Donald Trump, just sworn in as the 47th president, was reelected to be a wrecking ball, a middle finger, the people’s punch to the Beltway’s mouth. And while this populist moment feels “unprecedented,” it’s not. The rebuke of the ruling class is encoded in our nation’s DNA.
We have seen populist leaders like Donald Trump before. He stands on the shoulders of Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot, Alabama governor George Wallace, and Louisiana legend Huey Long. There have been populist senators, governors, newspaper editors, and radio broadcasters.
But only rarely has a populist climbed as high as President Trump. In fact, it has happened only once before.
The last populist to win the presidency was born before the American Revolution. He rose from nothing to become a great general. His adoring troops called him Old Hickory, and his enemies derided him as a bigamist and a tyrant in waiting. His name was Andrew Jackson, and he’s the guy who’s still on the 20 dollar bill.
On today’s debut episode of Breaking History, Eli Lake explains how Andrew Jackson’s presidency is the best guide to what Trump’s second term could look like.
Go to groundnews.com/Honestly to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories.
Credits: Andrew Jackson: Good, Evil and the Presidency; PBS
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
"Without evidence" like the 51 intelligence hacks who lied about the laptop, or the pre-bunking of the FBI which got all of social media to block it out? Yeah, none of that had any effect at all, Eli.
Well done. I’ve long thought that there were parallels between Jackson and Trump, and you nail them along with the recognition of our history of populism. Quick historical question: you state that Jackson’s leadership at the Battle of New Orleans was pivotal in keeping New Orleans in the US orbit. But wasn’t the battle famously fought 15 days after the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, formally ending the War of 1812? The outcome of the battle was important for Jackson’s reputation- a non-trivial consequence. But would it have changed the combatant’s spheres of influence if it had gone the other way, given that the treaty had already been signed?