Answer:
A. *politics for the "common man."
What was the importance of the Jacksonian democracy?
The importance of Jacksonian democracy lies in all of its deep contradictions. It managed to be both democratic and anti-democratic at the same time. Which is largely why it has not been a valued governance model since the beginning of it’s end, with the Civil War. The more perduring positive legacy of it would be civic engagement in campaigns, at least; and to a lesser extent, state and local processes and policies. There were serious negative legacies it left, as well.
The high-level theory of Jacksonianism implies a government by, for and of the people. Versus and in contrast to: a government led by aristocracy, oligarchy, elitism, etc. Jackson believed less power in the hands of the latter would insure less corruption, and, more, well, ‘we the people’ -style democracy. It was much about a rejection of the one-(First) party Thomas Jefferson administration that largely limited political power to a limited cohort of East Coast elites. The Jacksonian ‘Second Party’ System sought to break the mold and intentionally engage the ‘common man.’
Most of us learn that democracy is about the fair and equal rights and inputs of all—including, ostensibly, the populist (simply: non-government employed population). The reality was (and remains) that democracies—from the Roman Empire to the British Empire (as well as to many American administrations from both parties, including the current Trump Administration)—often were anything but, in practice, solely or even primarily: ‘for the people.’
From this perspective Jackson’s iteration of democracy was radical—but, only to a point. He wasn’t an extremist. With the most unmistakable evidence he wasn’t being that Jackson—and the whole concept of Jacksonian democracy, was, in truth, a poor model for political equality and equitable power.
Blame it on the times if you like, but, the fact is that by ‘the people’ Jackson really meant only ‘white men.’ All others—Native Americans, Mexicans, blacks, women, etc., were left out in theory and ideology (though some unspoken). and especially in policy and practice—to the point that his Congress had a gag rule against discussion of slave policy.
Beyond those glaringly incongruent exceptions, Jackson was considered a ‘new federalist’ due to his straddle of the federalist system as well as some parts of the anti-federalist paradigms. He was a fan of short term limits, protective of states rights and promoted individual rights. The catch is he also managed to expand the executive/president’s office, reduce the potency of the legislature/Congress, all but failed at ‘draining the swamp’ (other than of his political foes who he hastened to remove in wide swaths and whom he replaced with supporters), endorsed slavery, and pulled in the federal reigns over states during the nullification crisis.
Beyond this all, is a theme abundantly demonstrated in the Donald J. Trump presidency. Jackson was a fan of patronage—appointing your friends and allies to political positions—and, (though it’s unknown if Trump will follow through with this part of it): rotating new ones in after four years, apparently to keep the system fresh.
Keeping this relevant background and context in mind, here are some key features of the Jacksonian doctrine, largely in theory again, not necessarily practice—-
Suffrage/Voting rights
Rhetorically Jackson elevated and espoused the concept of ‘majority’ rule. Towards that end one notable battle he took on was an attempt at the abolishment of the Electoral College, part of representative democracy, with their party-appointed representatives (elector(s)) for each state serving as proxies of sort for ‘the people’s’ presidential vote. Jackson felt the electors and Electoral College process was incongruent with the ‘one (white) man, one vote,’ process of the popular vote/majority rule system.
Manifest Destiny
Jackson wanted to ‘expand freedom’ geographically. This was related to both his agrarian ideals—which he boosted with supporting the distribution of land to individual citizens—and, also to the destruction of first nation Native American tribes, an anti-freedom (for non-whites) policy which led to the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears, both under his watch.
In the spirit of the entitlement ethos known as American exceptionalism (or, more literally: ‘Romantic’ nationalism), Jackson was a proponent of both (white) citizens and the government exploring and taking control of the of the American frontier, beyond the colonized East. The ‘destiny’ part comes from the belief that this was settlers’ God-given right. As though God Him/Herself gave white (male) citizens of the U.S. more favor than the land’s indigenous citizens to the North, West and South.