The first seven graphs, summarized by "The United States over its history has consistently summoned the will and the means to compel its enemies to yield to its demands" reminds me of a father who beats his children and then buys him toys in the hope that they'll feel better.

The next few chapters seem to say, the American people are bloodthirsty and the politicians better get used to it. Either that or, once war starts, they really don't want americans to die and to get our men and women out of there as soon as possible.

Then there's this: >>[Jacksonians] generally prefer a loose federal structure with as much power as possible retained by states and local governments.

This takes money. Only very briefly in this piece is the influence, the need and the power off money discussed. A tragic, tragic oversight that results in a flawed theory, I believe.

>>. Like country music, another product of Jacksonian culture
????? Is this really why I can't stand country. Or is it the false southern twangs. Why add this point. To somehow equate the rise in country music's popularity with his theory. Rap's become pretty popular too. Does he forget rap. Are Eminem, Nas, and Jay-Z, Jacksonian too?
Sorry a small point but he mentions it and then leaves it hanging with no explanation. I am not trying to minimize the complete article.

He quotes a klansman twice to make two different points and calls him "surprisingly articulate?" Uh-oh.

>>>>Finally, courage is the crowning and indispensable part of the code. Jacksonians must be ready to defend their honor in great things and small. Americans ought to stick up for what they believe. In the nineteenth century, Jacksonian Americans fought duels long after aristocrats in Europe had given them up, and Americans today remain far more likely than Europeans to settle personal quarrels with extreme and even deadly violence.

Translation: Gangsters and gangsta's are courageous. They are Jacksonian Americans too.

>>When Hamiltonians, Wilsonians and Jeffersonians dodged the draft in Vietnam or purchased exemptions and substitutes in earlier wars, Jacksonians soldiered on, if sometimes bitterly and resentfully. An honorable person is ready to kill or to die for family and flag.

So, Rumsfeld. Cheney. and Bush aren't Jacksonians after all? Who the hell is a Jacksonian. Nobody can be all these things listed? And if you are not one of these thngs listed or do not agree, with say, a lifestyle choice, whether that's homosexcuality or not joining the military, then you are still Jacksonian? Or you're not?

Look, I persevered and read the whole thing, in an attempt to understand. I kept on expecting to get to the "aha" moment when I could see what you were impressed about.

But when he said flaming crosses represented "the old-nativist spirt" and the dying death throes of Jacksonian America, he really lost me. I can be dispassionate in the face of history, as much as the next guy. But what the hell is he trying to say here when the whole piece is about the resurgence and the endurance of the Jacksonian America.

That one paragraph probably colored how I read the rest of the piece.

I'm stopping here with the writing, so my thoughts are incomplete here. I've got more points to make, but I guess I'll do a fisking of sorts over at my space until I get an idea how you approached this and whether I'm supposed to look at this politically or culturally. In other words, how did you look at it to make you say it changed your view of America?

Don't get me wrong, it's a brilliant and informed piece. I just don't understand how it impresses you in the way you say it does. I'm dense - possible - or you really don't make your points clear sometimes.
How does this piece simultaneously mix right/left lines and remind you of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld?

How is it an "insightful look at the fundamental character of heartland America?"

The fact that you dont get it tells me all I need to know.

So, nony, does that mean "dimn hates so I will too", or "I like what dimn hates so I know I'll like the article?"

Dimn, you pretty clearly didn't "get" the article, and you need to read it again.

No, America is not bloodthirsty. It's never been bloodthirsty, and (probably) never will be bloodthirsty, because it's not in our character. However, the most influential segment of the American public is very slow to war, but very dangerous once aroused to it, because they won't be satisfied with anything less than complete capitulation by the enemy. They believe strongly in a code of honor in war, but if you violate that code, all bets are off.

These Americans--probably the biggest subgroup in America--are much more reluctant than any other group to go to war, save perhaps outright pacifists. But they don't accept half-measures once they're convinced of the need to fight.

Stop freaking out over something a KKK member said for God's sake. The point is that Jacksonian America was once racist and nativist. It has changed in that regard, but not in others. Thus Jacksonianism seemed to be dying, but instead found new life in immigrants, including immigrants of all skin colors.

Go read it again before you start "fisking" it. Picking it apart before you understand the whole is a pointless exercise.

I'm glad to see people reading Mead. I first read it last year after seeing Den Beste talk about it.

I think the article is a good one, but I wouldn't consider myself a Jacksonian. For those of you who don't want to read the entire article, I posted a summary at my site (permanent link at http://www.solport.com/blog/2003_02_23_archive#89724251)

I don't think I'm quite a Jacksonian either, but I have to admit to having strong streaks of it--and it describes a number of people I know shockingly well. Moreso than I would have thought possible for such a motley group. As he says, it's more of a cultural instinct than anything else, although it can be very intellectual, and quite defensible in the most sophisticated of terms.

I am very familiar with this mindset, and never would have expected it to be so well pinned down and explained. It's a good a description of how an awful lot of people I know think.

Including probably every combat vet I've ever met.

I don't read Den Beste very often, since I frankly think he needs an editor. But I can see how he's been influenced by this. I already have been.

Dean

> It's a good a description of how an awful lot of people I know think.

Exactly. There are variations due to Christianity in the evangelical right wing that I know best, but I was nodding my head knowingly on most points. Even Canadian farm boys adhere to most of that Weltanschauung.

I'm reminded of a kids' book series called "The Sugar Creek Gang" that I read as a boy. The boys in the "gang" were into things like swimming and fishing down at the river and solving small-town mysteries, but the honor code was a huge factor. Insult their sister and you'd be pummelled, and then helped up to go play baseball together. Swift retribution followed by forgiveness was the order of the day, and refusing to forgive was far worse than refusing to fight. Perhaps it should have been called "The Jeffersonion Gang."

>>These Americans--probably the biggest subgroup in America--are much more reluctant than any other group to go to war, save perhaps outright pacifists. But they don't accept half-measures once they're convinced of the need to fight.

Stop freaking out over something a KKK member said for God's sake. The point is that Jacksonian America was once racist and nativist. It has changed in that regard, but not in others. Thus Jacksonianism seemed to be dying, but instead found new life in immigrants, including immigrants of all skin colors.

OK so you viewed the piece in terms of Jacksonian attitudes toward war only. In which case I can accept more of your view of it. But the piece clearly tries to go beyond that - and fails by painting with too broad a brush - and then wraps it up in terms of war at the end.

I wasn't trying to go down the racist track, since I know that's unfair and is a way of dismissing the piece. It still seemed odd - couldn't he find another "suprisingly articulate" person.

Look I said the piece was brilliant and informed. I wasn't dismissing it. But it is still an ideal - what we should aspire to - more than a reality.

And I read the author's bio. He's clearly informed. Still, by citing already universal truths as "Jacksonian values" he exhibits backward thinking. Even the people you cite as "Jacksonians" don't qualify on all accounts

"Read it again!!!! Please no, no. Do you know how long that sucker is :) 13,200 words. I have bookmarked it for future reference, however.

I had a nice, long reply composed which has somehow gotten eaten. I will summarize, rather than attempt to recreate it: I think the piece has a lot of merit but I don't believe the author has painted a fair picture of Jacksonianism. His errors start early - identifying Jackson as the sixth President when he was actually the seventh (JQA was sicth) - and proceed to get steadily worse.

I will leave aside such hidden assumptions as calling the martgage interest deduction a "subsidy" (twice), though such things as that are instructive. Rather, while he is quite correct about some of the core principles of Jacksonianism (honour, self-reliance, equality), the overall import of the piece seems more to be an attempt to lay the blame for most or all of the "darker" elements of American society at the feet of Jacksonianism.

He is not above contradicting himself to do it, either, acknowledging early on that equality is a core principle of the Jacksonian school and then going to great lengths to ascribe racial, religious and ethnic exclusion to Jacksonian impulse. His attempt to salvage this slander by differentiating between "code honouring" and "non-code honouring" minorities is unconvincing.It would have been simpler and more accurate to leave the racial element out of it altogether. The subtle slur involved in militng himnself to quoting only one (alleged) 20th century Jacksonian - a Klan Imperial Wizard - is so blatant it barely merits mention.

Don't get me wrong. I "get" the article. On some of the broader points I even agree with it. But, while there's a core of truth in this piece, this Jacksonian (more than anything else, anyway) will admit. But this isn't a dispassionate historical exploration of the effect of Jacksonianism on American politics so much as it is a hit piece.

Pigeon-holing and labels never work, because both people and the political landscape changes faster than lables can keep up.. but those who rely on them as an excuse for thought do tend to cry foul when that happens (heh)

Dean: I recently read an article in the Financial Times wherein Meade talks about misunderstanding the Rice Doctrine.

"Ms Rice's doctrine of realist multilateralism may not be an inspiring rallying cry and many legitimate and helpful criticisms of it can no doubt be made. But the policy, whatever its faults, is neither rudderless nor radical. Until the critics grasp that, they will continue to have little impact."

Whether you agree with his assertions or not, he makes an excellent case for reading opinion outside your political milieu.

Dodd, I would suggest that he was referring to a perception of equality within the group. Anyone outside of the group was not considered equal. Simple, really. I would also suggest that the definition of group has changed over the years to include a greater number of formerly excluded external groups.

Some other good Jacksonian articles by Tom Holsinger:

The Giants of Flight 93
http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20021017.asp

Two American Traditions in the War On Terror
http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20021028.asp

The Bush Administration and American Nationalism
http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20021120.asp

The World's Coming Encounter With Andrew Jackson
http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20021128.asp

Dean, I highly recommend Meade's book, Special Providence. The Jacksonian essay is really just an excerpt from it.

He actually delineates 4 'types' in American foreign policy. They are of course abstractions; no one is a perfect 'Jacksonian' or 'Wilsonian'....But they are very useful in mentally organizing our history.

And he is very good in pointing out that it is a myth that America has for most of its history been isolationist and unskilled in foreigh policy

I completely agree that letting people keep more of their own money--taking less away from them--is not a "subsidy." Nevertheless, you can make a pretty strong case that, by supporting a "progressive" income tax, but then allowing a huge exemption for home mortgages, the middle class is demanding that other people pay for government services on their behalf. It's not in the least bit fair, is in fact quite selfish, but there it is.

There's too much over-reaction at the quoting of the KKK fellow, I think. It's important to understand that the KKK was a middle class American movement, with broad reach throughout the entire United States. It was nativist and suspicious of outside elements. We have to remember that the KKK of the 1920s and 1930s was wildly different from the KKK we think of today.

I talked about this in Kicking the Old Man Around. At one point the KKK had millions of members, was in every state of the Union, and its members included mayors, governors, congressmen, Senators, judges, even Supreme Court justices. It was a hugely influential organization, and was not simply about violent racism as we see in movies today. It was an organization that reflected a broad "suspicious of outsiders" mentality, one that had wide public respectability well outside of its actual membership. The KKK was not the source of such views, it was reflective of them.

Indeed, when William Simmons created his KKK organization in 1915, he specifically meant to tap into this widespread viewpoint. Time was when you could look up your local KKK lodge in the yellow pages alongside the Rotarians and the Shriners, and businesses would proudly display the KKK logo in their windows to help drum up customers.

As Meade makes clear, the racist elements within the Jacksonian tradition have just about completely evaporated over the last 50 years, and is now indeed a source of embarassment for most.

You will find broad racism within the history of any other philosophical outlooks Meade talks about. For example, Meade talks at length about Wilsonianism, which is the school that the Clintonites would belong to. Yet Woodrow Wilson was a notorious segregationist, and brought segregation to Washington D.C. during his tenure as President. "Making the world safe for Democracy" didn't mean that darkies were suited to anything other than menial labor jobs, or even deserved a vote.

Rather than looking for reasons to be offended and disagree, I recommend reading the piece to simply try to reach understanding. It's marvelously insightful.

And John, you're the second person to recommend Meade's Special Providence to me. I've put it on my wish list. :-)

Dean

I have searched half-heartedly over the years for someone to describe the rather elusive socio-cultural envelope by which I can best describe my life, my hopes, my dreams, the essence of the values for which I served in the United States Army in my youth, along with so many millions of my generation -- the boys of the 1940s and early 1950s.

Walter Russell Meade's essay, "The Jacksonian Tradition", comes close to describing the totality of what I feel, what I resent, what I salute, what I despise.

I have no familial connection with the Scots-Irish. I am not a Christian, and not even a believer in any ordinary religious sense. But I feel a spiritual kinship with those flint-hard Bible-readers who brought this land the fundamental gift of the Protestant work ethic and their unbreakable insistence upon individual responsibility as the rock upon which western civilization has grown and which built this blessed continent-wide country from a wilderness populated solely by aboriginal tribes.

It was to become part of the great national enterprise based on this spirit that my great-grandfather's generation came to this continent in the 1880s, direct to the prairie lands west of the upper Mississippi, and picking up none of the socio-cultural influences of the east coast cities along the way.

Everything about the spirit of Andrew Jackson sings out the eternal necessity of liberty, love of country, less government, lower taxes, a desire to stay out of foreign conflicts, and a willingness to fight them to the death once the battle is brought to us.

I was a child of 7 years on the Sunday morning when Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941, uniting America into a total military machine waiting to spring and deal out death. Our generation wanted nothing less than total vengeance and total victory. And that was what the 17 million or so of our older brothers, cousins, uncles and fathers gave us. It was for that purpose that the United States Army Air Force burned to death 83,000 Japanese in Tokyo in a single terrible night in early March 1945. More enemy deaths in one night than all the American combat fatalities in the Korean war and the Viet Nam war combined! It was for that purpose that our military designed and dropped the world's first nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Because when we go to war -- when we REALLY go to war -- we do not play games. That was, still is, and hopefully shall ever be, the real America.

I was already of retirement age on September 11, 2001, when a gang of Arabs armed with box cutters, sneak-attack planning, and commandeered airplanes, smashed down the very buildings that represented the heart of our free enterprise system in New York, along with part of the building from which command structure of our armed forces operates.

Once again, I want total vengeance, and I want total victory. If we cannot live in peace and dignity on the same planet with these people, than I would just as soon that our armed forces obliterate them. Because if we cannot have their respect, and be left alone to pursue our own lives in the liberty and dignity of Western civilization, then I will be satisfied to witness the fear of their survivors whom we choose to let live amid their broken, squalid and poisoned ruins when we are done with them.

And that, like it or not, is the spirit of the real Jacksonian America.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Dean, I agree with John above: if you liked Mead's article, you should check out Special Providence. (Move it a few notches up that wish list!) Mead's book belongs alongside Kissinger's Does America Need a Foreign Policy? and Max Boot's Savage Wars of Peace in the way it helps to explain the various schools of AFP that account for the peculiarities (exceptionalism) of the American mindset. You can also watch Mead talk about Special Providence on C-Span. (Maybe people attacking the essay should listen to Mead -- it could be a learning experience. Or maybe not.)

I will consider your reply, Dean. I didn't approach it looking for reasons to be offended, I assure you; I wanted to like the piece. It just struck me as rather caustic. If his essays (none of which I am familiar with) on other schools are similarly, um, shall we say probing? then perhaps my umbrage is misplaced and he merely sees himself as reporting all the facts.

Hi Dean

Great essay. Thank you for the link. It's a curious attitude the author has, both praising and yet almost apologizing for the Jacksonian architype.

In the present circumstances and in the light of this essay, one could say that the current drive for war is Jacksonian, with poorly constructed Jeffersonian ideals brought along for the ride. There is a desire to roll up the sleeves and smash Iraq and maybe all Islamic countries, and on the other hand, the war is intended to save Iraqi lives and bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East. That is why the justifications for war tend to ring false. The only real reason for war is that Saddam Hussein is an annoying foreigner. For Jacksonians, that's all the reason needed. The idea that we are reducing the chances of terrorism or advancing the cause of democracy or saving Iraqis from repression are just window dressing, hung out by Jacksonians trying to ... to what? imitate? Jeffersonian thought.

All very interesting. Thanks again.

You obviously didn't understand the article very well if you believe the Jacksonians only want to take out Saddam because he's "an annoying foreigner."

The Jeffersonian justifications for this war are strong. They mesh well with the Jacksonian position in this particular case. Which should tell us why the majority of Americans support the President.

It's also why those of you who troll for "peace" are a small and shrinking minority, even as your voices grow louder and more shrill.

All I want to know is if you'll have the good sense to be embarassed when it's all over.

I disagree. Look at Arnold Harris's post above. It does not "mesh" at all with what you tried to tell me was the the intent of the Bush administration in 'Postwar Iraq Blueprint', but I think he's right that he expresses the Jacksonian perspective.

The support for Bush comes from people with a variety of perspectives. Some (most?) are Jacksonian, like Mr Harris. Some (a few?) are Jeffersonian. Many are confused and dismayed by the times, and just want to be loyal to their President, who always has an air of confidence. I would not downplay that as an important factor in American support for the war.

As to your last comments, I am not embarrassed about posting opinions that differ from yours.

It's fairly apparent that the Bushies are Jacksonians. It's also fairly clear that you view Jacksonians with contempt. It's also fairly clear that you didn't understand the essay on Jacksonianism. And that you didn't understand a word I said.

As such, I find this conversation to be a waste of time.

It matters not a whit. Wilsonianism and Jacksonianism are meshing very well here, and Jeffersonian ideals are not in conflict with Bush's reasoning. Which is probably why the war has 70% support now, and people like you are ntohing but an increasingly shrill and nasty minority. [shrug]

When the people of Iraq dance in the streets and thank us for their liberation, you're the type who will fall silent and act like it never happened, I suspect.

Come on Dean. Nothing I've posted warrants you calling me contemptuous or stupid or shrill or nasty or a hypocrite. Tell me why you think I'm wrong. Don't just flame me.

If, as you say, 30% of Americans oppose the war, that's about 90 million people. Why don't they get it like you do?