Reframing 19th century populism to unpack misconceptions in the Trump era.
In his 1829 inauguration, Andrew Jackson assured the public that his election meant the “unprincipled and wicked” would no longer triumph over the American people. Populism is a term that came to fruition in the late 19th century through a caucus known as the People’s Party. The political party was largely focused on pushing back against elitism and the corresponding influence of corporate powers in politics during the Gilded Age. Monopolistic giants like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie were blamed for widening social inequalities. In hindsight, Jacksonian democracy and the People’s Party share this strong Jeffresonian vision: both sought to make America an agrarian economy that barely relies on industry. But, does this conception of populism actually apply to today’s prescriptive usage of the term? I perceive its normative usage, systematically used to explain contemporary political dialogue and attributed to Trump’s MAGA movement, is altogether incompatible with the foundational principles of populism.
To properly understand the connections between Trump’s Agenda 47 and his populist tendencies, one must look at Andrew Jackson. Jackson inspired one of the four schools of foreign policy that Walter Russell Mead describes in his book Special Providence. The Jacksonian school sees America as a domestic hawk that needs to protect its people before anything. Trump’s ‘America First’ policy is not far off in regard to the importance delegated to the protection of national interests. However, Jackson was for the most part a pragmatist. His goal was to elevate the position of the United States in opposition to Great Britain and distribute power to the hands of the people. Jackson is described, nowadays, as a ‘man of the people’ for notably defanging the National Bank and removing Native Americans to strengthen the evolution of the southwestern frontier. Trump’s campaign is much less aimed at the pursuit of affirming statehood, as historical events have skewed exceptionalism in favor of the U.S.
Looking back to the Gilded Age, the Populists were feared by the Progressives, who opposed direct government control and laissez-faire policies. This led to clashes on Populist reforms that promised government transparency, public regulation of banking and wider job accessibility. It is unfeasible to align Trump with the Populist reforms. Neither is it fair to call him a Progressive. His flexible political maneuvering, geared towards gaining popular support, is done on the basis of digestible slogans.
Some scholars believe that Trump does not match any of the Meadian schools of thought and deserves to be placed in a fifth column: “Trumpism”. But, would it be fair to call Trump a populist? In its traditional form, no. He does not actually advocate for classical populist principles like direct involvement of the people in government. However, his populist appeal is far more rhetorical than it is substantive. He garnishes the support of the people by portraying the endangered state of the cultural identity that qualifies Americans. He presents opportunities for those that fit the ‘working class’ portfolio, but backs deregulation policies on corporations and tax cuts to the wealthy.
Populism is prone to being erroneously associated. The Sanders campaign and its socialist policies might even resonate more with the Gilded Age definition. Trump, though, is still a popular figure who appeals to the ‘common man’ just as Jackson did. ‘America First’ is more than a slogan attached to a political campaign. Trump looks at the geopolitical arena and claims it is time to “win again for America”, “bring jobs back”, and put an end to unfair trade deals. These initiatives promise a pivot towards national needs rather than international commitments. The President is the first to mesh a populist stance with international affairs. Again, he is going beyond the Jacksonian school. Unlike Jackson, Trump is ready to take a gamble with foreign quarrels, under the pretext that he is catering to domestic security needs. He claims to look after the economic well-being of the people by looking to impose tariffs on nations both friend and foe. Populism in the past may have sought to bring about economic reform, but Trump is looking to construe the narrative as “us vs. them” on the global playing field whether it pertains to immigration or other national priorities.
Alexis de Tocqueville, French diplomat until the mid-1850s, had meticulously studied the grandiose democratic experiment in his two-volume work Democracy in America. He was immediately impressed at the ability of the common people to form voluntary associations through churches and schools. Yet, he expressed the concern that conforming to equality would subordinate the ‘civitas’ to the government. The people who form the backbone of Trump’s support are crucial to understanding the transformation of populism in today’s age. A leader like Trump, representing the ‘will of the people’, undermines pluralism by redirecting democracy’s course towards unlimited submission through the means of fluctuating discourse.
