We are amid the most unusual presidential election of our lifetime. It features a career politician against a Washington outsider; a liar versus a loose cannon. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s preferred choice, and her candidacy are unsurprising. And this time last year, few expected Donald Trump to be the Republican Party’s nominee. His rise has rocked the political landscape.
At times, it feels like American politics is in a precarious position. It’s not the first time the country has reached such a dramatic crossroads, though. It’s happened before. This election resonates with one in American history more than any other: the mudslinging slugfest that was the election of 1828, a victory for political outcast Andrew Jackson over incumbent John Quincy Adams.
Today’s candidates share remarkable similarities with their counterparts 188 years ago. Clinton resembles Adams; Trump echoes Jackson. To start, Clinton belongs to the political elite, just as Adams did. She attended the prestigious Wellesley College and studied law at Yale University before becoming the first lady in 1993. She then served as a senator from New York from 2001 to 2009 and was secretary of state during President Barack Obama’s first term.
Likewise, Adams was viewed as privileged. The son of John Adams, a Founding Father and the second president, he studied at Harvard University before an extensive career in politics. In all, Clinton has spent 23 years in Washington. Prior to the 1828 election, Adams had spent 28.
On the flip side, Trump and Jackson share notable parallels. Both were in the public eye long before embarking on a political career late in life. Trump was a businessman, Jackson a war hero.
Trump had no political experience before he announced his candidacy for president. A simpleton from the Appalachian backcountry, Jackson spent nine months as a representative from Tennessee, two-and-a-half years as a senator and nine months as the military governor of Florida. That’s it.
Much of the bitterness in 1828 stemmed from the 1824 election, a victory of Adams over Jackson. Because no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes, it remains the only election ever decided by the House of Representatives, which chose Adams.
Yet it gets more interesting. The House only picked Adams upon an endorsement from Speaker Henry Clay, who was later appointed secretary of state. Jackson, obviously, was furious.
Four years later, the 1828 election got ugly quickly. Adams’ supporters headed ruthless attacks against Jackson, even decrying the legitimacy of his marriage. Jackson’s wife, Rachel, actually died shortly after the election. He blamed Adams. Jackson also attacked his rival with vengeance, calling the election four years earlier a “corrupt bargain.” Sound familiar?
Trump’s most dependable reproach of Clinton is that she is dishonest and untrustworthy, often referring to her as “Crooked Hillary” in tweets and speeches. He frequently cites the events in Benghazi, her email scandals and questionable dealings involving the Clinton Foundation. Clinton is viewed as cold and distant, insincere and two-faced. So was Adams.
Meanwhile, Clinton’s attacks on Trump are of equal ferocity: He is inexperienced. He can’t be trusted with power. He is temperamentally unfit to be president. He’s a racist. Trump is portrayed as a thin-skinned buffoon, a fool who is in over his head and has no business running for president. All of these denunciations were said about Jackson.
Trump’s rise cannot be ignored. His surge over the last year is indicative of an undercurrent of dissatisfaction within American politics. He has struck the same chord with supporters that Jackson did all those years ago.
I don’t know if he will win. But just like Adams vs. Jackson, Clinton vs. Trump has featured mostly personal — not policy — attacks. And when that happens, the country loses.
Brian Lee is a UF English senior. His column appears on Thursdays.
