[Ben Ficklin]

The problem is not neocons vs liberal interventionists. It is the coalition between neocons and the liberal interventionists.

You can make the broad generalization that under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush that the Realists had the upper hand but under Clinton the liberal interventionists rose to power and under GW Bush the neocons rose to power.

In 2008 McCain campaigned on a NeoCon foreign policy and Obama campaigned on realist foreign policy. In 2012 Romney went to great lengths to try to project that Realists and NeoCons would have a place in his admiministration, but towards the end of the campaign it became obvious that the NeoCons would be in charge if Romney won.

Bill Clinton retained General Powell(realist) as joint chief, but he resigned because he strongly disagreed with the liberal interventionist Albright. General Powell also resigned under GHW Bush because he strongly disagreed with NeoCon Cheney.

[ek_hornbeck]

I agree, there really isn't that much difference in foreign policy between liberal interventionists like Clinton and neoconservatives like McCain. The only difference I can see is that the liberals emphasize the "humanitarian" aspects of their agendas more, but there's plenty of overlap here as well.

Obama campaigned in 2008 as a Brzezinsky style realist but governed more or less like a liberal interventionist. George W. Bush promised a realist foreign policy as candidate in 2000 but governed like a neocon.