The ghost of populism does not whisper, it roars. It speaks for the forgotten, the left behind, and the vulnerable, for those who have been cast aside. From the first Pilgrim to board to Mayflower, to the modern day, populism has played a pivotal role in political and social development of the United States. Populism is often motivated by a perception among middle class citizens that the government has been corrupted by the elite and has forgotten the voice of everyday people. Populists can be liberal, conservative, and everyone in between.
Few American populists remain as well-known as Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump. Often referred to as figures who stood up for the “common man,” their feisty personalities stand out from the ordinary. They have used similar words, but their different backgrounds, ways of leading, and effects on democracy reveal a more complex historical narrative.
As A.P. U.S History and American Studies teacher at Bronx Science, Dr. Todd Davis said, “It is the nature of their support that is similar, not always their actions. It is important to note that Jackson and Trump were acting in fundamentally different eras, and the two share many sthark differences, but despite that, their general appeal to the common man follows a strikingly similar pattern. Both men positioned themselves as outsiders fighting against a corrupt establishment, harnessing the frustrations of disenfranchised voters who felt abandoned by traditional elites.”
First, let’s look at Andrew Jackson. As a war hero, he won fame as a General in the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812 and for seizing Florida from Spanish possession. As an experienced politician, he served as the congressman, senator, and governor of the Florida territory. Jackson’s personality was anything but tranquil. The very characteristics that would have disqualified him in the 18th century qualified him to be elected in the 19th. Rather than elections being dominated by wealthy elite voices as they were in the elections of George Washington and John Adams, the elimination of property requirements in order to vote fundamentally altered the demographics of American voters. Thus, Jackson’s feisty personality and refusal to bow down to political correctness led many commoners who felt left behind by the current government to launch their support behind Jackson.
When most people today are asked what they know about Andrew Jackson, the first thing that they may think about is the Indian Removal Act of 1830. With this piece of legislation, the U.S government forced thousands of Native Americans to move west of the Mississippi River. Jackson’s attitude effectively infantilized thousands of Indigenous Americans who, Jackson argued, could not use the land as effectively as white Americans could. Moreover, in the context of populism, Jackson justified this policy of displacement as a way to give more land to poor white farmers. With this policy, he fulfilled his promise to help the “common man” while drawing a clear line on who he considered truly “American.”
Furthermore, Jackson’s “bank war” furthered his narrative of standing up for the common man. The National Bank was an elitist institution run by a man named Nicholas Biddle, who often loaned money to his business associates and later supported after Jackson’s opponents such as Whig Party leader Henry Clay. Thus, Jackson, as a presumptive champion of the “common man” vetoed the recharter of the Bank in 1832. Instead, Jackson put funds that were intended for the bank into state and local banks that he deemed were least elitist. Furthermore, Jackson began to detest the idea of currency so much that he issued the Specie Circular in 1837, which mandated that economic transactions had to involve “specie” (real gold and silver coins). These policies contributed to the Panic of 1837, one of the United States’ first major recessions in 1837. The bank was indeed elitist, and Jackson often touted his policy as beneficial for the common man, but in reality, it just pushed them down further.
Finally, as president, Jackson dealt with the Nullification Crisis of 1832 to 1833. During Jackson’s presidency, Congress passed the Tariff of 1828, or the Tariff of Abominations. Tariffs, which are taxes on imported goods, help American manufacturers because they make it harder to import important goods in the United States, and thus decrease foreign competition — allowing companies to raise their prices. This increase in prices was beneficial to the North’s industrial economy, but for the South, which was composed mainly of small yeoman farmers, it was devastating. South Carolina, under the leadership of Senator John C. Calhoun, wanted to nullify the tariff, threatening secession, claiming that it undermined state’s rights and autonomy. However, President Jackson, as a champion of executive authority, argued that he had the authority to enforce the tariff, because he was the only government official who was elected by the people in totality. Eventually the Speaker of the House, Henry Clay, negotiated the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which decreased the initial tariff and prevented tensions from escalating, but that did erase the mark that the tariff left. Interestingly, one of the main characteristics of Trump is his touting of the use of tariffs. Just like Jackson, Trump is a stark supporter of executive authority and the use of tariffs to benefit the U.S. at the expense of foreign countries.
Donald Trump’s presidency, while drastically different based on two different eras, contains the exact same traces of populism. His foreign policy as well domestic economic as showcase a populist backlash against a heavily globalized world. As Dr. Davis argues,” Trumps’s base consists of those who felt that they were being left behind or exploited by a neglectful elitist government that didn’t have their best efforts of heart. Trump talked about trade agreements as being bad for people. He talked about restoring jobs in the manufacturing economy, and he talked about excluding migrant competition for jobs. He talks about white jobs, all the time, to one degree or another.”
In both 2016 and 2024, Trump campaigned on the notion that he would put America and its citizens first in two main ways.
First, he would do so with the southern border. He argued that immigrants, mainly from South America, were committing mass crimes, taking American jobs and driving up prices. Although many of his statements regarding this subject were often exaggerated, it drove up mass support among Americans who had intense economic and social grievances that fed right into Trump’s narrative of prioritizing “left behind” real Americans. Just like Jackson, Trump’s border policies characterized him as a champion of the “common man” who stood up for Americans over foreigners.
Second, Trump would do so with economic policy. Trump’s main economic policies concern decreasing taxes domestically and increasing tariffs on foreign nations, both of which generally hurt the working class. For example, during his run for office in 2024, the majority of economists disliked his economic plan, and yet the majority of Americans still voted for him. Since the 1990s and the end of economic and cultural globalization, many businesses have left the United States to employ workers in foreign nations. Given the vibrancy that the American manufacturing industry used to have, many workers were begging for a repatriation of jobs, and Trump’s tax cuts and increased tariffs promised to do so.
Trump promised (and did) cut taxes for Americans across the board. While this is true, because A: the majority of the burden of paying taxes falls under working class Americans and B: the tax cut itself cut taxes more for wealthier Americans, the overwhelming benefits disproportionately help wealthier Americans. Additionally, Trump’s protectionist tariff policy promised to “tax” foreign countries and force companies to do businesses in the U.S. Specifically, Trump’s idea of tariffs is that taxing goods makes it more expensive for companies to import their goods in the U.S and thus preferable for them to not have to worry about them by making their goods directly in America. While this can look appealing to a voter, tariffs have usually led to higher prices, as foreign countries also respond with tariffs that do not give any country an economic advantage but rather raises prices across the board. Although Trump’s economic policy generally favored wealthier Americans, his supporters were mainly working class Americans who felt left behind and desperate for change.
In addition to the general trend of their policies, both Trump and Jackson have stark parallels that can only be attributed to coincidence. For example, both Jackson and Trump’s successors dealt with a stagnant economy that in many ways can be blamed directly on them. The Panic of 1837, discussed previously, was largely caused by Jackson’s Bank War, which decreased economic stability and out priced poor farmers. This recession disproportionately hurt working class Americans, but when he left office, Jackson was still incredibly popular because the effects of his bank policy transpired after his term when his successor Martin Van Buren became President.
Just as Martin Van Buren was afflicted by the economic recession caused by Jackson’s policies, Joe Biden was forced to inherit an economy battered by the impact of Trump’s Presidency. As the Panic of 1837 was in large measure a result of Jackson’s war against the national bank, the inflation and supply chain crisis that beset the early Biden administration can arguably be attributed to Trump’s tax cuts, trade policies, and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Van Buren took the blame for the economic collapse despite it stemming from the policies of Jackson, and Biden received the same for Americans as they struggled with growing costs and financial instability- ultimately resulting in Trump’s Reelection in 2024.
Overall, despite their differences, both Jackson and Trump share a common thread in their populist appeal and their ability to galvanize mass movements. Jackson’s presidency marked the rise of the “Jacksonian Democracy,” which expanded suffrage to all white men and emphasized the importance of the “common man” in American politics. Trump similarly mobilized a broad coalition of voters who felt disenfranchised by the political establishment, using modern tools like social media to connect with his supporters. This digital populism allowed Trump to bypass traditional media channels and shape public discourse in unprecedented ways.
Ultimately, the legacies of Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump reveal the dual-edged nature of populism in American politics. Both leaders rose to power by appealing to popular discontent and challenging the status quo, yet their presidencies also exposed the dangers of concentrating power in the executive branch. Jackson’s tenure underscored the potential for populism to expand democratic participation while also highlighting its capacity for exclusion and authoritarian tendencies. Trump’s presidency, meanwhile, demonstrated how populist rhetoric could be used to question the very foundations of democracy, leaving behind a deeply divided nation. Their presidencies serve as a stark reminder that while populism can ignite political movements and reshape the landscape of democracy, it also has the power to erode institutions, deepen divisions, and leave behind economic and political turmoil that lingers long after its champions have left office.
Their presidencies serve as a stark reminder that while populism can ignite political movements and reshape the landscape of democracy, it also has the power to erode institutions, deepen divisions, and leave behind economic and political turmoil that lingers long after its champions have left office.