1. Kinberg_1824 and 2016_1.doc(x)
____________________________________________________________
1824 and 2016
Nicholas Kinberg
____________________________________________________________
Nicholas Kinberg is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at
nicholaskinberg@wustl.edu.
Citizens are so preoccupied with the spectacle of the current election cycle that they
forget that there does exist precedent for the times in which they live. Thus, those who wonder
what Clinton and Trump presidencies would be like need look no further than John Quincy
Adams and “Old Hickory” himself, Andrew Jackson, respectively. It’s 1824, and the United
States are (people referred to the country as plural before the Civil War) gearing up to choose
their next President. After eight years of the first President, four of the second, and three
consecutive two-termers, the country is aching for someone fresh. Citizens wish to cast off the
shackles of the Old Guard. In that, they find the aforementioned Jackson, a populist who
menaces the Washington “Old Guard.” His main opponent is none other than the also-mentioned
consummate representative of that “Old Guard,” Adams. To make things even more bizarre, this
election cycle sees a significant rise in voter turnout. Sound familiar?
Multiple pundits have called the 2016 election cycle unprecedented, mostly because of all
its implications, foremost of which are those of change versus the status quo and populism versus
centrism. The shockwaves that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders caused throughout the initial
stages of the election gave new meaning to the politically scientific terms “party realignment”
and “party dealignment.” After decades of division down party lines, the citizens of the United
States had finally begun ignoring their differences in favor of one commonality: hatred for the
“ruling class,” the “Washington power brokers,” the Establishment.

2. Thus, the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, who has been prominent on the
Washington scene for more than twenty years, had and has been given a formidable candidate in
an individual at whom most scoffed a year ago. Like the representatives of today, politicians of
the 1820s jeered at the candidacy of Andrew Jackson, a “Washington outsider” with his claim to
fame being his unnecessary victory against the British at the Battle of New Orleans in January
1815, after the War of 1812 had been concluded between Great Britain and the United States
with the Treaty of Ghent. What those delegates did not factor in, however, was that this victory,
among other achievements during Jackson’s time in the military, made him very popular among
working-class voters. Trump appeals to that very same demographic just like his 200-year-old
counterpart, adding credence to the claim of similarity.
Moreover, like 1824, 2016 comes at the tail end of a cycle starting with trend-setters
Ronald Reagan and George Washington, Northern “one-percenters” born into politics George H.
W. Bush and John Adams, Southerners and consummate politicians Bill Clinton and Thomas
Jefferson, warhawks and controversial Presidents George W. Bush and James Madison, and
moderately popular final leaders Barack Obama and James Monroe. To make things even
creepier, the first men served two terms, the second set, one each, and the last three, two each.
Just thinking about it, the parallels between the periods of 1788 to 1824 and 1980 to 2016 are
striking.
If these crazy coincidences keep popping up, the nation could see no candidate win a
majority of the electoral vote, as is what happened in 1824, which saw Andrew Jackson secure
not a majority, but the most popular and Electoral votes. That election saw the contest thrown to
the House of Representatives, where “shady backroom deals” --political bargains, essentially--
were made between Speaker of the House Henry Clay and electoral runner-up John Quincy

3. Adams. Adams won that election, and though his presidency included the implementation of
“internal improvements,” unfortunately for him, 1828 was not a forgiving election cycle. His
opponent of four years prior, Jackson, again trounced him in the popular and Electoral votes. No
House vote could save Adams this time, and as a result, eight years of Andrew Jackson followed.
This history of the antebellum era casts light on what the Clinton and Trump presidencies
might be. The administration of John Quincy Adams saw the work of a technical, hands-on-man
attempting to better transportation and communication across the fledgling nation. The
leadership of Andrew Jackson, like that of his predecessor, saw the strengthening of federal
power as a result of his enforcement of the “Tariff of Abominations” in 1830 against the
nullification of the federal legislation by South Carolina. More ominously, however, he also
flouted an order issued by the Supreme Court not to remove Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole,
Chickasaw, and Choctaw native Americans from the southeastern United States, leading to the
deaths of thousands of Indians—an impeachable offense.
Through these connections, Clinton, comparatively speaking, is this election’s Adams,
and Trump, with his vitriol and lack of political experience, its Jackson. Trump, again like
Jackson, has questions of legitimacy surrounding his marriage, his own problems stemming from
multiple unions. Clinton, again like Adams, is related to a President in the aforementioned cycle.
She wants to stay the general course, like Adams did, while Trump has something completely
different in mind, a la Jackson. Perhaps Clinton will be President until 2021, and then Trump
will take the helm for the rest of the 2020s. Regardless, saying that this election is unprecedented
is simply incorrect. Americans have a road map for this cycle, and they would be wise to use it.
By submitting this article, I give the Washington University Political Review the
right to publish my work in any form. I certify that the article represents my own
thoughts and my own writing and that I have appropriately referenced any sources I
used.

4. Signature: Nicholas Kinberg