Andrew Jackson was the seventh President of the United States and the first President who was not born to a family of privilege. Jackson, in many circles, is considered the founder of the modern Democratic Party and champion of the "common man." In Jackson's time, voting rights were extended to non-property owning white men; these men became the base of the Jackson's political support.
The political principles of Andrew Jackson tell a much different story than the narrative that says Jackson opposed the creation of wealth. Jackson believed in strict interpretation of the Constitution, limited government, sound money and strong national defense. He opposed federal subsidies to corporations for private-public partnerships; then called "internal improvements," now called "stimulus" or targeted government "investments." As President, Jackson reduced the protective tariff; though apparently not enough for his Vice President John C. Calhoun to threaten the succession of South Carolina.
One of his premiere accomplishments as President was revoking the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson's opposition to the Bank was rooted in his distrust of concentrated federal authority and the collaboration of the banking elite and the federal government to use the banks for the purposes of the few, at the expense of the many. Having just finished the book American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House by Jon Meachem, the Jacksonian philosophy could be summerized in one selected piece the President wrote:
Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantage artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratitudes and exclusive privileges, to make rich richer and potent more powerful, the humble members of society--farmers, mechanics and laborers--who have neither the time or means of securing nice favors to themselves, have the right to complain of the injustices of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. If evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rain, showers its favors alike on the high and low, the rich and poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.
Jackson's brand of political populism strikes chords with those on the left and right of the political spectrum. His synonymous association with the Democratic Party, however, is a distraction from his true political principles; those principles of limited government. For example, modern day liberals may be calling the public employee reforms taking place in Wisconsin and Ohio is a disguise for "corporate oligarchy." Jacksonian principles might suggest that the monopolistic power of public employees unions should be broken; not to mention the government deficit, eliminated. Jackson called for equal treatment of people of all economic classes and would likely oppose the Marxist call for class warfare.
Jacksonian principles stood for what Russell Kirk called John Adam's theory of "equality under the law." While Kirk gave attention to the political thought of Jackson's moderns, John Quincy Adams and John C. Calhoun, in his classic work, The Conservative Mind, no attention was given to Jackson. The modern conservative movement may want to give Andrew Jackson a closer look.
2 comments:
I wonder if there's danger in looking to Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson as conservative leaders?
While they embody many principles that promote conservative ideals (limited government), they also have ideas or actions that oppose them.
Jefferson, for example, proclaimed the problem with national debt, borrowing, and an expansive nation - and while President he enacted the Louisiana Purchase, the largest single expansion of our nation.
This isn't to denigrate great men, but merely to urge caution at what we revere - or perhaps to encourage the discussion of drawbacks that prevented them (and their current followers) from being better conservators of our nation.
Russell Kirk never considered either Jefferson or Jackson to be of the conservative tradition. Jackson did indeed expand the power of the Executive Branch, but also did so to limit the power of other institutions, like the National bank or his vetoes on spending bills.
Jefferson did not believe in a strong Presidency, in fact worked against the Federalist's attempts to expand Executive Power. But, yes, as you mentioned he did expand the land mass of the US....not sure if you would consider expansionism in terms of political philosophy?
Jackson believed the Presidency was a check on Congress and government institutions. He also believed he represented the "Will of the People." Modern conservatives tend to support many of the Jacksonian expansions of Executive power, particularly vetoes on spending.
Post a Comment