This period in American politics may seem extraordinary. Donald Trump’s critics, in particular, portray him as unprecedented.
November’s election was a comeback for the ages—a return to power of a man who maintains that his opponent stole the presidency from him four years prior. Washington’s cultural and political establishment was aghast at the heartland rabble that flocked to the inauguration.
Accompanied by a fervent army of outsiders, he wasted no time exercising his presidential authority. He promptly attacked the country’s elites in politics, media, business and culture. Antiestablishment to his core, he began firing federal employees left and right, justifying his actions with allegations of waste, fraud, abuse and incompetence.
The president’s flood of executive actions caused critical media and political opponents to depict him as a would-be king. He antagonized leaders of foreign countries—starting with Denmark—over what he felt the U.S. was due. He further infuriated global opinion by saying a neighboring country should be made a state. On the economic front, he defended high tariffs and picked a fight with the central bank over interest rates.
But the truth is, none of this is new. America has seen it all before, nearly 200 years ago, in the person of Andrew Jackson.
Jackson’s election in 1828 was a similar repudiation of his predecessor, who he claimed had beaten him in the last cycle through “a corrupt bargain.” In 1824, Jackson won 40.5% in a four-man race, carried 11 of 24 states, and received a plurality of electoral votes. But he was 32 electors short of a majority.
When the House took up the contest in February 1825, four states flipped that had voted for Jackson in the fall. November’s second-place finisher, John Quincy Adams, grabbed 13 of 24 states and the White House. “The people” have “been cheated,” Jackson reportedly said. “Corruptions and intrigues . . . defeated the will of the people.” He decisively won a rematch four years later with Vice President John Calhoun of South Carolina as his running mate.
During Jackson’s inaugural, celebrating supporters clogged the streets, packed the Capitol to shake his hand, then mobbed the White House. One astonished local compared it to “the inundation of the northern barbarians into Rome.” You can imagine a K Street suit saying the same of MAGA crowds.
Jackson, like Mr. Trump, castigated the establishment of his time, telling his wife in 1824 he’d “save the nation from the rule of Demagogues.” Upon taking power, he immediately had longtime government employees—in his own words—“unceremoniously removed,” believing democracy would be refreshed by “rotation in office.”
Jackson wanted to increase the presidency’s power. His imperious actions and tendency to ignore Congress led opponents to caricature him in 1832 as “King Andrew the First,” wearing a crown and robes and brandishing a scepter.
He got into a dispute with Denmark and other European powers over spoliation claims for American ships seized during the Napoleonic Wars. Jackson wanted Texas—part of Mexico before it declared independence in 1836—to become a state. He presided over the “Tariff of Abominations,” levies so high that South Carolina threatened secession over them in 1832. He vehemently opposed the Second Bank of America’s high interest rates.
Both presidents were self-obsessed personalities, strident partisans and vengeful. But there are notable differences. Jackson was a war hero; Mr. Trump isn’t. Jackson was born into poverty, Mr. Trump into wealth. Jackson wanted to prevent corruption; Mr. Trump had no qualms about issuing his own crypto while president-elect. Jackson paid off the national debt; Mr. Trump added massively to it in his first term.
