Tuesday, February 5, 2019

It Never Ends


The request from prosecutors covers an array of documents, including information related to inaugural donors, vendors, contractors and foreign contributors, according to a copy reviewed by The Post.

Sunday, February 3, 2019

Those Good Genes


I wish I had Trump's "good genes." No telling what I might could do. I could have run the high hurdles in high school. Dated all the pretty girls. Might have gone to Wharton also. Belong to the Mountain Brook Country Club and take winter vacations. Been another George Bailey and save the day. I could have been a contender. I COULD HAVE BEEN SOMEBODY. No Daddy to bail me out of every trouble but with those "good genes" I might not have needed a sugar daddy.

Friday, February 1, 2019

Epistemic Authority

The Internet and the crisis of epistemic authority

This is an excerpt from my Paolo Bozzi Prize address, "Realism and Moralism in Political Thought," last week in Turin at the conference on "Post-Truth, New Realism, and Democracy"; I'll put the whole paper on-line before long, but perhaps this bit will be of interest to some readers:
            Most of what we think we know about the world is due to reliance on epistemic authorities, individuals or institutions that tell us what we ought to believe about Newtonian mechanics, evolution by natural selection, climate change, resurrection from the dead, or the Holocaust.   The most practically fruitful epistemic norm of modernity, empiricism, demands that knowledge be grounded in sensory experience, but almost no one who believes in evolution by natural selection or the reality of the Holocaust has any sensory evidence in support of those beliefs.   Instead, we rely on epistemic authorities—biologists and historians, for example.   The dependence on epistemic authority is not confined to ordinary persons—most engineers, for example, do not have sensory evidence in support of the laws of Newtownian mechanics as applied to ordinary physical objects, but they have been told by their basic physics teachers that this evidence exists and that it is true (even as they have been told by their advanced physics teachers that Newtonian mechanics is false at the quantum level).
               Epistemic authority cannot be sustained by empiricist criteria, for obvious reasons:  salient anecdotal evidence, the favorite tool of propagandists, appeals to ordinary faith in the senses, but is easily exploited given that most people understand neither the perils of induction nor the finer points of sampling and Bayesian inference.   Sustaining epistemic authority depends, crucially, on social institutions that inculcate reliable second-order norms about whom to believe about what.  The media of mass communication were crucial, in the age of mass democracy, with promulgating and sustaining such norms.   Consider the most important newspaper in my country, the New York Times, which has long been an ideological mouthpiece for the more-or-less prudent wing of the ruling class in America, a newspaper that supported, for example, the imperial war of aggression against Vietnam in the 1960s and supported the neoliberal Hillary Clinton against a social democratic challenger for the 2016 Democratic nomination for President.  Notwithstanding that, the New York Times has served as a fairly good mediator of epistemic authority with respect to many other topics:  it has provided a bulwark against those who deny the reality of climate change or the human contribution to it; it has debunked those who think vaccinations causes autism; it gives no comfort to creationists and other religious zealots; and it treats genuine epistemic authorities about the natural world—for example, members of the National Academy of Sciences in America--as epistemic authorities in its journalism.  Genuine epistemic authority cannot exist in a population absent epistemic mediators like the New York Times.
               The Internet is, as we all know, the great eliminator of intermediaries.  This was its virtue for all those excluded, justly or unjustly in the past, from public discourse.  But as cyberspace, with its lack of mediators and filters, has become the primary source of information for most people in the economically advanced nations, its ability to undermine epistemic authority has become alarmingly evident.  The Internet is the epistemological crisis of the 21st century:  it magnifies ignorance and stupidity and is now leading hundreds of millions, maybe now billions, of people to act on the basis of the fantasy world it constructs.
               That brings us, of course, to the current President of the United States.  Speaking to scholars, in Europe no less, it may seem mere pandering to observe that Trump is quite obviously, as his Secretary of State put it, a “fucking moron,” not fit to run a company, let alone a country, let alone to enjoy the power to destroy the entire world ten minutes from now.  I was a lawyer involved in real estate litigation in New York City thirty years ago, so I can testify that his reputation then was no different.   Indeed, his actual reputation explains why a member of the Republican ruling class, Michael Bloomberg, went to the Democratic convention in 2016 to denounce him.   Alas, certainly not enough people listened to Bloomberg or any of the other normal members of the ruling class who denounced the buffoon.  That fact is itself revealing.
            In thinking about the Trump catastrophe for humanity, we should remember that qua individual Trump is irrelevant:   he is at best a symptom, or a lens through which tendencies produced by socio-economic realities pass and find focus.  That Trump is an idiot, psychologically disturbed, incompetent is not the real issue; the real issue is what kind of system could elevate him to the position he now holds.   Moralists in political thought have had nothing interesting to say about the Trump phenomenon, just as little as they helped us to understand Reagan, Thatcher and Berlusconi, and as little as they help us understand juvenile stupidity about “alternative facts” and “post truth.”   The ruling class in every society has always depended on “alternative facts,” it is part of what Marx called “ideology,” and which Thucydides recognized clearly two millennia ago:  those in power try to deny or reinterpret the parts of reality that threaten their power and interests.   We can never actually be “post truth” insofar as what is true exercises a causal constraint on what happens:   when the door is locked, no amount of “post truth” will let you walk through it.   Those politicians who talk the language of “post truth” are ideological apologists for powerful interests and the misery of its victims.   What is new and important is that the Internet now makes “alternative” facts more viable than they have ever been in history because it undermines the second-order norms for sustaining epistemic authority.
        Trump and his acolytes are not really “post-truth,” they very much want the practical advantages that flow from monopolizing what is taken to be true, since truth and knowledge, as Foucault’s entire corpus was devoted to demonstrating, are not normatively inert, but exercise a powerful influence on action (cf. Leiter forthcoming).   The crucial phenomenon that has made Trump possible is the collapse of public mediation by reliable epistemic authorities who actually track what is true.  Trump is the American President that Internet technology wrought.

Trump's Psyche

Psychiatrist James Gilligan on the shutdown: Trump inflicted his own pain and humiliation on America

NYU psychiatry professor: Donald Trump must hurt others in order to prove his superiority. It isn't working


1.2K2.1K
follow us in feedly
CHAUNCEY DEVEGA
JANUARY 31, 2019 12:00PM (UTC)
Donald Trump held the American people hostage for 35 days in a vain attempt to extort billions of dollars from Congress for his pointless wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. This is the longest shutdown of the federal government in our nation's history. Estimates suggest that Trump's stunt cost the U.S. economy at least $6 billion.
That huge sum of money is an abstraction. Donald Trump and the Republican Party's political hostage-taking hurt the approximately one million people who are directly employed by the federal government. Millions of other Americans were harmed both directly and indirectly by this disruption in the government and its impact on the economy and other services.
The personal is again the political. Federal workers were not paid. Many of them, such as janitors, security guards and other contract employees, will receive no compensation for their lost wages. Federal workers and their families in some cases were forced to choose between medicine and food; others may have been evicted or be at risk of foreclosure; those who already lead a precarious existence were forced over the ledge by Donald Trump into a financial abyss from which they may never recover.
In total this is part of a decades-long pattern in which the policies of the Republican Party and their leaders cause pain and harm to the American people. This is an empirical fact and reality.
How do the Republicans stay in power when their policies are actually dangerous to the United States and its citizens? How healthy is American society if it produces leaders who actually do not serve the common good? Does Donald Trump represent a broader cruelty and selfishness on the American right? What does Trump's hostage taking and his desire to hurt millions of people reveal about his mental health and psyche?
In an effort to answer these questions I recently spoke with Dr. James Gilligan, a clinical professor of psychiatry at New York University and author of the book "Why Some Politicians Are More Dangerous Than Others." Gilligan is also a contributing writer for the 2017 bestseller "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President."
This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
Three years into Trump's presidency, how well is American society doing?
Once Trump got elected, I expected the worst. And frankly, I think that’s what we’re getting. He’s constrained to some extent by the fact that the United States still does have  a more or less intact democracy and legal system. Trump is trying to tear it down as much he can. But there is no question that Donald Trump is a would-be dictator who would take advantage of any opportunity to trash the notion of “rule by law.”
Trump's presidency is the result of the following. America is a sick society with aspects of collective sociopathy. America's leadership class is also anti-social and pathological. Is this a correct diagnosis?
America has, by far, the highest imprisonment rate in the world ‑- even higher than what we call “police states” such as Iran, China or Egypt. The United States is the only Western democracy that still has the death penalty and still employs long-term solitary confinement for prisoners. This is a form of torture.
If imprisoning everybody and punishing them more severely than other countries really worked in preventing violence, we would have the most nonviolent society in the world. However, the United States has incomparably the highest murder rate of any economically developed country.
Our punitive policies are not in the least diminishing our rate of violence. If they are having any effect on it, it is only to increase it.
When I speak of the United States as a sick society, I use public health as a framework. The famous physician Rudolf Virchow made a great observation: “Medicine is a social science, and politics is simply medicine on a larger scale." By that criterion, the U.S. is the sickest of the societies that have achieved industrialization and technological progress and other so-called indicators of being "advanced."
What type of leaders does that type of society elevate?
What we have seen in American politics and society is action and reaction from the left and the right. When Democrats get elected to the presidency, rates of suicide and homicide go down. This is the government’s own data. It’s not my data. When Republicans get elected, rates of suicide and homicide go up. Roosevelt and the Democrats were in power basically from 1932 to 1968. During those years the rates of suicide and homicide reached the lowest levels of the century.
Then, in 1968, Nixon came in and for the following quarter of a century we had mostly Republican rule. The United States then sunk into an epidemic of homicide and suicide. The rates of suicide and homicide went down again under Bill Clinton.
George W. Bush comes in and the rates of suicide and homicide started increasing a bit. Then Barack Obama is elected and he is undoing the recession that Bush Jr. had created. In sum, Republicans increase unemployment and inequality. And of course Trump is now president, and he represents a white backlash against Obama with the predictable subsequent negative effects on the country's health.
Even with that pendulum there are going to be leaders who are going to be more moral, responsible and interested in the common good than others. Obama certainly exemplifies those values more than Trump and other Republicans and conservatives.
Right-wing leaders are people who operate by a moral value system based on shame. For them and their public the worst evil in the world is to be shamed or humiliated, meaning to be insulted or regarded as an inferior. For right-wing leaders and their supporters the most important thing in the world is to be strong, not weak. There is a will to power there, and a capacity for not feeling guilty about hurting people. For right-wing types the only concern is to benefit themselves, so they are egocentric or narcissistic -- to use the psychoanalytic jargon.
One of the things Trump said before he came to power was, “People used to laugh at me, but they don’t laugh so much anymore.” His concern was not being ridiculed or shamed. Once he got power, he didn’t have to worry about that  so much. But I think Trump is now realizing that his power as president is limited and he is having those worries again. Donald Trump then transferred his own personal feelings of insecurity onto the country as a whole.
Another example: Trump has said things like, “The other countries are laughing at America, the other countries don’t respect America. I’m stopping them from laughing at us and forcing them to respect us.” Again, Donald Trump is really just transferring his own personal feelings of vulnerability to shame and humiliation onto the country as a whole.
He speaks to the fears and insecurities of voters in this country who now think that they are going to lose some degree of security and middle-class status to this imaginary horde of immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere.
What are the values of Democrats and other liberal and progressive leaders?
Nobody’s perfect, but relatively speaking, the left-wing leaders have been more influenced by what I call a guilt ethic, meaning a value system where the worst evil is to be guilty of harming somebody and the goal is to create and achieve a state of innocence by trying to help people. Ultimately, the liberals and progressives -- the left-wing -- are really trying to create a society in which everybody’s dignity can be respected.
Here is a policy example. How do we fit Donald Trump and the Republican Party's obsessive and desperate efforts to take food stamps and other types of assistance away from needy and vulnerable people within your framework?
In my opinion, Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder. Trump also appears to have a sociopathic or antisocial personality disorder as well as a paranoid personality disorder. Those are conditions common to people who are shame-dominated. They want to make sure no one can disrespect them or laugh at them and so forth.
People like this feel ashamed when they realize that they really want someone to take care of them. Autonomy, independence, self-reliance, take care of yourself and don’t depend on anybody else -- those are their internal rules and mantras. Consequently, they will shame other people they see as being dependent. Shame-dominated people do not want to be like other people who are “dependent” on welfare or unemployment insurance, or any other system of support or aid.
What this group fails to recognize is that in fact no human being is either totally dependent or independent. We’re a mixture of both. We are interdependent. We all need each other. There’s no such thing as a human being who can survive without depending on others for a lot of things. On the other hand, we also give things to other people and they depend on us in return. Human beings are interdependent and that is an insight and fact that people on the right wing of politics, or who have personality disorders like Donald Trump, have lost sight of.
Note that what we call “welfare” in America is when money is given to people who don’t have much. But the fact is there are all kinds of corporate welfare in America. It is little discussed and there is little shame about it from the recipients.
The Republican war on the poor is Dickensian, a contemporary version of social Darwinism.
It is almost feudal or like something from the 18th century in Europe. That is what is continuing now with the opposition to what we label as "welfare," and shaming those who need it instead of recognizing they’re just like us. Everybody needs help from other people.
If somebody’s at the bottom of the social and economic status system, that’s a problem of the status system itself. It’s not a problem made by those who are on the bottom of the social hierarchy.
Your book "Why Some Politicians are More Dangerous Than Others" does a comprehensive job of marshaling the empirical data to show that the Republican Party is a threat to the American people and does them great harm. But let us imagine that a Republican or other conservative reads your book and rebuts that: “I’m a good person! How dare you make these conclusions? This is so absurd. Republicans and conservatives are not bad people!”
Everybody is well-meaning. “The path to hell is paved with good intentions.” In the United States there is an error of reasoning where the world is divided into the superior and the inferior as opposed to the idea that all men are created equal.
There are political leaders in the United States and elsewhere, specifically Republicans and conservatives, who hurt their own voters in order to gain more power. We call this "sadopopulism" or "political sadism." How does this work cognitively and emotionally?
Such leaders and people have a moral value system which they may or may not have thought out consciously. This value system is real, and conservatives and other right-wing authoritarians feel justified in hurting other people as a way of proving their superiority and gaining power.
What I keep trying to communicate to such people is that they are actually not helping themselves when they behave in such a way. In the long run, such behavior hurts them as well as others. It destroys relationships. It destroys their capacity for love. You can’t exploit people and love them. Leaders and other people who cause pain are really hurting themselves, even though they may not realize it.
By adopting this sort of dog-eat-dog moral and political philosophy, such people really wind up isolating themselves. The power that they think they’re getting cannot ultimately be satisfying.
We see that with Donald Trump. He has gotten a lot of power by means of lying to everybody and cheating people and not paying his bills. Trump has even gotten to the White House by behaving badly. But now look at Trump. People from every side are coming down on him. He’s going to have to fight off being sent to prison for the things he’s done. You don’t really help yourself in the long run if you just become antisocial.
You are a professor of psychiatry. If you had an opportunity to counsel Donald Trump, what would your approach be? What would you say to him?
I would say, “Relax, Donald. You don’t need to fight with everybody or insult everybody in order to respect yourself. In the long run, that really doesn’t work. You’ll respect yourself a lot more, and other people will respect you more, if you can learn to treat other people with the same respect you want for yourself. People are not out to harm you. Nobody wants to do that unless you provoke them to. If you simply treat other people with respect, they’ll respect you more and you’ll respect yourself more.”
But on the other hand, I don’t think he would listen to anything unless I first ask him to tell me what’s on his mind. With Trump you would have to begin with questions.
I’d say the main question that I would ask is this: “How well is your strategy for living working for you?” He would likely say, immediately, "Look, I’m perfect. I’m president and I’ve got all this money.” I would respond, “Well, OK, how well is life actually working out for you?”
Then, he’d have to start confronting the fact that people hate him and the criminal justice system is gunning for him. All his associates are being sent to prison, and they’re testifying against him. At some point, Trump is going to have to realize that his strategy for living is not working well for him. Perhaps that would give him some motivation to get better and change his behavior.

CHAUNCEY DEVEGA

Chauncey DeVega is a politics staff writer for Salon. His essays can also be found at Chaunceydevega.com. He also hosts a weekly podcast, The Chauncey DeVega Show. Chauncey can be followed on Twitter and Facebook.

PR and Andrew Jackson

THE PUBLIC RELATIONS STRATEGY THAT MADE ANDREW JACKSON PRESIDENT

Long Before His Campaign Launched, Old Hickory's Supporters Were Scrubbing His Image

In the painting “The Battle of New Orleans,” Edward Percy Moran depicts Andrew Jackson in battle, a leading example of the longstanding campaign to turn Jackson from soldier into national hero. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.
What It Means to Be AmericanSixty-five years ago, historian John William Ward had the insight that for better or worse, Andrew Jackson’s victory over the British at New Orleans on January 8, 1815, made him the “Symbol for an Age.” There are those who would argue that the battle also made him president fourteen years later; but Jackson’s rise was more complicated—and far more calculated—than these narratives suggest. 
New Orleans was the culmination of Jackson’s already impressive military career, and it established the man in the public’s imagination as a successor to those who had won the American Revolution. Americans suddenly wanted portraits and biographies of Jackson—the general credited with “winning” the War of 1812—reminiscent of those revered patriots. 
Indeed, the chronic awfulness of almost every other aspect of the fight with Britain stood in high contrast to Jackson’s part in it. Military ineptitude, political dissent verging on treason, and the humiliation of the sacked capital of Washington, D.C. all constituted the American story of the war—at least until Jackson won the Creek War of 1813-14 and then proceeded to crush the Duke of Wellington’s veterans on the Chalmette Plain. 
Such deeds reminded Americans of what they had believed during their first fight with Britain: that virtue was more important than martial skill in the winning of wars. 
Jackson’s life story reinforced this perception. He was born, just weeks after his father’s death, into a hardscrabble life worsened by the Revolutionary War, which killed his brothers and mother and very nearly killed him. That he survived seemed to make him stronger and more daring and he grew into the kind of self-made man whom Jackson’s fellow countrymen knew firsthand—both in themselves and their neighbors. No matter how high he might climb on economic or social ladders, Andrew Jackson remained a self-educated bundle of great aspirations, in appearance spare but sinewed, by experience beleaguered but resolute. The Jackson archetype was one that later generations of Americans would admire in story and song.
Without a doubt, the war made Jackson famous by elevating him from a regional notable to a household name, including the admiring one of “Old Hickory,” given to him by devoted soldiers who compared his stoicism to the hardwood that would neither bend nor break. Only in retrospect, however, did it seem inevitable that Jackson’s military fame would win him the presidency. 
Jackson’s oldest and most enduring friend John Overton was the first to gauge his public acclaim as a national phenomenon, one that could make the celebrated general an invincible politician. Before the Battle of New Orleans, Overton had been among those who thought Jackson’s best chance was to seek state office, such as governor of Tennessee. But after the Glorious Eighth of January, Overton paused. Hearing Jackson described as an American Cincinnatus—who, like George Washington, had left his plow to protect his country—caused others to pause too.
Jackson’s prospects were not just the talk of state houses and Congress but of ordinary folk as well. From travelers and correspondents, Overton heard that men clustered around wood stoves in crossroad groceries where they talked of Andy Jackson as if he were family. Newspapers from Manhattan to Mobile and from Savannah to St. Louis carried accounts of town squares filled with cheering citizens passing resolutions of praise and appreciation for a man they had never seen but who seemed like a neighbor, the kind you trusted with your wife. And why not? Americans had trusted him with their country. “I to the listening world do now proclaim,” a poet hymned, “JACKSON’S brave deeds, his never-dying fame.” 
Overton not only gauged the people’s enthusiasm for Jackson, but he also judged their discontent with the status quo in Washington, D.C. Just as the failed generalship of others in the War of 1812 burnished Jackson’s glittering military exploits, the denizens of the nation’s capital seemed to be lawyerly, self-serving politicos always locked in pointless debates. They became a counterpoint to Jackson as a man of action able to solve the thorniest problems and beholden to nobody while doing it. 
Overton accordingly recalibrated his plans to aim at a higher target. He already had at his disposal Tennessee’s dominant political machine, the Blount-Overton faction, but he also assembled Jackson’s Tennessee friends into a powerful committee whose reach extended beyond politics to include community leaders, accomplished diplomats, and influential newspapermen. On its face, the chore for this so-called Nashville Junto was both simple and easy: Harness enthusiasm for Jackson and watch its power propel him into the presidency. 
Overton, though, knew that making Jackson president would be neither easy nor simple. The political establishment was sure to balk over his lack of credentials and experience, and those reservations could seem prudent to the people as their ardor over the military hero cooled. The problem became more daunting when questions about Jackson’s temperament were added to the mix. A nation mostly ignorant of the details of Jackson’s life was singing his praises, but those familiar with his past knew it to be checkered by violence and lapses in judgment. His body carried two bullets. Neither was from military combat.
Even the grand triumph at New Orleans was mottled by Jackson’s overbearing behavior in its aftermath. He maintained martial law long after the British departed. And when civilians grew restive under the restrictions, Jackson denounced them as seditious.
As a youth, it was whispered, Jackson had married Rachel Donelson Robards while she was married to another man. And over the years, when the whispers about this matter gained the slightest volume, Jackson stood ready to silence them with force. Friends intervened in 1803 to stop a duel when Jackson called out Tennessee’s sitting governor over a snide remark about the marriage. But three years later, nothing, not even his foe’s bullet, which lodged near his heart, could stop Jackson from killing young Nashville attorney Charles Dickinson because he had made a drunken jest about Rachel’s virtue.
Defending his wife’s reputation was possibly an understandable spur to reckless deeds, but Jackson’s touchy temper and an exaggerated sense of personal honor could cause unseemly behavior for less decorous reasons. In 1813, a silly disagreement led to a quarrel that exploded when Jackson and an armed entourage set upon the brothers Jesse and Thomas Hart Benton in Nashville. The ensuing brawl featured gunplay (Jackson’s second bullet) and some vicious knife carving before it ended with Jackson nearly bleeding to death. His wound was severe enough to almost keep him out of the Creek War. 
That it didn’t was a testament to Jackson’s iron will, but incidents during the Creek conflict suggested a darker side to the story. Beleaguered by a mutinous militia, Jackson seemed to lose perspective when he executed a 17-year-old boy over a misunderstanding misinterpreted as insubordination. And Jackson’s men weren’t careful about culling combatants from the innocent, killing Creek women and children along with Creek warriors. After the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, they shot the wounded and counted the dead by snipping off the tips of their noses. 
Even the grand triumph at New Orleans was mottled by Jackson’s overbearing behavior in its aftermath. He maintained martial law long after the British departed. And when civilians grew restive under the restrictions, Jackson denounced them as seditious. When a Louisiana legislator dared to protest in the press, Jackson locked him up. A federal judge ordered the legislator released. Jackson jailed the judge. 
The evidence indicates that Jackson and his friends decided to address these questions of character in a preemptive way by providing the public with a carefully crafted story of his life. Published in 1817, the biography became the model for presidential campaign biographies ever afterward. Author John Henry Eaton recognized his task as the simple one of enhancing Jackson’s established military reputation while solving the more difficult editorial puzzle of omitting dubious details about his marriage, his temper, and his occasional disregard for the law. The result was an enduring image of Jackson for an avid audience. Chagrinned rivals would find that image difficult to tarnish from the start and, eventually, impossible to alter in the public mind.
Subsequent steps to advance Jackson’s prospects required careful calculations as well as innovations. Calculations were necessary to dent the skepticism of the Washington political establishment about Jackson’s fitness for office and his aptitude for holding it. The decision by the Tennessee machine to place Old Hickory in the U.S. Senate in 1823 risked sacrificing his status as a political outsider untainted by the byzantine workings in the nation’s capital, but impressing Washington society with Jackson’s courtly demeanor and deliberative statesmanship was worth the gamble. As with the biography, the result was impressive and lasting. Meanwhile, Jackson’s presidential campaign innovated by using extant newspapers and founding new ones to tailor messages for specific regional audiences, while keeping vibrant the idea of Jackson as virtuous, diligent, and always heroic. 
These strategies and methods were wildly successful, but they likely would have been insufficient in the absence of the significant social and political changes that coincided with the political rise of Andrew Jackson. Indeed, they were mostly responsible for it. Jackson’s presidential candidacy occurred when the politics of deference—the idea that only bookish elites could manage government—was waning as democratization gained momentum. The process had started before the War of 1812, long before Jackson became a political figure, but he would be its principal beneficiary as the cresting wave of democracy lifted his political fortunes. 
Even though they were fated to endure as legacies to all American political campaigns that followed, the creation of an image and its maintenance were innovations of the moment. They accomplished much more, though, by establishing the story that the man who had profited from an irresistible movement was also its creator—and that narrative is another lasting legacy of Jackson’s campaign for the presidency. John William Ward’s observation that Jackson was emblematic of an age still resonates in the term “Jacksonian Democracy,” but that term hides the amorphous nature of the times. Andrew Jackson was more than a symbol: He was a portent of the way his country would conduct its politics from then on, for better or worse.