James Antle has an excellent article up at American Conservative discussing the potential for Jeffersonians to make common foreign policy cause with Jacksonians. I generally agree with his assement with some reservations which I posted there.
The problem is that a lot of these new breed Jacksonians are not really Jacksonians. Policy wise they are a sort of bastardized neocon/Jacksonian hybrid.
Jacksonians at least theoretically understand the gravity of war and don’t seek out “monsters to destroy.” If Jed Babbin’s article on AmSpec is typical of many of these new “Jacksonians” they do not see war as grave (it is pretty much their first resort), and they presume that monsters are lurking out there to get us. They share with neocons a hysterical assessment of the danger posed by Islam and they seem to rule out alternatives to force preemptively. These people have been with us since the start of the war. They have just been overshadowed. They always viewed neocons with skepticism because they rightly understood neoconservatism to be a form of liberalism, and they saw nation building and spreading democracy as harmfully touchy-feely. (Since they are fundamentally illiberal, they usually agree with paleos on immigration restrictions and understand the limits of our ability to transplant our culture.) They are not “too hell with them” hawks who are willing to disengage. They are “just kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out” hawks. They can’t disengage because of their irrational fear of the threat posed by far off Islam.
Non-interventionist can possibly work with “too hell with them hawks” and are right to view this as progress. I don’t think we can work with Babbin style hawks because they simply want to free up troops so we can bomb Iran and Syria. This is madness. We can however work with them on immigration restrictions.