"A Combination of the Rich and the Ignorant"

"This combination is the embodiment of Hamilton's warning in 'Federalist No. 71' that the people are continually beset by 'the wiles of parasites and sycophants, by the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate, by the artifices of men who possess their confidence more than they deserve it.' A demagogue with contempt for the Constitution, colluding with many of the wealthiest Americans on the promise that their wealth will be translated into political power and favors is just the sort of alliance that the Founders warned would corrupt popular government: that 'the people,' in Madison’s phrase, 'would be misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men.'"

At The Atlantic, George Thomas writes that today "the country is witnessing these three fears come together: a demagogue who unites the self-interested rich with the politically ignorant."

And Alexis Coe at Slate revists pertinent sentences cut from the final draft of George Washington's Farewell Address.

"May None but Honest and Wise Men Ever Rule Under This Roof"

"Mr. Jefferson, though too revolutionary in his notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous of something like orderly Government—Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself—thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement—and will be content with nothing short of permanent power. . . in his own hands."

At The Bulwark, Mona Charen compares Donald Trump to Aaron Burr.

And Gabriel Schoenfeld describes Trump as "the single largest and most effective purveyor of fake news in the country."

"Biden's July 24 rebuked Trump's January 6"

"Biden's act of renunciation gives power to his words of denunciation. By demonstrating that he cared about something higher than personal ambition, the president became more credible when he accused his chief opponent of caring for nothing other than personal ambition. By surrendering the power that he'd once hoped to keep, Biden condemned by contrast the predecessor who clung to the power he'd lost."

David Frum at The Atlantic compares Joe Biden to Cinncinatus and Donald Trump to Catiline.

"Not Designed to Promote Federalism"

"In 'Federalist No. 68,' Alexander Hamilton contended that the Electoral College would frustrate 'the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.' It would also 'afford a moral certainty that the office of President [would] seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.' In addition, it would keep from the office candidates with 'talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity.' In evaluating the Electoral College today, one must judge whether Hamilton's hopes have been vindicated."

G. Alan Tarr at The Atlantic takes on defenders of the Electoral College.

"This Goes Back to Hamilton, the Daddy of It All"

"'From its very beginning, the United States again and again enacted policies to shift its economy onto a new growth direction—toward a new economic space of opportunity,' argues Concrete Economics, a book by Cohen and DeLong that appears on the reading list. 'Yes, there was an "invisible hand" … But the invisible hand was repeatedly lifted at the elbow by the government, and re-placed in a new position from where it could go on to perform its magic.'"

Robinson Meyer at The Atlantic portrays the Green New Deal as "a leftist resurrection of federal industrial policy."

"'Historians Can Never Forget That It Is a Debate They Are Interpreting'"

"Journalist and author E.J. Dionne once observed that we are a nation conceived in argument. None of these were more important than the meaning attached to the Constitution, which played such a central role in creating our sense of nationhood. I would caution my conservative friends from trying to hijack the meaning of the Constitution for their own ends by playing the trump card (no pun intended), that the founders were all in agreement with modern right-wing politics. How could this be true when they didn't even agree among themselves about how to interpret the Constitution? Instead, lets debate the issues of our day so the American people can make an informed choice without resorting to historically dubious claims."

Donald J. Fraser at History News Network asks, "What do historians make of originalism?"

"God Help Us"

"All I can say to you is that from day one I have believed that Donald Trump's greatest threat to our society and to our democracy is not necessarily his authoritarianism, but his essential ignorance—of history, of policy, of political process, of the Constitution. Saying that if Jackson had been around we might not have had the Civil War is like saying that one strong, aggressive leader can shape, prevent, move history however he wishes. This is simply 5th grade understanding of history or worse."

Tim Murphy at Mother Jones asks historian David Blight about Donald Trump's comments regarding Andrew Jackson and the Civil War.

"In other words, what sets Trump apart is not that he has historical heroes, but that he admires heroes who are 'tough' and push people around, whether it be Jackson in the nullification crisis or various generals in running the military. Patton and MacArthur were the most authoritarian of American military leaders, known for bullying their troops and disobeying the rules."

Jeet Heer at The New Republic expands on the theme.

"No, it's more as though American history were Groundhog Day, and we'll keep repeating the cycles of Reconstruction and Redemption until we can figure out how to live together. But for all of Foner's willingness to see the era's contemporary echoes, he blanches at the idea that we should view regression as inevitable. 'People who lived through Reconstruction did not know Redemption was coming,' he says. 'They were operating on the basis that this was happening, that this was gonna be permanent, that these rights were going to be there, and thinking about what to do with them. You can't make Reconstruction purely a question of failure, and you can't make it purely a question of why did it fail.'"

Tim Murphy at Mother Jones talks as well with historian Eric Foner about how to view Reconstruction in the age of Trump.

"For Blight, the trouble is that Trump rose to power despite these truths—despite the established danger of demagogues, the historic viciousness of prejudice, and the broad consensus that expanding rights for women and people of color has strengthened societies. 'You spend all your years and all your life trying to teach history, and then to see this man elected—I felt historians had failed,' he said. 'We're working in every medium we can—from film, to museums, to writing books. But we're up against the Fox News view of the country, which we don't reach. We don't even know how.'"

And Graham Vyse at The New Republic writes that "Trump’s Ignorance Is Radicalizing U.S. Historians."

"Inskeep was making that argument to demonstrate a key difference between Jackson and Trump, who largely failed to widen the electorate in 2016. Jackson, Inskeep noted, brought new voters into the American democratic experiment and gave a political voice to those who had previously been voiceless. But if Trump failed to do the same, he seems to have understood lessons about Jackson's success that progressives, to their detriment, have largely forgotten."

Andew Exum, though, at The Atlantic offers an alternate view.

Faithless

"Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states' votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn't clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him."

In The New York Times, Texas elector Christopher Suprun announces that he "Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump."

"May Be the Only Founding Father Who Wouldn't Be Baffled or Outraged by America as We Know It Today"

"During America's crucial first years, as the battles were fought to define American notions of freedom, and decide who should have it, Burr was the most powerful voice calling the young country to actually live up to its radical ideal of freedom for all."

In the wake of Hamilton-mania, Carey Wallace in Time defends Aaron Burr.

Hamilton's Barbarian Trials

Columbia University announces the winners of the 2016 Pulitzer Prizes, including Lin-Manuel Miranda for drama, William Finnegan for biography, and T. J. Stiles for history.

"An Idea of Who We Would Like Hamilton to Be"

"While the most recent critiques of 'Hamilton' have focused on race, some scholars have also noted that it's an odd moment for the public to embrace an unabashed elitist who liked big banks, mistrusted the masses and at one point called for a monarchal presidency and a Senate that served for life.
"Alexander Hamilton 'was more a man for the 1 percent than the 99 percent,' said Sean Wilentz, a professor at Princeton and the author of 'The Politicians and the Egalitarians,' to be published in May."

Jennifer Schuessler in The New York Times looks at historians' reactions to Hamilton.

Annette Gordon-Reed continues at the National Council on Public History's blog.

The Way We're Droppin' Hamiltons

"What to make of all this? Well, people are complicated, and don't always line up along the conventional left-right axis. Hamilton has an especially unstable background, especially compared to Virginia planters who dominated the founding generation: Born in the British West Indies and orphaned, Hamilton had an early history so sketchy, we're not even sure of his birth year.
"But part of it is that we've gotten Hamilton wrong over the decades, perhaps thanks to high school history classes that framed Hamilton as the father of American conservatism and Jefferson as the founder of U.S. liberalism, with Andrew Jackson as his inheritor."


Scott Timberg in Salon looks at reactions to the announced elimination of Alexander Hamilton from the $10 bill.


Ron Chernow at Politico pleads to keep Hamilton on the bill.


Binyamin Appelbaum and Josh Barro at The New York Times discuss the issue.


And David Greenberg at Politico defends Andrew Jackson.

"Hamilton’s Work, By Contrast, Reveals the Truth That for Capital, There Is No 'Outside of the State'"

"Even today, Hamilton's ideas about state-led industrialization offer much. Consider the crisis of climate change. Alas, we do not have the luxury of making this an agenda item for our future post-capitalist assembly. Facing up to it demands getting off fossil fuels in a very short time frame. That requires a massive and immediate industrial transformation, which must be undertaken using the actually existing states and economies currently on hand. Such a project can only be led by the state—an institution that Hamilton’s writing and life's work helps us to rethink."


Christian Parenti in Jacobin champions Alexander Hamilton, instead of Thomas Jefferson, as a progressive model.

"Statesman Are Merely Dead Politicians"

"Figures like Madison and Hamilton negotiated the best deal they could make, then they set out to sell it to the public, correctly calculating that a compromised Constitution was better than none. The Federalist Papers were an exercise in spin—spin in service of a worthy cause, but spin nonetheless."


Jonathan Chait at New York challenges the idea of sanctifying the Constitution.

"The Jeffersonian-Hamiltonian Paradox"

"Ms Mazzucato says that the most successful entrepreneurial state can be found in the most unlikely place: the United States. Americans have traditionally been divided between Jeffersonians (who think that he governs best who governs least) and Hamiltonians (who favour active government). The secret of the country’s success lies, she thinks, in talking like Jeffersonians but acting like Hamiltonians. Whatever their rhetoric, governments have always invested heavily in promoting the spread of existing technologies such as the railways (by giving the rail barons free land) and in seeking potentially lucrative scientific breakthroughs (by financing almost 60% of basic research)."

"Schumpeter" in The Economist reviews Mariana Mazzucato's The Entrepreneurial State.

"The Original Frenemies"

"Collins, an author and writing professor at Portland State University who's appeared on National Public Radio as a 'literary detective,' paints a rich portrait of post-Revolutionary Manhattan, a muddy little burg wracked by fever and drink, where everyone knew everyone. Nearly every man in the courtroom, from judge to juror, owed political fealty to either Burr or Hamilton. The lawyers, meanwhile, may have been cooperating on the Weeks defense, but in his spare time Burr was building the coalition that would soon make Thomas Jefferson president and doom Hamilton's Federalists."

Mark Schone in the Los Angeles Times reviews Paul Collins's Duel With the Devil: The True Story of How Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr Teamed Up to Take on America's First Sensational Murder Mystery.

"We Were Born with a Divided Political Heart"

"For much of our history, Americans—even in our most quarrelsome moments—have avoided the kind of polarized politics we have now. We did so because we understood that it is when we balance our individualism with a sense of communal obligation that we are most ourselves as Americans. The 20th century was built on this balance, and we will once again prove the prophets of U.S. decline wrong if we can refresh and build upon that tradition. But doing so will require conservatives to abandon untempered individualism, which betrays what conservatism has been and should be."

E. J. Dionne, Jr., in The Washington Post wonders why conservative no longer seem to value community.

Land of Divergence

In The New York Times, David Leonhardt reviews Michael Lind's Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States, and Benjamin M. Friedman reviews Timothy Noah's The Great Divergence: America’s Growing Inequality Crisis and What We Can Do About It.

Necessary and Proper

"So whereas Tea Partiers sometimes associate their objections to federal taxes with a desire to 'get back to the Constitution,' federal taxation is one of the Constitution's central purposes. And we can thank the wunderkind Alexander Hamilton for proposing the legislation by which the first U.S. Congress imposed the first federal tax ever on an American product."

William Hogeland in Salon wishes Alexander Hamilton a happy tax day.

"We're for Free Soil and Free Men here at the Prospect"

"In a way, the list rather neatly encapsulates how the Republican Party has done an all-American 180--shifting from a Hamiltonian party promoting pro-business public works and committed to racial liberalism, to a Jeffersonian party, dead set against public investment and rooted in the white South with all its attendant bigotries (and minus much of Jefferson's concern for the Bill of Rights)."

Looking at the GOP's website, Harold Myerson in The American Prospect heralds the party's (pre-1980) accomplishments.