Light on policy, heavy on grievance: 200 years of personality politics

If you have felt like the 2024 election has been light on policy, you are not alone in your thinking. 

As election day creeps closer, news articles are emphasizing the lack of clear policy positions as voters try to nail down where candidates stand. Nowhere has the lack of clear policy been more apparent than at the presidential debate on Tuesday, Sept. 10. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump traded pointed remarks and personal attacks, but little time was spent articulating the details of their agendas. When asked about his plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, Trump simply stated that he has “the concepts of a plan,” but he could not name the specific elements he will include. When Harris was asked to explain her vision for improving the economy, she struggled to point to specific policy changes she would implement to reduce the effects of inflation. 

For policy nerds — and frankly, anyone who pays attention to politics — the general devaluing of policy debates, replaced instead by personality politics, is alarming. After all, what is the role of the president if not to enact policy? 

Jimmy Kimmel summed it up nicely during his post-debate monologue on Sept. 10: “Who are we kidding, this election isn’t about the issues.” He’s not wrong. A 2023 study by Filipe Falcão et al. found political outcomes are most influenced by voters’ personality traits and the way they perceive the personality traits of the candidates. Policy often takes a backseat. But why is that? Why has it seemed policy plays an insubstantial role in presidential campaign strategy and election outcomes? 

Part of the answer may come from elections 200 years ago. The presidential elections of 1824 and 1828 mark pivotal moments that deeply influenced modern electoral dynamics. These elections, and the “Corrupt Bargain” claim that led to Andrew Jackson’s rise, paved the way for a style of campaigning that is reflected in modern politics. 

As William Nester reveals in his book on Jackson, the personality-driven politics, populism, and politics of grievance that we see overshadowing substantive policy discussions today grew out of this early 19th-century period. In many ways, these elections set the stage for modern presidential campaigns, characterized by emotional appeals and personal grievances drowning out detailed policy platforms.

After the election of 1824 was decided by the House of Representatives, where Speaker of the House Henry Clay played a consequential role in rallying support for John Quincy Adams, the nature of presidential elections shifted. Although historian Donald Ratcliffe has called into question whether Jackson truly won the popular vote in 1824, the frequent reality in politics, as this case reflects, is that constructed narratives matter more than objective truth. Jackson crafted a rhetoric around the perceived unfairness of the election result; he attacked the elitist, career politician mindset officials in Washington often hold and played up his toughness, military experience, and anti-establishment attitude. Regardless of whether Jackson actually won the popular vote in 1824, his ability to campaign on this narrative heading into the 1828 election, a tactic that had not previously been attempted to this degree, proved majorly effective. 

The 1828 election between Jackson and Adams was, by many accounts, an “ugly” election, with personal attacks becoming standard. Supporters of Adams threw accusations of adultery at Jackson, while Jackson supporters claimed Adams was only a successful diplomat because he procured women for officials of other countries. But while Jackson kept up the flamethrowing, Adams backed down. His refusal to play the dirty game likely contributed to his landslide loss to Jackson in 1828. This victory, in turn, only gave subsequent candidates more reason to attempt the objectionable strategy centered on personal grievances.

Supporters watch as former President Donald J. Trump walks onto the stage at a rally in Indianola, Iowa on Jan. 14, 2024. (Photo by Zach S.)

The parallels between Andrew Jackson’s rise to power in 1828 and Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016 are striking. Both men capitalized on a wave of populist sentiment that viewed the political establishment as corrupt and out of touch with the concerns of average citizens. Similar to Jackson, Trump ran on a platform that emphasized his outsider status as he railed against “the elites,” offering a brand of politics based on grievance rather than nuanced policy proposals. All the while, truth was secondary. What mattered was not the accuracy of the narrative but simply whether it landed with voters.

Ultimately, a well-crafted personal narrative that resonates with voters, making them feel seen and represented by someone who claims to understand them, often seems to be a more effective electoral approach than appealing directly to voters’ stances on substantive issues. As Americans become increasingly disillusioned with the political system, it seems likely that campaigns will remain intentionally light on policy, instead opting to appeal to the personality traits voters find most desirable in a candidate — traits that take priority over policy.