Jacksonians focus inward, taking a profoundly nationalist approach that prioritizes domestic over foreign policy. But they are also perfectly happy to spend on the military and entirely willing to fight over issues that they perceive to be central to U.S. interests. As the historian Hal Brands describes it, “their aim in fighting [is] American victory, not the salvation of the world.”If Trump is indeed a Jacksonian, it marks a notably nationalist turn in U.S. foreign policy—perhaps, even, the end of the era of almost unchallenged Wilsonianism that saw the United States as the world’s “indispensable nation.” Presidents since George H.W. Bush have sometimes embraced Jacksonian policies but have in the main pushed some larger vision of a U.S.-led world order.
Joel Leggett and I both advocated for this approach way back in the old days of blogging. I also used to remind people that "Jacksonian" should remember James Jackson as well as Andrew Jackson, both early American duelists and both veterans of her wars for liberty.
4 comments:
The article's tut-tutting about how this approach worked these last few times but in the future situations are likely to be more intractable set my teeth on edge. In skimming through Walter Russell Mead's essay on the Jacksonian tradition, I ran across this which seems to echo my reaction:
Jacksonians believe that Gordian Knots are there to be cut. In public controversies, the side that is always giving you reasons why something can’t be done, and is endlessly telling you that the popular view isn’t sufficiently "sophisticated" or "nuanced"—that is the side that doesn’t want you to know what it is doing, and it is not to be trusted.
Link:
https://erbosoft.com/ussclueless/external/Mead01.html
Via:
https://x.com/Jringo1508/status/1893051923504275731
(which has a quick summary of the four approaches)
Joel and I beat Dr Mead to it by a few years. The oldest reference here was 2004.
I didn't intend to imply that Dr Mead beat y'all to it - I never looked at dates. I simply thought it was interesting that Mead's article contained an explanation for my teeth being on edge. And also interesting that Jacksonians keep popping up for me (Ringo, then him to Mead, then this post); I suppose Trump's approach is why.
Plus, I just read Kurt Schlichter's new book (American Apocalypse) and the red forces there seem Jacksonian to me. And, incidentally, there's a bit of an homage to John Ringo in the book.
Yes, we did have some interesting discussions regarding Dr. Mead's positions back in the day. Nevertheless, I still find Dr. Mead's statement on page 254 of his book "Special Providence" regarding the Jacksonian approach to conflict both correct and well said: "Either the stakes are important enough to fight for, in which case you should fight with everything you have, or they aren't important enough to fight for, in which case you should mind your own business and stay home."
Post a Comment