This reflection comes from my experience while watching ATRESMEDIA TELEVISION (Spain) where information about the United States elections was distorted. I was particularly struck by seeing Vicente Vallés and Sandra Golpe reading from the teleprompter, without hesitation, information they themselves must know is incorrect. A clear example is how they presented Trump’s opening words: “They said that many people have told me that God saved my life for a reason. And that reason was to save our country and bring greatness back to America.” This is false; these were not his opening words but a quote taken out of context. What he actually said, according to the transcript of his speech, was:
“Thank you very much. Wow. Well, I want to thank you all so much. This is great. These are our friends. We have thousands of friends in this incredible movement. This is a movement like never seen before, and frankly, I think it was the biggest political movement of all time. There’s never been anything like this in this country, and maybe now it will reach a new level of importance because we’re going to help heal our country.”
This type of manipulation not only misinforms but reshapes the message to align with a pre-packaged narrative rather than reflecting what actually occurred.
For the average citizen, it’s natural to trust that the media will provide truthful and accurate information on issues that may impact their everyday lives. However, it’s not always easy to detect when these very sources betray that trust with distortions or half-truths. Perhaps this citizen lacks the tools or necessary context to discern manipulation. As someone who studied political science, who has lived in the United States, and who has closely followed this campaign, what I have observed is not merely disappointing; it’s a deliberate fraud. Much of the commentary aired seems designed to stoke polarization and hostility between citizens and the new US administration. This is being done without a clear understanding of what this administration’s policies will be toward Europe or the true extent of its intentions.
For this reason, it’s essential to explain who Donald Trump really is and what his political movement represents. Trump is not just a political figure; he is a complex phenomenon that embodies deep frustrations and aspirations in contemporary society. Understanding him requires going beyond stereotypes to see the values he evokes and why so many citizens, weary of traditional structures, find a voice in him. This understanding is crucial to grasp the cultural and political moment we are going through.
In today’s polarized political climate, few figures evoke as much controversy and passion as Donald Trump. To understand his impact, it’s necessary to look beyond superficial critiques and delve into the underlying philosophy driving his leadership style and political decisions. Historian Victor Davis Hanson offers a revealing perspective by describing Trump not as an isolationist but as a “Jacksonian,” a leader aligned with Andrew Jackson’s brand of nationalist populism. This comparison sheds light on Trump’s seemingly chaotic approach as a distinctly American pragmatism that rejects isolationism in favor of calculated, selective engagement based on national self-interest.
Why do the media distort Trump’s image?
The media’s portrayal of Trump as a reckless figure reflects the gap between the coastal elites of the United States and its rural heartland, between those who wield cultural influence and those who feel forgotten by the institutions shaping society. Like Andrew Jackson, Trump came to power as an “outsider,” challenging deeply held assumptions on both the left and right. This explains why the Bushes and the Cheneys supported Kamala Harris. Jackson, too, was detested by the elites of his time, not necessarily for what he did but for how he did it. His emphasis on the “common man” threatened the aristocratic norms of early 19th-century America; similarly, Trump’s direct style and boldness clash with today’s elite standards of decorum and politeness.
Trump’s provocations, crude language, willingness to break with tradition, and refusal to apologize for challenging accepted political wisdom make him especially vulnerable to misrepresentation. In this context, the media portray him as a simplistic figure whose views align with isolationism, ignoring the nuances of his approach. This narrative is powerful and reinforces Trump’s image in the media as an anomaly rather than as a reflection of a significant current in American political life.
Is Trump really Jacksonian?
Jacksonianism, as interpreted by Hanson when referring to Trump, denotes a brand of nationalism that fuses American pride with pragmatic engagement on the world stage. This approach is neither universally interventionist nor purely isolationist. It emphasizes that American power, though formidable, should be exercised with discretion and solely for the nation’s benefit. Trump’s recalibration of NATO alliances, his pressure on European countries to contribute more to their defense, and his reexamination of trade relations reveal his Jacksonian skepticism toward any agreement that disproportionately burdens the United States. Here, Trump’s nationalism is pragmatic rather than ideological; he views foreign relations as transactions that should provide tangible benefits to the American people, a perspective deeply resonant with the Jacksonian tradition of preserving sovereignty.
In his trade policies, Trump redefined the role of the United States by demanding reciprocity. His tariffs on Chinese goods, for instance, were not so much aimed at starting a trade war as recalibrating an unequal relationship that, in his view, previous administrations had allowed. For Jacksonians, fairness in trade is not an abstract ideal but a concrete safeguard of national prosperity and independence, a notion reflected in Trump’s confrontational yet calculated rhetoric against intellectual property theft and China’s currency manipulation.
Practical decisions based on common sense
Looking at Trump’s track record, it becomes clear that many of his policies are grounded in down-to-earth practicality, an emphasis on returning power to ordinary Americans and stripping bureaucracy of layers that, in his view, stifle innovation and economic vitality. Let’s examine some key decisions that illustrate this pragmatic approach:
- Tax reform and deregulation: The Trump administration lowered corporate taxes and eliminated regulations across various sectors, from energy to finance. This approach embodied a belief in empowering individuals and businesses rather than relying on central authority. Trump’s tax cuts, though controversial, catalyzed corporate investment and, as Hanson notes, helped revitalize the economy, creating job opportunities in areas that had long suffered from economic stagnation—something voters recalled before heading to the polls. “When Trump was in office, I had more money.”
- Energy independence: In a decisive break from foreign oil dependency, Trump prioritized domestic energy production, making the United States a net energy exporter for the first time in decades. This shift, in addition to its economic benefits, reflected a Jacksonian principle of self-sufficiency. Rather than relying on the goodwill of OPEC or navigating the complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics, Trump pushed for energy policies that ensured America’s autonomy, a move aligned with Jacksonian disdain for dependency on foreign powers.
- Border security: Trump’s insistence on building a physical wall along the southern border was more than a political proposal; it symbolized a commitment to enforce existing immigration laws, which, according to him, were being ignored to the detriment of American workers. In Trump’s vision, a nation that does not control its borders undermines its own sovereignty, a sentiment consistent with Jacksonian nationalism, which prioritizes cohesion and the security of the nation-state.
- The challenge to global trade norms: The Trump administration imposed tariffs on China, marking a clear deviation from previous policies that, in his view, allowed other countries to exploit American markets without fair reciprocity. While his stance on trade generated fears of a trade war, it underscored his commitment to protecting American industry and workers. Hanson interprets this approach as a necessary correction to laissez-faire policies that Jacksonians see as a betrayal of national interests.
Why does the Republican apparatus hate Trump?
Within the Republican apparatus, Trump’s methods are often met with disdain. However, as Hanson observes, this disdain stems less from his policy choices and more from his rejection of traditional political decorum. Trump is an anomaly—a leader who, due to his wealth and celebrity status, is immune to party discipline and internal influence. His critics within the GOP object not necessarily to his actions but to his blunt, unfiltered language, which they perceive as a lack of dignity for the office. Ironically, many of the same figures who despised his tone privately supported policies like his tax cuts, judicial appointments, and deregulation efforts. For the establishment, Trump’s independence and insistence on speaking directly to his base threaten the traditional power dynamics within the party.
Moreover, Trump’s self-financed 2016 campaign freed him from the typical obligations of the party. Unlike traditional candidates dependent on donations from party loyalists and interest groups, Trump owed nothing to the Republican structure, allowing him to challenge the orthodoxies of both parties without repercussion. His loyalty was, first and foremost, to his base rather than the GOP, a distinction that resonated with voters frustrated with a party increasingly perceived as disconnected from working-class concerns.
Campaign promises: Viability and suitability
At the core of Trump’s appeal was his promise to “Make America Great Again,” a vision that transcended specific policy details and touched on a need for national renewal. His promises—to bring back manufacturing jobs, secure the border, restore military strength, and put “America First”—addressed both economic and cultural anxieties. While critics often dismissed these promises as unrealistic, Hanson argues that they were essential for reconnecting the government with the concerns of ordinary Americans. Whether each promise was fulfilled or not, Trump’s straightforward approach offered a vision of leadership that resonated with Americans tired of political rhetoric disconnected from their realities.
In summary, Trump’s political legacy is complex, marked by his challenge to established norms and his Jacksonian commitment to assertive, pragmatic patriotism. His rejection of conventional political norms does not reveal isolationism but a calculated, pragmatic form of engagement with the world, one that places America’s interests at the center. In this sense, Trump’s approach is neither a withdrawal from global responsibilities nor an unreserved commitment to interventionism; it’s a carefully measured stance, rooted in Jacksonian principles of national sovereignty, fair trade, and individual empowerment.
The media portrayal of Trump as an erratic “outsider” fails to recognize the deeper coherence of his Jacksonian philosophy, a worldview that prioritizes America’s strength and independence. His brusque methods may unsettle, but they underscore a commitment to restoring a forgotten America, one that values practicality over decorum and strength over capitulation. Ultimately, Trump’s legacy may catalyze a cultural and political reckoning, challenging assumptions of both parties and reaffirming a distinctly American ethic: that a nation’s power and character do not reside in its institutions but in the people who make it up. For this reason, he has received the mandate of the American people in the recent 2024 elections.
References:
Fukuyama, F. (2018) <<Identity: The demand for dignity and the politics of resentment>>. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Hanson, V. D. (2019) <<The case for Trump>>. Basic Books.
Hochschild, A. R. (2016) <<Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American right>>. The New Press.
Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2019) <<Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism>>. Cambridge University Press.
Kazin, M. (1995) <<The Populist Persuasion: An American History>> (REV-Revised, 2). Cornell University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1w0dcsq
Kissinger, H. (2014) <<World order>>. Penguin Press.
McDougall, Walter A. (2016) <<The Tragedy of U.S. Foreign Policy: How America’s Civil Religion Betrayed the National Interest>> New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300224511
Mead, W. R. (2001) <<Special providence: American foreign policy and how it changed the world>>. New York, Knopf.
Mudde, C, & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017) <<Populism: A Very Short Introduction>>. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780190234874.001.0001
Peterson, J. B. (2018) <<12 rules for life: An antidote to chaos>>. Random House Canada.
policyexamination.com 