Top 10 “America First” Presidents of All Time
Postscript: the inclusion of FDR was originally suggested by a VERY influential poster as a troll. The Bush family were pushing back against Trump during his tenure as President and in 2018 when this was written, the intent was to push back against the boomer fascination with Ronald Reagan by claiming, at least FDR restricted immigration…FDR was a commie that did much to throw Europe and the ruling class of America into upheaval and would not be included on a purely honest list, but it was a fun troll. The rest of the Presidents are rather straightforward choices.
It is fashionable to read about the horrors of Nationalism and we are given warnings to avoid Nationalism at all costs, but what is Nationalism and what do Nationalist policies look like? Britannica.com defines Nationalism as the individuals loyalty to the nation-state surpass all other groups or individual interests. A good example of this question came to the forefront with the election of John F Kennedy, who was Catholic. Concerns among many were that he was ultimately more loyal to the Pope than to America. Currently, America stands at a crossroads between subjugation of the nation-state to globalism or resuscitation and revival of the nation and it’s people. The former is necessary for international commercial interests and bureaucracies and requires open borders and unrestrained flow of foreign capital into and out of accounts held in different plots of land throughout the world. The latter requires a rooted and mature populace that acts in the self-interests of themselves and their fellow citizens rather than rely wholly on the bottom line of their 401ks. A nationalist country, when developing a new technology, would train it’s citizens to manufacture that technology with the hopes of exporting the product to the rest of the world for a premium. In contrast, a globalist based governance would rapidly farm out such manufacturing to the lowest labor bidder to yield the highest profit and not really care which nation they live in, so long as tax rates are low. And so with an eye on current events here is a list of Nationalist Presidents as a primer for the novice historian and a reminder with some talking points for your discussions with your co-workers and colleagues.
10. William McKinley
It’s true, and it starts with the big gold coin (“SOUND MONEY”)
McKinley had two Nationalist traits that could be useful today, he was protectionist throughout his Congressional career and raised tariffs to protect American workers, and held to the Gold Standard as opposed to expansionist fiscal policy. The Democratic nominee, William Jennings Bryan, gave fiery defense of silver as the second metal backing the dollar. Monetary policy was a key issue in elections back then, and rightfully so!
In foreign policy he soundly defeated the Spanish empire and freed Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spanish rule. The economy remained strong under McKinley and he easily won re-election. Unfortunately, early in his second term McKinley was assassinated by the son of a Polish immigrant had recently heard a speech from anarchist Emma Goldman, prompting him to act.
9. Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln may or may not be your favorite president, that may depend on where you grew up, but there’s no arguing he fought
8. Calvin Coolidge
So that’s where Trump got the slogans
To understand Coolidge’s impact one must first know the context set by Woodrow Wilson in the previous decade. World War I took a heavy toll on the American populace and Wilson had wanted to supplant American sovereignty for rule under the League of Nations. On top of this Wilson signed the income tax into effect. With this backdrop Coolidge, who took over from Warren Harding early in his presidency, brought a mix of laissez-faire economics and isolationism and unleashed industry in America. Car ownership boomed and an entire new industry, radio, flourished. This was the last time laissez-faire economics was explicitly paired with isolationism and nationalism, until (in a much more modest form) Trump. By comparison, Reagan and the Bushes pushed, essentially globalist policy with a bit of flag-waving jingoism.
Also germane to Nationalism is that Coolidge signed into law the Immigration Act of 1924, which restricted immigration considerably, a policy which lasted essentially until 1965. The act explicitly favored native-born American identity over European immigrants and 2% caps were placed on specific countries of origin. Meaning, the US would only allow 2% of the total number of people from that country of origin from entering the US in any year. If there are 1 million US citizens of Congolese origin, then only 20,000 Congolese would be allowed in any year under this law and reduced immigration to roughly 100,000 annually, 10% of current levels.
As strange or racist as these types of immigration controls sound they are far less restrictive than current policy in Japan or Mexico.
7. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Consider all the criticisms of neocons like Dinesh De Souza excoriating FDR for putting Japanese Americans in internment camps after Pearl Harbor and in the midst of naval attacks on the west coast. Rhetorical point scoring on behalf on specific political parties rings hollow with those that have a keen eye on nationalistic tendencies. Of course Roosevelt’s instincts were correct here. But further, although it may have led to the dismay of international capital and is likely the impetus behind the criticism of neocons, FDRs massive works programs like the Works Project Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority constructed thousands of schools and power plants throughout the country and this investment in the labor throughout the Tennessee Valley produced cheap electricity resulting in industrialization of the South. The South remained solidly Democratic for 50 years in part due to these programs because they primarily benefited the people and not capital.
6. Teddy Roosevelt
Teddy Roosevelt was the first modern American president who recognized the importance of a naval force to multiply the presence of the US internationally and used this to great effect, particularly in negotiating the peace treaty between Russia and Japan. Further his greatest accomplishment began during his presidency was to build the Panama Canal connecting the east and west coast (and Europe to Asia) by sea. He was wise enough to relinquish imperial claims over the Philippines, which would have been costly and overreaching. Also he preserved National parks and busted up the monopolies plaguing the citizens of the day, something Trump should take note of, particularly with regards to social media and internet giants in Silicon Valley.
5. Dwight D Eisenhower
President Eisenhower would be considered a centrist, he was openly courted by the democratic party and fended off a more right wing challenger in Robert Taft in 1952 despite receiving fewer votes in the primary. The right wing forces at the time wanted a more aggressive approach to China and Russia but the Korean war had already had 30k casualties at this point and the public was increasingly tired of bloody foreign campaigns. Despite his fervent anti-communist rhetoric Eisenhower’s popularity was due in part to his detente with Korea. For his presidency home ownership increased considerably and his key legislation and biggest project was the Federal Highway Act of 1956 at tremendous expense ($130 billion for 43,000 miles of road) and to the benefit of the American populace.
Eisenhower also worked hard to expel foreign invaders who had come to undermine labor in the United States with Operation Wetback, in which 750 immigration agents repatriated 1 million Mexicans to their homeland within a single year. This may seem racist but imagine if Russians started creating colonies in Alaska, which was at one time Russian territory. Would deportations be frowned upon then?
4. James K Polk
You won’t hear about this democratic President in history class but he just won the last war , the Mexican-American war to actually gain the United States territory. And what a couple prizes California and Texas. He negotiated from a defeated Mexican government the entire mountain west. Though don’t be tricked by propagandists on behalf of the country of Mexico, the territories of California, Nevada and Texas were scarcely populated and the claims of the Mexican government were nebulous at best. There were very few bases and no real settlement by the Mexican government, which had inherited these territories from Spain. Nonetheless it was quite a score for Polk and with some clever marketing of gold in the west the US was able to recruit quite a few settlers in California by 1849. By some definitions Polk may be the #1 Nationalist on the list but he made it look so easy, and was fighting only a fledgling and discombobulated nation, that other contenders rank higher.
3. Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson was a key author of the constitution and as President made the first major territorial expansion of the US with the Louisiana Purchase. He reduced the national debt and dispatched newfound naval power to eradicate the Barbary menace harassing American trade ships.
Jefferson is an interesting study in contrasts as his role as secretary of state under Washington he advocated strongly for republicanism and the distribution of power and rights to the states, yet his main accomplishments were both extra-constitutional and required a strong national Presidential authority.
2. Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) has many modern critics, none of which would have had the gall to criticize Ole Hickory his day. He survived 26 duels and fought the British in the battle of New Orleans. He was the first President to survive an assassination attempt. While he was supportive of slavery, he threatened military action in South Carolina if they chose to secede, (see Nullification Crisis).
Jackson was an avid populist and progenitor of the Democratic party and fought and won a long hard War with the banks. This was a protracted engagement with the Second Bank of the United States (B.U.S) formed by James Madison out of expediency. Jackson doubted the constitutionality of the Bank but was willing to negotiate with Bank President Nicholas Biddle. The Bank had a charter to last until 1836, and Biddle had proposed to Jackson a plan to pay down the National Debt. While Jackson praised these efforts, he voiced his concern on the Banks Constitutionality 1829. Biddle and Senator Henry Clay fought hard in support of rechartering the national bank and passed a bill in Congress in support of this, which Jackson swiftly vetoed.
`The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me,’ he (Jackson) said, `but I will kill it.”
Jackson and the BUS were involved in a rhetorical war. Part of Jackson’s Veto message on the BUS warned of foreign investment into US currency.
It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class. For their benefit does this act exclude the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly and dispose of it for many millions less than it is worth.
and this:
Should the stock of the bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and we should unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition? Of the course which would be pursued by a bank almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power, and managed by those whose interests, if not affections, would run in the same direction there can be no doubt. All its operations within would be in aid of the hostile fleets and armies without. Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy.
If we must have a bank with private stockholders, every consideration of sound policy and every impulse of American feeling admonishes that it should be purely American. Its stockholders should be composed exclusively of our own citizens, who at least ought to be friendly to our Government and willing to support it in times of difficulty and danger. So abundant is domestic capital that competition in subscribing for the stock of local banks has recently led almost to riots. To a bank exclusively of American stockholders, possessing the powers and privileges granted by this act, subscriptions for $200,000,000 could be readily obtained. Instead of sending abroad the stock of the bank in which the Government must deposit its funds and on which it must rely to sustain its credit in times of emergency, it would rather seem to be expedient to prohibit its sale to aliens under penalty of absolute forfeiture.
Jackson withdrew federal deposits from the BUS and decentralized it by depositing funds in 22 banks throughout the US.
1. George Washington
“This place sure could use a few Barbary’s to tell us how to govern.”
The tension of American governance played out in the cabinet of the US’s first President. A capable general and natural leader but a reluctant politician. All he really wanted to do was retire to his large plantation but the needs of the nation kept calling him. Washington often felt like he was the only person holding the nation together. His secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton had a vision for an economy based on trade an banking, which would provide: “a flourishing merchant economy would sow opportunities for all, resulting in a more philanthropic, knowledgeable and enterprising people.” Hamilton was Washington’s closest adviser and also envisioned a strong central government. Thomas Jefferson was Washington’s Secretary of State and preferred an agrarian economy, and remarked that centralized government “simply European-style tyranny waiting to happen again.” Eventually Jefferson left the cabinet, but over time Jeffersonian-style decentralized government won over the populace for most of the early 19th century. Washington often allowed his cabinet to debate their points and issue their suggestions in writing for him to make the final decision.
Washington’s farewell address outlines his warnings to the fledgling nation about the future, the seeds of which had already been sown. One the matter of alliances with other nations Washington reserved severe caution, for example:
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
This paragraph sounds straight out of the playbook of Ron Paul:
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
the toughest battles to hold together the nation of the US. He didn’t just give a speech and South recanted. Washington was a great leader and fought back the British triumphantly, but the redcoats could afford to lose the US colony. In the Civil War Lincoln had to persuade Unionists to face their fellow citizens on their home territory. It took a considerable amount of fortitude to trust in your generals as they held no quarter and marched through the south. Ulysses S Grant had a nickname, “Unconditional Surrender Grant”. General Sherman had proposed and conducted a march to the sea to burn all the plantations, destroy all the rail lines and essentially burn down Atlanta and Savannah Georgia.
“Many, many thanks for your Christmas-gift — the capture of Savannah. When you were about leaving Atlanta for the Atlantic coast, I was anxious, if not fearful; but feeling that you were the better judge, and remembering that ‘nothing risked, nothing gained’ I did not interfere. Now, the undertaking being a success, the honor is all yours.”
Is Trump wiling to march soldiers into the heart of his enemy territory and burn down down entire cities with every man, woman and child still in it? Is he willing to risk 2% of the population as Lincoln did in the pursuit of maintaining the Union? Will Trump instate a Reconstruction government in sanctuary cities and require reparations for every American that lost a job to foreign labor?
Larger Lessons
And so what are the dangers of Nationalism? Nationalistic tendencies highlighted here point to an isolationist foreign policy, as opposed to countless foreign interventions, and national sovereignty resting on the will of the citizens rather than handed over to external international bodies or banks. The greatest risk is that national unity comes at the price of internal conflict. Trump is not facing the challenges of Lincoln or Jackson, but if he is to survive and become as great a President as he claims he is he will have to make some bold changes to reduce the globalist mindset of our current economic Brahman class.