[justiceseeker93]

The posted article is apparently written from a leftist perspective, seeking to create a rift between defense hawks and small government conservatives in order to weaken the GOP coalition and thus ease the way for HRC's presidential bid. The Atlantic, where this article appears, is notoriously left-leaning, so that should be a big clue as to what this is all about.

BTW, wasn't Ronald Reagan both a defense hawk (or "neocon," as this author would say) and a small government conservative at the same time? Or at least both of those general tendencies were within his fundamental principles.

[flaglady47]

“BTW, wasn’t Ronald Reagan both a defense hawk (or “neocon,” as this author would say) and a small government conservative at the same time?”

Yes he was. You just need to pick your battles carefully, unless of course, the battle comes to you with no choice in the matter. However, I’m not an American First type like Pat Buchanan, nor am I a Rand Paul type, the Libertarian view of no military action as the default. Some wars need to be fought.

[ansel12]

Reagan was just a conservative, a full conservative, not all these splinter off pieces and elements of conservatism.

Reagan was the full three legs of the stool.

[LS]

Reagan was an ultra-rare person who understood that there are no liberties in a gulag, and that it’s better to fight on someone else’s land than your own.

[Ben Ficklin]

The NeoCons and the Realists shared power over foreign policy since the NeoCons left the dem party to become "Conservatives". The neocons first taste of power was when Ford replaced Bill Clements with Rumsfeld as SecDef, and Paul Wolfowitz had a key job under Rumsfeld. Later, when Rumsfeld was SecDef under Bush, Wolfowitz was his deputy SecDef.

In Reagans first term the NeoCons peaked out. They led Reagan into Beirut where he got his nose bloodied. He shifted back to the Realists and George Schultz and Colin Powell were most influential.

But they still share power and a GOP prez's foreign policy team will have both NeoCons and Realists. Usually, Sec of State and NSA are Realists while the SecDef job goes to a NeoCon. OTOH, a dem prez will usually have Realists at SecDef and NSA and a Liberal Interventionist as Sec State.

This author and many others like to point the finger at the NeoCons, but the real problem is when the NeoCon republicans team up with the Liberal Interventionist democrats. Both of them are Idealists big on humanitarianism and nation building.

Under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush, the Realists had the upper hand. Under Clinton the Liberal Interventionists rose to power and under GW Bush the NeoCons rose to power.