"Jackson's quick temper was notorious. Brands says, "His audacity on behalf of the people earned him enemies who slandered him and defamed even his wife, Rachel. He dueled in her defense and his own, suffering grievous wounds that left him with bullet fragments lodged about his body." However, Remini is of the opinion that Jackson was often in control of his rage, and used it (and his fearsome reputation) as a tool to get what he wanted in his public and private affairs.
Brands also notes that his opponents were terrified of his temper:
- Observers likened him to a volcano, and only the most intrepid or recklessly curious cared to see it erupt…. His close associates all had stories of his blood-curling oaths, his summoning of the Almighty to loose His wrath upon some miscreant, typically followed by his own vow to hang the villain or blow him to perdition. Given his record – in duels, brawls, mutiny trials, and summary hearings – listeners had to take his vows seriously.
On the last day of the presidency, Jackson admitted that he had but two regrets, that he "had been unable to shoot Henry Clay or to hang John C. Calhoun. " Wiki on Jackson's Temperament
Some themes remain vital in human affairs for a very long time. A long standing one in the history of the English speaking peoples (Churchill's phrase) is the issue of whether or not government and its control over people's lives should be highly centralized in the service of the interest of metropolitan elites or widely dispersed among the people. This difference of opinion developed after Magna Carta and by the 17th Century had become a split in English life between the Country Party and the Court Party. That distinction was imported to North America and has remained an enduring feature of US political life to the present day.
In 1828, the main issues in the US presidential election were related to this old disagreement concerning governance. The incumbent president, John Quincy Adams, was in many ways an archetypical establishment figure. The son of the second president, he spent his entire life in the federal government, advocated positions that would be popular today in the Borg; emancipation, centralization of financial services and debt in the Second National Bank, etc. He so loved the federal government that, deprived of the White House in 1828, he ran for the House of Representatives where he then served for many years as a figure of the emerging Northern nationalist faction along with Daniel Webster and Henry Clay.
Opposing Adams was Andrew Jackson, the man he had defeated four years before when what was called a "corrupt bargain" was struck in the House of Representatives. Neither man had enough votes in the electoral college to be elected. Jackson was anything but an establishment creature. He was altogether a self made man who had clawed his way up from the bottom of the social order to become rich, powerful and a national military hero. He was rough and crude and he told the ordinary people that he would level the playing field for white men in the USA. He did not hesitate to encourage harsh and violent behavior and had himself personally supervised the removal to the trans-Mississippi of the highly Europeanized tribal Indians of the Southeastern US. Why? The Indians were in the way of the establishment of large scale agribusiness and the settlement of the region by whites and their black slaves. He was quite un-apologetic about all this. When Jackson was inaugurated he threw open the doors of the White House for a reception to which one and all were invited. The crowd famously tracked mud all over the rooms and carpets, stood on the needle point embroidered chairs and got gloriously drunk while they sang bawdy songs. He was re-elected for a second term and to this day is thought of by the Democratic Party as one of their two founding figures. The other being Thomas Jefferson, a somewhat different man, an aristocrat who chose to side with his beloved yeomen farmers.
Now we have Donald Trump, the grandson of a German immigrant from a little country town. The name was originally "Drumpf." Donald Trump's father and his son after him strove mightily and became rich in the dog eat dog world of New York City business where sharp elbows and an abrasive, abusive, bullying manner are requirements for success unless you have that magic commodity, "old money." If you have that, then you can be gracious. Donald trump's daughter, Ivanka, now has old money and is reported to me to be gracious. Donald Trump tells the mainly white spiritual descendants of Jackson's supporters that he will make them whole again both in their self image and in their pocketbooks. That is a powerful message in the face of left wing insistence that white voters are a wasting asset in America.
Opposing him we have the John Quincy Adams figures of the "modern" age; Hillary Clinton, who openly advocates minority interests in what Trump's supporters see as a zero-sum game of political and economic warfare, Bernie Sanders who seems a gentle, well mannered man but who nevertheless is openly in favor of the same kind of re-distributionist policies that most Trump supporters see as an effort to deprive them of control over their own destiny. And then in the background are the politicians, media flunkies, and political consultants for whom Trump threatens a re-definition of politics and parties. pl
“Country Party (Whigs) and the Court Party (Tories)”
Sorry to be pedantic but I’m fairly certain that in C18th England the Country Party were the Tories (Gaelic for “thief”) and the Court Party were the Whigs. The Whigs were the money party based in the City of London, whereas the Tories were the deep rural party where, as in my own county of Somerset, they still pronounce “furriners” with the old Anglo Saxon/Germanic “v” instead of “f”, as in “vurinners.”
No “Trumpf” and no “Drumpf” either: Donald Trump’s family from Kallstadt near Mannheim, Germany was (and is) called Trump. (The “u” is short in German and pronounced like “foot”). In the local dialect most “t”s are proncounced like a “d”, hence in the olden days “Trump” would have been “Drump”.
While the main German translation of the English term “trump” is indeed “Trumpf”, the meaning of the name Trump is likely derived from the French “tromper” which even exists in English: as in “trumped up charges”…
Here is a link to the “Wein und Gästehaus Trump” in Kallstadt, where a room sets you back an unglamorous 45 Euros per night and which is of course not owned by The Donald: https://www.tourisline.de/travelstore/control/walkin/showHotelDetails?agentid=6331&hotelid=h-t44I2AMGk=
Col. Lang –
I follow your writings on this committee closely, but have never commented before. I’m moved to write today because I think you demonstrate with this post a misjudgment of John Quincy Adams, and Alexander Hamilton.
That Jackson was a vicious traitor intentionally planted to accomplish the crushing of Hamilton’s National Bank is proven by his association with Aaron Burr, who first proposed a Jackson candidacy. Burr was certainly deployed by London forces to kill Hamilton and, in killing this genius, destroy the potential for an American political-economic system capable of eclipsing the power of the British Empire.
Throughout his long career, Quincy Adams was committed to a US policy of mutual benefit with other nations, emphatically including Russia. He intended a “community of principle” based on a common conception of the fundamental truth of the US republic: the inalienable rights of man. This was his devotion, as made clear by his principled and prolonged stand against slavery, both as President and later in the House.
The Burr/Jackson faction, which acted to destroy Hamilton and those who would continue his efforts at creating an industrial economic system outside of the reach of the British, followed the same logic as the “Borgist” faction of today: use demogoguery to maintain a fundamentally dysfunctional “system” of all against all, perpetual war, and bestial conditions for humanity. Burr was explicitly AGAINST the idea of a union, and repeatedly conspired to kill the young nation by breaking it up.
I consider this paper by Michael Kirsch very helpful in making the case: https://larouchepac.com/120712/myth-andrew-jackson-destroyed.
Thank you for considering. I believe it’s reasonably accurate to compare Trump to Jackson, but this background is necessary.
> wasting asset
It would appear the right wing is coming out of the closet on that too:
“National Review’s Kevin Williamson believes Donald Trump’s appeals to the white working class are “immoral” because that demographic’s way of life deserves to die out.
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible,” the conservative writer says. “The white American under-class is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul. If you want to live, get out of Garbutt [a blue-collar town in New York].”
(NR link is behind paywall)
Col. Lang, I agree. If Trump gets swept into power, it will be on the backs of white democrats. I listened to a stump speech he made in Maine, and he has definitely struck a chord with his denouncement of Trade deals and such. It is a better variation of the Sanders’ message. It will be a coup for him if he can get some Union to endorse him!
Thoroughly enjoyed this parallel from 1828. From the HBO series, it was portrayed that John Adams fancied the royal and aristocratic traditions of Europe, and looks like his son didn’t stray from that.
Why is it not obvious that America is at its finest as a liberal(old usage) democracy, than when it plays successor to the British empire. The Borg are indeed neo-colonialists who are no different from the British aristocracy. They share the same utter contempt for the common man, a belief that thay are above the law, and a God complex when it comes to playing with the lives of people in far away lands. This country was founded as a rejection of the ways of Britain. The more we diverge from their past, the better our future. Interesting that Obama threw Cameron under the bus on Libya. Looks like a Suez 2.0.
On a tangent, Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations which was widely disparaged by the self appointed thinkers is proving very prescient. Ukraine and Turkey are getting ripped apart as we know. I wonder if Australia is not very far away. There is considerable pressure on them to be our unsinkable aircraft carrier #2, but they have also been significantly penetrated by Chinese business and other interests.
Then there’s the big reason why there is so much hysterical hatred of Trump.
Thanks for your opinion. pl
OK. I suppose I had the 17th Century in mind. pl
Does it matter? pl
Tromper is to deceive, to trick, to Bullshit with gain to oneself in mind. An apt description of the Trupster I perceive. Ok in NY NY but questionable in wanting to become Laird of the kingdom, methinks. Back to tromper, just as Meunier in French which translates to Miller in English, there must have been professional tricksters in the old Shires.
Thanks for your posts. You are tough, soldiering on.
This is a change election like 1932, 1860 or 1828. There are parallels between Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump although one defeated the British and the other is a TV star.
Tonight, the Ohio primary will tell if the GOP establishment can fight off the challenge and force a brokered convention to choose anybody but Trump or Cruz. Hillary Clinton is the establishment’s chosen candidate. But, she stepped in it last week; praising the Reagans for starting a conversation on AIDS or saying ‘We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?’ She is so bad we will see if Bernie Sanders can repeat his Michigan victory tonight.
This election highlights the basic contradiction of having a democratic election in a country run by global aristocrats. Propaganda, a privatized judicial system and surveillance ceases to work when the majority of the people realize that they are being exploited by a very few rich snobs who are above the rule of law.
Any recommendations for a good biography of Andrew Jackson by a reputable historian?
“Donald Trump tells the mainly white spiritual descendants of Jackson’s supporters that he will make them whole again both in their self image and in their pocketbooks. That is a powerful message in the face of left wing insistence that white voters are a wasting asset in America.”
I’m not sure where you get the idea that the left regards white voters as a wasting asset. Did you mean “wasted asset”? AFAICT, there is no decisive difference between Sanders and Trump on the effects of offshoring and trade, but I’d welcome clarification. The neoliberal wing of the Democrats might fall under your characterization, in as much as they have tended to dismiss trade-related job loss as something that can be adjusted to in that long run in which we are all dead. One tag for them would be “extreme center,” but under the guidance of the DLC they’ve managed to shear off any ‘left’ pretense.
“Early had often been a guest in the Devereux home in Alexandria. Claude’s father and he had been allies in the Whig Party and had voted together against secession in 1861. Both men had decided after their defeat at the secession convention that their ultimate loyalty was to Virginia. Early could not imagine that Claude Devereux had urged Lincoln to remove himself from danger. He would have spurned the idea that a Devereux could do that.”
W. Patrick Lang (2012-03-07). Down the Sky: Volume Three of the “Strike The Tent” Trilogy (Kindle Locations 1486-1489). iUniverse. Kindle Edition.
Tory meant “outlaw”, not “thief”.
If you defend your country against invaders whose resources are superior and you carry a losing hand in a small space you get labelled accordingly by the invaders.
A bit like the “insurgents ” who colour the world today.
I get a kick out of those of you who want to nitpick my piece rather trying to understand its import. You missed your calling as editors. pl
The Claude Devereux of my creation pulled Lincoln off the rampart at Ft. Stevens in July, 1864 because he was torn by his various loyalties; to the South, to Virginia, to the blue uniform he wore and to Lincoln, his friend. How does this relate to my post today? pl
“I’m not sure where you get the idea that the left regards white voters as a wasting asset.” You obviously do not see the media commentary and attitude that I do. It is uniform in its statements that there are not enough white votes in the country to elect a president. Nor do you seem to have noticed that HC is running as though white votes do not matter. Well, we will learn if that is true. pl
I just heard the HRC’s Florida victory speech, unfortunately and sadly it reminded me of the then campaign informatial of her husband “the Kid from Hope” or something like that. I say sadly because it seems nothing has changed since 1992, the rhetoric hasn’t changed, the empty hope speeches haven’t changed, giving hope and having hope is not changed and I suppose we didn’t change either, and unfortunate because realistically the candidates didn’t changed they are the same empty hopes.
“That is a powerful message in the face of left wing insistence that white voters are a wasting asset in America.”
That certainly matches the emotional feeling I’ve witnessed in my recent business and personal travels across multiple states. Amongst working class men and women it has been pretty palpable. It’s pretty apparent to many that they are not the color of “lives (that) matter” to professional politicians and agitators. I am glad the still know ballots matter.
Because i had read somewhere that Devereauxs had been Whigs and was pleased to find it.
Perhaps oddly Jackson biographies abound but I find those most recent in time of interest since they rely on what might be called newly discovered evidence. Jackson is always worthy of study and disclosure my undergrad thesis for which I was awarded honors analyzed [largely from newspapers in Pennsylvania in various collections and the Library of Congress] Jacksonian Democracy in Western Pennsylvania. My major conclusion was that in that time and place Jackson’s followers were quite conservative.
The best work I know about the Jacksonian era is:
The Market Revolution:
Jacksonian America, 1815-1846
By Charles Sellers (Oxford University Press)
Here’s a link to a review I wrote of it for the Chicago Tribune:
A timely post IMO! Jackson a complicated person for a complicated time. If memory serves he won the popular vote in the elections of 1824, 1828, and 1832. But of course he lost in 1824 in the House of Representatives. Detailed scholarship has largely concluded that the period from 1820-1840 was highly unusual for many reasons. I believe I am correct the world record for females individually giving birth was set at that time in the U.S.A. and never matched elsewhere.
The analysis of de Toqueville of America in his visits reveals much more of interest during that period.
The odd coincidence of Tom Jefferson and John Adams dying almost the same day in 1826 seems amazing. John Quincy Adam was fluent in several languages and as a teen had served as Secretary to his father and others in both France and Russia.
Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville (French: [alɛksi ʃaʁl ɑ̃ʁi kleʁɛl də tɔkvil]; 29 July 1805 – 16 April 1859) was a French political thinker and historian best known for his works Democracy in America (appearing in two volumes: 1835 and 1840) and The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856). In both of these, he analyzed the improved living standards and social conditions of individuals, as well as their relationship to the market and state in Western societies. Democracy in America was published after Tocqueville’s travels in the United States, and is today considered an early work of sociology and political science.
Tocqueville was active in French politics, first under the July Monarchy (1830–48) and then during the Second Republic (1849–51) which succeeded the February 1848 Revolution. He retired from political life after Louis Napoléon Bonaparte’s 2 December 1851 coup, and thereafter began work on The Old Regime and the Revolution.
He argued that the importance of the French Revolution was to continue the process of modernizing and centralizing the French state which had begun under King Louis XIV. The failure of the Revolution came from the inexperience of the deputies who were too wedded to abstract Enlightenment ideals. Tocqueville was a classical liberal who advocated parliamentary government, but was skeptical of the extremes of democracy.
Claude and his father, Charles were Whigs until the party fell apart. Claude’s grandfather, Richard, was a Jacksonian Democrat. pl
A source of nits being picked might be people who consider themselves “left” who don’t consider Clinton or the DemParty Establishment or the MSM to be “left” at all. And some people are becoming aware of a difference between the culture-left and the dwindling vestiges of an older material-interest economic near-left to mid-left. Legacy holdover Representative Kaptur of the Youngstown, Ohio area might be an example of that, what with her bitter opposition to Free Trade Agreements before they got passed.
If Trump gets nominated and then elected, it could indeed take the country into at least the start of a “Trumpsonian” Revolution . . . wherever that may end up.
This is a decent, concise treatment of the demographic changes to the electorate over recent general elections. Note that the current cycle is projected to contain a 70% white electorate. I don’t think Hillary and her expert advisors are ignorant or dismissive of this fact, even if the media is shortsighted and easily distracted. She may be doing the usual thing; “in the primaries, play to your base, in the general, play the wider game.”
In contemplating the segment proportions, it is worth reminding ourselves that no segment, even blacks and whites, votes as a solid block – it is a deeper game about proportions, their relative shifts, trends over time and turnout. And let’s not forget those ineffable personal qualities of candidates, like charisma & gravitas. If it’s Trump v Clinton, it may be a race to the off-ramp.
I hope Trump is Jacksonian. I don’t know what he really believes and who he will pick as his advisors on economic and foreign policy. What I’m convinced however is that he is only candidate with the ability to defeat the Borg queen Hillary.
Clearly there is a strong anti-establishment mood among Republican primary voters. The Democrats seem more inclined to support the Borg. So, what does it say about the partisans in this year’s election season?
How many independents can Hillary and Trump attract? I’m a registered non-partisan voter in a Blue state. The only thing I’m certain about right now is that I can’t vote for Hillary. Just the thought of Bill & Hill back in the White House and all the drama is just too much!
Part of the history of Andrew Jackson was his opposition to a central bank, and he was able to successfully veto in 1832 the law that tried to recharter the Second Bank of the United States, and I am glad he did so. A central bank is presently here through the Federal Reserve Act that was slipped through Congress late in 1913.
The subjects of banking and money creation are obviously of interest to me, and an excellent book was published in 1833 and can be downloaded for free–
William M. Gouge, an advisor to Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, and others, wrote it, with the title, “A Short History of Paper Money and Banking in the United States, To Which is Prefixed an Inquiry Into the Principles of the System, With Consideration of Its Effects on Morals and Happiness”. Despite its title, the book is not really short, at 392 pages, and the pdf computer file with an introductory essay is 422 pages and is 24 megabytes in size. I took it to a print shop and got it printed out and bound in book form. Gouge also worked for the U.S. Treasury for over 20 years. The book is written in the older formal style, and reading it is kind of slow going, but it is very good in its descriptions as well as in its presentation of the history in this country up to 1833.
Larry! Missed this one but thanks to your review will obtain.
The best thing old Andy ever did was kill that abominable Bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve central bank of its time. Would to God that someone would be able to kill the $&&@ Fed today….
And if you want to talk about “a vicious traitor intentionally planted to accomplish the crushing of” the newborn United States, it would be that vile,loathsome, despicable creature Alexander Hamilton. His creation of the first central bank in the US, modeled on the Bank of England, was deliberately designed to enmesh the new nation in debilitating debt. Andrew Jackson is the ONLY President of the United States to have ever paid off the national debt (officially announced 8 Jan 1835).
And you have it 180 degrees backwards: Burr wasn’t London’s agent in America, Hamilton was! Everything that sorry SOB did was designed to have the US “elites” mimic the ways of the English ruling class, and to allow the English merchants and aristocrats to continue exploiting the new nation economically just as they had the 13 colonies. Hamilton was a shill for the financial elites in London.
Aaron Burr did a tremendous service to the nation by killing that traitor Hamilton in their duel, and it is only too unfortunate for the US that a bullet didn’t find that bastard’s skull in 1775.
There is a lot of talk inside the Democratic Party that a majority of Americans can be fashioned from a coalition of the brown (blacks, hispanics, mid eastern, etc) and progressive whites. However, given how the blacks have given over-whelming to Hillary, this progressive white wants no part of that coalition.
In this discussion I can find no reference to the Evangelical Christian section of the American electorate, particularly the Christian Zionist component of that section.
Might I ask, is that Christian Zionist component still a significant electoral force and if so how does it influence the current political scene?
Peter J A Wright
Well an Andrew Jackson comparison is far more applicable than the usual Hitler comparison.
People complaining that Trump is coarse and vulgar and therefore unfit to be President, maybe, but he still has a lot more class than LBJ. That is before we get into the allegations of his deep involvement in corruption, murder and vote rigging. People are being a little naive.
I thought this was a good article on Trump by a former British political consultant/strategist.
My problem with Trump is not his coarse behavior. A lot of that is performance art on the part of someone who thinks thus far only in terms of business dealing, negotiations, balance sheets and the like. For me it is much more important that he does not understand government other than as a business, which it is not. In re foreign policy he has NO advisers thus far, and although he is instinctively averse to expensive foreign ventures he seems to think that the expense of the thing is all that matters. pl
I think we’re living peak Race/Sex/Gender power politics, where those determining self interests will go out with Obama and Clinton. There are a lot of disaffected white people who are more populist than they think they are and will find a thundering voice in Trump. The irony of this is staggering when you have Trump being accused of fear mongering while the public is hammered of why they should be afraid of a Trump presidency.
He’s the ‘mad as hell’ guy from ’70’s, finally arrived, only the media elites are slaves to what he’s mad at. A conundrum.
Peter J A Wright
In this environment it appears that the many other problems faced by the citizens of the US are more important to voters than religious identity. Trump routinely takes fervent evangelical and charismatic Christians away from people like Cruz. Trump himself is an upper class Manhattan Presbyterian. In American terms this connotes someone for whom religion is less than the core element in his personality, and still that does not deter. pl
johnf, don’t confuse me.
I can see the way your mind might wander all the way home to Somerset. I can also see that wealth was easier in the cities. And the Whigs weren’t everybody’s either …
But the Whigs, as I recall were indeed the Country Party. Why should that have changed afterwards?
I hesitate a bit concerning your phonetics … but prefer to stay out of this here. Would take longer. 😉
LeAnder & johnf
The Whig/Tory is a distraction from the point of my piece. After looking at the sources again I see that the Whig/Tory thing became different after the mid-18th Century so I have changed the piece by referring to the “country party’ and the “court party.” pl
Cortes, actually, if I ever knew that I forgot it by now. Thus, I found that hint interesting.
Vaguely reminds me of the discussion on the use of what on the surface looks like a slur by TTG elsewhere. … Larger and more complex semiotic field. Ok hint: Countercultures, could Anti-Borgians be considered something like that, sometimes turn usage on its head.
I don’t think HRC “is running as though white votes do not matter.” I think she assumes that she’ll get a portion of the white vote, she won’t get a portion of it, and there’s not much she can do about that.
Diabolik, you missed the comedy routine and the apparently by now resulting merchandising aspects.
Seems you can wear a baseball cap to articulate your political position via these to basically German name variants – Trump versus Drumpf. It’s turned into a running gag.
But yes, you are correct.
Fact is though, you wouldn’t see it used on either one of David Horowitz sites. Politically and concerning the counter-culture he is deadly serious – you have to scroll down but you can see what his mind is busy with:
On his Freedom Center, apparently his study of the counter-culture by now mutated to that over the years. You can see he shares a lot of concerns with some in the SST community:
He also famously wrote: Hating Whitey.
I have to follow Trey’N’s basic hesitancy concerning La Rouche and/or some of the larger communities obsessions, to the extend I stumbled across them. … Not that some of the matters that drew my attention were only stored by the LaRouchians webwise, which I have to respect. Since the rest of our new Google-Universe and its multitude of sources managed to push it into the big black hole of oblivion.
Anyway here is your direct link:
lengthwise a bit above the average attention span. In any case above mine. Without a solid grasp of the larger historical context…
For 30 years, off and on, I’ve taught various forms of “Early U.S. History,” both here and abroad. Your thoughts on the character and importance of Andrew Jackson are insightful, and pretty much spot on.
The Age of Jackson (not quite Schlesinger’s version) has always been a hoot and a rich field for extracting “American archetypes” that recur every few generations. It’s probably not relevant that Jackson was the last U.S. president to fight (served as a courier, actually — but was wounded by a British officer when he got “uppity”) in the Revolution, but I’ve always made a point of noting it.
He wasn’t much of a political “philosopher,” but was a great personalizer. He had the flu during the “war on the Bank,” which he characterized to a friend: “The Bank is trying to kill me, but I shall kill the Bank.” He’s always been a role model for the “(white) man on the make,” someone who won’t let niceties like rules or the rights of others stand in the way of getting “what’s his, and then some.”
Given the oligarchic capture of both parties over the past 30 years (since the fall of Communism, ironically enough), this should be an interesting race.
Thanks. Seems to me you could say Jackson fought at New Orleans. pl
Sorry about sending a second version — the first didn’t show up as quickly as usual.
Yeah, Jackson’s military campaigns, Spanish Florida, the Red Stick campaign, the defense of New Orleans, all were representative of his growing command over events. His rag-tag force stood down a significantly larger British contingent, resulting in 2,000 British casualties (291 dead; 1,262 wounded, 484 captured or missing). While the city’s defenders (don’t forget Lafitte and the militias!) had 13 dead, 39 wounded, and 19 missing.
As a follow-on, of course, we have Jackson’s less than sterling actions as martial law administrator in the post-battle clean-up.
Again, thanks for the first rate piece — it’s good to have a perspective from our own history, and one that cuts a bit deeper into our past.
My intention wasn’t to distract.
But Court and Country was more complex even in earlier times. Since you used it as entry into the here and now, it triggered your “fly-over-country” associatively.
re: ” I believe I am correct the world record for females individually giving birth was set at that time in the U.S.A. and never matched elsewhere.” Exactly what do you mean here? Births per capita, or per female capita?
Re Adams and Jefferson, The DID die on the same day and it was on July 4, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
He broke the Law in regards to the Cherokee Nation and established that precedent. I do not understand why anyone would admire him for anything – was he not the ultimate carpet-bagger (before carpet-baggers?)
Thanks PirateLaddie, interesting. Even then a hero wasn’t quite what he seemed to be?
I noticed Larry Kart’s suggestion above.
What else could get me beyond mythical frontiers to get a grasp of the man and his times?
Am I correct that no DEM since LBJ in 1964 has won the majority of whites voting?
re: “A source of nits being picked might be people who consider themselves “left” who don’t consider Clinton or the DemParty Establishment or the MSM to be “left” at all.”
Yes! The New Deal coalition, the glue of which that held it all together was its strong advocacy of the economic interests of the lower tiers of the middle class, the working class and the dispossessed, has dissolved. The solvent was the Democratic Leadership Council which was formed in the mid 1980s in response to the Democratic Party’s growing funding disadvantage relative to the GOP. The Clintons were active DLC members and when Bill was elected in 1992 that faction took over the party machinery. Ever since then the party has been perpetrating a scam on its grass roots base, and that base is what’s behind both the Trump and Sanders phenomena.
I suspect that Ted Cruz is the major beneficiary of the Evangelical Christian support. He is said by some to be an avowed Christian Dominionist.
This morning in an interview on Morning Joe, Trump responded to a question about his foreign policy advisors that he was his own adviser- that he thinks on his own a lot. Agree that his experience is solely in business- and that doesn’t directly translate to government. He really does not understand government, nor foreign affairs.
Are people scared to become an adviser, I imagine for foreign policy it could be career suicide?
I get the impression he is a natural delegater, will set the overall vision, identifies those who can implement it and then seeks to simply mange those people. I noticed Kris Kobach’s comment was, in reply to Trump’s lack of experience in government, “The way he would operate as president is he would surround himself with a talented, conservative team,” Kobach said. “That’s exactly what Reagan did.” He has done it with Sessions (and Kobach) for immigration policies, he will find the right people for the other areas.
I still think he has more relevant experience than Obama did, so why not.
In a decade, the Aussie leadership will be more bilingual. Kevin Rudd was not an aberration.
Ted does appear to be a Christian dominionist. I’ve seen approximately zero media discussion of this point or its implications.
Something to consider in your parallel. Andrew Jackson, for all his many faults, was an accomplished businessman, general, and civil servant. He was a state representative and had been a member of a political group which had essentially hacked out services and communities where there were none. Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi owe him much for their existence and configuration, and that’s before he became President!
Trump is a semi-successful businessman and reality TV star. His accomplishments pail by the standard of a Jackson.
Of course, Jackson was elected by men who were creating a country over the bodies of their enemies and in a harsh environment. Trump is speaking for an air conditioned and couch potato lot by and large. America isn’t what it used to be and so our leaders aren’t what they used to be.
Honestly, I think you are giving Trump a great deal more credit than he deserves in this comparison, although, I respect your perspective in saying it.
” Old Hickory said we catch’em by surprise -if we didn’t fire a musket until we looked ’em in the eyes . So we held our fire until we could see their faces well – then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave ’em hell – ”
I don’t remember who wrote or recorded that song about the Battle of New Orleans ; but we all sang in East Texas growing up as kids …
“I’m mad too Eddie !”
Babak — oh, his selective use of the law against the Cherokee Nation is but one of Jackson’s sins. And may not be among the most scarlet, either.
Not sure what you mean by the carpet-bagger line, but I have few issues with folks who don’t like him. He had a number of sterling individual characteristics (as did Hermann Goering during his WWI days), but it’s often difficult to tell where a welcome degree of foolheartedness ends and psychosis begins
Yes, you’re correct.
Clinton has been beating Trump in most of the polls for about a year now.
No group as a whole has suffered economically under Obama more dramatically than blacks whose incomes and levels of wealth have cratered. Yet Hillary is able to play identity politics perfectly and capture those votes despite offering more of the same.
Hillary is a redistributionist all right, endorsing policies that shift wealth upward by destroying the economies that supported a middle-class, black or white.
Sanders as a redistributionist? Yeah, insofar as getting rid of a rigged system of trade deals, bankster first policies, and trickle down economic policies brings some economic balance back to the middle class.
The good news is that the white base that supports Trump also recognizes that those very same policies promoted by the gop establishment (and the dems like Hillary as well) haven’t done squat to improve their lives. So they’ve given a big fat No to those interests.
As the President of the United States, he was the highest magistrate in the land. Yet he refused to enforce the Law – specifically the US Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Cherokee Nation.
And then they tried to impeach Nixon and Clinton….
Perhaps Trump has decided to “Think outside the Borg” and wait until opponents get them on-board their campaigns so he can pick people who aren’t neocons. Perhaps Martin Dempsey available now that he is retired from active duty.
Yes, no majority of white votes since LBJ. Carter pulled in the second highest in 76 and Obama the third in 08.
Fred: I think Trump should stay quiet about his advisers. First, the pre-election advisors often don’t become nominees. Remember when Anthony Lake backed Obama upfront? He never got a job.
Second, a tried-and-true AIPAC/Neo Con tactic is to get “full commitments” on policy and personnel before the election so that everyone “stays on the reservation.”
Trump would be better served to repeat his catch phrase, “We’re going to look into that.” And not commit.
Thanks for this great link! Author Steven Hilton really gets what is going on. I will never forget his phrase “fetishises globalasation”, it such an unexpected but completely accurate description:
“… Trump is challenging not just some of the basic tenets of Republican ideas, but those of the Democrats too. The truth is, we live in a world that is run by bankers, bureaucrats and accountants. For decades, they have pushed a technocratic agenda that has been implemented by politicians of both Left and Right.
This agenda favours big business over small, fetishises globalisation, and is relaxed about immigration – regardless of the consequences for working people. As factories close, jobs disappear and wages fall, the response from the elite has been callous and inhuman: ‘This is the world we live in: suck it up and get with the programme.’
Well, people have had enough of being dismissed and patronised by the elite – who, by the way, do very nicely out of this technocratic agenda. Big businesses use their market dominance and unfair access to the levers of power to rip off consumers, exploit workers, and keep entrepreneurial competitors from challenging them. …”
I don’t want Trump as president but I am sick of the people who’ve been running things for their own benefit for years. Will we do what’s necessary to “take our country back”? I hope so. But the ones who’ve been running the show will fight very hard — and unfairly, too — to keep what they have.
PirateLaddie: They should rename the Battle of New Orleans the battle of the Scots-Irish versus the Anglo-Irish. Look at the roster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans
PF Khans: Jackson also lived in a time when insulting people could prove fatal.
The idea of removing all Indian tribes to the west of the Mississippi River did not originate with Andrew Jackson. It was around since the early days of the Republic, and became Thomas Jefferson’s official policy as President of the US. “Seeds of Destruction: Jeffersonian Philosophy and the American Indian” gives the details of how that brutal policy evolved from his original hope of assimilating the native peoples into the body politic.
And Andrew Jackson did not drive the Cherokees from Georgia onto the Trail of Tears. The State of Georgia did that on its own, in a massive land grab that eventually formed ten new counties in the NW corner of the state (the Cherokees living in the mountains of TN and NC remained in their ancestral home in the Great Smoky Mountains).
“Driven West: Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears to the Civil War” delves into the highly complex situation involving state vs Federal rights, the infighting between different factions of the Cherokee tribe, and the internal politics driving the Georgia actions.
My own roots have a deep tendril into early Georgia. I have a Cherokee ancestress who married into a white family that won land in one of the several lotteries, so I have perspective from both sides of the tragic issue.
If one believes in Karma, it is interesting to consider that many of those counties formed from the Cherokee lands were absolutely devastated in 1864 as Sherman advanced from Chattanooga to Atlanta….
Are these national polls or state polls? I’m curious about the traditional battleground states of Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
I would like to add to what I said above.
I think it’s important for people to be aware of how race is used to divide what, in many cases, should be a commonality of economic interests.
And not at all do I attribute this solely to the so-called “racist” republicans. Liberal democrats are masters of the divide and conquer strategy as well, as Hillary’s identity politics full well illustrate.
But Hillary isn’t alone of course–Trump plays that card too with his demonization of muslims and illegal immigrants. Keeping muslims out of the US based on their faith? My son was hospitalized at the Mayo clinic last month, and a substantial number of its staff are foreign born muslims. Whether the visa programs that brough them to Rochester MN are good or bad, Trump wants to keep them out, period.
Sanders of course was too chicken during a debate to declare that immigrants devalue wages, so he’s hardly immune to it himself.
My long-winded point is this: Trump and Sanders voters should be natural allies. The interests that Hillary, the dem establishment and the gop establishment all represent are not their friends.
Except race gets in the way, imho, to a large extent.
Yes — and?
As was noted earlier:
He’s always been a role model for the “(white) man on the make,” someone who won’t let niceties like rules or the rights of others stand in the way of getting “what’s his, and then some.”
Still & all, he was no Aaron Burr.
I don’t know who wrote it but Johnny Horton sang it (along with North to Alaska). We really date ourselves by remembering those songs. 🙂
This was Johnny Horton, who sang the Battle of New Orleans, part of the “historical saga” branch of commercial country music, done in the late 1950’s (recast by humorists Homer & Jethro as “The Battle of Lake Cucamonga” a bit later). It was actually written in 1936 by Jimmie Driftwood, a very successful Arkansas-based writer of ‘folk songs’ — an interesting concept if you ask me.
Apologies for not being around, of those of you I like know that I’m pretty busy with Real Life.
The reality about Trump is that he is the only person who is good (and the least likely to be pandering) on the National Question, Immigration. In related matters, Ohio showed itself to again be the Cuckeye State, and I hope Trump Caesar ships Syrian refugees to John Boehner’s district and then builds a big beautiful wall around it. Everything wrong with Boomer ideology can be seen in Ohio.
My jokes aside, the reaction to the Chicago mob action should have been an eye opener for who the Borg/Cathedral/Globalists are really scared of. The mask is slipping over there on the Progressive side. The problem is that Trump’s vanguard is full of Gay Nazi Bodybuilders such as myself and not mewling Ben Shapiro types. It’ll be an interesting season.
As for the question of “Who IS the Borg?” – well that’s pretty easily. Its the Globalists, headed by Reformist Jews who are acting under their Tikkum Olam license to meddle. A hundred years ago we would have called them “International Communists”. History doesn’t repeat but it sure rhymes.
I agree. He certainly knows he loses leverage if he’s the first one to put all his cards on the table.
alba etie, Jill, PirateLaddie,
Your mention of the song, “Battle of New Orleans”, seemed familiar, and after checking now, I remember and heard it a lot on the radio. The lyrics refer to “Colonel Jackson” and “Old Hickory”. The first link is a live recording, and the second one has better audio from a studio–
Johnny Horton? That is what you got out of my piece? Why am I doing this? pl
Sellers’ book has an interesting history. It was part of the then in process Oxford History of America series, but when Sellers turned in the manuscript it was judged by the series’ editors to be too radical from any number of points of view — among them its focus on the religious backdrop and/or religious upheavals of the times and on how strongly those currents shaped choices and behavior in the political realm — and another historian was engaged to write a book that would take the place of Sellers’ in the series, although Oxford U. Press agreed to publish Sellers’ book separately. There was a considerable fuss about all this; I have a pamphlet of interesting pro and con papers about the book that Sellers sent to me after I got in touch with him. A very nice man he was, not at all full of himself.
I see the comparison to Jackson as valid regarding the abrasive personality, but Jackson was a proper politician. He help build a nationwide political party of like-minded supporters who could help make changes.
What has Trump to work with if he becomes president? The same Congress as Obama which means that if Trump actually wants to implement new trade policies etc. he will have build some strange cross party coalitions in the House and Senate. Time consuming and not very likely.
“Andrew Jackson is the ONLY President of the United States to have ever paid off the national debt (officially announced 8 Jan 1835)”
Which created the first great depression, and stared a series of panics in the 19th C.
ANY COUNTRY that creates its own currency, like ours, and taxes to balance its federal government budget ,or run a surplus of USD, puts the people in deficit. And poverty.
Has to. Because the USD is a closed system: only the USG can create it.
Only the US federal government WORLDWIDE is the monopoly creator of the dollar. Unless you’re counterfeiting it.
Kevin Williamson is a snide vicious pundit, pontificating from his perch of NY restaurants and louche conservative touch-me-not society. His writing proves his lack of insight and empathy, nothing more.
Michael Daly interviewed the guy who first promoted Trump for President in 1988.
Dunbar describes himself as a working-class populist who feels “the political class has forgotten about us.”
“The world is full of people who are just working stiffs,” he says. “The whole system’s been rigged against us.”
He suggests regarding Trump, “He’s doing what guys like me would do it we had the platform. He’s saying, ‘The guys who run this country, you’re a bunch of incompetent idiots.’”
Dunbar allows, “He isn’t like us, we know that, but he talks like one of us. He thinks like one of us. That’s what he’s touching. We finally have a champion.”
Dunbar offers, “I think the attitude of the average guy is, ‘I like Trump because he’s not one of you, meaning the pols. Anything you have to say about him, I’m not going to take seriously because it comes from you. If I vote for one of you, I know what I’m going to get; I’m going to get betrayed again. I’m going to put my money on the guy who’s not going to screw me.”
Dunbar adds, “I got nothing to lose by voting for Trump because I’m going to get screwed by voting for mainstream politics.”
“A central bank is presently here through the Federal Reserve Act that was slipped through Congress late in 1913.”
That’s a myth made popular by G. Edward Griffin, et al, and started from a single sentence in Paul Samuelson’s [first Nobel winner in Economics] seminal 1947 book, “Principles of Economics.” Also wrong; written in hearsay.
Thanks Larry! Book on order and have been making my way through Edward Jean Smith’s Presidential biographies. Have also read the first 4 volumes on LBJ by Caro. At this point I guess American history now wrapped into Presidential histories [often by non-professional historians] but this leaving out so very very much of the complications of the United States.
The U.S. has been lucky to have largely avoided scoundrels in the Presidency. This may be about to change permanently by the major party candidates whose main expertise is self-dealing. IMO of course.
When talking of “births” usually mean female.
Jackson’s opposition to the Bank recharter was largely due to the self-dealing of bank officers–self-dealing- and their expenditure of bank funds to enrich themselves.
Did Jackson lead at Battle of New Orleans? Fighting RED STICK?
How about IKE?
Jackson famously quoted [perhaps in error?] as referring to SCOTUS decision on Native Americans in Georgia–Let them enforce it. He also was a slave holder and active slave trader. But he did use language opposing S. Carolina on succession later incorporated by Lincoln.
He was deeply flawed yet if one were to trace the rise of the A PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT one must study Jackson.
And his dislike for his first VP-John C. Calhoun–one with immense implications for that seminal event in American history–The WBS!
Born in Western N.C. Jackson spent most of his life before the Presidency west of the Appalachian Mountains.
Jackson’s sense of personal honor is almost incomprehensible for the current generation. It ruled his grasp of politics and personal relations and military capacity. No one who knew him doubted his largely warrior ethos but his refined manners often deceived even those who knew him best.
As Shakespeare has Marc Antony declaring post-mortum of Julius Ceasar–All then world could stand up and say HERE WAS A MAN!
That’s a good question. They’re national polls. Real Clear Politics has good coverage of the latest polls, both nationally, and state. Here’s the link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
In NC, Trump’s up in the majority of the polls. In the other three states you’re curious about, Clinton is. Funny, most of the other Republican candidates poll better Trump does against Clinton nationally. Also, Sanders beats all of the Republicans in the majority of the polls. We’ll see.
Larry, thanks for linking to your review.
I wondered if he “is” (your “was” triggered this) still alive. Wouldn’t there be a obituary otherwise?
If you scroll down here is a short critical assessment by a member of
Thomas V. DiBacco belongs into the Friends of Business history. No doubt.
“its focus on the religious backdrop and/or religious upheavals of the times and on how strongly those currents shaped choices and behavior in the political realm”
The Mormons were outside his scope, I guess? Can’t help but they somewhat trigger prejudices about the use of religion as a specific competitive advantage in the struggle for land in the 19th century. On the other hand they may be a creature of their times and religious trends.
What’s on your mind concerning the upheavals?
Here’s some information about the controversy over Sellers’ book, in the course of a review of the book that replaced it in the series, Daniel Walker Howe’s “What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848”:
C. Van Woodward, no less, was the series editor who rejected Sellers’ book.
As far as I know, Sellers (b. 1923) is still with us.
Leander — As for DiBacco’s complaint about the nature of Sellers’ language and terms (or jargon), my recollection is that in the context of the book all this is lucid enough and not off-putting, though Sellers often is thinking very hard inside his own head, so to speak, and he tends at times to cut corners/rush
ahead in order to get where he’s going and get it all out; it’s a very urgent book, excitingly so. Yes, the Mormons were outside his scope IIRC. My own view of what he says about the religious upheavals of the time and their effect on the vulture as a whole, and political behavior in particular, was (at least at the time when I read the book) astonishment at how little I knew about all this material and how often other historians seem to push religious matters/issues in American history over to one side and treat them in virtual isolation and/or as mere backdrop. Once one encounters a well-grounded attempt, like Sellers’, to integrate and trace the lines of force, interaction, and influence among religion, politics, economic development, etc. in American history, particularly in the 19th Century, any less-integrated approach seems inadequate.
If TTP/TTIP/TISA/ etc. are not yet signed by Obama upon the date of his leaving office, and Trump wins the election; Trump just has to refuse to sign them if they reach his desk. That would be within his power. Rejecting any more FTAs would be a “new policy” that he wouldn’t need to work “with” Congress to begin. He could then dare Congress to override his veto, while subjecting all potential Free Trade Treasonists to every sort of ridicule and insult and pressure.
A President Trump would only need to put together just enough Tea Party Republicans and old legacy New Dealer-type Democrats to prevent the Congress from reaching its 2/3rds override threshhold.
He could then campaign against Free Trade supporter in their next election. If any Free Trade supporters were to be primaried, he could campaign for their primary opponents. Any number of Sandernistas with their own grudges against Main Stream Democrats might also be recruitable into a campaign to purge and burn certain Free Trade Democrats out of office.
Next up in our playlist is Marty Robinson’s “El Paso ”
“I picked a good one looked like it could run .. ”
Long ago when the grass was green & the world was young I took a couple of classes from Prof Archie Green at University of Texas we covered Jimmie Driftwood – If memory serves Mr Driftwood was part of the Lomax recordings ,,,
We digressed, we apologize . Back on topic – HRC is now saying she is for smart power in the context of the Libyan post intervention disintegration ; not overseas military interventions that foster regieme change . Perhaps Secretary of State Clinton is trying to reclaim the Jefferson Mantle from the neo cons ? But didn’t Jefferson send the Marines to Tripoli too ?
Yes, and the man who was sworn to uphold the Constitution and Laws of the United State broke his oath.
He lied and cheated all right; not sure you want him to be role model for anyone.
Upon looking again at Sellers’ book, I see that he does speak about the early days of Mormonism — fascinatingly so, it seems to me, but perhaps a Mormon might feel otherwise. Also, in my last post, I mean to say “culture,” not “vulture.”
I did not realize that you are the Larry Kart of the Chicago news media. I have read your Chicago Tribune articles numerous times (including the Chicago Reader as well?). You were a member of the last vestiges of impartial professional journalism which is sorely lacking today.
It’s funny, I searched the Chicago Public Library for a copy to borrow and the title was not found in the search algorithm. I will attempt other sources.
Appreciate the information and triggered memories.
not least since you answered a question, I didn’t even ask. 😉
Yes, I am that Larry Kart (retired from the Tribune since 2004 after 25 years there). Never wrote for the Chicago Reader, though I had one good friend there, film critic Dave Kehr, who is now adjunct curator of film at the Museum of Modern Art.
IMO the Oxford series on American history worth any investment of reading time. A gift to the American people.
Jefferson sent most of the Navy to fight the barbary pirates. That is hardly analogous to what occurred with Libya.
Fred: Otherwise, this happens. See http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-17/cruz-assembles-an-unlikely-team-of-foreign-policy-rivals
If this crowd is teaching Cruz about foreign policy, Cruz will be a very dangerous president.
You were an arts critic (besides books) as I recall?
I was a neighbor, in Beverly, of (the late) Bob Davis, a colleague of yours (?) and have followed David Kehr as well.
It’s a pleasure!
I was so lucky as to have Larry Kart review my trilogy of novels. pl
Yes, he can block new trade deals but it would not change the existing trade agreements. They are the ones which has brought forth the anger of US industrial jobs being exported to Mexico etc.
If he wants to roll back the existing agreements he needs more broad-based support. Else it will just be a matter of waiting him out of the White House. Four or possibly eight years with little change and Trump is in the past. Trump may not be beholden to a rich sugar daddy but how many Congressmen can say the same?
Ah! MRW back again peddling the snake-oil that government spending to infinity is the holy grail. And making the argument of causation at best on tenuous correlation.
Even a Soviet commissar despondent at the failure of central planning has given up the ghost. But…faith-based theories of free lunches have such a magical appeal.
Thanks for the link LondonBob.
It confirms the obvious that both the left and right want big government because each of them believe they’ll get the cheese. But the reality as it turns out is that big government only benefits the oligarchy.
But….then there are folks like MRW who peddle faith-based theories of free lunches. Now who doesn’t like a free lunch? It turns out however the net result over a period of time is that the working and middle classes keep falling behind. The Democrat primary voters by and large believe the status quo will keep the freebies rolling. Many Republicans see their party establishment is screwing them blind and want anybody that seems to be not beholden. Trump is the beneficiary of this angst.
Successfully blocking new trade deals (which would only produce more worse-of-the-same) might encourage people to think it is actually possible to circle back and cancel trade deals already existing. People might then be encouraged to work in that direction.
My original tag was Night Life Critic (that was the title of my predecessor, the late Will Leonard, when it was kind of the “saloon beat”). I wrote about all the pop music this side of rock ‘n’ roll, jazz (my first love), comedy (lots of stand-up acts and Second City, too — I loved writing about comedy), and did a good many movie and theater reviews, plus lots of (as they say) celebrity interviews. Eventually I became the editor of the Books section, then an editor in the so-called Friday section before I took a buyout offer. I once sat down and figured that in a vintage year I had some 65,000 words printed in the paper. Best thing about the job was the people I worked with. I do remember Bob Davis.
It all comes back to me; I probably have read all of your articles.
Having listened to WXRT in my youth, I now listen to WDCB!
Truly an honor to have communicated with you.
There are supposedly 56 Chinese dialects but some estimate over 80% of all internet traffic and blogs in Mandarin! Thoughts?
My copy arrived and almost finished. A brilliant analysis and suggest all Trump supporters and opponents read it. IMO the book establishes TRUMP as a true conservative and most conservative of all the candidates. Why? His wealth and heritage inbedded in property ownership and development.
Completely agree! Unfortunately my undergrad thesis focused exclusive on what passed for media coverage of Jacksonian Democracy in W. PA but the Selleers books seems to be confirmatory of my analysis.
Disclosure: One of my Grandmothers grew up in Chicago speaking only German until age 16. Mu father went to U. of Chicago for graduate work.
been here, thanks. 😉
if it had been a Freudian slip, I would have appreciated it. On the other hand on a German keyboard the c is also close to the v.
take care, thanks, helpful.
Ah! MRW back again peddling the snake-oil that government spending to infinity is the holy grail.
NEVER said that. Ever. Not ever. You don’t understand national accounting, bub. Check the US Treasury’s daily checkbook. If you know how to read one. Data doesn’t lie.
As of March 17, 2016, the US Treasury has created $38.5 trillion. Hear that anywhere? (Table III-A)
Check out end of fiscal year 2015 (Sept. 30): the US federal government created $60.8 trillion in NEW US DOLLARS (albeit the majority was NOT in physical currency.)
Someone tell Lightning Joe Scarborough that AJ was a large scale slave owner. he said the opposite today. pl
Ten months on, and in a state of imminence, are you any more comfortable with Trump’s foreign policy positions and advisors?
This morning C Span Washington Journal (an increasingly useless investment of time) asked if listeners were “excited” or not about inauguration.
I am eager to see Trump in position because that will mean Ash Carter is out, and perhaps the dire situation in Syria will be addressed, forcefully, in a Jacksonian way.
btw the comparison of Jackson to Trump was elegant to read. Thank you.
Bad day to watch _Fail-Safe_(1964).
Ho hum! Sure, trump is looking to start a war? pl
Does it matter? It shouldn’t, but the transliteration “Drumpf” was used to ridicule Trump during the election even though it was incorrect.
IMHO it would be a worse such day if Hilary had won.
One wonders what fate Jackson had in mind for the third member of that early 19th century Congressional triumverate, Daniel Webster.
Have you noticed that the famous host of family feud along with MLK family members are now being roasted over the leftist coals for their daring to endorse and meet with the Trump one. Steve Harvey wants to make the inner cities great again which is what his meeting with the Trump one was all about, and MLK III meet with Trump was that MLK III sees Trump being ‘good for ALL Americans’ notice no mention of ‘minority’ stuff which sent the leftist coals into apoplectic stews.
Then what seems to be missed by many is the part of the voting part of America doesn’t give a hang about ‘foreign policy’, many want our nation’s once ‘isolationist’ view of life to once again rein supreme.
Then we have the hog troughs known as NATO and the CIA, which a great many of the voting populace see as both antiquated mantle pieces that no longer serve our nation’s interests and our nation’s good. Many are voicing that both of the hog troughs mentioned need to be tossed into the waste bin of history. Sooner rather than later.
Seems that the Trump one is listening to the cries of the people over the elitist and ingrained hog trough hierarchies.
Do we possibly have new American Shakespeare play in the works? Hmm……
Well, some positions J. Q. Adams advocated might be popular today in what you call “the Borg”.
However, Adams strenuously argued against busy-body policies of intervening in much of the world outside of America
in one of his most famous speeches,
where he advocated a position diametrically opposite to interventionism:
‘She Goes Not Abroad in Search of Monsters to Destroy’
Here is an excerpt, with some emphasis added:
Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled,
there will her [America’s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice,
and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own,
were they even the banners of foreign independence,
she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication,
in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition,
which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.
The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence;
but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power.
She might become the dictatress of the world:
she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.
“Trump supporters see as an effort to deprive them of control over their own destiny.”
I’d really like to see this unpacked as a practical exercise in how this ideological idea, that the welfare state should be largely erased for the sake of liberating personal industry and responsibility, actually would create new favorable conditions in, say, Youngstown, Ohio.
I’d like to agree with you, but I’m sceptical. I can’t recall any up-and-coming Commonwealth politician who has been lauded for their skills at becoming proficient in a second language, like Rudd was. If they’re not in Parliament already, they’ll have to hurry if they want the leadership within ten years.
The professionalization of Australian politics has meant that aspiring politicians go from university with a law, politics, or economics degree, work as a party research officer or in a MP’s office, then stand for election. This fairly narrow career path mitigates against developing skills not relevant to the immediate task of climbing the greasy pole.
Any bilinguality will most likely come from politicians with ethnic/migrant backgrounds- like Arabic speakers Ann Aly and Ed Husic. For non-Australian SST readers, Ann Aly will be interesting to watch- she’s an ex-academic anti-terrorism expert.