Is Trump the New Andrew Jackson?

Trump Jackson

Yesterday Steve Inskeep, the host of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” argued that Donald Trump is channeling Andrew Jackson.  When I read Inskeep’s piece at The New York Times I wondered what Mark Cheathem thought about it

Cheathem has had a busy week.  The Martin Van Buren Papers Project, which he is editing, was launched on Monday at Cumberland University.  But I had a hunch that Cheathem would be unable to resist responding to Inskeep’s op-ed.  I was right.

Here is a taste of his response as his blog, Jacksonian America:

What makes me uncomfortable about these comparisons of modern-day politicians with those from nearly two centuries ago is the shoehorning that has to take place to find parallels. Yes, Trump is bombastic and temperamental, but he’s not quite Jackson because the latter actually got his hands dirty killing people. Yes, Trump styles himself a populist, but as Inskeep points out, the Donald didn’t quite have the same upbringing as Jackson, who, whatever you might think about how he acquired his wealth, didn’t exactly start from the same place as Trump. Most politicians style themselves champions of the people, so Trump’s populist rhetoric isn’t even new or fresh. (By the way, Bernie Sanders’ hair is just as wild, if less luxurious, than Trump’s and his rhetoric is certainly as populist, if a different flavor, as his “Republican” counterpart’s, but no one is comparing the Vermont senator to Jackson.)

What I’ve concluded is that the real question isn’t “is Trump is a modern-day Jackson”; it’s actually “what leads U.S. voters to support a (mostly) successful businessman who wants to build a wall to keep out immigrants, speaks disparagingly about women, feigns religious piety to court voters, and shows no self-awareness that he can be wrong?” That’s the real historical parallel that needs to be drawn, in my opinion. I think commentators would be better served by looking at other politicians in U.S. history who more closely resembled Trump’s true ideology and perspective and explain why people were attracted to them. Or, compare the zeitgeist of different eras, which may offer a better explanation even than personalities. Or, focus on groups, such as the Populist party, the Dixiecrats, and the Birchers, that used anger toward, and resentment of, the government in order to make sense of Trump and his supporters.

Read the entire post here.

One thought on “Is Trump the New Andrew Jackson?

  1. Thanks for the great post by Professor Cheathem. He is absolutely right about “shoehorning”: “What makes me uncomfortable about these comparisons of modern-day politicians with those from nearly two centuries ago is the shoehorning that has to take place to find parallels.” Van Buren’s legacy is overshadowed by J.Q. Adams and A. Jackson. But the tavern keeper’s son was the “godfather” of American party politics. While the founders eshewed party politics as mere factionalism, Van Buren realized that political parties are a necessary and crucial part of American political life. In his era, he saw national parties as the antidote to the growing sectionalism of the 1820s. Of course they failed to contain rising sectionalism, but that wasn’t Van Buren’s fault. Few, if any, foresaw the tragic consequences of failed national politics.

    Like

Comments are closed.