Trump: A 19th-Century President in the 21st-Century
Global markets have been reeling this spring because of the actions of a single man: US President Donald Trump. Trump has pursued, and then walked back from, a broad policy of tariffs on almost every country that the US does business with. But why? Why is the American president so determined to wreck the global balance of trade? The reason is that Trump is a 19th-century president, a relic of a bygone era.
Unlike most American presidents, Trump didn’t seek the office with many clear policy goals, merely the “concepts of a plan” he presented during last year’s presidential debate. Trump sought the presidency to satiate his own bloated, gold-crusted ego. Indeed, Trump has been eyeing the presidency since at least the 1980s, and then just as now, he craved approval above all else. In the 1980s, Donald sought money and wealth; now, it appears to be something more nefarious that he's after: the undying loyalty of an entire subset of the American people.
While his public views on a great many issues have changed throughout his decades in the spotlight, it's unfair and inaccurate to say Trump has no ideological consistency. The political “principles,” such as protectionism and immigration restrictions, that Trump has held on to for decades must be considered through the lens of a man who values projecting an image of success over anything else. One point of consistency for Trump has been trade. Trump has always raged about how “unfair” global trade is for the US, and his protectionist rhetoric, opposing NAFTA and supporting tariffs, did help him win over the rust belt, and by extension, the presidency in 2016.
The difference between Trump’s trade rhetoric in 2016 and today is its specificity. In 2016, Trump promised the oft-forgotten Rust Belt that he would fix their rotting conditions because he is a “businessman” who knows how to create wealth, with superior “negotiation skills” a la The Art of the Deal. The problem Trump has to contend with in his second term is that he didn't fulfill his promise to save manufacturing the last time he was president. Today, Trump is pursuing a far more targeted policy of across-the-board tariffs. Trump didn’t enter his first presidency with a plan, but he knew he needed one this time to avoid the failures of his first term.
What is a conservative president in desperate need of an actual plan to do? Look to the past, of course!
Trump has seemingly settled on two 19th-century presidents as his prototypes: Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) and William McKinley (1897-1901). The tariffs, in particular, draw heavy inspiration from McKinley, down to an intention to coax Canada into joining the US. McKinley’s tariffs levied heavy taxes on foreign goods with the goal of protecting domestic industry. However, the tariffs didn't actually make “our country very rich,” as the president claims, and McKinley even came to regret his tariffs.
America’s late 19th-century “prosperity” can be analyzed in two ways with regard to protectionist trade policies. On one hand, the 19th-century “gilded age” wasn’t great for anyone who wasn’t an obscenely wealthy captain of industry. Wealth inequality in the country reached its zenith during the “Gilded Age,” and the majority of people, especially immigrants, lived in abject poverty, working up to 12 hours a day for minimal compensation.
It is true that America’s economy grew rapidly during the late 19th century, but tariffs had very little to do with the boom. With its natural wealth and laissez-faire government, it was always inevitable that America would become a leading global economy, with protectionism serving as an impediment to growth, reasons economist Douglas Irwin. Trump’s tariffs are nearly guaranteed to similarly inhibit growth by raising prices an average of 2.3% this year. In a market economy such as ours, higher prices mean less consumer activity, which in turn means less incentive to produce, leading to inevitable job loss and wage reduction.
Trump’s embrace of McKinley originated during his 2024 presidential run and has carried over into the early days of his second presidency. In contrast, Trump’s fascination with Andrew Jackson dates back to his first presidency.
Jackson is perhaps best known for his cruel “Indian Removal” policy, and many will remember the controversial family-separation policies of Trump’s first term in a similar light. Jackson is regarded as the first “populist” president in American history, despite being a wealthy slave owner, while Trump played a role in rekindling populism in American politics despite being a billionaire who is known to mistreat both his employees and tenants. The policy parallels between the two presidents are pronounced.
Jackson also asserted the executive branch's power in ways deemed illegal at the time but got away with it, permanently altering the dynamics of our government. Jackson challenged the separate and co-equal judicial branch by defying court rulings, as he did in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832). Jackson took a shot at federalism by bullying state governments into submission, as he did during the nullification crisis.
So far during his second presidency, Trump has sought to expand executive power along very similar lines, defying court orders in multiple instances and threatening state governments and other institutions with funding cuts, directly undermining Congress’s "power of the purse.” With respect to court orders, Trump’s Vice President, JD Vance, has justified the administration’s defiance by challenging the authority courts have to enforce rulings. In a strikingly similar sentiment to Vance, Jackson is famously quoted as saying, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it” in the aftermath of Worcester v. Georgia.
Trump’s expansionist ambitions to take over Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Canada can’t be as cleanly attributed to a single president but are a product of American imperialism. American imperialism was manifested through the presidents of the era. Polk annexed Texas, Monroe penned his eponymous doctrine, and of course, Jackson sent numerous native tribes down the “Trail of Tears.” The America of the 19th century and into the early 20th century was marked by a type of naked land-grabbing, evidenced by the systematic removal of Native tribes and disregard of sovereignty, evidenced by the colonization of numerous nations that Trump proposes we return to.
Trump doesn’t only use policy to express his admiration for Jackson and McKinley. Trump tells the public of his feelings towards the two 19th-century presidents in much simpler terms. For example, Trump’s Oval Office prominently features a portrait of Andrew Jackson, and he has done what he can to keep the 7th President on the $20 bill instead of going along with the plan to feature abolitionist Harriet Tubman. Mere weeks ago, Trump announced that he was renaming Mount Denali back to its original name, honoring McKinley.
The combination of flattery and policy lays bare Donald Trump’s modeling off of Andrew Jackson and William McKinley, which should concern us all. America is a very different place than in the 19th century, overwhelmingly for the better. In just the past few decades, we have made real strides towards addressing this nation’s horrendous history of racism and ethnic cleansing. Women gained actual autonomy over their bodies, and LGBTQ Americans became increasingly less marginalized. Despite the progress, we still had a ways to go, but we were moving forward. Trump’s 19th-century presidency won’t just stop this country’s social progress; it has the potential to send us back to the days of Jackson and McKinley, and we cannot stand for that.