I
prepared a version of this blog entry two months ago with the assistance of,
and in collaboration with, a long time friend, Dr. John Tantillo, "the
Marketing Doctor", who is an expert on branding and offered significant
marketing and branding insights on my basically political history take; John is
the author of the book, "People Buy Brands, Not Companies".
Political pundits and
some historians always try to match current presidential candidates with past political
figures. The matches are never exact, but knowledge of history can help prepare
us for what might be. 2016 presents what the media presents as a Trump
phenomena—a nationwide celebrity defeating the establishment of a major
political party and securing the nomination of that party for president. Trump faces
a former secretary of state (and US senator and first lady) in a general
election that has become nasty and divisive and possibly close.
Almost 200 years ago, as
the “the Era of Good Feeling” drew to a close, the political establishment
proceeded to choose a new president. The secretary of state, John Quincy Adams,
by birth (his father was the Revolutionary icon and second president, John
Adams) and tradition, was the obvious choice. The Congressional Caucus,
which in those days nominated the candidates, met and endorsed Secretary of
Treasury William Crawford. Speaker of the House Henry Clay saw an opportunity
with multiple candidates if the Electoral College failed to produce a majority
and the House had to choose from amongst the top-three candidates.
There came forth an
outsider, a Westerner, and a national celebrity. Andrew Jackson was known
popularly for his victory at the Battle of New Orleans and by many as the victor
of the War of 1812. Jackson was also known for his battles against Native
Americans (the Indians) in Alabama and then the occupation of Florida; Andrew
Jackson was in his day a national celebrity perhaps better known across the
country than any other public figure since Washington and Franklin. He became
the candidate supported by those on the outside—poor farmers, workingmen, and
mechanics of the cities, politicos from the new states, and the entrepreneurs
fueling the growing economy known as the “men on the make.”
For the first time in
presidential elections, most states allowed the people to vote to choose the
electors from that state; and, Andrew Jackson amassed the most popular votes
followed by Adams. In the Electoral College, Crawford (the candidate of the
NY/VA Democratic–Republican establishment) edged out Clay for third place,
which threw the election into the House with the Speaker not in contention.
Jackson and his supporters claimed the moral right to win due to receipt of the
most popular votes and the most electoral votes. Adams supporters cited the
lack of anyone receiving a majority and the rules in the Constitution
specifying what should then happen. Adams was elected by the House with Clay’s
support, and, when the latter was made Secretary of State, Jackson called it a
corrupt bargain and began a four-year campaign to win the presidency.
Jackson was considered
by his opponents as brash, uncultured by Eastern Seaboard standards, a racist,
a philanderer and bigamist, a murderer, and a hot-tempered man ill-suited to be
the nation’s chief executive. Sound familiar? (And we think today’s political
rhetoric is rough!) He had little if any support from the nation’s political
establishment. In fact, his predecessors (Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe),
though publicly supporting Crawford in 1824, in private correspondence
expressed sympathy for the aspirations of John Quincy Adams.
Jackson’s opponents, the
political elite and the money establishment of New York and Philadelphia, used
arguments against him, which in fact may have gained him votes.
Jackson was not yet
president, so he had no record to stand on; furthermore, it was only during his
second term that his most controversial actions took place. The opposition to
Jackson used what they considered his personality flaws to try to defeat him.
They ridiculed his poor spelling (he evidently spelled Congress with a K). But
this was at a time when even the most literate Americans spelled phonetically.
Because he had married his wife Rachel assuming her husband had gotten a
divorce, when in fact he had only applied for one, Jackson was accused of
bigamy -- at a time when, outside
Eastern cities, record-keeping, to say the least, was sporadic. He was accused
of murder, having slain a man in a duel who had slandered Jackson’s wife; this
attack at a time when men thought it their duty to protect the honor of their
wives. And in a “swift boat-style attack,” Jacksons’ opponents issued the
“coffin circular,” which pictured six coffins representing soldiers he had
executed for disobedience and desertion. But the men who belonged to militias
and had heard the stories of their fathers from the Revolutionary War accepted
the concept that you had to execute those in your ranks whose actions
endangered all.
Though Jackson as
president was a divisive character, he was loved by the people enough to win
three popular votes for president and elect his successor; his name has been
used to denote the era in American history before the Civil War: the Age of
Jackson. Hatred by his opponents caused the coalescing of the opposition groups
into the Whig Party. He was a fierce nationalist and a believer in a strong
presidency. His policies divided the three branches of the federal government,
but in most cases the position of the executive prevailed. Among the
nineteenth-century presidents, only Lincoln surpassed him in national homage.
Is Donald Trump the
twenty-first-century incarnation of Andrew Jackson? Certainly there are
similarities in temper and his possible rise to the highest office. Jackson, like Trump, could be civil and polite
in society. He also could be stubborn and even sometimes cruel. Once he
determined on a course of action, nothing stopped him. When he declared war on
a political enemy, it was total.
While there are similarities
between the two candidates there are even more in the reaction to the
candidates. Jackson’s opponents
attempted to turn his strengths into weaknesses and may, in fact, have merely
enhanced the repute of his strengths. In 2016, Trump’s opponents might do well
to study the failure of Jackson’s opposition and develop a better strategy to
stop him. They should recall Santayana’s dictum: “those who cannot
remember history are doomed to repeat it.”
Jackson ultimately won the presidency in a wave of popular
dissatisfaction against the establishment, the effete elite, and the big money
interests who allegedly owned Washington DC politicians.
The intent herein is
neither to denigrate Andrew Jackson nor to elevate Donald Trump. America has
been graced with much good luck throughout its history. Jackson, who followed
some disastrous economic policies and a horrific Indian removal policy,
nevertheless ushered America safely into a new era and created a popular
attachment to the union that bolstered Lincoln as he won the Civil War. Should Donald Trump be elected president, let
us hope that America’s luck has not run out!
Andrew Jackson was an
American original. Donald Trump is likewise -- whether one likes him or not.
The inside-the-beltway bureaucracy, along with the historical elite, have
decided to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill. It would be ironic if the
people now send a 21st century version of Jackson to the White House.
9 Aug 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment