SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Yes, Donald Trump Is Like Andrew Jackson
And, no, not in a good way
Dec 14, 2016
Even before Hillary Clinton had given up, Rudy Giuliani was celebrating her defeat in the name of Old Hickory. "This is like Andrew Jackson's victory," he proclaimed on election night. "This is the people beating the establishment." Trump supporters often praise the seventh President (1829-37); the victor himself recently referred to Jackson's "great history." Something about the man who waged war against native peoples and national bankers offers a claim to a heroic past--and to the power of "the people." Why?
The parallels start with personality. Even compared to other public men, Donald Trump is obsessed with his reputation. He cannot bear the thought of someone, anyone, making fun of his numerous failures or small hands. Getting back at those who slight him is both a point of pride and a matter of survival.
Jackson shared this radical insecurity. In the first half of 1806 alone, when he was a middle-aged merchant and planter in Tennessee, he killed one man in a duel, beat another with a cane, and threatened anyone in Nashville who had a problem with it. He never forgot, never forgave, and never apologized. Much like Trump, he was profoundly convinced of his own innocence, and therefore entitled to despise his foes.
While most politicians tried to project a higher image of themselves and of the United States, Jackson swore to embody "the people" as he saw them, warts and all. He took insults to the nation personally rather than diplomatically, enabling an all-white citizenry to feel and act like the swaggering slave-holder in the White House.
Trump, too, wears his super-sized ego on his sleeve. He invites his crowds to belittle people who are black or brown or handicapped, to heap disdain on the historically vulnerable. Yelling "Trump!" is a bit like firing a gun, a rush of blood that recalls America's bloody past and allows a brief escape from the dull obligations of a more complicated present.
What makes the emotional bond between such men and their partisans so strong, then, is the underlying sense that political elites have taken away the older privileges, the frontier prerogatives. For Jackson, it was all about the right to personal safety. Government treaties with native peoples, he said, prevented white militias from "avenging the blood" of dead settlers. White Americans were in grave danger because bloodless politicians enabled Cherokees and Creeks to remain on American soil. (Jackson also worried that "Indian Country" offered refuge to runaway slaves.) Trump, too, stresses the higher and prior laws of personal and national defense, forever threatened by do-gooder laws and multi-racial decorum. Hence the talk of mass deportations and Muslim registries.
For many of his supporters in the Rust Belt, of course, the sense of loss has more to do with the economic traumas of de-industrialization, which "New Democrats" like the Clintons enabled along with the union-busters of the GOP. Here again we circle back to Jackson's time, when workers and farmers threatened by early industrialization often saw Old Hickory as their voice. To some extent they benefited from his violent removal of native peoples, at least until large slave-owners bought up the best land and used it to raise cotton for British markets.
Herein lies the most enduring--and harmful--part of the Jackson legend. Although he never mentioned it when running for President, Old Hickory had made his name and wealth as a lawyer and speculator, chasing down debtors and bringing the modern rules of the market to the far frontiers. He then merged those new and often unpopular rules with the "natural" rights of survival and revenge, rejecting any efforts to advance the public good as so many "corruptions" on free individuals. In times of peace, then, he was no nationalist. Under conditions of safety, "the people" were on their own, as free to ignore each other as they were to bully everyone else.
Trump is no different. After a few P.R. bits about protecting blue-collar jobs, he and his ultra-wealthy, far-right cabinet members will unravel the thin protections of our society and invite everyone to take advantage of its "losers." He will enable the people--compel them, really--to be as ruthless as he is. A motley crew of fracking, insurance, and real estate companies will thrive along the commercial frontiers he opens, at least for a while. And the people will bear on, trapped by a story that makes them fearsome to enemies and helpless with each other.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Jason Opal
Jason M. Opal is Associate Professor of History at McGill University in Montreal and the author of Avenging the People: Andrew Jackson, the Rule of Law, and the American Nation from Oxford University Press.
Even before Hillary Clinton had given up, Rudy Giuliani was celebrating her defeat in the name of Old Hickory. "This is like Andrew Jackson's victory," he proclaimed on election night. "This is the people beating the establishment." Trump supporters often praise the seventh President (1829-37); the victor himself recently referred to Jackson's "great history." Something about the man who waged war against native peoples and national bankers offers a claim to a heroic past--and to the power of "the people." Why?
The parallels start with personality. Even compared to other public men, Donald Trump is obsessed with his reputation. He cannot bear the thought of someone, anyone, making fun of his numerous failures or small hands. Getting back at those who slight him is both a point of pride and a matter of survival.
Jackson shared this radical insecurity. In the first half of 1806 alone, when he was a middle-aged merchant and planter in Tennessee, he killed one man in a duel, beat another with a cane, and threatened anyone in Nashville who had a problem with it. He never forgot, never forgave, and never apologized. Much like Trump, he was profoundly convinced of his own innocence, and therefore entitled to despise his foes.
While most politicians tried to project a higher image of themselves and of the United States, Jackson swore to embody "the people" as he saw them, warts and all. He took insults to the nation personally rather than diplomatically, enabling an all-white citizenry to feel and act like the swaggering slave-holder in the White House.
Trump, too, wears his super-sized ego on his sleeve. He invites his crowds to belittle people who are black or brown or handicapped, to heap disdain on the historically vulnerable. Yelling "Trump!" is a bit like firing a gun, a rush of blood that recalls America's bloody past and allows a brief escape from the dull obligations of a more complicated present.
What makes the emotional bond between such men and their partisans so strong, then, is the underlying sense that political elites have taken away the older privileges, the frontier prerogatives. For Jackson, it was all about the right to personal safety. Government treaties with native peoples, he said, prevented white militias from "avenging the blood" of dead settlers. White Americans were in grave danger because bloodless politicians enabled Cherokees and Creeks to remain on American soil. (Jackson also worried that "Indian Country" offered refuge to runaway slaves.) Trump, too, stresses the higher and prior laws of personal and national defense, forever threatened by do-gooder laws and multi-racial decorum. Hence the talk of mass deportations and Muslim registries.
For many of his supporters in the Rust Belt, of course, the sense of loss has more to do with the economic traumas of de-industrialization, which "New Democrats" like the Clintons enabled along with the union-busters of the GOP. Here again we circle back to Jackson's time, when workers and farmers threatened by early industrialization often saw Old Hickory as their voice. To some extent they benefited from his violent removal of native peoples, at least until large slave-owners bought up the best land and used it to raise cotton for British markets.
Herein lies the most enduring--and harmful--part of the Jackson legend. Although he never mentioned it when running for President, Old Hickory had made his name and wealth as a lawyer and speculator, chasing down debtors and bringing the modern rules of the market to the far frontiers. He then merged those new and often unpopular rules with the "natural" rights of survival and revenge, rejecting any efforts to advance the public good as so many "corruptions" on free individuals. In times of peace, then, he was no nationalist. Under conditions of safety, "the people" were on their own, as free to ignore each other as they were to bully everyone else.
Trump is no different. After a few P.R. bits about protecting blue-collar jobs, he and his ultra-wealthy, far-right cabinet members will unravel the thin protections of our society and invite everyone to take advantage of its "losers." He will enable the people--compel them, really--to be as ruthless as he is. A motley crew of fracking, insurance, and real estate companies will thrive along the commercial frontiers he opens, at least for a while. And the people will bear on, trapped by a story that makes them fearsome to enemies and helpless with each other.
Jason Opal
Jason M. Opal is Associate Professor of History at McGill University in Montreal and the author of Avenging the People: Andrew Jackson, the Rule of Law, and the American Nation from Oxford University Press.
Even before Hillary Clinton had given up, Rudy Giuliani was celebrating her defeat in the name of Old Hickory. "This is like Andrew Jackson's victory," he proclaimed on election night. "This is the people beating the establishment." Trump supporters often praise the seventh President (1829-37); the victor himself recently referred to Jackson's "great history." Something about the man who waged war against native peoples and national bankers offers a claim to a heroic past--and to the power of "the people." Why?
The parallels start with personality. Even compared to other public men, Donald Trump is obsessed with his reputation. He cannot bear the thought of someone, anyone, making fun of his numerous failures or small hands. Getting back at those who slight him is both a point of pride and a matter of survival.
Jackson shared this radical insecurity. In the first half of 1806 alone, when he was a middle-aged merchant and planter in Tennessee, he killed one man in a duel, beat another with a cane, and threatened anyone in Nashville who had a problem with it. He never forgot, never forgave, and never apologized. Much like Trump, he was profoundly convinced of his own innocence, and therefore entitled to despise his foes.
While most politicians tried to project a higher image of themselves and of the United States, Jackson swore to embody "the people" as he saw them, warts and all. He took insults to the nation personally rather than diplomatically, enabling an all-white citizenry to feel and act like the swaggering slave-holder in the White House.
Trump, too, wears his super-sized ego on his sleeve. He invites his crowds to belittle people who are black or brown or handicapped, to heap disdain on the historically vulnerable. Yelling "Trump!" is a bit like firing a gun, a rush of blood that recalls America's bloody past and allows a brief escape from the dull obligations of a more complicated present.
What makes the emotional bond between such men and their partisans so strong, then, is the underlying sense that political elites have taken away the older privileges, the frontier prerogatives. For Jackson, it was all about the right to personal safety. Government treaties with native peoples, he said, prevented white militias from "avenging the blood" of dead settlers. White Americans were in grave danger because bloodless politicians enabled Cherokees and Creeks to remain on American soil. (Jackson also worried that "Indian Country" offered refuge to runaway slaves.) Trump, too, stresses the higher and prior laws of personal and national defense, forever threatened by do-gooder laws and multi-racial decorum. Hence the talk of mass deportations and Muslim registries.
For many of his supporters in the Rust Belt, of course, the sense of loss has more to do with the economic traumas of de-industrialization, which "New Democrats" like the Clintons enabled along with the union-busters of the GOP. Here again we circle back to Jackson's time, when workers and farmers threatened by early industrialization often saw Old Hickory as their voice. To some extent they benefited from his violent removal of native peoples, at least until large slave-owners bought up the best land and used it to raise cotton for British markets.
Herein lies the most enduring--and harmful--part of the Jackson legend. Although he never mentioned it when running for President, Old Hickory had made his name and wealth as a lawyer and speculator, chasing down debtors and bringing the modern rules of the market to the far frontiers. He then merged those new and often unpopular rules with the "natural" rights of survival and revenge, rejecting any efforts to advance the public good as so many "corruptions" on free individuals. In times of peace, then, he was no nationalist. Under conditions of safety, "the people" were on their own, as free to ignore each other as they were to bully everyone else.
Trump is no different. After a few P.R. bits about protecting blue-collar jobs, he and his ultra-wealthy, far-right cabinet members will unravel the thin protections of our society and invite everyone to take advantage of its "losers." He will enable the people--compel them, really--to be as ruthless as he is. A motley crew of fracking, insurance, and real estate companies will thrive along the commercial frontiers he opens, at least for a while. And the people will bear on, trapped by a story that makes them fearsome to enemies and helpless with each other.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.