Schansberg: Trump and Cleveland
by Eric Schansberg, Ph.D.
In January, Donald Trump became the second U.S. president to serve non-consecutive terms in office. Grover Cleveland was the first, serving as our nation’s 22nd and 24th president in 1885-1889 and 1893-1897.
There are notable similarities and differences between the two. Cleveland was born into poverty; Trump into wealth. Cleveland could be a hard drinker; Trump is a teetotaler. Both had provocative social lives and had a quick ascent into politics. Cleveland won the mayoral race in Buffalo in 1881, the governorship of New York in 1882, and then the White House in 1884. Cleveland took on cronyism, corruption, and pork-barrel spending; Trump seems to be doing the same in his second administration.
In their second terms, Trump and Cleveland chose administrators who were described as loyalists and converts. With four years in office and then four years out, they were more knowledgeable and focused when they returned. (Ironically, if Trump had won in 2020, he probably would have been far less effective.) Beyond this, Trump is term-limited—and thus, will be a “lame duck” in two or three years. (A two-term maximum was traditional after George Washington’s decision to leave after eight years, until broken by FDR in the 1940s.) Trump must hustle if he’s going to get much done.
Aside from Abraham Lincoln, few remember Cleveland or other 19th-century presidents (after the Founding Fathers). Most people don’t know much about history. “Recency bias” implies we’ll tend to remember the recent past over the long-ago past. And with few exceptions, government was not expansive or imperialistic until the 20th century — and therefore, not as memorable. Cleveland used to be considered above average. But most historians are fans of government intervention, so recent presidents typically get higher marks and more attention. (Really, the ratings and rankings of historians say more about them than the presidents they assess. And why should we be interested in historians judging presidents on economic policy?)
By the usual metrics, Cleveland couldn’t be “great”, since he didn’t deal with significant crises. (Contrast that with Ronald Reagan who had to work with a Democrat-controlled House to deal with a lousy economy, an archaic tax code, and the Soviets.) Still, Cleveland is noteworthy for his use of the veto. At the time, he set the record for frequency: 414 in his first term. He was a principled fan of limited, Constitutional government.
The most famous example is his veto of the Texas Seed Bill in 1887, when he refused a modest payment to farmers: “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.” In this, we see strong similarities to Calvin Coolidge — another underrated president, a fiscal conservative, and arguably the best president of the last century.
In contrast, Trump has pushed presidential bounds and was a profligate spender in his first term. Another difference: Cleveland was a free-trader, while Trump is a big fan of taxes on imported goods. Tariffs are bad for an economy, but often good politically. As such, Cleveland lost the White House to Benjamin Harrison in 1888. Cleveland also pursued a humble foreign policy, trying to avoid the annexation of Hawaii under dubious circumstances. Trump leaned the same direction in his first term, but has been aggressive to open his second term—messing with NATO, trying to end the Russia/Ukraine war, and expressing interest in controlling Greenland, Gaza, and the Panama Canal.
Cleveland was replaced by William McKinley. Interestingly, the parallels between McKinley and Trump are far stronger on policy grounds. Trump has praised McKinley and again renamed America’s highest mountain after him. McKinley was also a big fan of trade protectionism and a proponent of American imperialism, getting us into the Spanish-American War in 1898, resulting in the acquisition of territories in Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Another eerie parallel: McKinley was assassinated early in his second term, while Trump has survived two assassination attempts so far.
Cleveland returned to the Oval Office but struggled with the Bank Panic of 1893 that he inherited from Harrison. He also had to deal with the significant labor unrest that resulted — most notably, the Pullman Strike in 1894. After Cleveland, the Democrats would not return to the White House until Woodrow Wilson won election in 1912. Trump and the GOP could face something similar, especially if the staggering federal government debt created by the presidents from Bush II to Biden causes the economy to implode. The GOP was excited to avoid Harris and get Trump, but what will this mean for the long run? Be careful what you ask for!
As an economist and public policy analyst, I’m most intrigued by different forms of populism embraced by Cleveland and Trump. For ethical, practical, and constitutional reasons, I prefer Cleveland’s brand: fighting cronyism while embracing small government and free markets. Hopefully, Trump will follow his example.
D. Eric Schansberg is Professor of Economics at Indiana University Southeast, the author of “Poor Policy: How Government Harms the Poor,” and an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review.
Comments...