Overall, the book’s tone was just a hair more “journalistic” than I prefer; the author, Jonathan Meacham, is the editor of Newsweek magazine, and this, I believe, contributed to the book’s slightly sensational flavor, vice a more grounded academic tone. One element of Meacham’s style was his tendency to insert his own judgments into the text, styling those judgments as dispassionate truth compared to the skewed decisions and views of those mired in the passions and shortsightedness of Jackson’s time period. Still, the book was well written, insightful, and illuminating of Jackson’s character and his role in the progression of the institution of the American presidency.



Without question in my estimation, Jackson gave birth to the strong, central presidency that dominates American politics today. Before his time, the president was viewed as a watchman who did little but ensure that Congress acted appropriately and the judiciary stayed in line. Jackson, however, forever changed the presidency, asserting that the president represents the will of the people and should defend that will, when necessary, from any corruption or mistakenness in the other branches of government. To this end, he surrounded himself with hand-picked (unelected) advisors in line with his thinking, he wielded the veto as a political weapon, and he organized a robust and aggressive political party to spin his views to the public and disparage those of his opponents.



I don’t disagree that this construction of the presidency has merit, and has even been instrumental at critical junctures in American history, such as the Civil War, industrialization, and the Great Depression. The dexterity of the presidency to carry out its will without the inefficient back-and-forth of Congressional bickering was essential at those times. Still, there is much to lament about Jackson’s style. His absolute conviction that he was always right was, at best, annoying, and, at worst, downright destructive. He was fortunate that innumerable factors combined to vindicate his positions and efforts; other presidents with similar aversions to being wrong, such as George W. Bush, have not been as fortunate and have thus done great damage to our country. Additionally, Jackson’s assemblage of the first iteration of the modern political party is lamentable indeed. In my opinion, these large organizations were set up to seek the good of the party rather than the good of the people, and the partisanship and obscuring of truth and right that they propagate are shameful.



Jackson may have been a shrewd politician, but he was not a good leader or manager. I believe the best leaders listen to a variety of viewpoints, show respect in word and deed, and remain pragmatic in their decision-making as they understand different situations call for different solutions. Jackson could be pragmatic, but he struggled to entertain viewpoints apart from his own. He abided by the rules formulated by the founders so long as they suited his interests. He flouted them, using careful rhetoric to cloak his moves in shrouds of fictitious legitimacy, if they constrained him. Though I believe the government framed by the founders was intended to flex through changing times and crises, I don’t believe it was meant to serve individual whims and advance individual agendas.