As many have pointed out as far as a year ago well before the election (and this book was written in 2009, one year after President Obama was elected), the Trump-ian era most resembles the Jacksonian age of the 1830s. Here are some passages from this book, that are quite striking:
Trump at the convention: I alone can solve your problems
Jackson Book: "the will of the people over the whim of the powerful, with himself as the chief interpreter and enactor of that will. The idea and image of a strong president claiming a mandate from the voters to unite the nation and direct the affairs of the country from the White House took permanent root in the Age of Jackson."
Trump: System is rigged
Chapter 3: "He (Jackson) became convinced that Clay had sold his votes to Adams in exchange for the Cabinet appointment, and Jackson’s fury at this alleged “corrupt bargain” never abated. That the election unfolded according to the letter of the Constitution did not matter to Jackson. The way he saw it, the son of a president, Adams, had struck a deal with the Speaker of the House, Clay, to elevate Adams, then the secretary of state, to the presidency."
Trump: Bringing jobs back (while in reality the issue is automation and change in the economy)
Book: "America was moving from a way of life based on farms to one fundamentally linked to a larger industrialized economy. Railroads, canals, and roads were tying the country together. Factories were growing, manufacturing burgeoning. When Jackson became president, the railroad was hardly more than a dream; by the end of the 1830s, there were 3,200 miles of track. The cotton textile workforce more than tripled from 1820 to 1840, and the number of iron wage earners increased fivefold."
Trump: Build that wall (and other cultural issues)
"The Jackson years were also roiled by conversations and controversies about race, religion, immigrants, and the role of women."
Trump: Pence, is my first best decision.
In Chapter 4, Jackson wins the election on his second try, with Calhoun on his ticket very much embodying current Vice President Pence!!
Trump supporters:
"Jackson’s political appeal came out of the same tradition—a tradition in which a leader creates a covenant of mutual confidence between himself and the broader public.
If the people believe in the man, then the more likely they are to give him the benefit of the doubt on the details of governance. A Scottish visitor to Albany in the late 1820s noted an American love of what he called “the spirit of electioneering, which seems to enter as an essential ingredient into the composition of everything.
But it was a highly personal kind of electioneering: “The Americans, as it appears to me, are infinitely more occupied about bringing in a given candidate, than they are about the advancement of those measures.
The transaction between a potential president and the people is often as much about the heart as it is about the mind. “The large masses act in politics pretty much as they do in religion,” a Democratic senator said in the Jackson years. “Every doctrine is with them, more or less, a matter of faith; received, principally, on account of their trust in the apostle.”
And they trusted Jackson. They might not always agree with him, they might cringe at his excesses and his shortcomings, but at bottom they believed he was a man of strength who would set a course and follow it, who would fight their battles and crush their enemies.
They believed, in short, in the Jackson who, on that journey home from Natchez in the War of 1812, had said that he would not leave a man behind—not a single one. It was a pledge he had kept then, and the people believed it was one he would keep in the White House."
Trump and Bannon:
"Jackson welcomed a new member of his circle, Francis Preston Blair, who had moved from Kentucky to Washington to become the founding editor of a new administration newspaper. The brainchild of the politically brilliant Amos Kendall—who had run his newspaper in Kentucky, the Argus, with the help of Blair—the newspaper, to be called the Globe, was to be of what Jackson called “the true faith,” meaning it was to support the White House totally and without reservation.
"Kendall was a critical figure in Jackson’s universe. Harriet Martineau, a British writer touring the United States, once recorded a brief Kendall sighting. “I was fortunate enough once to catch a glimpse of the invisible Amos Kendall, one of the most remarkable men in America,” Martineau said. “He is supposed to be the moving spring of the whole administration; the thinker, planner, and doer; but it is all in the dark.… Work is done, of goblin extent and with goblin speed, which makes men look about them with a superstitious wonder; and the invisible Amos Kendall has the credit of it all."
Trump and Twitter:
"His foes were flummoxed by his insistence on going straight to the nation. After Jackson’s remarks to the Cabinet about removing the deposits were published in the Globe, an enraged Calhoun virtually sputtered in the Senate. Making the arguments to the Cabinet public, Calhoun said, “was clearly and manifestly intended as an appeal to the people of the United States, and opens a new and direct organ of communication between the President and them unknown to the Constitution and the laws.
Such was the verdict of the senator from South Carolina about the idea that a president might discuss issues directly with the nation. Calhoun’s hope (and Clay’s) was that a strict construction of the Constitution could hobble Jackson’s campaign to make the presidency the center of action."
I was quite intrigued to learn that Lincoln directly learned from Jackson's actions via a vis the South Carolina nullification battle with Calhoun to forge his own strategy during the larger scale problem of the Civil War.
George Bancroft the historian and founder of the Naval Academy at Annapolis said this of Jackson.
“The moral of the great events of those days (Jackson's actions over nullification ) is this: that the people can discern right, and will make their way to a knowledge of right; that the whole human mind, and therefore with it the mind of the nation, has a continuous, ever improving existence; that the appeal from the unjust legislation of to-day must be made quietly, earnestly, perseveringly, to the more enlightened collective reason of to-morrow; that submission is due to the popular will, in the confidence that the people, when in error, will amend their doings; that in a popular government, injustice is neither to be established by force, nor to be resisted by force; in a word, that the Union which is constituted by consent, must be preserved by love.
Or, as Jackson would have said: The people, sir—the people will set things to rights."
The questions I have about Bancroft's statement are these:
- Is this true?
- is it an aspiration?
or
- Is Bancroft forging our culture towards this goal by making such a statement?
---
Knowing a little bit of history around the trail of tears and closing down of the second national bank, the later chapters of the book are full of turbulence, turmoil and change. For better or worse, is something that continues to be debate to this day.
In any case, I am doing my best to stay away from the current non-stop, sensational news cycle and immersing myself into this book which is well written and provides welcome relief and much needed perspective!
22 comments:
Thanks. Its been on my list and now will look especially forward to reading it.
Another you'd enjoy, which is both instructive for our moment but keeps us apart from the daily chaos, is RJ Gordon's Rise and Fall if American Growth. His thesis is that the growth and quality of life we realized from roughly 1870 to 1970 is unparalleled in history and will not be replicated in our lifetime. From electricity and refrigeration, assembly plants and distribution channels, antibiotics and communication, the innovation was profound and fundamental to the human condition. And notwithstanding today's internet it advances in cancer treatment, we will not be able to come close to the advances in economic and social life. Which, one infers, is a good explanation for the current level of frustration, disappointment and disaffection, especially among the middle class. Great book.
Fascinating similarities in Jackson and Trump. I would agree it is a good way to learn more about another time in history and protect yourself somewhat from the nonstop concerns our country is facing no matter what views we have.
Great anecdotes.
Looking forward to reading this book.
I have not read it! But I will and by all you noted below I now understand why Trump loves and patterns himself so closely to Jackson
If I am right - in 1824 Jackson won the popular vote against John Quincy Adams but lost Presidency in the House? One of the meanest and bitter Presidential campaigns rivaling 2016
Good stuff.
So good that I’ll use it as the jumping off point for some weekend readings that also fit the topic.
Starting at the bottom of your earlier email, you write:
In any case, I am doing my best to stay away from the current non-stop, sensational news cycle and immersing myself into this book which is well written and provides welcome relief and much needed perspective!
And then combining it with this from your later one:
The transaction between a potential president and the people is often as much about the heart as it is about the mind. “The large masses act in politics pretty much as they do in religion,” a Democratic senator said in the Jackson years. “Every doctrine is with them, more or less, a matter of faith; received, principally, on account of their trust in the apostle.”
Here’s an excerpt from David Gelernter’s interview in The Atlantic with includes a list of 20 ideas.
Here’s one idea:
'There's Enough Time to Change Everything'
The polymath computer scientist David Gelernter’s wide-ranging ideas about American life
[…]
Letting toxic partisanship heal. Everyone knows that we live in politically superheated times; partisanship feels more bitter and more personal than it ever has in my lifetime.
There are many reasons, but here is one: we all know that faith in the Judeo-Christian religions is dramatically weaker than it used to be. But human beings are religious animals, and most will find an alternative if the conventional choices are gone.
The readiest replacement nowadays for lost traditional religion is political ideology. But a citizen with faith in a political position, instead of rational belief, is a potential disaster for democracy. A religious believer can rarely be argued out of his faith in any ordinary conversational give-and-take. His personality is more likely to be wrapped up with his religion than with any mere political program. When a person’s religion is attacked, he’s more likely to take it personally and dislike (or even hate) the attacker than he is in the case of mere political attacks or arguments. Thus, the collapse of traditional religion within important parts of the population is one cause of our increasingly poisoned politics. Yet it doesn’t have to be this way.
Sadly, no wall can make a nation great. The Chinese emperors,Germany are great examples.
Thanks to you I just bought the book! I like Meacham's writing a lot. The War of 1812 made Jackson a national hero, set up the decimation of the Native American, and established the United States as an emerging great power. Without this war Jackson would not have become President 16 years later. One very interesting fact: The Battle of New Orleans which was a decisive and bloody American victory made Jackson's reputation BUT it actually took place after the peace agreement settled and ended the war. Neither side in New Orleans knew that the war was already officially over.
What motivates voters to vote? Is it self-interest? Is it a rational choice? Is it about issues or is it about personality? Is it 'mystical,' in the sense that it is a connection between voters and candidate? And is the American voter unique as Meacham describes above and as Tocqueville has observed?
Your question deserves a longer answer but let me try briefly to give you something:
First, the voter today is much different than the voter of 1828: If Women and Blacks were excluded as they were when Jackson was elected, we would have 60% fewer people casting ballots.
Second, search technology gives the voter much more power to learn what is going on and to organize themselves in support/opposition to the elected official. It also gives voters (and non-voters like Putin!) much more opportunity to sell lies that can unquestionable affect voters who are undecided.
Third, a large fraction of voters - let's say 80% - have divided into two large groups: One listens to conservative opinions and the other to liberal. By the way Trump is wrong to say that opinionated stories unfavorable to him are fake news but the accusation is just what his 40% want to hear. The same is true with voters who want their candidate to tell them that Fox is fake news.
Fourth, Danny Kahneman's analysis of general decision-making is a better source for understanding how voters decide. Personally, I believe emotion plays a big role in political decision making. It isn't easy to vote for someone you do not like even if you agree with them. As to voting against personal self interest, I believe this is a very good thing with the single exception of seniors who are acquiring a larger an larger claim of annual output through transfer payments they believe they are entitled to.
Fifth, we do a terrible job of preparing men and women for the responsibilities of citizenship. Our best citizens are those who have gone through the naturalization process: You value those things for which you have worked more than those things you have been given. I know it is unlikely to happen but I would like to see the voting age lowered to 16 so that the first vote occurs while the voter is still in school. It is far more likely they will make the effort to understand the issues and far more likely they will acquire the habit of voting.
I remember my first campaign in 1982 when I was a candidate for Governor of Nebraska. I assembled task forces on a range of issues that helped me deliver detailed policy addresses on education, welfare, the environment, economic development and others. Each of these speeches earned a paragraph or two on the inside pages of newspapers. Sixty days before the election I began advertising on television. I said nothing specific in these ads. It was just slogans and images. But, I will never forget voters coming up to me on the street to say: "I saw you on television last night and I like what you stand for." At first I thought this was crazy. Today, I don't. Today, it matters to me what the candidate stands for!!
I find your observations very thought provoking ....
One question to add, for a later conversation is:
If indeed we have divided ourselves into the two 40% camps, is it still true what Jefferson said, that we have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all all republicans, we are all federalists.... ?
My worry is that both camps have forgotten or have never known the underlying principles that unite us. To say - for example - that I agree with something Steve Bannon believes provokes my 40% to vote me off their (our) island!! The fear of being voted off creates blind political uniformity which I resist passionately.
Indeed, that is worthy of great fear. One hopes that our 240 years of history has created a foundational culture that sustains across these chasms.
I have two different views of Steve Bannon, in my early days of digging into his thoughts.
i) His appearance at CPAC earlier this week with Reince Preibus was eminently articulate. While one might disagree with his economic nationalism, it is neither abtuse nor code-filled. It was neither racist nor xenophobic. So I was surprised!
ii) However, his ascribing to the historical thesis of Neil Howe and the late William Strauss that talk about 80 year cycles in American History, each of these 80 year cycles ending in bigger and bigger wars - is both daft, apocalyptic and downright dangerous. http://time.com/4575780/stephen-bannon-fourth-turning/
But I am now tuned into this man's thinking as a lay citizen!
I had heard that, early on, Bannon had used Andrew Jackson as a model to Trump on who he (Trump) would be most like as president. I’m trying to be on sabbatical from the news as well, but it’s so difficult.
Here is a pretty good evaluation of what this election means:
https://shift.newco.co/https-m edium-com-peteleyden-why-trump s-inauguration-is-not-the- beginning-of-an-era-but-the- end-72a86833f0a3#.o9pzqc7hq
Fantastic article. Agree!
Your chess metaphor is the best way to understand the future: The second half of the board.
I do not agree with Bancroft. The people need to be led especially when they become a mob. Public opinion can be wrong and can be very dangerous (public opinion was wrong about the Native American) In those times it is essential that leaders tell them the truth. Too often leaders get out in front of the mob in order to appear to be leading.
I suppose no point should be taken to an extreme - but in you line of argument would we not end up with Plato's republic where chosen elites run society as opposed to the populace ...?
I hope not. Group think among elites can become as bad as mobs!
I have to admit that I wasn’t familiar with the nullification crisis over tariffs and that it continued as a state’s rights issue not only over slavery but in the first decade of the 21st century, this time from California over legalizing marijuana.
So this struck home pretty powerfully (Wikipedia):
The historian Richard E. Ellis wrote:
By creating a national government with the authority to act directly upon individuals, by denying to the state many of the prerogatives that they formerly had, and by leaving open to the central government the possibility of claiming for itself many powers not explicitly assigned to it, the Constitution and Bill of Rights as finally ratified substantially increased the strength of the central government at the expense of the states.
The extent of this change and the problem of the actual distribution of powers between state and the federal governments would be a matter of political and ideological discussion up to the Civil War and beyond. In the early 1790s the debate centered on Alexander Hamilton's nationalistic financial program versus Jefferson's democratic and agrarian program, a conflict that led to the formation of two opposing national political parties.
It is indeed a still critical issue that divides the parties… or at least it did until Trump was elected and now the Dems are reclaiming their state’s rights banner.
It seems to me that the winner always appears to have had a strategy, his own or borrowed. In history the loser never had a right strategy!
Perhaps.
I wouldn't say Robert E. Lee did not have a strategy in the Civil War?
Post a Comment