Sarah Palin The Jacksonian (In Some Ways)

Daniel Larison thinks Matthew Continetti’s comparison of Sarah Palin to Andrew Jackson is way off and on the points he make I largely agree. But there is one blurry bit in which they are both rather similar: they both have rather insincere anti-government populist stances.

Lately I’ve been focusing more on the antebellum period in American history and Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay in particular. One aspect of Jackson’s story that comes back again and again was his regular criticism of any powerful establishment be it government or industry. When he was out of power he was often critical of the elites be they government leaders or business leaders. But he felt this way when it was someone else who had power. When Jackson was leading an army or during his term as President of the United States Jackson acted in a way and argued that he was the supreme power that answered to nobody. He didn’t pay attention to the common man the way he promised nor did he deny the opportunity to get more power and influence. He regularly bucked his superiors as a military man and regularly ignored congress as a president.

Sarah Palin is the same way. She loves waging a war on the elites and portraying herself as just one of the people who wouldn’t dare trade her life in for one with money but then she spends a ridiculous amount of money on her wardrobe or signs a highly lucrative book contract or even makes an ill-advised run at the presidency without hesitation (which she even admits!). It’s undeniable that since her failed candidacy her primary use of her fame has been to expand her personal wealth and perhaps personal power. It’s very Jacksonian.