For all the similarities, there’s a big difference between Jackson’s victory and Trump’s: Jackson’s greatest political achievement was the widening of democratic space. He brought new groups of voters into the political system. Expanding voting rights and a growing media perfectly coincided with his attention-grabbing campaigns, and the popular vote total tripled—tripled—between Jackson’s loss in 1824 and his victory in 1828….
Trump’s victory in the Electoral College was not a repeat of Jackson’s 1828 popular landslide. It was a repeat of 1824, a transitional year when the president was determined by the mechanics of the Constitution. In this replay of the drama, the role of Andrew Jackson does not fit Donald Trump. Rather he plays the part of John Quincy Adams, the man who benefits from the elaborate American systems designed to filter the will of the people. If Trump intends to become a Jacksonian man of the people, he will have to do something to attract the majority who voted for candidates other than him.
12 thoughts on “Steve Inskeep: Trump Isn’t Andrew Jackson”
Comments are closed.
Wondering how important the 2018 midterms will be. The GOP is about to get an unprecedented period of dominance in the United States. What they do with it will tell us a lot.Report
I wonder, too. I don’t find the dominance so extensive or unprecedented, however. I’m too lazy to google it, but didn’t the GOP control both houses in 2005-2007? The SCOTUS will likely be GOP-appointee dominated, but it’s a lagging indicator. It takes a while for cases and controversies to get that far. (As for the lower courts, there might be more GOP domination now. ETA: which suggests there may be a strong GOP impact in the judicial branch, stronger than if we just looked at SCOTUS.) While the GOP seems to be stepping into line for now behind Trump, it’s unclear to me whether and how they’ll actually get along.
I’m afraid to make predictions about 2018. I can see it going several ways and being spun in several more ways. You’re right, though, it will be interesting and tell us a lot.Report
The point is well-taken, but it’s worth remembering that the Jacksonian era was accompanied by limiting the right to vote against property owning free men, in at least some states. (See the abstract about North Carolina disfranchisement in 1835here: I read only the abstract and not the whole thing.) Also, women to the best of my knowledge were completely excluded. New Jersey had allowed propertied women to vote until 1807.
I say all that just to point out that this widening of appeal was based on a narrow electorate.
On a final note, it’s nice to see you (Dennis) posting again.Report
“Steve Inskeep is part of the reality-based community, people who believe that solutions emerge from the judicious study of discernible reality. Trump’s an empire now, and when he acts, he creates his own reality. And while Steve’s studying that reality — judiciously, as he will — Trump will act again, creating other new realities, which he can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. Trump is history’s actor . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what he does.”Report
Some of that tripling was a change in procedures — NY actually having a popular vote in 1828 versus not in 1824 came close to doubling the popular vote total all by itself.Report
I hadn’t thought about that.Report
Yeah, four states started using the popular vote in 1828. There were other issues: it was one of the most negative campaigns in U.S. history with the fate of everything hanging in the balance. In contrast to the 1824 election, there was a clear choice between two candidates. In 1824, there were four regional candidates, none of whom were on the ballot in all states. Jackson was not even on the ballot in Kentucky which threw the election to Adams.Report
Also, they want to exile disjoint sets of dark-skinned people.Report
Really, I don’t remember that in the gop platform.Report
“Jackson’s greatest political achievement was the widening of democratic space.”
No, his greatest political achievement was squashing the secessionist movement. After reading the link, I still think Trump is a later-day Andrew Jackson, electoral analogies are strained. Somewhere in this piece there appears to be an assumption that if Jackson won in 1824, he would be a different person than the Jackson who won in 1828. A Jacksonian type is never defined by process matters.Report
Trump isn’t Jackson, he’s the American Berlusconi.Report
QUASHING!
“Squooshing” is also an acceptable term.Report