Trump does not represent something never seen before or a threat never checked. Pictured: President Donald Trump. Photo Credit: Donald Trump/X.
In the first two installments of this series, written in conjunction with the release of the Free Press’s podcast *BREAKING HISTORY*, the rise of populism in American politics has been documented. The author acknowledges that much of the material included in this article originates from Eli Lake, the podcast’s narrator. In this concluding installment of the series, we will explore Andrew Jackson’s presidency as a reflection of what we might expect from President Donald Trump.
Yvonne Levin, the Director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, stated: “In 1832, Jackson vetoed a bill to extend the bank’s authority with a declaration of pure populist fire. I’m going to read from it here: ‘It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. But when the laws undertake to add to these natural advantages, artificial distinctions, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the powerful more powerful, the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics, and labourers—who have neither the time nor the means to secure similar favours for themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. In other words, we see you, plutocrats, and your time is up.’”
Jackson also feuded with the Founding Fathers regarding the Supreme Court. Most recognized the Court as the sole authority for interpreting the Constitution, but Jackson disagreed. His opponents, the Whigs, labelled him “King Andrew” for assuming authority they believed belonged elsewhere. The most striking example occurred in 1831 when the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia could not enforce state law over the Cherokee Nation. Jackson chose to ignore this ruling and ordered the removal of the Cherokees. This echoes the events of 2020 when Trump refused to comply with Supreme Court rulings that denied his attempts to overturn election results in several states.
Jackson’s legacy is secure, having served two terms, with his vice president succeeding him in 1837 and continuing his policies of Native removal and opposition to the Second National Bank. However, his moral and political imprint remains complex. Like Trump, he challenged institutions, feuded with the Supreme Court, and aligned himself with average citizens in their struggles against elites. A man courted in the homes of wealthy millionaires, celebrated in Hollywood, and honoured at lavish dinners has abandoned that club to become an outsider at the gates. Yet this trend is not surprising: Jackson and Trump excel as campaigners who rally their supporters against an entrenched order but struggle to build a viable alternative. Populists often distrust large institutions, explaining their tendency to excel at dismantling rather than constructing. Their reliance on conspiracy theories further feeds this dynamic. Jackson could not make the connection between central banks and building transportation networks so he saw the bank as a tool of plutocracy. Trump learned to hate the FBI so much he interfered with their investigations and could have served time if cases moved against him had proceeded.
Historians Michael Cason and Yvonne Levin (AEI) both emphasize that populism has negative and dangerous sides, but serves a purpose. When populism rises it speaks to a disconnect between citizens and the governing elite who often allow their perks and privileges of office to dictate their policy, voting habits, and personal behaviour. In effect, populism helps keep the parties that govern in touch with the voting public. Cason comments, “I think generally in American history when populism has been successful in changing our politics, it’s been successful by forcing one or both of the two major parties that we’ve almost always had to integrate its core critique into their vision of American politics.”
And Levin again: “And so the parties are good at governing. Populism arises as a challenge to the parties, and then the parties respond to that challenge by grasping something about what the public wants that the populists understood better than they did and turning that into a governing vision. I think that’s the story of progressivism, where it happened in both parties.”
Democrats absorbing Jackson’s policies, the Republicans integrating populism in the 1970s and into a governing vision, or both parties picking pieces from Ross Perot’s appeal in the 1990s are proof of populism having an effect and making a difference. As Lake observes, “Populism is a little bit like poison. The dose determines its toxicity. Some popular exasperation at the political elites can be a healthy corrective to the inevitable corruption of bureaucracies and oligarchies.” Lake is not wrong to suggest that populism has been like a valve for the boiling rage of voters when they believe the system has failed them.
In the end, Jackson and Trump will be as much a part of the American story as Washington and Lincoln. Their reputations and actions are not as admired and do not come across as pure or clean, but the impact has been strong and serious. We do not know what will happen with Donald Trump, his second term is too young. We do know that Jackson’s uprising morphed into the establishment. By 1840 his successor, Martin Van Buren, lost to the Whigs, a party pieced together as a response to Jackson. The people had had enough of populism and wanted change.
Trump’s furious efforts to upend the regular order may change things, but at some point, his ideas will become swallowed up in the deeper interests of those who want something different. Until then, it might be good to know that Trump does not represent something never seen before or a threat never checked. He strides upon the stage today, but like those before him, he too will exit and much of what has been abandoned will again seem new.
Dave Redekop is a retired elementary resource teacher who worked part-time at the St. Catharines Courthouse as a Registrar until being appointed Executive Director at Redeemer Bible Church in October 2023. He has worked on political campaigns since high school and attended university in South Carolina for five years, earning a Master’s in American History with a specialization in Civil Rights. Dave loves reading biographies.
