The Jacksonian Tradition - Americans qua Warmongers

[Hogeye]

The Jacksonian Tradition

The essay The Jacksonian Tradition by Walter Russell Mead offers a typology of USAmerican political attitudes, and discusses in some detail what Mead calls "the Jacksonian tradition." It attempts to explain why Americans, as a group, tend to be ignorant warmongers - "boobus Americanus" as H. L. Mencken so aptly put it.

The essay starts with listing some of the mass-murders perpetrated by the US military, and asking why so many Americans support such atrocities. Mead's essay is unapologetic about such murders, almost bragging about how many innocent civilians were murdered per US soldier killed. Mead excuses the civilian slaughter with the faint praise that the US military wasn't quite as harsh on civilians as the Japanese or Nazi military. But, Mead allows, "the American war record should make us think."

Then he delves into the historical basis for such barbaric attitudes about war. Mead points out that these attitudes go far back in American history. He begins his historical review with the claim that "there have been many occasions when public opinion, or at least an important part of it, got ahead of politicians in demanding war." He lists virtually every American war from early indian wars to the Vietnam War as examples of popular wars. In this, I (and most historians) would strongly disagree. Mead's mistake here is apparently forgetting what he is trying to show. He takes the result of propaganda or crisis-mongering by ruling elites as popular support, and of course it is generally true that people "rally to the flag" once rulers start a war. But his claim was that popular opinion "got ahead of politicians in demanding war." All he really shows is that the population is gullable enough to get sucked into war by their rulers. History shows that nearly every war this side of the War of 1812 was unpopular, up until some (usually manufactured) crisis and/or massive propaganda manipulated public opinion, at least when the public had any time to consider the question. This was clearly true for the War of Northern Aggression ("Civil War" in victor's history), WWI, and WWII. Mead's evidence continues to forget his claim - he writes about how unpopular it is to get out an existing conflicts (e.g. Vietnam) rather than supporting his contention that it was popular to get into them in the first place.

Mead correctly points out how the US spends more on the military the all the rest of the world combined. However, again, he erroneously attributes this to popular demand rather than ruling elites. In Mead's telling, Americans love to be taxed and plundered to keep expensive military bases all over the world. It doesn't seem to occur at all to him that the military industrial complex, or the huge retinue of government military employees, or special interest lobbies have anything to do with it. Perhaps the main underlying flaw in Mead's analysis is this pluralist model of political power; those who hold the elitist model, that elites ultimately make the decisions of State rather than "the people," will disagree with Mead's analysis.

Mead's eponym for the American warmonger attitude is Andrew Jackson. Jackson was the hero of New Orleans in the War of 1812. He later disobeyed orders and invaded the Spanish territory of Florida, nearly precipitating a war with Spain. As president, he broke treaties with various Indian tribes, encouraged their genocide, and ignored a Supreme Court ruling regarding treaties with indians, leading to the forced starvation march known as the "Trail of Tears." Jackson certainly qualifies to be the namesake of the policy of thuggish militarism.

As for domestic policy, Jackson had no coherant ideology or theory - he simply favored his constituency, which consisted of western pioneers and southern planters. While Jefferson favored a minimal State, and Henry Clay promoted his "American System," what today we'd call corporate subsidies and pork-barrel projects, Jackson took the opportunistic "middle road." While giving lip service to Jeffersonianism (Jefferson himself considered Jackson "altogether unfit for the office"), Jackson fought for all pork-barrel projects which would favor his constituency. He endorsed virtually all of Clay's redistributionist anti-Jeffersonian program except the central bank (which Jackson saw as hurting his constituency.) Thus, Jackson was a major force in ramping up centralized power in the US; no greater centralizer would come along until Lincoln. Jackson started the "spoils system," the practice of rewarding (often unqualified) cronies and supporters with government posts, and firing those opposed to his policies.

Jackson did take one idea of Jeffersonianism - mass democracy - but this was one of the few mistaken ideas Jefferson held. Jefferson didn't see the industrial revolution coming; he thought that most Americans would be yeoman farmers, and hence have roughly the same interests. As industrial employees started outnumbering farmers, this commonality of interests vanished. Second generation Americans like John Calhoun saw this. Calhoun tried to save democracy with his political theory of nullification; Jackson took the opportunistic route by exploiting the regional and class schisms to his constituent's advantage. Jefferson distrusted State power because it could violate liberty; Jackson distrusted State power only insofar as it might be used against his constituency - he embraced such power when it helped his constituency.

Mead accurately summarizes the Jacksonian position as "less an intellectual or political movement than an expression of the social, cultural and religious values." It is "instinct, not ideology ... embraced by many people who know very little about the wider world." It consists of a "set of beliefs and emotions rather than a set of ideas." Mead uses words like "the folk community" and "culture" to describe the Jacksonian mindset. In other words, it is an anti-intellectual, incoherant anti-ideology embraced by the ignorant masses out of some epigenetic sense of hunter-gatherer solidarity. No wonder a man of ideas like Jefferson was disgusted by it. Ayn Rand would have called it brutish tribalism, collectivist anti-mind mysticism of the lowest common denominator.

The typology Mead gives when contrasting military policy to Jacksonianism consists of four major schools: Jeffersonianism, Hamiltonianism, Wilsonianism, and Jacksonianism. Jeffersonianism is what today we would call "libertarianism." In foreign policy, Jeffersonianism calls for non-aggression, a defense-only military policy. "Free trade with all ... entangling alliances with none," is how he put it. Hamiltonianism is what today some call neoliberalism or economic imperialism - the State should open markets by force if necessary; military aggression that favors American trading interests is good. Wilsonianism is just as interventionist, but for "humanitarian" reasons, or to "build democracy" and remake the earth. Modern neo-conservative policy could be said to be a combination of Hamiltonianism and Wilsonianism.

Jacksonian military policy can be thought of as what would a drunk redneck do? Mead points out that it is emotionalist, and is driven by things like perceived insult of national honor or fighting words. Mead points out how easily it is manipulated by ambitious politicians - once the rulers manipulate the US into a war, they can count on the tribalist Jacksonians to support it, right or wrong, because it is then a matter of honor. And once Jacksonians are conned into war, their "martial spirit" makes them excellent cannon-fodder. Furthermore, Mead says, Jacksonians don't care about such niceties as sparing non-combatants, let alone high-falutin notions like Just War. "Kill them all, and let God sort them out," aptly expresses the Jacksonian attitude.

Mead points out other, non-military attitudes, related to Jacksonianism. True to its tribalist nature, historically it has been racist, xenophobic, and intolerant of non-pietist Christian denominations (and of course other religions and atheism). Per its tribalism, it has a moral double-standard - typically treating outsiders as sub-human or at least not worthy of respect or dignity.

The story of Jacksonianism that Mead gives may be disturbing to libertarians, and indeed anyone who values ideas over brutish emotionalism, but it definitely helps to understand this unique brand of tribalism so common in USAmericans. This understanding may help us to predict future policy, and hopefully to ammeliorate some of its excesses. For this reason, Mead's essay is quite illuminating.