There is a political spectrum which cannot be simply represented by the political party affiliation. The US political ideological spectrum is more complex and interesting than what many people nowadays tend to assume. The characteristics of the US Democrats and the US Republicans are quite diverse and have been changing over time. In particular, the emerging of Mr. Donald Trump and his charisma as a political leader can be much more precisely explained by means of the longer historical perspective than the mere conflict within the two party system .
As explained in my essay America and her base ideological principles (https://art-blue-liberalism.blogspot.com/search/label/America%20and%20her%20base%20ideological%20principles), the US political ideological segmentation has been based on these 4 groups since her establishment period. Even before Woodrow Wilson became a US president, there were already presidents who should be labelled as Wilsonian such as Abraham Lincoln (at least in my analysis).
I would like to introduce some of the typical examples expressing the reason why the party affiliation is often irrelevant to understanding about each individual political position in terms of the historical scale.
Until Woodrow Wilson came into the power, the US Democrats contain the members with the two extremes: The idealist federalists putting emphasis on spreading the liberal-democratic ideal over the world and the provision of social welfare conducted by the strong centralised government. The isolationists claiming for individuals' sovereign right including not only citizens but also each individual state while keeping the federal government is kept necessary minimum. After the purge of the latter by Wilson's administration, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) had completely shaped the intense federalist characteristic of the US Democratic party. The former group is the typical personality of the current Democratic party whilst the latter used to hold much majority in the old days.
The Republican party was initially established as the offspring of the old federalist party meanwhile the Democratic party used to be more sceptical about the federalism in the past. The Republican party has produced two kinds of federalists: The first US president Lincoln was indeed an idealistic federalist like the current mainstream US Democrats. The realists claiming for the federal power for securing the global trade route with the military protection and the unified market system fulfilling the US national interest were the US Republican mainstream in the 20th century.
In the whole 20th century and the earlier 21st century, the mainstream politics has been occupied by the federalists regardless of which one of the two political parties being in charge of the government. The isolationists have been undermined under the intense federalism. Nevertheless, since the early 21st century, the gradual emergence of the isolationists revolting against the federalist status-quo has already been seen in the US political history. The intra-party conflict of the US republicans between the mainstream federalist faction and the anti-federalist libertarian-leaning faction lead by Mr. Ron Paul was well-recognised in the presidential 2012. Also, the most remarkable US third political party Libertarian has been spotlighted since this time period.
The intra-political conflict between the federalists and the isolationists is then no longer unusual especially inside the Republican party since then. The presentation by Mr Donald Trump is much more blunt but yet much easier for the grass-roots to understand than the counterpart by Mr Ron Paul. Also, Trump's advertisement of the national interest with simple aggressive statements tends to attract wider audiences than Paul's rationale but complex idealistic taste. The identical characteristic of these two political segments is the scepticism against the global intervention of the USA with her intensively strong federal government authority.
The significant difference of Trump's isolationism from the isolationism of Libertarianism is the difference between realism and idealism. The strong Libertarians put immense emphasis on the end of the already excessively expanded federal autocracy as well as responsibility over the global politics. By contrast, Trump administration still uses the federal authority for securing the national interest of the USA at minimum. For the time being, Trump's political manifesto seems to be balancing between the powerful political mainstream elites and the silent majority.
Going to back to the original title of this article, it does not seem to be quite feasible to refer Trump as Jacksonian. At the same time, by means of the political implementation relative to the current world situation where the US federal authority is big as much, it should be quite reasonable to call Trump as Jacksonian. Andrew Jackson himself was more drastically anti-federalist decentralist than the majority Jeffersonian unlike Donald Trump. But yet, the populism of Trump where the silent majority claim for more decentralisation than what the status-quo offers is resemblance to the contemporary Jackson's administration.
As shown in my US political spectrum chart, the keyword connecting Jackson and Trump is the populism. Trump won the presidential victory due to the supports of the majority population being tired of the intense globalist federalist regime. Description of Trump as Jacksonian can be by means of the relative term more than absolute. However, the rise of Trumpism indeed reveals the fatigue of the USA being the global leader, and then it seems to be inevitable to see the rise of the isolationist cohorts in the US political history.
This realistic isolationist revolt seems to emerge as the counterweight against the overweight on the globalist federalism of the 20th century and the earlier 21st century. In the past when the government status-quo focused on the isolationism prioritising the internal development over the trade and diplomatic interventionism (globalism), the silent majority aspired for the globalism. Furthermore, when one individual state is incapable to protect citizens' individual liberty and right, these citizens expected for the federal intervention. All in all, there tends to be a conflict between the political ideological segments whenever there is an imbalance of the power.
On the other hand, there is still a strong demand for the federal authority and its expansionist intervention by not only the globalist cohorts inside the USA but also the world outside the USA. The realist expansionists such as corporate elites, the high-tech engineers, and those embracing their service provision require the federal government providing the moderation of business and legal matters and the military force and the law enforcement securing their safe trade routes. The idealist expansionists expect for the US federal government and as the guardian of the liberal democracy in both domestic and foreign affairs through the welfare provision, the diplomatic relations, and the military force if necessary and effective.
The expansionism lead by the federalism is beneficial for promoting individuals' liberty and right through their free market under the unified economic and legal system as well as the guardianship of liberal democracy promoting the world piece and freedom.
