mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Old Hickory's New Digs
Andrew Jackson: So Much Winning

Andrew Jackson’s winning streak continues. Last week—just days after TAI named Old Hickory the biggest winner of 2016—President Trump has moved a portrait of him into the Oval Office. The Hill reports:

President Trump hung a portrait of Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office on Tuesday, The New York Times reports, an apparent nod to the populist sentiments of the new administration.

Trump’s rise has often been compared to the populist election of Jackson, including by some of the new president’s own team.

Chief White House strategist Steve Bannon called Trump’s inauguration speech on Friday “Jacksonian,” saying it struck the populist and patriotic tones Jackson was known for.

Trump has also expressed admiration for the seventh president, as well, calling Jackson “an amazing figure in American history — very unique so many ways,” through a spokesperson last week.

As Walter Russell Mead wrote as part of our 2016-in-review series:

The biggest winner of 2016 has been dead for 171 years. Old Hickory’s legacy of American populism is one of the most powerful forces in national politics. When properly harnessed, it wins wars by facing down America’s enemies with unrelenting ruthlessness. Jacksonian populists are threat-motivated at home too, and in 2016 they carried Donald Trump to victory on the back of anger about immigration, economic competition with Mexico and China, and Islamism. The establishments of both major political parties were caught completely off-guard.

The establishment always has an uncomfortable relationship with Jacksonians, but the most effective politicians are able to earn their support. [But t]he last two American presidents have badly mismanaged their Jacksonian messaging. In President Bush’s case, the failure of coalition forces to find the weapons of mass destruction the administration presented as justifying the need for war undercut Bush’s Jacksonian support. Worse was the bait-and-switch rationale the administration offered in place of WMD: building democracy in Iraq. Jacksonians like democracy, but they generally don’t think this can or should be accomplished with US troops.

President Obama never did well with Jacksonians — nor did he show much sign of wanting to. His remark during the 2008 primary about Americans who “cling” to religion and guns betrayed a disgust with Jacksonian America that President Obama has done little to hide while in office. His indifferent response to terrorism and amnesty for illegal immigrants confirmed Jacksonian suspicions. Meanwhile, Democratic pronouncements about how the multicultural Obama political coalition was rendering white America politically impotent sounded to Jacksonians as nothing less than a declaration of war on them and on their values. In 2016, they retaliated by putting the rawest Jacksonian in the White House since Old Hickory himself.

In the wake of President Trump’s inaugural, this identification of the Trump movement with Jackson’s memory has become explicit and increasingly overt. And you don’t have to love Trump—or Jackson—to find the comparison useful. In addition to Bannon’s comments, the New York Times, ran a front-page story comparing Trump’s movement to the Jacksonians in the day after the inauguration (quoting WRM, no less.) As reports of Customs and Border Patrol defiance of a court order to release detainees circulated on Sunday (a low-level snafu? evidence of more high-level defiance? it depends upon your priors), administration opponents such as Christopher Hayes reached for Jackson’s defiance of the Supreme Court as a reminder, and warning, of the populist temptation to tell judges to go to hell.

Jacksonianism is complex, and cannot be reduced to simply “whatever President Trump’s team does,” or even “whatever Trump’s supporters want.” A set of cultural sensibilities as much as a political leanings, what we now call “Jacksonianism” predated Jackson himself by over a century (as David Hackett Fisher traced in Albion’s Seed, one of the must-read books for for those trying to understand our moment). Jackson himself left a complex legacy, and his memory has been harnessed in different ways over time, by, for instance, FDR (and the Schlessingers, father and son) as much as by Trump.

That being said, at the present, Team Trump has moved decisively to embrace Jacksonianism as a way to describe their new politics. Jackson’s image, literally and figuratively, may give Trump’s supporters a symbol to rally behind, and shorthand by which to signal the hopes and expectations they have of a President who bucks the orthodoxies of both parties. It will likewise give his opponents, who’ve often been caught flatfooted trying to criticize a candidate/President they didn’t truly understand through the lens of traditional Republican conservatism, a better way to analyze him.

In honor of Jackson’s portrait-hanging, we at TAI thought we’d put together a brief reading list for those looking for more of a grounding. Walter Russell Mead’s Special Providence is of course the place to go for the most in-depth treatment (particularly with regard to foreign affairs), but for those who do not have time to read a full book, here’s some of WRM’s latest article-length writing on the subject:

  • “The Jacksonian Revolt” Foreign Affairs essay published on the day of the inauguration.
  • “Donald Trump’s Jacksonian Revolt” a post-election essay in the WSJ that can be read as a companion piece to the Foreign Affairs essay.
  • “Andrew Jackson, Revenant,” in TAI, almost exactly a year ago, is a good guide to President Obama’s relations with the Jacksonians in the latter years of his Presidency, and the growing divide between them that contributed mightily to the rise of Donald Trump.
  • “The Jacksonian Tradition” in The National Interest — the 1999 essay that started it all.

Nicholas M. Gallagher has also written extensively on the Jacksonian phenomenon, both in these pages and elsewhere. (Gallagher was WRM’s research assistant from 2014-6, and thus is more than happy to give much of the credit to WRM, and accept that all of the flaws are his own):

  • “Did Barack Obama See the Trump Moment Coming” in TAI—an election-day reflection on President Obama and the “Bitter Clingers” comments of 2008.
  • “Donald Trump’s Jacksonian Voters” in National Reviewa post-primary analysis of what went wrong
  • “Immigration and the Political Explosion of 2016” in TAI—an exploration of the Jacksonian backlash that occurs when mass immigration has coincided with structural economic shifts in U.S. history.

Finally, there is Jason Willick’s astute post in TAI last week, “Is Trump an Ordinary Republican?” While it’s not explicitly a piece on Jacksonians, its broader thesis, that Trump and his political team seek a radical political realignment based on heretofore under-recognized populist ideas that throw both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans off-balance, is vital to remember (and so tempting, Willick argues, for both sides to forget.) It’s this sensibility that Bannon seeks to capture in calling Trump’s inaugural Jacksonian, rather than conservative, and it may be the same idea Trump seeks to signal in hanging Old Hickory’s portrait on his wall.

What a difference a year makes: Jackson has gone from being taken off the $20 to being put on the wall of the Oval Office. President Trump promised so much winning, we’d get tired of it. We wonder if there’s at least one cane-carrying, whiskey-drinking, duel-fighting ghost out there that thinks he’s delivered.

Features Icon
show comments
  • Disappeared4x

    No need to be subjunctive on the symbolism of Jackson’s portrait in the Oval Office. Trump45 is indicative with symbols: this IS a signal of a re-alignment of the American electorate and political party system. The ghost of Andrew Jackson might still be wondering about Trump’s Diet Coke instead of whiskey, or coffee, or tobacco; but the ghost of Rachel Jackson most likely is nudging him to embrace the moment in history.

    Hope the WH tells us who painted this Jackson portrait. The ‘art world’ needs more clues:

    “What Does Donald Trump See in His Portrait of Andrew Jackson?”
    Artsy Editorial By Isaac Kaplan Jan 26th, 2017 10:55 pm

    “The same day President Donald Trump signed an executive memorandum to expedite the approval process for the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), he hung a portrait of President Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office. The choice of Jackson is significant, not least because how a president chooses to decorate the White House can serve as a symbolic distillation of his ideology.

    Trump advisor Steve Bannon has directly equated his boss to the populist of old, lending the portrait added significance as an ideological touchstone for this administration. It isn’t clear which image of Jackson it is that Trump has opted to hang, but Ronald Reagan (another inspiration for Trump) chose an 1845 oil-on-canvas work of Jackson by painter Thomas Sully that is now housed in the National Gallery of Art’s collection, from which presidents are free to choose art for the White House. …”

    • Andrew Allison

      Not to mention the symbolism of the return of the Churchill bust to its rightful place!

      • Disappeared4x

        The Churchill Bust Oval Office Restoration led to the symbolism of Queen ElizabethII’s invitation for T45 State Visit, which led to PM May’s personal delivery of said invitation, which led to T45’s acceptance of The Queen’s invitation, which led to the online petition, which “…stated that Trump’s entry into the United Kingdom would cause embarrassment to “Her Majesty the Queen.” …”

        “Trump-Queen Elizabeth II Meeting Update: Downing Street To
        Reject Petition With Over 1 Million Signatures?” By Pranshu Rathi
        @pranshurathi On 01/30/17 AT 7:50 AM
        Which leads us right back to Trump as Jacksonian!
        Which leads me to wonder when will America Return to Normalcy, as if it is 1920 all over again…

        • Andrew Allison

          Seems to me we’ve made a pretty good start. Onward to the nuking of Schumer, et al. I do so hope that the GOP will award Harry Reid a richly deserved Medal of Freedom for doing away with the super-majority.

          • Disappeared4x

            The Schumer-led strategy to obstruct everyone and everything is a mistake, but it is all a pattern of being beholden to ideological billionaires, and a stubborn devotion to Identity Politics. The ‘Battle for Brooklyn’ is bigger than Schumer, who has been trying to sustain machine politics in NYC against the WFP-takeover of the new democratic Party. Did you see this today? Also linked at RCP:

            “Connoisseur of Chaos: The dystopian vision of George Soros, billionaire funder of the Left”
            Stefan Kanfer City Journal Winter 2017

            “When the dust was cleared and the debris swept away, he stood revealed as Hillary Clinton’s most generous billionaire donor. Yet his name rarely surfaced during the presidential campaign—and that’s generally the way he likes it. Dark Money, Jane Mayer’s book about covert political funding, refers to the Koch brothers more than 300 times in its excoriation of the “radical right” but mentions progressive icon George Soros just six times; three are footnotes. …”


          • Andrew Allison

            To be fair, while Schumer is indisputably a scumbag, obstruction (however well-founded) was the reason that Reid made the fatal mistake of establishing the precedent of eliminating the super-majority, hence my recommendation that he be suitable rewarded (hey, if BO can get a Nobel simply forgetting elected, and subsequently lay waste to the Middle Class, the Middle East and race relations, surely Reid deserves a consolation prize).
            It’s not news that what’s reported as sauce for the Democrat goose is not sauce for the GOP gander, i.e, that the MSM is in the bag for the goose. The good news is that the more hysterically biased the MSM gets, the less the majority (outside of CA) pays any attention. Here’s the thing to keep in mind: President Trump gets it, and appears bound and determined upon a course correction.

          • f1b0nacc1

            More to the point, not only does Trump get it, he is using it to troll the Left and they are falling for it. The increasingly levels of hysteria that we see even in the last two weeks are working to burn out the left and discredit them with everyone having an IQ above room temperature. Tonight’s SCOTUS choice should be amusing if for no other reason than the unhinged whinging from the usual suspects!

            More please….

          • Andrew Allison

            Yup, the left is so deeply buried in its own echo-chamber that it just can’t see what’s going on. Gotta love it. As an aside, imagine what lowering the mortgage interest deduction to, say, $500K would do to the inhabitants of limousine liberal enclaves like CA and NY.

          • f1b0nacc1

            A delightful idea! Of course (to be fair, and to preempt the inevitable whining from the Left), it is unlikely that a president who won his spurs as a real estate developer would support such a policy initiative…


          • Andrew Allison

            I’m not so sure. He can certainly afford to pay the additional taxes on his own personal property, and 18 of the most expensive housing markets in the country are in the state which gave Hillary 156% of her popular vote plurality. Who was it that said “Elections have consequences” LOL
            (FWIW, $500K is more than double the median US home price)

          • f1b0nacc1

            I don’t think that Trump is worried about his own taxes (lets be honest, I doubt he ever was), but the sort of tax changes you are discussing would depress the real-estate market generally, something that I don’t think it is unfair to point out that he would be overly sympathetic to.

            And yes, $500K is more than double the median home price, but that simply shows how meaningless ‘median’ is in this case. In the Bay Area, you cannot buy much house with that, while in KC you can buy quite a bit…

          • Andrew Allison

            I just noticed that Trump is proposing to cap itemized deductions at $200K (MFJ).
            The fact that the median price of a home in San Francisco is $1,177,000 ($729K in NYC) is exactly why lowering the mortgage interest deduction to, say, twice the nationwide median would be so excruciating for the bi-coastal “progressive” gentry. It would also have a punishing effect on some Deep Blue state and local governments as property taxes fell. Since they are a lost cause anyway, sticking it to them might be rather satisfying and have little political cost.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Let me suggest that $1,000,000 might be a better threshold, for a variety of reasons:

            1) Nice round number, with some resonance (silly, but true)
            2) It puts those in CA in a rotten situation, but spares most other states and urban areas (other than NYC, DC, etc.) which would tend to isolate the blue islands quite neatly. In NY, for instance, this would isolate the downstate folks from the upstate ones, and put more pressure on them.
            3) Objections from the Dems could easily be portrayed as ‘defending millionaires at the expense of the the middle class’ (see #1)

          • Andrew Allison

            Are we at cross purposes here? The current (MFJ) limit for mortgage interest is interest paid on the first $1 million of a loan. That seems high to me. Trump is proposing a limit of $200K for all itemized deductions — still pretty generous (roughly, only affecting those making over $1 million/yr); 80% of those who itemize deduct less than $50K.

          • f1b0nacc1

            I take your point

          • Andrew Allison

            Do you suppose the Dimocrats will figure out that if they filibuster Gorsuch the next appointment(s) will be wide open?

          • f1b0nacc1

            They already know….the real question is will they act on that knowledge or simply indulge the base of “Friendly Goats”

          • Andrew Allison

            If they know, they’ll fold because there’s a very good chance that Trump will get to nominate another Justice, and if the nuclear option is invoked for what appears to be a moderately conservative judge, Attlia the Hun could get appointed to the next vacancy. However, I think they really are stupid.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Oh, they are stupid, and have very little understanding of strategy as well.

            As I have said before, preserving the filibuster now might gain them nothing (after all, it could be taken away anytime), but while the GOP has the votes and the determination to take the step now, they might not in a year. No reason to throw away leverage (which a doomed battle against Gorsuch certainly would do) when they could at least attempt to preserve it for some potentially more suitable future.

            Of course these silly twits are more likely to want to ‘make a statement’ than actually achieve anything, so I suppose we shouldn’t worry too much about them showing any brains…

            Lets hope

          • Andrew Allison

            It’s always such a pleasure to debate with you. With respect, I think you’re wrong about preserving the filibuster. If the Dimocrats (I must confess to a little disappointment that you haven’t asked permission to use the term [grin])y force the nuclear option over a relatively moderate conservative, they’re at risk of getting stuck with an extremist who wouldn’t pass muster. Oddly, I wish the Dims were not being so stupid (checks and balances and all that), but there it is

          • Disappeared4x

            How about some British Dog Diplomacy, bonus points for noting nations who ban anyone with an Israeli passport?
            Your point about Corgis, adding a Labrador, from UK’s Daily Mail, NOT owned by Murdoch:


            “Ripping up Trump’s invitation would be an idiotically naive act of national self-harm” By Robert Hardman for the Daily Mail

            Published: 20:45 EST, 30 January 2017 | Updated: 06:45 EST, 31 January 2017

            “…It might offend modern political norms that a politician actually does what he or she said they would do in a manifesto. But Mr Trump has not actually deceived anyone.

            Furthermore, his list of countries is based on the same list drawn up — though not imposed — by former U.S. President Barack Obama.

            And it does seem a little rich that six of the seven countries on the U.S. ban list impose their own automatic ban on anyone with an Israeli passport.

            Indeed, if we look at the list of the countries that ban Israelis as a matter of course (not merely on a temporary basis), a quarter belong to the Commonwealth — of which the Queen happens to be the figurehead.

            It’s a mucky old world out there. That is why, over the years, the Queen has entertained people such as the former IRA leader Martin McGuinness, the King of Saudi Arabia and Romanian tyrant Nicolae Ceausescu — but with barely a placard or a boo.

            This trip matters much more, though.

            Millions of jobs on either side of the Atlantic, not to mention our national security and post-Brexit economic prospects, depend on a mature, fully- functioning relationship with the U.S.

            To jeopardise that over a piece of domestic U.S. policy is myopic — barmy even — given the bigger global picture.

            Where on earth would it leave us if we tore up Trump’s invitation — and with it all the vital goodwill we need in Washington as we extract ourselves from the EU?

            Back in 1978, Jim Callaghan’s Labour government foisted the ghastly Romanian dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, and his wife, Elena, on her.

            The couple brought all their clothes sealed in special containers for fear the Palace would poison the fabric, and were such objectionable guests that the Queen ended up hiding from them.

            While walking her dogs in the Palace garden one day, she spotted them heading her way and slipped behind a bush.

            To use the word that Hillary Clinton disastrously employed to describe Trump’s supporters, Ceausescu was a true ‘deplorable’, who was executed 11 years later.

            Yet where were the protesters then? Aside from a lonely campaign in Parliament by the late Tory peer Lord Bethell, the political mainstream were falling over themselves to suck up to the ogre of Bucharest.

            The then Liberal leader, David Steel, went as far as presenting him with a labrador puppy.

            How ironic to see Lord Steel (as he now is), joining the chorus against Mr Trump.

            ‘To involve the Royal Family in the embarrassment of an early state visit is unwise,’ he declared.
            ‘The Queen should not have to put up with this indignity.’

            Really? As a noted dog lover, she’d much rather know what happened to that poor puppy.

            And as a stateswoman of unparalleled experience, she surely understands the importance of realpolitik.”

      • Frank Natoli

        You asked me to let you know how I liked “The Fall of Giants”.
        Straight answer is: I am liking it a lot. Volume I is one of those very rare, very difficult to put down books.
        I’m about 150 pages into it.
        I’ve noticed how Follett plays games with the reader’s emotions.
        Follett makes it seem that WW1 was this terrible sequence of dominoes that nobody was willing to avoid or stop, almost as if it was everybody’s fault and nobody’s fault.
        However, when the reader brushes off the emotional attachment to Maud and Walter and Fitz et al, one realizes that Austria invaded Serbia, and Germany invaded Belgium then France. Follett does a superb job of showing why Austria and/or Germany felt “compelled” to act as they did. Nevertheless, THEY started the war. THEY are guilty.
        At the Versailles peace conference, the German representative said to French President Clemenceau, “Germany is prostrate, what will the history say if the peace conference imposes vengeance on Germany”, to which Clemenceau replied “what history will NOT say is that Belgium invaded Germany”.

        • Andrew Allison

          I’m so glad that you are enjoying it as much as I did. As you may have discerned I was educated and grew to adulthood in England, and I was amazed at how much I learnt, er learned [grin] from these books. My (retired Professor of Linguistics) Russian bride feels the same way. I’d be interested to know whether the US parts are as enlightening.
          He did something similar with “Pillars of the Earth”, a novel about the building of a Cathedral in 12th Century England, if you’re interested in ancient history.

          • Frank Natoli

            Russian bride? I hope not a Princess Bea??
            I intend to get a copy of “Pillars of the Earth”, which I had already heard very positive things about.
            Thanks again.

          • Andrew Allison

            No, somebody who experienced first hand the, quite literally, “Hungry Times” of the 1980s and bailed when it became clear that Perestroika was a chimera.
            Permit me to introduce you to another seminal author. William Calvin’s “A Brain for All Seasons” nicely illustrates how beneficial climate change has been to humanity (the Sahara, for example, has been green several times in the past), but my all-time revelatory favorite is his “The River That Flows Uphill”. I was fortunate enough to be assigned it as a Reading for the Blind task, and it revealed to me the reality of evolution as a ratchet (a taste: accurately throwing a rock (or baseball) is a very complicated task and the brains which could handle it had nothing better to do sitting around the fire at night than invent language).

          • CapitalHawk

            I haven’t read “The Fall of Giants”, but “Pillars of the Earth” is fantastic. I highly recommend it.

  • Dhako

    I don’t know about anyone else’s conceptions of things about how to do a proper fawning guff piece in-terms of “power-worshiping”. But it looks to me, that this is how one should go about in writing a thoroughly debased obsequiously sycophantic bilge in its most cringing format. In other, words, granted, the old Jacksonian’s tradition in America existed in a place and in time of its own “context”, even, if that context came with the usual self-serving America’s perception of itself, such as the notion of “manifest destiny”, which was another way of “verbally glorifying” the ruthless theft and expropriation of the native land while “cloaking” such a baser instinct with a “nationalistic gloss” at best, or at worse, with a “preordained historical fate”, whereby those who are the “victim” of it, should only have heavens to blame it.

    However, be it may as it (and granted all of that) what takes the fawning biscuit in here, is the idea of “draping”, the likes of Mr Trump as something that is betoken of a “larger historical cross-current” that may have been in dormant (or latent) in the US’s body-politic, in his “tweet-addled-mind”; or as if he purposefully trying to fashion his political action of each passing day in a “context” that could be dimly read as if it cleaving to some sort of historical school of thought within the US’s republican’s experience..

    Furthermore, I very much doubt that Mr Trump have had any “historical acquaintance” of anything that can be call “Jacksonian” before he ascended to his high office been told such thing exist by his “honey-whisperer” or his “puppeteer” (depending your view of things) by the name of Mr Bannon. Unless of course, it could be the case, that, Mr Trump, could have mistaken this talk of “Jacksonian” as if pertains to something associated with “Jackson 5”, since, as a celebrity hounds in New-York, he probably came across the likes of late Micheal Jackson and his other siblings.

    Hence, it takes a deep level of cynicism to talk like this about the political aspects of certain Mr Trump, when in fact one knows the true “measuring” of the man, in which one is trying to wrap up with a historically-ill-fitting-garb. But, then, I suppose, carrying water for this administration seems to be the vocational disposition of this rag-sheet; although, how they could credibly do that, and still pretend to be taking seriously, seems to be something, they alone, have thought its possibility of it.

    But we shall see, how they will proceed in this line of thinking that “square begs can be forced into a circular holes” (as it were), particularly if another (like last week) we see another day or week of “cluster-manure” of an administrative policies made on the hoof, with no serious deliberation behind it, or at least any serious deliberation that takes more time than the few minutes it takes Mr Trump to formulate his “latest tweets”. In other words, if this is the kind of penetrating scholarship we should expect from this place during the Mr Trump’s presidential tenure, then, I suppose, we shall be better form, to “rechristened” this outfit, as “”. For that will a fitting (both in context and in tone) what we are most likely to get it from it.

    • Psalms564

      With so much drama in the L-B-C, It’s kinda hard bein Snoop D-O-double-G
      But I, somehow, some way Keep comin up with funky ass shlt like every single day
      May I, kick a little something for the G’s (yeah) and, make a few ends as (yeah!) I breeze, through
      Two in the mornin and the party’s still jumpin cause my momma ain’t home

    • Tom

      Dhako, while understanding that you have given a wonderful description of your writings regarding China in your first paragraph, you should consider reading WRM’s stuff regarding the Jacksonians. He acknowledges both their strengths and weaknesses–a concept you’re unfamiliar with, I know, but you should consider trying it on for size.

    • Jim__L

      I think that Dhako here would enjoy reading William F. Buckley, to expand his vocabulary. He certainly has a lot of fun with the immense and varied vocabulary of English… reading more would give him a better ear for how the words are properly used.

      So, Dhako, what modern Chinese writers would you recommend for their skill with the language? China and America are likely to be sparring for the next generation and more, we might as well be able to speak to each other beautifully as we do it.

      • Jim__L

        By the way, guys, I am entirely serious about this comment.

    • seattleoutcast

      Only poor writers use excessive quotation marks.

      You don’t need to “drape” your “disgust” with TAI’s analysis of Jacksonianism behind absurd “prose.” You are “saying” nothing.

    • Pait

      It is very unlikely that the current president read either WRM’s book or any of his articles explaining the Jacksonian tradition, even less the earlier Albion’s Seed by Hackett Fischer – but his éminence grise may well have. That doesn’t matter too much – they are part of a Jacksonian movement although not very much related to the original borderlands people who developed that tradition in America.

      (If you permit my giving some advice, don’t take personally the attacks on your choice of words or punctuation in this thread – these are very combative commenters, if you haven’t encountered them, who like to practice the art of personal abuse rather than substantive discussion.)

      • MyWord245

        Give Trump more credit than that. I immigrated here and learned US history. Pretty much couple of anecdotes summarize Jackson’s personality. #1. As he was stepping down Jackson admitted that he had but two regrets, that he “had been unable to shoot Henry Clay or to hang John C. Calhoun.” #2. Jackson seemed always be in control of his temper but used the reputation to get what he wanted. Does that remind you of somebody. People can criticize Jackson or Trump for other things, but don’t insult them of being stupid.

        • Pait

          I did not say anything about anyone’s intelligence. I will rephrase my statement of fact: you have read more about US history than the president.

  • Anthony

    While acknowledging descriptive similarities but focusing on American institutions (America’s institutions weren’t designed to resist a modern strongman), some may look beyond cursory comparisons (so much stated winning) of both eras (19th-21st centuries) and Presidents (Jackson-Trump) to maintenance of civil society (Democracy):

    • Pait

      I almost find I have a comparative advantage here by having read Albion’s Seed as well as about Brazil 😉

      • Anthony

        Albion Seed provides an American context and your Brazilian experience only informs further. You are indeed, my friend, ahead of the contextual curve.

  • Fat_Man

    Does this mean that Andy will stay on the $20?

  • FriendlyGoat

    It’s very fitting for the old cane-carrying, whiskey-drinking, duel-fighting ghost to be going off the $20. Trump is not any of those things and the comparisons are completely absurd.

  • mbermangorvine

    Old Hickory would’ve shot the Maximum Mountebank down in two seconds flat in a duel.

  • Wayne Lusvardi

    Wikipedia contradicts Andrew Jackson’s political ideology was similar to Trumps but would be closer to that of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster and the American Whig Party.

    Jacksonian Democrats
    Historical leaders: Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, James K. Polk, Thomas Hart Benton, Stephen A. Douglas
    Founded 1828
    Dissolved 1854
    Ideology Populism, Agrarianism, Spoils system, Manifest destiny
    National affiliation Democratic Party

    Jackson advocated slavery and took genocidal actions against Indians

    Trump’s political ideology would more closely resonate with the American Whig Party

    Historical leaders Henry Clay, Daniel Webster
    Founded 1833; 184 years ago
    Dissolved 1854; 163 years ago
    Merger of National Republican Party
    Anti-Masonic Party
    Succeeded by Know Nothing Party, Republican Party
    Opposition Party (Opposition to Slavery)
    Opposition Party (Opposition to Secession)
    Headquarters Washington, D.C.
    Newspaper The American Review: A Whig Journal
    Ideology American System (economic plan), Protectionism, Non-interventionism
    International affiliation None

  • Disappeared4x

    Mystery solved: Ralph Eleaser Whiteside Earl painted the portrait of Andrew Jackson that now hangs in President Trump’s Oval Office.
    It is most likely from the White House collection, but might be from the Hermitage. Not easy to find this, because it is not in the National Portrait Gallery or any other ‘official’ art museum.
    links you to:
    with this message: “Stay tuned as we continue to update”

    Which means FLOTUS Melania’s new Chief of Staff, Lindsay Reynolds, is already at work, responsible for WH Visitor Center and tours
    Reynolds’ personal website disappeared since I read it yesterday. Her doctorate is in Social Media.

    This is a serious WH team.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service