Strength of GOP non-interventionists with President Gore

George W Bush campaigned as something of a non-interventionist, having talked about how the United States needed a more humble foreign policy. This war partially due to the Clinton years being fairly interventionist and that segment of the GOP being pretty animated.

Had Gore won in 2000, he likely would have invaded Afghanistan and there's a strong possibility he'd have either invaded Iraq or at the very least gotten tougher on the country.

Could the GOP non-interventionists have been bolstered going into the 2004 or 2008 elections had Gore won?
 
I think they could have been. There’s a general trend that parties out of power post-Cold War criticize the wars the incumbent gets into. I once considered doing a timeline where Gore wins, serves two terms and is succeeded by Ron Paul that I only gave up on due to difficulties fleshing it out and because I was concerned it’d be too much of a Paul-wank because of my own views.

The big obstacle is GOP noninterventionists are largely hardcore conservatives or libertarians, who will face difficulties in getting nominated or elected. Someone like Chuck Hagel or Gary Johnson might have a shot though. Ditto for Jim Webb who I could see staying a Republican if Gore launches the War on Terror.
 
Hagel seems like the strongest non-interventionist option.

Paul might get further in a primary but I think he'd max out at 25%.

I think if the financial crisis occurs on schedule he might reach 33% (which might be enough in the right conditions). Plus he’d likely run in 2004 and might be seen as vindicated if the wars become quagmires.

But I do agree Hagel would likely be the strongest noninterventionist option. Johnson would be able to sell noninterventionism to moderates and establishment types, but given that he’s pro-choice it’s unlikely he could get the nomination.

I will say a 2008 GOP primary dominated by Hagel, Paul, Johnson and one neoconservative (maybe Giuliani?) would be pretty interesting.
 
I think if the financial crisis occurs on schedule he might reach 33% (which might be enough in the right conditions). Plus he’d likely run in 2004 and might be seen as vindicated if the wars become quagmires.

But I do agree Hagel would likely be the strongest noninterventionist option. Johnson would be able to sell noninterventionism to moderates and establishment types, but given that he’s pro-choice it’s unlikely he could get the nomination.

I will say a 2008 GOP primary dominated by Hagel, Paul, Johnson and one neoconservative (maybe Giuliani?) would be pretty interesting.

I doubt Johnson would have a constituency - he'd likely fade into the background like in 2012. I'm not quite sure why he'd get establishment types considering he was the only GOP governor to not endorse W in the primary in 2000.

Giuliani was America's Mayor at the time and would fare very well.

Hagel is the strongest non-interventionist.
 
I doubt Johnson would have a constituency - he'd likely fade into the background like in 2012. I'm not quite sure why he'd get establishment types considering he was the only GOP governor to not endorse W in the primary in 2000.

Giuliani was America's Mayor at the time and would fare very well.

Hagel is the strongest non-interventionist.

Fair point re: Johnson. Also realized there likely would be a social conservative of a more hawkish persuasion like Huckabee or Santorum (or maybe someone like Brownback?) in the mix-a lot of evangelicals are pro life and pro-Israel so they’d be less inclined to back Hagel, Paul or Giuliani.

In a situation where the GOP is more skeptical of intervention I would still expect Paul and Hagel to do better than the evangelical darling. I’d predict Paul and Giuliani do about equally well (say around 20% of the vote each) Santorum/Huckabee/Brownback gets 15% or so overall and Hagel gets the circa 40% of the votes needed to win the nomination.
 
Last edited:
Fair point re: Johnson. Also realized there likely would be a social conservative of a more hawkish persuasion like Huckabee or Santorum (or maybe someone like Brownback?) in the mix-a lot of evangelicals are pro life and pro-Israel so they’d be less inclined to back Hagel, Paul or Giuliani.

In a situation where the GOP is more skeptical of intervention I would still expect Paul and Hagel to do better than the evangelical darling. I’d predict Paul and Giuliani do about equally well (say around 20% of the vote each) Santorum/Huckabee/Brownback gets 15% or so overall and Hagel gets the circa 40% of the votes needed to win the nomination.

Given the post-9/11 environment, Hagel-Giuliani or Hagel-Pataki would be strong tickets.
 
I think they could have been. There’s a general trend that parties out of power post-Cold War criticize the wars the incumbent gets into. I once considered doing a timeline where Gore wins, serves two terms and is succeeded by Ron Paul that I only gave up on due to difficulties fleshing it out and because I was concerned it’d be too much of a Paul-wank because of my own views.

The big obstacle is GOP noninterventionists are largely hardcore conservatives or libertarians, who will face difficulties in getting nominated or elected. Someone like Chuck Hagel or Gary Johnson might have a shot though. Ditto for Jim Webb who I could see staying a Republican if Gore launches the War on Terror.
I have literally been thinking about writing a timeline where Paul wins in 2008 after two terms of Al Gore for over 2 years.
 
Given the post-9/11 environment, Hagel-Giuliani or Hagel-Pataki would be strong tickets.
I was actually thinking Sanford might be a good running mate (assuming his affair was butterflies).
I have literally been thinking about writing a timeline where Paul wins in 2008 after two terms of Al Gore for over 2 years.

It’s not impossible (though I agree Hagel might be more plausible). It’d be interesting to say the least (especially since I haven’t seen any Paul presidency timelines let alone ones following Gore).
 
An OTL candidate could have morphed themselves into a non-interventionist.

Huckabee, who could have taken the religious angle, would be a strong possibility.
 
I think you can take it as read what the board's general opinion on this is, given the nigh-on universal assumption that John 'Rogue State Rollback, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran' McCain would be both the nominee and president in 2004.

IMO, though, you want an analogue, look to '68. The very real possibility of nominee Reagan running a stridently pro-war campaign. The gubmint is keeping the military's hands tied behind its back. Etc. Bomb, bomb, bomb Hanoi. That's the destination of the GOP under a maximally interventionist Gore.

Hagel would be lucky if he isn't full Liebermaned in such an envirionment, let alone Congressman Paul.
 
In a scenario where Al Gore is assasinated before 2003 and Lieberman wins re-election in 2004 and invades Iran and Iraq and as a result a second depression I could easily see Ron Paul winning in 2008 and basically fucking up the country even more.
 
Top