm in his convictions or risk being swayed by the persistent neoconservatives elements within his party.

The allure of neoconservatism has often been its seemingly straightforward solutions to complex international problems—solutions that invariably involve American intervention abroad. However, as history has shown, the aftermath of such interventions is rarely as black and white as their architects claim. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are poignant examples of how neoconservative strategies have not only failed to stabilize regions but have also led to long-term consequences for global security and American soldiers.

JD Vance’ relatively restrained stance resonates with a significant portion of the American electorate that has grown weary of the country's endless engagements overseas. His perspective promises a shift towards a more measured and principled approach in handling international affairs, emphasizing diplomacy and economic influence over military might. This approach not only aligns with the fiscal conservatism that many Republicans advocate but also respects the sovereignty of other nations, fostering an international environment of mutual respect and cooperation.

However, the pressure to conform to the established neoconservative line can be overwhelming, especially within a party that has seen significant internal debates over its direction in foreign policy. Key figures and donors within the party still hold views that advocate for robust American interventionism. The Ohio Senator had recently manifested hawkish on Iran shortly after being selected as former President Donald Trump’s VP candidate.

“The most important part of the Trump doctrine of foreign policy is you don’t commit America’s troops unless you really have to, but when you do, you punch and you punch hard,” Vance said to neoconservative hack and Fox News presenter Sean Hannity at the Republican National Convention on July 15.

“A lot of people recognize that we need to do something with Iran but not these weak little bombing runs,” Vance added, alluding to Biden regime’s airstrikes against Shia militias in Iraq and Syria.

“If you’re going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard, and that’s what [Trump] did when he took out Soleimani,” he sounded off, making a reference to the 2020 assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Vance must navigate these waters carefully, ensuring that his policies are not diluted by the neoconservative agenda that seeks to reassert itself in every Republican administration.

The consequences of succumbing to neoconservative influence are significant. It could lead to a loss of credibility among his base, many of whom were drawn to his campaign by his promise to avoid unnecessary foreign entanglements. More critically, it could result in foreign policy blunders that the United States can ill afford—militarily, economically, and diplomatically.

JD Vance must remember that true leadership involves standing firm in one’s principles, especially in the face of internal pressures. The American people need a Vice President who not only understands the complexities of global affairs but who also appreciates the limits of American power. They deserve a leader who will prioritize American interests without resorting to the overused playbook of military intervention.

As the campaign progresses, Vance should articulate a clear and consistent non-interventionist stance, highlighting the lessons learned from past foreign policy failures. He should engage with both allies and critics within his party to forge a coherent foreign policy that respects the principles of national sovereignty and non-aggression.

JD Vance’s potential as a transformational figure in American politics hinges on his ability to resist the neoconservative tendencies of his party. By doing so, he can help chart a new course for the Republican Party and, more importantly, for America’s role on the world stage. The path of non-intervention is not only a reflection of Vance’s values but a necessary evolution in our approach to international engagement—one that promises a more stable and peaceful global order.

If he can’t stay on path, disgruntled foreign policy voters will have to place pressure on Vance and remind him about the importance of abiding by an American First policy. As one political mentor told me about the political process, when you turn up the heat, the politicians will eventually see the light.

Vance forcing policy actions will have to be monitored around the clock.

NEXT: From Debate to Danger: The Disturbing Shift in American Political Culture

José Niño Unfiltered

Discussion about this post