In a remarkable turn of events, President-elect Donald Trump claimed a sweeping victory. In the early hours following Election Day, he immediately declared that America had granted him a “powerful mandate,” which he interpreted as a clear signal from the people.
His predecessor, President Joe Biden, had a less emphatic approach in 2020, suggesting he had a “mandate for action,” but Trump’s declaration was far more boastful. However, such claims of a mandate are baseless. The assertion that any victorious candidate has a genuine popular mandate is typically a self-serving declaration, presented as if it were an objective fact.
Andrew Jackson’s post-election claims about the bank illustrate the long history of politicians asserting mandates for their actions
It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly when the notion of a popular mandate emerged. The U.S. Constitution does not require a national popular vote for the presidency, and it certainly doesn’t imply that politicians are obligated to respect a fabricated mandate from citizens who vote for electors, who then vote for the president.
One might trace the roots of the popular mandate to President Andrew Jackson. His 1832 re-election campaign turned into a referendum on the controversial Bank of the United States.
At the time, the bank’s supporters wanted to renew its charter two years before it was due to expire. Jackson vetoed the recharter, calling the bank powerful, corrupt, and unconstitutional. After securing re-election, Jackson claimed that the people had given him permission to fight the bank, although he never used the word “mandate.”
In a message to his cabinet, he stated that he “considered his re-election as a decision of the people against the bank,” and he later ordered the removal of federal funds, which effectively crippled the institution.
Jackson’s interpretation of the popular mandate was ridiculed by Rep. Henry Clay, who pointed out, “The truth is, that the re-election of the president proves as little an approbation by the people of all the opinions he may hold… as it would prove that if the president had a carbuncle, they meant, by re-electing him, to approve of his carbuncle.”
Clay also argued that electors take a candidate “for better or for worse,” without endorsing every belief or characteristic the candidate holds. Clay’s view remains relevant, particularly in today’s context.
The concept of a popular mandate gained traction by the late 19th century, but it was always a misleading idea. One 19th-century commentator lamented that the Founding Fathers “should have foreseen that the election by the people would result in a popular mandate for the prevailing candidate.”
This criticism was misguided, however, because the Founders could not have anticipated that state legislatures would eventually adopt the popular election of electors or that electors would become mere rubber stamps for the voters. The popular mandate, as we understand it today, only emerged because of these unforeseen practices.
The public and commentators often focus on who won the presidency, rather than considering the actual margin in the Electoral College or even the popular vote. In fact, there have been instances where a candidate who lost the popular vote was still said to have a mandate.
For example, former Speaker Paul Ryan made this claim about Trump’s 2016 victory. But a narrow Electoral College win does not justify the assertion that the majority of Americans have implicitly endorsed an entire legislative agenda.
While it’s true that some voters fully support everything a candidate represents, many voters are simply choosing between the two main contenders. For many, the vote was a decision to support one candidate over the other, not an endorsement of every single policy. In some cases, voters may have chosen the lesser of two evils without endorsing either candidate’s full platform.
Therefore, it’s inaccurate to suggest that the voters who supported a winner have fully endorsed all of that candidate’s policies. The idea that every policy espoused by the victor is accepted by the electorate is simply illogical.
This argument isn’t about opposing the winner’s agenda. Trump’s legislative plans will likely find support among many elected officials, whether because they agree with him or because they want to avoid the risk of being primaried, as many of his GOP opponents have in the past.
Additionally, some Democrats will likely back parts of his agenda, especially those from swing districts who want to appear reasonable. However, when polling shows that the public supports certain policies, politicians should indeed act in accordance with that will.
What must be rejected is the attempt to convince the public that “We the People” have embraced everything Trump proposed during his campaign. That simply isn’t the case.
