An empire-building precedent

Presidents like to compare themselves to their predecessors. These comparisons can be made both for purposes of blame and for flattering conflation. President Trump compared himself to his immediate predecessors, Presidents Obama and Biden, and of course did so by critiquing their performances.

President Trump also has compared himself favorably with other former occupants of the White House. Trump has placed a picture of Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office. He has referenced affinity with Teddy Roosevelt as well.

However, during his inaugural address, President Trump made a rather surprising, lesser-known presidential comparison. He pointed to William McKinley, the Ohio native who held the office from 1897 until his assassination in 1901.

In 1896, McKinley ran for the presidency against Democrat William Jennings Bryan. For about 20 years, neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties had gained dominance, switching back and forth, often in closely contested races. President McKinley won a decisive victory and an even greater reelection four years later, dying early in that second term.

The invocation of McKinley is a curious one. For one could see his relevance to President Trump in several ways. McKinley jump-started a political realignment, a new period wherein the Republican party generally dominated from 1896 until 1932. Regarding actions, McKinley’s Administration pursued two distinct sets of policies. First, McKinley supported a trade system of substantial tariffs on foreign imports. Second, McKinley sought an American Empire overseas, especially in acquisitions made as a result of the Spanish-American War.

Which William McKinley did Trump wish to invoke? In his inaugural address, Trump only pointed to one: McKinley’s support for tariffs on imports. The Republican Part of the 19th and early 20th century vigorously supported taxes on foreign products, both to generate governmental revenue and to protect American business. President Trump speaks in much the same way when articulating his preferred trade policies.

Yet the other two images of McKinley also fit. Since 2015, we have seen a significant re-ordering of the coalitions that make up the Democratic and the Republican parties. Democrats have become more suburban, female, wealthy, and college educated. Republicans have become decidedly rural and much more working class. As a result, the states considered safe and those seen as “toss-ups” has shifted significantly from the electoral maps of 2000-2012.

At the same time, some past realignments have tended to bestow one party with a lasting electoral edge. This happened after the elections of 1800, 1832, 1860, and 1932, for examples. We do not yet see a consistent electoral advantage for Republicans in this new alignment. Congress regularly switches and remains narrowly divided. Whether the shift turns into GOP dominance is questionable.

The question of American Empire is even more interesting. Trump used the phrase “Manifest Destiny” in his inauguration speech. In the 19th century, American politicians, especially Democrats, spoke of Manifest Destiny as a Providential right of Americans to acquire substantial new lands in North America, including those obtained in the Mexican War. McKinley expanded that thirst for acquisition to overseas locations like Cuba (as a protectorate) and the Philippines, joining America in the surge for foreign empire then ascendant in Europe.

Trump used the phrase in committing America to sending astronauts to Mars. The trajectory makes sense—acquisition in North America, then on other parts of earth, and now across the galaxy. Yet Trump’s other remarks have sounded like a more terrestrial renewal of McKinley-like imperialism. These remarks include the retaking of the Panama Canal, turning Canada into another U.S. state, and, of course, the acquisition of Greenland.

If vigorously pursued, the imperialist route would heighten tensions within Trump’s own political coalition. He has campaigned against an interventionist foreign policy, stating also in his Inaugural address that he would seek peace, not war. He has done so in critique of American foreign policy during the 21st century and even back into parts of the 20th century.

Therefore, President Trump’s invoking of William McKinley deserves careful attention. Will Trump continue to be a realigning McKinley? Will Trump prove a McKinley in restoring broad protectionist policies? And will Trump be like McKinley in pursuing a new American empire? Time will tell.