Reputation is Strategy
The Jacksonian Doctrine
By | Jordan Tovar Miranda,
DECEMBER 24, 2025
January/February 2026
Power without fear is fragile. In the Jacksonian tradition of statecraft, strength is not just the size of a military or economy; it is what others will believe the state will do when provoked. For Jacksonians, reputation is not an ornament that decorates policy but is the policy itself: there must be a public expectation that the United States will retaliate swiftly, unilaterally if necessary, and refuse to be humiliated.
This is more than a preference for bold gestures, however. It is a way of reading the world. Where other traditions weigh international institutions, alliances, and long-term results, Jacksonians emphasize dignity. It is through this logic that a visible and decisive act of punishment restores deterrence, and a single image of weakness can erode it. The question that the doctrine seeks to answer is simple, yet enduring in today’s geopolitical landscape: Can a country maintain power without being feared?
This essay explores that question. It traces the Jacksonian ethos, from its frontier origins to its modern revival in American foreign policy. Jacksonian logic examines how reputation functions as deterrence, explores the costs of honoring pride above prudence, and argues how a state might steward prestige without letting that same sense of honor become a trap.
The Jacksonian Ethos
The Jacksonian ethos originates in a time period when institutions offered little protection and communities enforced their own security. On the frontier of a nascent America, the ability to defend oneself and retaliate swiftly created both safety and standing within the community. The family known for answering provocations with overwhelming force was less likely to be challenged. Honor was not ornamental for people like Andrew Jackson. It was a matter of life or death.
This frontier mindset shaped early American political culture. Leaders who projected toughness and refused to be slighted won admiration. Andrew Jackson embodied these characteristics. He viewed insults, threats, and challenges as matters that demanded responses. His willingness to duel, confront rivals, and defy legal constraints when he believed national dignity was at stake left an imprint on the American population. For many citizens, Jackson’s instincts felt familiar because they echoed community norms of the frontiersmen: one protects what one loves, not by words, but by assertive action.
This ethos evolved into a form of populist nationalism that is conjured when one thinks of the 7th American president. It is rooted in an emotional understanding of patriotism, one that emphasizes loyalty to the homeland. It celebrates perceived common sense over elite calculation, toughness over prudence, and instinct over processes. Michael Walzer observes that a community defines itself by the boundaries it is willing to defend. Jacksonianism extends that idea: a nation proves its worth not by defending borders alone, but by defending the dignity of the United States.
Under this lens, diplomacy is often viewed with suspicion. Negotiations and legal codes appear as attempts to limit American autonomy and capacities. International courts and treaties seem distant from the daily realities of citizens who do not interact with them. Institutions that mediate conflict can look like instruments that erode sovereignty rather than tools that enhance it. Thus, the Jacksonian attachment to national pride is inseparable from skepticism towards external restraints that threaten sovereignty.
Jacksonian loyalty is directed toward the country itself rather than institutions that claim to represent it. Institutions are inherently judged by whether they amplify national strength, not by their procedural virtues. When institutions appear to weaken sovereignty or require compromise, they lose legitimacy in Jacksonian eyes.
This perspective ultimately creates tension with elite conceptions of foreign policy. Diplomats trust rules, agreements, and use multilateral structures to stabilize international norms. Jacksonians instead put trust in direct action rooted in national sentiment. Experts emphasize long-term commitments to international law, whereas Jacksonians emphasize immediate honor. This results in a natural conflict where experts fear escalation and Jacksonians fear weakness, creating divergent responses as a result.
This tension becomes more pronounced in periods of global instability. When adversaries rise, alliances strain, or when domestic politics fragment, citizens grow skeptical of any slow or cautious process. They gravitate towards leaders who speak plainly, act boldly, and resist external pressure to act with restraint. As Samuel Huntington once wrote, when people feel that elites have compromised their dignity for personal benefit, they look for leaders who promise to restore that lost dignity. The Jacksonian tradition promises exactly that.
Strategy as Retaliation
Conventional strategic doctrines focus on stability. They seek to make intentions predictable, thresholds clear, and escalation manageable. Jacksonian strategy rejects this, as predictability invites testing. If an adversary knows the limits of American response, that adversary might calculate how far it can go without provoking real consequences. Russian, Chinese, and North Korean cyber attacks are the perfect example of this; American adversaries know non-Jacksonians will reply weakly to hybrid attacks on critical infrastructure. Jacksonians will argue that these exact exploits to conventional doctrines are why American adversaries can walk away while Americans reap the damage.
Thus, deterrence rests on fear rather than on stability. Effective deterrence requires an image of decisiveness and, at times, controlled volatility. Rival leaders should believe that a provocation might unleash a reaction beyond what they can anticipate. The aim is simple: preserve a sense of danger around American resolve. This uncertainty alone makes adversaries think twice before engaging America.
History contains moments that reflect this instinct. Andrew Jackson’s threats during the Nullification Crisis created compliance, not through negotiated settlements but through implied fury. Andrew Jackson has been applauded as a president willing to use force to maintain a unified United States as a result of his threats. During the Cold War, American policymakers understood that credibility had to be defended in far-flung conflicts because perception mattered just as much as material capacity. The logic was simple: hesitation in one theater could embolden challenges in another. Therefore, being willing to retaliate to any threat, domestic or abroad, is necessary to project power.
Humiliation is ultimately treated as an existential threat because it undermines deterrence.
This is why Jacksonian strategy sometimes favors dramatic signals. Limited military strikes, public threats, or abrupt shifts in posture are not mistakes or contradictory in this tradition. They are deliberate signals that communicate willingness to retaliate. Something contemporary that proves this is the American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in spite of many policymakers warning against it and calling it “irrational.” The point is to keep rivals uncertain and cautious of the United States.
For Jacksonians, humiliation is the most dangerous of defeat. It is not measured in lost territory or squandered resources, but in the perception that the nation was treated with contempt. Humiliation spreads rapidly because it is easily displayed in a media environment. An insult, unpunished attack, broken promise, or an ally’s ingratitude circulates widely, which erodes prestige and invites more aggression.
Humiliation is ultimately treated as an existential threat because it undermines deterrence. If rivals conclude that the United States lacks resolve, they may push boundaries more boldly. Once the perception of weakness takes hold, it becomes difficult to reverse adversarial calculations. It is because of this logic that Jacksonians insist that challenges, even if they may be symbolic, must never go unanswered. A nation that allows humiliation risks further danger.
This explains why Jacksonians place enormous weight on responses to what may otherwise be brushed aside as small provocations. The issue is not the scale of the immediate threat but the message it sends. If a foreign power mocks American warnings, Jacksonians see not rhetoric but a shift in the global hierarchy of powers. If an ally appears ungrateful, Jacksonians see a signal that American generosity is being taken for granted. In each case, the response must restore the sense that the United States will not tolerate disrespect.
The emphasis on preventing humiliation helps explain the Jacksonian preference for swift retaliatory strikes, economic punishment, and powerful rhetoric. These actions are less about resolving the source of disputes and more about restoring perception. In an era when images and news spread instantly, the urgency of restoring and upholding dignity becomes even greater.
Jacksonianism and the People
Jacksonian foreign policy operates as much on the domestic stage as it does on the international one. Leaders who adopt this posture understand that external challenges are used to cultivate internal unity around the nation. When rivals are framed as bullies who disdain America, the people are invited to rally around the flag. Foreign policy becomes a means of reinforcing national identity and unity.
This performance is not superficial. It reflects a belief that America’s strength is derived from a unified public willing to defend the homeland’s honor. Thus, leaders who dramatize threats or highlight insults are not simply manipulating sentiment; they are practicing a form of political mobilization that Jacksonians deem essential to national resilience in the face of danger.
The emotional clarity of this approach is a sharp contrast with the ambiguity often found in technocratic policy-making. Experts speak of risks and long-term trade-offs, but Jacksonian leaders speak of pride, betrayal, and resolve. In moments of uncertainty, the clarity Jacksonians demonstrate is appealing. It offers citizens a simple story that they can understand and a role they can play in forging America’s international standing.
Another defining feature of Jacksonianism is distrust of elites and complex institutions. Diplomats, scholars, and global organizations are often portrayed as barriers to common-sense action. Elites are believed to prioritize international stability, professional norms, or foreign interests above national pride. Jacksonians see this as an inherent betrayal of the people’s instincts.
This anti-elite sentiment is not just something Jackson decided to enact while president; it was born in his family’s contributions in the American War of Independence. Jackson’s brother and mother died helping the Continental Army, and Jackson himself faced the British Redcoats, who demanded he polish their boots. This was an insult to the nascent nation he admired, and he would grow up with a deep contempt for the elites who disregarded the desires Americans held during the war. He invited the common American to participate electorally in the American system, something for which he is applauded for this to this day.
Anti-elitism also extends to attitudes about complexity. Jacksonians prefer simple goals: protect the nation, punish threats, and prevail over rivals. Complex explanations about structural and long-term positioning can seem evasive. The preference for clarity creates tension with the intricacies of global politics, but it also produces messages that resonate quickly and deeply with parts of the American population who feel alienated by bureaucratic language.
This element of the Jacksonian tradition explains why populist foreign policy movements often gain momentum during periods of economic dislocation, cultural polarization, or perceived elite failure. When the public senses that traditional leaders have mishandled crises, Jacksonian voices rise and vow to restore honor quickly and decisively. It is no wonder that Jacksonianism re-entered political circles after the failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Great Recession. American citizens saw a wounded America, not in resources, but in national honor despite being the most powerful nation.
The Trump era and the Jacksonian Revival
The Trump presidency did not give birth to Jacksonianism, but it revived it in its most visible form. “America First” echoed many pillars of the tradition: skepticism toward long-lasting alliances, disdain for international institutions, celebration of sovereignty, and emphasis on unilateral capabilities. Many journalists and political scientists agree, which is why there are recent attempts to understand Andrew Jackson’s personality and foreign policy.
Under this approach, trade became a tool of national leverage and punishment. Tariffs have been used to discipline rivals and pressure allies. Both Trump administrations have deployed public threats as diplomatic signals, making the spectacle part of the message. Foreign policy was cast as a negotiation in which America had been cheated by partners who no longer respected it.
It shows that foreign policy can become a form of image warfare in which perception is both the battlefield and the weapon.
This resonated with many citizens who felt globalization had diminished America’s standing. It tapped into the belief that elites had allowed the nation to be humiliated through “forever wars,” porous borders, and economic concessions while adversaries continue to rise. “America First” promised to restore dignity through blunt force in place of careful management of interstate relationships.
However, this approach has also exposed strategic challenges. The emphasis on transactionalism strains alliances that had provided stability for decades. Unpredictable threats created openings for rivals to test American commitments. Actions meant to restore prestige sometimes produced uncertainty among partners who preferred reliability, which is a key topic of constant public debate in the last few months. Yet the political power of the message remains undeniable. It showed that Jacksonian instincts, once dormant, remain potent and relevant in foreign policy discussions today.
The Trump era demonstrated how Jacksonianism evolves in the age of digital media. Foreign policy has become increasingly visual and accessible to billions of people. Military strikes are televised. Diplomatic confrontations are broadcast. Presidential tweets signal shifts in posture instantly. Reputation became as much about images as about actions.
Success is measured not through traditional metrics but through moments that convey dominance or resolve. Whether a confrontation with a rival at a summit or calling an ally out for insufficient contributions, the Trump administration seeks to manage global perception through dramatic gestures. From striking Iran to demanding NATO to increase its defense spending, America First strengthens the national image of the United States as a nation to be respected, one way or another.
The risks of this approach also become clear. When policy becomes performance, outcomes may be subordinated to optics games. Rivals learn to provoke symbolic reactions rather than substantive ones. Allies may, and have, questioned whether dramatic displays mask strategic inconsistencies. American tariffs have resulted in some concessions, and in other instances have prompted regional responses to American unpredictability. The EU and Mexico retaliated, and Japan and South Korea were willing to engage in economic talks with China as a counterweight to American threats. Still, these instances and qualities reveal how deeply the logic of reputation shapes American politics. It shows that foreign policy can become a form of image warfare in which perception is both the battlefield and the weapon.
Enduring Appeal
Jacksonianism thrives when the country experiences periods of fear or disillusionment. Economic insecurity, demographic changes, and rising global competition have generated a sense of vulnerability across various voting blocs in the United States. When citizens feel that elites have mismanaged crises or ceded national pride, as is being perceived in contemporary American politics, they turn towards leaders who promise immediate restoration.
A foreign policy that is guided wholly by emotions and vibes risks drifting from strategic goals.
This appeal also lies in the emotional clarity that the doctrine presents. It offers direction when politics seem chaotic, strength when people feel weak, and a sense of collective purpose when institutions are incapable of solving problems immediately. It transforms foreign policy into a moral drama that is more comprehensible than the labyrinth of global economics or diplomatic negotiations.
Many Americans would agree with the sentiment that the United States is in decline. The average American feels neglected and poor while China is on the cusp of prosperity; the average American has trusted too much in “experts” to deliver an immediate resolution to global catastrophes; and the average American feels modern leadership fails to deliver a win against foes and respect among allies.
During periods like this, Jacksonian rhetoric provides a comforting and simple narrative: the nation has lost its standing after the Cold War because it has been too restrained, too polite, and too trusting. The solution is not better diplomacy, but bolder action that is concise in aim and execution. This message resonates most powerfully during times of perceived national decline.
The tradition also persists because the strategic nature of it is simplistic in how it is portrayed. It divides the world into defenders and offenders, loyal friends and opportunistic states. Jacksonian prescriptions are straightforward in grand strategy: punish betrayal, reward loyalty, and instill fear in adversaries. This simplicity is energizing in a world that has become increasingly complex. Why agonize over decision-making when the framing is not that difficult to make out who is friend from foe?
The clarity can come at a price, however. Simple narratives that focus on short-term results obscure the nuances that long-term strategy requires. You can’t tariff China into submission or hope that the Israel-Palestine conflict is resolved overnight; these issues require multifaceted solutions. A simplified strategic narrative encourages erratic behavior from the state enacting it, isolating the nation from allies and creating unnecessary escalation in the process. Can anyone really confirm that the airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites worked? Did killing Soleimani resolve the fact that Iran still remains a source of state-sponsored terrorism? Have we gotten any closer to normalizing relations with North Korea? A foreign policy that is guided wholly by emotions and vibes risks drifting from strategic goals.
The narrative nonetheless endures because it scratches a psychological itch. It tells citizens that the nation’s problems originate not from structural or complex forces but from insufficient resolve alone. It reassures Americans that renewal is possible through willpower alone. When that message is repeated often enough, it becomes a force in its own right, blinding citizens to other instruments of statecraft needed to conduct successful foreign policy.
The Enduring Logic of Jacksonianism
The Jacksonian tradition reframes statecraft as a global contest of will in which perception is central. Reputation is a currency that requires attention, signaling, and sometimes forceful demonstration. To those who hold the tradition, the world is a hierarchy maintained with clear consequences; to Jacksonians, humiliation is the gravest strategic risk, and fear is the greatest reward to national honor.
Yet, stewardship of reputation is not the same as reflexive punishment. The modern world, which is interdependent, technologically and economically connected, and multipolar, penalizes rash escalation more severely than the early frontiers of America ever did. A strategy that treats honor as an end must also build mechanisms to translate visible acts into sustainable security. That requires institutions that can signal resolve without obligating endless commitments, narrative framing that renders measured steps decisive, and alliance frameworks that allow collective displays of resolve and strategic partnerships.
A nation that refuses to be humiliated becomes a nation others hesitate to test. The Jacksonian Doctrine reminds leaders that reputation matters just as much as available resources and numerical metrics. The harder task is to practice the Jacksonian Doctrine with prudence so dignity becomes a shield and not a shackle. Questioning whether this worldview can navigate a multipolar and complicated world is essential, yet its emotional force is undeniable. Jacksonianism will continue to shape American politics whenever citizens feel ignored, endangered, or disrespected. The doctrine endures because it speaks to a primal instinct that embodied Andrew Jackson’s personal life and presidency: the belief that a nation that refuses humiliation cannot be ruled by fear. And the world remembers and respects nations that refuse to be humiliated.