Jacksonian changes amounted to a market revolution, for in the Northwest and Old Northwest, improvements in transportation and increased immigration hastened the collapse of the older yeoman and artisan economy; it was replaced by cash-crop agriculture and capitalist industrialization. In the American south, a cotton boom revived diminishing levels of planation slavery, which had then spread to occupy the finest lands of the region. In the west, Jacksonians seized Native American lands, opening new areas for cultivation and land speculation.
As with most democratic administrations, not everyone benefited equally, least of all non-whites. Jacksonian Democracy grew from the tensions it generated within white society. Mortgaged farmers and non-slave-owning farmers in the south sensed that Jackson’s policies would bring new forms of dependence on the federal government. They were right.
Jacksonian democrats developed an ideology aimed primarily at voters who believed themselves injured by market capitalism. They posited that the American republic could not long survive without citizens of economically independent means. The Jacksonian argument was that the history of humankind involved a struggle between the few and the many, instigated by greedy rich people looking to exploit the vast majority of “common, decent folks.”
The weapons of choice in this argument were the notion of equal rights and limited government, which they believed should be the prohibition of wealthy capitalists enriching themselves. In order to achieve this, they commandeered, enlarged, and plundered public institutions. The argument was based on the proposition of white male equality. Nativism struck them as a hateful manifestation of elitist puritanism. The moral, they argued, should not impose righteousness on others (presumably, the immoral). The mission of Jacksonians was to purge society of privilege.
True to American form, there was considerable opposition to Jacksonian politics … manifested within a cross-class coalition. It saw capitalism as the embodiment of civilized progress. It did not pit the few against the many. Rather, carefully guided economic growth would provide “more” for everyone. This notion was provided by evangelicals who saw moral reform as a preferred cooperative effort designed to relieve human degradation and expand national wealth.
Anti-Jacksonians (Whigs) were opposed to imperialism as much as they resisted a tyrannical Andrew Jackson. They believed that more than political equality, personal decency and industriousness would determine the success or failure of this new land called America.
It is at this point we should wonder who the Jacksonians and their opponents were talking to. Contrasting then with now, we might further wonder who the neo-Liberals (nee Progressives) are talking to today. In Jacksonian times, the main audience were illiterate country-folk easily manipulated by the promise of government munificence. In modern times, the main audience is under-educated urbanites easily manipulated by the promise of government munificence.
In fairness, these changes in thinking weren’t confined to America alone; it was a global revolution in thinking and one that remains with us today.
The two camps are easily identified: classic liberals are those who seek to maintain the enlightened ideas of the American revolutionary period, which emphasizes individual liberty, equal opportunity, a well-educated capacity for deep thinking, and personal responsibility.
In contrast, neo-liberals are those who seek to maintain the unrealistic ideas of the Communist revolutionary period —emphasizing such collective notions as social justice, group think, equal outcomes, and blaming the system for personal failures.
This, then, is the Democratic Party of 2017 —it is what at least half of America has come to today. Within a majority of our highest institutions in learning, mind-numbing conformity and a general acceptance of the comical nonsense of communism has replaced genuine thinking and a quest for discovery.
How one gets into college today is not so much by their academic qualifications as it is by such nonsense as affirmative action placement. Then, once in the classroom, unqualified students become the playthings of Marxist professors. Now we are able to see how our legal profession, government, and academia are filled to over-flowing with such large numbers of unintelligent people, and how our people have become so utterly dogmatic.
At least, now we can see how we ended up with such people as Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, John Podesta, and orchestrating this pack of wolves is none other than George Soros. On that note, however, given her national footprint, how does one explain the remarkably blank resume of Hillary Clinton? She was a senator, and our Secretary of State—but we should wonder, on what basis was she elevated to such lofty positions? To this we should add that, as she was unable to keep her husband satisfied, she even failed miserably as “first lady.” No one in this country is better scripted than Hillary Clinton, and yet millions of people lined up behind her hoping to propel her into the White House. God help us!
America’s Democratic Party is a national disgrace —but at least now we know where it came from. I suppose the real question is, what do Americans intend to do about this stain on our honor?
 Whenever anyone hears someone blathering on about social justice, they should think of Stalin’s confiscation of private farms and organizing them into agricultural collective arrangements. Even at the point of a gun, every single one of these collectives was a total failure—and one that resulted in the starvation of millions of people then living in Communist Russia.