“Trump was definitely against the endless wars. I think he called them ‘forever wars’.”
That’s true; he was. But he was not against intervention if he thought it was justified. So, by definition, Trump was a “neocon” (a capitalist who supported intervention). That’s why the term, as so broadly applied so often here on FR, is meaningless.
Yes, it’s easy to falsely accuse people of being neocons, but it’s also easy for people who go along with the neocon program to deny being neocons.
Liberals who passionately wanted to overthrow Saddam and democratize Iraq can deny that they were neocons, based on the fact that they didn’t vote for Bush. Conservatives who wanted to smash Iraq and then just leave can say that they weren’t neocons because they didn’t buy into the democratization scheme.
Were those people neocons? Maybe, maybe not, but the looseness with which some people apply the term has a lot to do with the complexity of the situation and with not wanting to let people off the hook for what they said and did.
Trump is not a neocon. Bolton definitely is. Beyond that, it’s all a little fuzzy.
Trump was never a neocon. That’s going way too far.
He was a populist. Neocons are all about interventionism.
Trump was never a neocon. That’s going way too far.
He was a populist. Neocons are all about interventionism.