In the last century I was writing an article, describing the curiosity that the USA had no national bank. I chose the word Hamiltonian, which WORD promptly signaled as a spelling error. Drawn by curiosity, I typed in Jeffersonian.
Spelled correctly.
Spelled correctly.
1
Hamilton was the greatest of the founding generation. Jefferson was all theory ... in spite of his writings: he failed at business despite two inheritances of slaves to do his work for him, hardly the self-sufficient yeoman farmer his idealized; he did not think of people as equals who deserved representation in government, but as different classes with different rights, hardly all men are created equal. Hamilton did not die a rich man either, but at least strived to make a better life for himself and his family and his fellow citizens.
5
I hope people will be inspired by this musical to read up on the Jefferson/Hamilton rivalry, if only because it illustrates how drastically political alignment and identity can change over time:
Jefferson was a Southern slaveowner who believed in an America with decentralized government and an agrarian culture - but he was also a scientist, a cosmopolitan, and had a hostile streak toward traditional religion.
Hamilton was an anti-slavery immigrant who believed in an America with an *extremely* strong central government and an aristocratic culture - but he was also a devoted capitalist and militarist.
Where would these men fit in our modern two-party system? Nowhere.
Jefferson was a Southern slaveowner who believed in an America with decentralized government and an agrarian culture - but he was also a scientist, a cosmopolitan, and had a hostile streak toward traditional religion.
Hamilton was an anti-slavery immigrant who believed in an America with an *extremely* strong central government and an aristocratic culture - but he was also a devoted capitalist and militarist.
Where would these men fit in our modern two-party system? Nowhere.
10
After the American Revolution, with our new country deep in debt, it was Hamilton who steadfastly insisted on paying back all the loans. This action set the precendent for the future and is the reason investors throughout the world put their money in US treasuries during chaotic times. However, it was Hamilton via the central bank that used inflation to pay back the loans in inflated dollars. Slick as a rapper like our financial institutions today using currency inflation, yen carry, political influence, etc to meet their ends. The spirit of Hamilton is in the money.
3
Nice piece. I'd really like to see this play. If I may quibble with one point:
"Unlike populists of left and right, he believed in an aristocracy, though one based on virtue and work, not birth."
That would not be an aristocracy, since virtue and work must be proved, rather than inherited.
"Unlike populists of left and right, he believed in an aristocracy, though one based on virtue and work, not birth."
That would not be an aristocracy, since virtue and work must be proved, rather than inherited.
8
two of the joys of having The New York Times available online are the regular writings of the chosen few who have direct access to the paper and the level of thoughtful, often whimsical, comments made by readers of same.
Mr Brooks, apparently writing under his charge to comment on the "arts", has stirred a discussion today that is at once both historical in foundation and confounding in its application to today's evolving society.
readers have widened the conservation to cover a far deeper and rewarding set of observations that together have the power to enlighten and challenge all of us.
thank you to everyone for your contributions.
"Bravo" !!
Mr Brooks, apparently writing under his charge to comment on the "arts", has stirred a discussion today that is at once both historical in foundation and confounding in its application to today's evolving society.
readers have widened the conservation to cover a far deeper and rewarding set of observations that together have the power to enlighten and challenge all of us.
thank you to everyone for your contributions.
"Bravo" !!
11
Wow. Leave it to David Brooks to make even hip hop sound incredibly nerdy.
7
I'm glad that David Brooks was able to get a ticket. You can't get one now. :)
6
". . . Unlike progressives, he believed in relatively unfettered finance and capitalism to arouse energy and increase social mobility."
"Unfettered"...? Oh, come now. Where is David Brooks' evidence that Hamilton was just like Marie Antoinette.
"Unfettered"...? Oh, come now. Where is David Brooks' evidence that Hamilton was just like Marie Antoinette.
4
Jbugko,
It is possible that Hamilton and Marie Antoinette both ate bread, because it was more expensive than cake in their time.
It is possible that Hamilton and Marie Antoinette both ate bread, because it was more expensive than cake in their time.
3
Pander:
"to indulge (another), to minister to base passions,"
c.1600, from pander (n.). Related: Pandered ; pandering.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
"to indulge (another), to minister to base passions,"
c.1600, from pander (n.). Related: Pandered ; pandering.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
david brooks likes to celebrate that most american of all traits, the can-do spirit. sometimes it seems that's the only thing he ever sees, perhaps because it's at the core of his middle-of-the-road conservatism, the idea that social inequality is merely the result of people getting what they deserve.
9
I'M WON OVER
David Brooks has written yet another brilliant piece and again expressed his unique vision of life. Initially I was put off by the idea of a Broadway show based on rap. My tastes tend to run toward classical music with some popular, jazz and folk here and there. Imagine my surprise when I watched the videos on YouTube of the author's performance at the White House and the response of the actor who plays Hamilton. I was won over by the electricity--the energy and excitement projected by the writing and the music! One great benefit of such a work is that it will attract the interest of the younger generation who would spurn anything that's not on social media. As an afterthought, I would note that the USA has always been plagued by gun violence. Perhaps the author will write another rap play about the slaughter in the streets. After all since the spring of 1968 when Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated, more than twice the number of americans have been killed by guns than in all the wars we've fought since the Revolutionary War. So, David, if you've got any influence with the author, put in a word for me and for ending the carnage in our nation.
David Brooks has written yet another brilliant piece and again expressed his unique vision of life. Initially I was put off by the idea of a Broadway show based on rap. My tastes tend to run toward classical music with some popular, jazz and folk here and there. Imagine my surprise when I watched the videos on YouTube of the author's performance at the White House and the response of the actor who plays Hamilton. I was won over by the electricity--the energy and excitement projected by the writing and the music! One great benefit of such a work is that it will attract the interest of the younger generation who would spurn anything that's not on social media. As an afterthought, I would note that the USA has always been plagued by gun violence. Perhaps the author will write another rap play about the slaughter in the streets. After all since the spring of 1968 when Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated, more than twice the number of americans have been killed by guns than in all the wars we've fought since the Revolutionary War. So, David, if you've got any influence with the author, put in a word for me and for ending the carnage in our nation.
4
I believe Hamilton's most significant contribution to the success of the American experiment was his remarkable understanding of human nature. This nation is a product of Washington's leadership, Jefferson's ideals, Adams' stubbornness, Madison's able pen and Hamilton's perceptive predictions chronicled in the 51 Federalist Papers he authored.
That his qualities have found there way to the performing arts is intriguing - perhaps it will inspire a greater interest in his contributions.
That his qualities have found there way to the performing arts is intriguing - perhaps it will inspire a greater interest in his contributions.
6
It sounds like theater my wife and I wouls enjoy. I grew up in a jewish middle class family on the upper west side of Manhattan. Spent my entire career of 42 years in the advertising business I always felt I had something unique to give to colleagues and clients. I tried to be an inclusive person first as a learner and then as an educator. I made it somethings and other times I didn't. But I got up every day looking forward to the work I was doing and the people whom I worked with. After almost 12 years of retirement I look back ever so offend and feel I should have done better. I should have been more courageous, more creative and more caring of my colleagues. But in the end I feel at ease with my accomplishments. My wife of 52 years and I had three boys who have grown into solid citizens with spouses and children of their own. We are truly blessed. Ira Tumpowsky, Highland Beach Fl.
5
Hey Brooks,
Didn't Hamilton actually believe that the role of the state was to facilitate the building and growth of the national economy? As opposed to Andrew Jackson, Hamilton believed in an early version of Industrial Policy and so then it was not a contradiction for him to believe, along with Monroe, that to balance the dangerous if unfettered power of central government we also needed a built in system of governmental checks and balances.
Needless to say Conservatives misread Hamilton. He may have believed in rewarding personal ambition and "unfettered finance," but that was in the birth days of Capitalism when economic growth was the one essential the growth of the country depended on. Think of Hamilton as a powerful but slightly dissident member—say commissar for Industrial Policy— of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and you won't be that far off.
Now I would pay to see that musical.
Didn't Hamilton actually believe that the role of the state was to facilitate the building and growth of the national economy? As opposed to Andrew Jackson, Hamilton believed in an early version of Industrial Policy and so then it was not a contradiction for him to believe, along with Monroe, that to balance the dangerous if unfettered power of central government we also needed a built in system of governmental checks and balances.
Needless to say Conservatives misread Hamilton. He may have believed in rewarding personal ambition and "unfettered finance," but that was in the birth days of Capitalism when economic growth was the one essential the growth of the country depended on. Think of Hamilton as a powerful but slightly dissident member—say commissar for Industrial Policy— of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and you won't be that far off.
Now I would pay to see that musical.
4
Talk about marginalized...he was forced to attend a Jewish school, which in the 18th century was really something for a non-Jew: http://tabletmag.com/scroll/189128/alexander-hamiltons-jewish-connection
4
Thank you, Brooks, for bringing this fascinating performance about Alexander Hamilton to our attention. Since he was not born in the US he could never become President, but he was Washington's chief assistant through the War of Independence and most of the following years. Washington had no children of his own, and many people feel that Washington regarded Hamilton as he adopted son.
Hamilton focused his interest on banking and would have been appalled that the fraudulent mortgage backed securities and the fake insurance on them (called derivatives) did not result in prison time for the perpetrators.
He may have believed in a natural aristocracy of ability and hard work (so did Jefferson), but he would also be appalled at the huge inheritances which have put most of the wealthiest people where they are. (Yes, most of the ultra rich inherited their money). Jefferson outlawed extreme inheritance when he was governor of Virginia, and Hamilton would do so today.
To see this and other steps that would save America, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then invite me to speak to your group, and go see the musical 1776. You will be glad you did!
Hamilton focused his interest on banking and would have been appalled that the fraudulent mortgage backed securities and the fake insurance on them (called derivatives) did not result in prison time for the perpetrators.
He may have believed in a natural aristocracy of ability and hard work (so did Jefferson), but he would also be appalled at the huge inheritances which have put most of the wealthiest people where they are. (Yes, most of the ultra rich inherited their money). Jefferson outlawed extreme inheritance when he was governor of Virginia, and Hamilton would do so today.
To see this and other steps that would save America, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then invite me to speak to your group, and go see the musical 1776. You will be glad you did!
2
Nobody was born in the United States in that generation, he could easily have been President had he been more politician and less of a doer.
3
My reading of history is that it was Hamilton, not Jefferson, who pushed for an oligarchy, one in which the aristocrats control the legislative agenda and Congress and rule the country. Whatever meritocracy he envisioned was one in which the gifted rose to become ruling aristocrats. Jefferson's election to the Presidency saved the country for democracy.
2
In addition to all the wonderful qualities that Hamilton stood for, as outlined by the many posters, Hamilton also had a thirst for justice and insuring the law protected the little man. His defense of the accused in the Manhattan Well murder set new precedents in law for the defense of those charged with circumstantial evidence. Until that time, circumstantial evidence was considered all that was necessary to convict a man. The accused in the Manhattan well murder case was not guilty and came close to a lynching until Hamilton took the case and cleared the man's name.
That does not sound like your stripe, Mr. Brooks. Hamilton would have had little good to say about the repub party of today. You would convict the common man just because he was not wealthy, I fear, and take away his right to vote for the same reason.
That does not sound like your stripe, Mr. Brooks. Hamilton would have had little good to say about the repub party of today. You would convict the common man just because he was not wealthy, I fear, and take away his right to vote for the same reason.
5
"Unlike progressives, he believed in relatively unfettered finance and capitalism to arouse energy and increase social mobility. Unlike conservatives, he believed that government should actively subsidize mobility. Unlike populists of left and right, he believed in an aristocracy, though one based on virtue and work, not birth."
Another predictable David Brooks column. He starts out telling us how he LOVES the arts, then does his best Roger Ebert imitation...
Then the hammer comes down..."he believed in an aristocracy though one based on virtue, not birth." No David, our country's aristocracy IS by virtue of birth and it is the base of the GOP. Koch brothers? Trust fund kids who inherited an oil company/conglomerate. Waltons? Multi-billionaires who inherited everything. Jeb and W Bush--oh Puh-leaze! Poppy Bush was the real WWII warrior and business owner.
America has been a blatant corporatocracy for decades and Citizens United was the glue. America is an oligarchy where donors raise $4 million on $100,000 a plate dinners for ANOTHER Bush who doesn't know Iraq from Iran, feels some "mistakes" were made in W's two terms, thought that the 2007 surge was an HEROIC thing W did! Even though it was a massive fail. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03...
Bush the third doesn't seem to understand the difference between a "catalyst" and a "catalytic converter."
In America, your zip code is your future.
Another predictable David Brooks column. He starts out telling us how he LOVES the arts, then does his best Roger Ebert imitation...
Then the hammer comes down..."he believed in an aristocracy though one based on virtue, not birth." No David, our country's aristocracy IS by virtue of birth and it is the base of the GOP. Koch brothers? Trust fund kids who inherited an oil company/conglomerate. Waltons? Multi-billionaires who inherited everything. Jeb and W Bush--oh Puh-leaze! Poppy Bush was the real WWII warrior and business owner.
America has been a blatant corporatocracy for decades and Citizens United was the glue. America is an oligarchy where donors raise $4 million on $100,000 a plate dinners for ANOTHER Bush who doesn't know Iraq from Iran, feels some "mistakes" were made in W's two terms, thought that the 2007 surge was an HEROIC thing W did! Even though it was a massive fail. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03...
Bush the third doesn't seem to understand the difference between a "catalyst" and a "catalytic converter."
In America, your zip code is your future.
16
Isn't it telling when conservatives reference T Jefferson as the greatest, when in fact he was landed aristocracy? Hmmmmm....and A Hamilton would be more a pro po for today's Tea Party??
Hamilton was a jack of all trades and my favorite founding father.
Hamilton was a jack of all trades and my favorite founding father.
1
It is ironic that Hamilton was considered an outsider in his time, battling for his place at the table among aristocrats. Indeed, his efforts were the impetus for a movement that ultimately replaced the original Anglo-American aristocracy, one based upon inherited wealth and lineage, with a modern aristocracy based upon wealth accumulated through a combination of bare-knuckled capitalism and rent seeking (i.e., gaming the system). One wonders whether he would approve or disapprove. Or maybe he would simply be content in having achieved eternal fame.
The Great American Debate: Hamilton or Jefferson.
The success of America lies in the dance these competing philosophies do with and against each other. The exuberant pull of the future against the caution of the past.
It's too bad that the political party Mr. Brooks pledges allegiance to won't allow that conversation to be had. Something about democrats not loving America.
Today's oligarchs, unfortunately, have been born to their station and have no idea there is another America where other's children are just as deserving as their children.
The success of America lies in the dance these competing philosophies do with and against each other. The exuberant pull of the future against the caution of the past.
It's too bad that the political party Mr. Brooks pledges allegiance to won't allow that conversation to be had. Something about democrats not loving America.
Today's oligarchs, unfortunately, have been born to their station and have no idea there is another America where other's children are just as deserving as their children.
7
Brooks states that Hamilton did not believe a country should be dominated by an “oligarchy”. However, he believed in an “aristocracy.” That is something that is puzzling, since Hamilton’s main opponent was Jefferson.
I think Alexis de Tocqueville had the better view:
“What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.”
I doubt that either Hamilton or Jefferson would agree with Alexis de Tocqueville.
I think Alexis de Tocqueville had the better view:
“What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.”
I doubt that either Hamilton or Jefferson would agree with Alexis de Tocqueville.
4
Review reveals something about David B's ethnic stance: " the cast is mostly black and Latino, but"---why not end with Latino. The cast exudes, etc.? 'But' seems a bit condescending here, and unfortunately so.
6
And so, Public Theatre, extend the run of "Hamilton," charge higher prices, make this your next "Chorus Line" and increase your endowment by a thousand fold. Do this in particular for those of us that travel to New York only twice a year to see theatre. PLEASE!
1
Well, David, if you ever get tired of political commentary you have a bright future as the Times' theater critic. Good job. Well done!
1
Rumor has it that Alexander Hamilton is of African descent. I say let's dig him up and run some genetic tests on his DNA. It's been done with older bones than his, and we know where he's buried.
Inquiring minds want to know if the Caribbean foreigner responsible for our banking structure and establishing manufacturing in Paterson was of African descent. It would be a good idea to pin it down for sure to expand our knowledge of colonial history and to reinforcein African-Americans a sense of "belonging" beyond their slave history.
The message for black youngsters is that African-Americans were present at every stage of the United States' development, and that one of the founding fathers was in fact an African-American. Thank you, Mr, Brooks.
Inquiring minds want to know if the Caribbean foreigner responsible for our banking structure and establishing manufacturing in Paterson was of African descent. It would be a good idea to pin it down for sure to expand our knowledge of colonial history and to reinforcein African-Americans a sense of "belonging" beyond their slave history.
The message for black youngsters is that African-Americans were present at every stage of the United States' development, and that one of the founding fathers was in fact an African-American. Thank you, Mr, Brooks.
Brooks, and many of these commenters, are far to glib about Hamilton. His debt plan was brilliant, tis true, and committed the wealthy to the success of the fledgling U.S. (it owed them money). It also allowed insiders who had bought debt at pennies on the dollar from the desperate to be paid off at face value, a concept fought against by many more egalitarian-minded at the time. Hamilton wanted a president for life, with no election, and above all admired the British Empire as a model for the U.S. Finally, review his actions during the Whiskey Rebellion for a fuller appreciation of the man and his preference for power and hierarchy--characteristics that endear him to Mr. Brooks, despite the hip-hop inflected denials by the latter.
1
Stop creating "straw man" arguments. Populists are pleased to see "aristocracy" for those that work hard. What we oppose is what the Republican led government has created: Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us.
14
The more I read and think about American history in general and the founding generation in particular, the more I conclude that our two and a half centuries are best understood as a gloriously unresolvable argument between Jefferson and Hamilton.
While Jefferson probably has had the better of it historically, I think Hamilton's sensibility is much more aligned to the 21st century: he pictured and tried to create a world in which every individual was free to advance as far as talent and drive could carry them.
While Jefferson probably has had the better of it historically, I think Hamilton's sensibility is much more aligned to the 21st century: he pictured and tried to create a world in which every individual was free to advance as far as talent and drive could carry them.
1
This is what I think when Alexander Hamilton comes time mind:
"It's great to be great but it's better to be human."
--Will Rogers, Oklahoma's Favorite Son
and
"Pride subjecteth a man to anger, the excess whereof is the madness called rage, and fury. And thus it comes to pass that excessive desire of revenge, when it becomes habitual, hurteth the organs, and becomes rage: that excessive love, with jealousy, becomes also rage: excessive opinion of a man's own self, for divine inspiration, for wisdom, learning, form, and the like, becomes distraction and giddiness: the same, joined with envy, rage: vehement opinion of the truth of anything, contradicted by others, rage."
--Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan
"It's great to be great but it's better to be human."
--Will Rogers, Oklahoma's Favorite Son
and
"Pride subjecteth a man to anger, the excess whereof is the madness called rage, and fury. And thus it comes to pass that excessive desire of revenge, when it becomes habitual, hurteth the organs, and becomes rage: that excessive love, with jealousy, becomes also rage: excessive opinion of a man's own self, for divine inspiration, for wisdom, learning, form, and the like, becomes distraction and giddiness: the same, joined with envy, rage: vehement opinion of the truth of anything, contradicted by others, rage."
--Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan
2
The entertainment industry does "bio-pics" and I am beginning to wonder if the distortion of the past into a weird mythology has become so overwhelming that real history is lost to the public.
It's dangerous how many people think that John Wayne was a real hero, the west was really like western movies ... and that the US should (and could) return to that glorious never-was.
The recent movie about Alan Turing was so stereotyped and unreal about who he was and what he did (and the scale and manpower and resources put to the task he was working on) ... the average viewer left the movie deluded about the reality of the code-breaking effort in the war, and a view of Alan Turning far from the real man.
So a hip-hop Hamilton might be cool, but on the other hand it surely isn't Hamilton. That may be the real blessing ... no rational person should conflate hip-hop-Hamilton with reality, but people probably will.
It's dangerous how many people think that John Wayne was a real hero, the west was really like western movies ... and that the US should (and could) return to that glorious never-was.
The recent movie about Alan Turing was so stereotyped and unreal about who he was and what he did (and the scale and manpower and resources put to the task he was working on) ... the average viewer left the movie deluded about the reality of the code-breaking effort in the war, and a view of Alan Turning far from the real man.
So a hip-hop Hamilton might be cool, but on the other hand it surely isn't Hamilton. That may be the real blessing ... no rational person should conflate hip-hop-Hamilton with reality, but people probably will.
14
Mr. Harrison, it is evident that you have never tried to create a film or piece of theatre and never had to deal with the compromise that is essential in bringing human beings to life in an artful, beautiful way.
Oh, and have you seen this piece?
Bravo to David Brooks for calling attention to what by all accounts is a noble endeavor.
Oh, and have you seen this piece?
Bravo to David Brooks for calling attention to what by all accounts is a noble endeavor.
1
There is a time and place where an individual human is mostly correct. Hamilton was one of those fortunate people who had the opportunity to serve his time an place well, but not without all of the human flaws that affect ALL humans in every time and place.
While elements of the past are certainly prologue, the prediction or extrapolation of the future from ideologically filtered nuggets of harmonious thinking do not provide any overarching application to the current time and place that we all inhabit.
The relevant point is that ALL things change, and even the most sacred comforts of yesterday will ultimately require change. I believe that it has something to do with the fact that time and space are subject to the rules of relativity.
While elements of the past are certainly prologue, the prediction or extrapolation of the future from ideologically filtered nuggets of harmonious thinking do not provide any overarching application to the current time and place that we all inhabit.
The relevant point is that ALL things change, and even the most sacred comforts of yesterday will ultimately require change. I believe that it has something to do with the fact that time and space are subject to the rules of relativity.
1
CK,
We can do both. Watch at the theater these noble endeavors, while following the President in his bold endeavors in the work it takes to rebuild the infrastructure of our Nation today.
We can do both. Watch at the theater these noble endeavors, while following the President in his bold endeavors in the work it takes to rebuild the infrastructure of our Nation today.
Hello David,
Hamilton still gives us a template to move forward as a country. (His vision was certainly alive in the Presidencys of Lincoln and the Roosvelts.)
Maybe like-minded adults - from both parties, academia, and even journalism - could come together to fashion a neo-Hamiltonian, national greatness agenda.
Maybe undertaking an initiative like this would take you out of your zone, but you've got the stature and contacts to move the idea.
Thanks for a great column.
best, Dan
Hamilton still gives us a template to move forward as a country. (His vision was certainly alive in the Presidencys of Lincoln and the Roosvelts.)
Maybe like-minded adults - from both parties, academia, and even journalism - could come together to fashion a neo-Hamiltonian, national greatness agenda.
Maybe undertaking an initiative like this would take you out of your zone, but you've got the stature and contacts to move the idea.
Thanks for a great column.
best, Dan
11
I think there is something called the Legacy Project (Nelson Madela and the like) and also The Elders where thought and action are targeted at worthy projects by admirable people.
I think former Presidents like Carter and Bush actually have reached out and I wish since they get a pension for serving as President that there would be a component of volunteerism.
I think former Presidents like Carter and Bush actually have reached out and I wish since they get a pension for serving as President that there would be a component of volunteerism.
Hamilton's thinking and actions are certainly relevant in our thinking about our path forward, but the concept of 'neo' anything is a conservative oxymoron designed to relive the comforts of some reconstructed, delusional past.
It is worth noting that the 'replay with an intuitive twist' routine is a hallmark of human history that I believe is 100% due to the conservative definition of progress, which just happens to be: replay with an intuitive twist.
100 years is a long time for a human idea (let alone a human system of order) to remain relevant. In Western civilization, Einstein, Newton, Da Vinci, Pythagoras, and few others come to mind as people whose ideas have remained relevant, mainly because they are derived from science rather than wishful thinking or conjecture.
Sometimes a twist is just enough. At other times it's not worth the cost of replay. We should be applying more science and less 'common sensical, intuitive reasoning' when we make our decisions about how we progress, because it is, after all, about progress, not reliving some romantic delusion of someone else's past.
It is worth noting that the 'replay with an intuitive twist' routine is a hallmark of human history that I believe is 100% due to the conservative definition of progress, which just happens to be: replay with an intuitive twist.
100 years is a long time for a human idea (let alone a human system of order) to remain relevant. In Western civilization, Einstein, Newton, Da Vinci, Pythagoras, and few others come to mind as people whose ideas have remained relevant, mainly because they are derived from science rather than wishful thinking or conjecture.
Sometimes a twist is just enough. At other times it's not worth the cost of replay. We should be applying more science and less 'common sensical, intuitive reasoning' when we make our decisions about how we progress, because it is, after all, about progress, not reliving some romantic delusion of someone else's past.
1
David Brooks as theatre critic and socio-cultural maven . . . Bravo!
5
The cast is black and Latino, AND (rather than but) it exudes the same strong ambition as this dead white man….Come on David. You should know better.
66
Most insightfully and at the very end of today's column, Brooks asks whether the dimensions of our dreams for ourselves and others are expansive enough. This is the best sort of rhetorical question, one that presupposes an answer not to advance an argument but to stimulate a dialogue. Dreaming for the future-- very distinct from day dreaming-- happens only when one has no resentment or bitterness about the past and a joy and confidence the present, whatever sufferings and obstacles it may place in one's path, is a challenging and rewarding path to those dreams. One really has to enjoy this journey or eventually anxiety, boredom, tedium, cynicism and despair become barrier capable of diverting one from the path. It's not enough to have a dreamer here and there, because in such circumstances a few lonely individuals, no matter their initial courage and perseverance, will very likely be defeated in the end simply for a lack of like minded comrades striving with them to provide the sustained encouragement only a friend of this sort can provide. Indispensable to any sort of "dream" movement, though, is a commitment on the part of each us to dream boldly and ceaselessly, and though our example encourage those closest us to do the same. Through this simple pattern a network of mutually supportive dreamers built from the institutions of family, friendship, work and community will naturally take shape. The only question is whether we are courageous enough to accept the challenge.
A present ideological, and economic groupings seem to be driving both demographics, and social order, but the emergence of universal diaspora, driven by globalization is also strongly influencing the separation of family and community.
Family, religion, and other 'grouping factors' still play a part, but nowhere near as big a part as was necessary throughout the 'agrarian era' of human development. Presumably, this is primarily due to the liberation and liberalization of the rules that bind individuals to groups.
At present, at least, modern humans are more free than ever to pursue their personal curiosity and exploration of the world, its wonders, and its opportunities for personal nirvana.
This seems to undermine the absolutism of the conservative rules and traditions that are the pillars of conservative thinking. The result seems to be an international backlash in conservative reaction against change (Putin, Al Qaeda, ISIL, Tea Party, China, et al).
This will not change until the general consensus of the world's population begins to focus on the future of humanity rather than on a romanticized perception of the comforts of its past accomplishments
Family, religion, and other 'grouping factors' still play a part, but nowhere near as big a part as was necessary throughout the 'agrarian era' of human development. Presumably, this is primarily due to the liberation and liberalization of the rules that bind individuals to groups.
At present, at least, modern humans are more free than ever to pursue their personal curiosity and exploration of the world, its wonders, and its opportunities for personal nirvana.
This seems to undermine the absolutism of the conservative rules and traditions that are the pillars of conservative thinking. The result seems to be an international backlash in conservative reaction against change (Putin, Al Qaeda, ISIL, Tea Party, China, et al).
This will not change until the general consensus of the world's population begins to focus on the future of humanity rather than on a romanticized perception of the comforts of its past accomplishments
Great review and I will go see this show. A little casual on Hamilton as an endorser of unbridled capitalism. His interests were mercantile but he was very much concerned about the rise of corporate power and felt strongly that the charters for corporations should be granted by government and only for a specific purpose and a limited time. It is one of the reasons he and Burr got into it. Burr had received a corporate charter for a bank to help finance the building of a reservoir in NYC. Burr presumed that the charter was permanent, Hamilton felt that he had been deceived by Burr and insisted it was not. That charter was for what became the Chase Manhattan Bank which for many years displayed the dueling pistols that ended Hamilton's life in the lobby of their New York Headquarters. Hamilton was not enamored of the common man as someone that worked as a clerk in the slave markets of the West Indies he was viscerally familiar with what the common man was capable of, but one can only imagine his chagrin at being lectured by Jefferson about the virtue of the common man.
5
"Unlike progressives, he believed in relatively unfettered finance and capitalism to arouse energy and increase social mobility."
If only it were so. There is a difference between capitalism and free market.
Free market assumes complete competition and complete knowledge.
Capitalism is return on investment and if they can have a monopoly, all the better. It is why that progressive, Teddy Roosevelt, gave us the anti-monopoly laws.
And even that devotee of Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, testified before Congress that he had been wrong thinking Wall Street would police itself.
The result of 30 years of trickle down economics has been the opposite of social mobility.
On the other hand, the social mobility of the richest 400 Americans has been impressive. They now have as much wealth as the bottom 50% - 150 million Americans.
At the same time we rank number 17 in education.
If only it were so. There is a difference between capitalism and free market.
Free market assumes complete competition and complete knowledge.
Capitalism is return on investment and if they can have a monopoly, all the better. It is why that progressive, Teddy Roosevelt, gave us the anti-monopoly laws.
And even that devotee of Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, testified before Congress that he had been wrong thinking Wall Street would police itself.
The result of 30 years of trickle down economics has been the opposite of social mobility.
On the other hand, the social mobility of the richest 400 Americans has been impressive. They now have as much wealth as the bottom 50% - 150 million Americans.
At the same time we rank number 17 in education.
10
I tend to think of Hamilton as the man who bought up near worthless continental currency that had been forced on farmers to purchase supplies to support the war and then went into congress to push for remuneration at full value to be achieved by taxing these same farmers.
I suspect he would be very comfortable in the modern banking industry.
I suspect he would be very comfortable in the modern banking industry.
1
Barack Obama and John Boehner come off like a modern day Hamilton and Burr, sans the fatal duel. Like them, one will fizzle into political obscurity, and one may have a hip hop musical about him in 200 years. At the peak of the Obama/Boehner rivalry it almost seemed like they would meet for a dual. Did they settle this in a modern day duel on the golf coarse? Maybe we haven't seen the peak of their rivalry as Boehner orchestrates the Netanyahu speech.
Perhaps the other message from the production is the futility of stubborn political division. Pride gets in the way of reform and leads to ego clash that ultimately short changes the public.
Perhaps the other message from the production is the futility of stubborn political division. Pride gets in the way of reform and leads to ego clash that ultimately short changes the public.
3
DAVID, LIKE YOU BE COOL TO THE MAX AND AWESOME
Growing up in the 1950s, I liked the pop music of the day and had to suffer through my father's classical music including the Met Opera radio broadcast every Saturday. But, it had its positive effects.
Then, my older cousin introduced me to Allen Freed and his R&R on WINS. I got it. Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee and Motown made me swing. I find that to appreciate any new music one has to become acclimated to it.
So, the zenith of R&R and fusions of it occurred during the counterculture days. The Beatles, Stones, Kris Krisofersen, Jefferson Airplane, Neil Young... But, I just liked the sound and rarely listened to the lyrics. Now, I find myself playing "classic rock" and realize that the lyrics have real meaning:
Love and loss; the importance of communion. Yes, "you can't always get what you want, you get what you need." And having sympathy for the devil is talking about original sin as we are all fallen. It took a while -- but, it is only now that I understand the genuine truths inbedded.
And then there was the master of ambiguous music -- true art -- Bob Dylan. He will probably be remembered as one of the greatest poets of the 20th and 21st Centuries.
Now back to classical and opera. As a child, I found it as torture -- but I was introduced to it and had been made ready for it. Now, one of my greatest passions is going to he Met Opera which transcends this world.
The lesson: never put down a form of music -- just wait a while,
Growing up in the 1950s, I liked the pop music of the day and had to suffer through my father's classical music including the Met Opera radio broadcast every Saturday. But, it had its positive effects.
Then, my older cousin introduced me to Allen Freed and his R&R on WINS. I got it. Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee and Motown made me swing. I find that to appreciate any new music one has to become acclimated to it.
So, the zenith of R&R and fusions of it occurred during the counterculture days. The Beatles, Stones, Kris Krisofersen, Jefferson Airplane, Neil Young... But, I just liked the sound and rarely listened to the lyrics. Now, I find myself playing "classic rock" and realize that the lyrics have real meaning:
Love and loss; the importance of communion. Yes, "you can't always get what you want, you get what you need." And having sympathy for the devil is talking about original sin as we are all fallen. It took a while -- but, it is only now that I understand the genuine truths inbedded.
And then there was the master of ambiguous music -- true art -- Bob Dylan. He will probably be remembered as one of the greatest poets of the 20th and 21st Centuries.
Now back to classical and opera. As a child, I found it as torture -- but I was introduced to it and had been made ready for it. Now, one of my greatest passions is going to he Met Opera which transcends this world.
The lesson: never put down a form of music -- just wait a while,
3
In Hamilton's time our country was young though the seeds of racism slavery and the oppression of Native Americans, the divide between north and south east and west, rich and poor had been sown. Hamilton wanted a strong country where everyone could become prosperous and respected. The negative aspects of our national character did not seem so insurmountable. But as seeds grow the original traits huge, 800 lbs in the room and what was positive can become grotesque.
How romantic that Hamilton should be killed in a duel. To many guns and their uses are still romantic empowerments. Many were disgruntled when American Sniper did not win the Oscar Much of our growth at least economically because we chose to develop our gun power not because we are ethically better than anyone else We are like our hero the Lone Ranger wearing a mask, is fast on the draw and uses a stereotyped mascot to create our perceived justice. We make much of Hamilton's scrappy rise to the top, but in his time and sometimes in ours such uppity behavior from a black man will get you lynched or shot in the street. Think Tonto with a mask with his faithful white boy companion if you dare and you get the idea how many still feel when they look at President Obama. Has the ideals of Hamilton for mobility growth for everyone been realized? We are teft with only a tarnished dream clouded by greed and hatred.
How romantic that Hamilton should be killed in a duel. To many guns and their uses are still romantic empowerments. Many were disgruntled when American Sniper did not win the Oscar Much of our growth at least economically because we chose to develop our gun power not because we are ethically better than anyone else We are like our hero the Lone Ranger wearing a mask, is fast on the draw and uses a stereotyped mascot to create our perceived justice. We make much of Hamilton's scrappy rise to the top, but in his time and sometimes in ours such uppity behavior from a black man will get you lynched or shot in the street. Think Tonto with a mask with his faithful white boy companion if you dare and you get the idea how many still feel when they look at President Obama. Has the ideals of Hamilton for mobility growth for everyone been realized? We are teft with only a tarnished dream clouded by greed and hatred.
4
Right on! It's all about rethink, not 'neo-think'.
Yes, and interesting man. But as with all the other 'founding fathers' his life possibilities are so far removed from our own that his philosophy can tell us nothing about our lives today.
In the late 18th century the path to fame and fortune was almost exclusively through public service. The instrumentality of wealth, whether nascent or established was via the tools of government.
That was truly an age of education as the path to power and power as the path to riches. It was only just recently that some small portion of education was available outside the church so it was also just recently that separation of church and state was even marginally possible. For if you were not rich it was finally possible, more in America then in Europe, to go from the lay middle class via secular training into government service still deeply infested with ambitious clergy.
A different age. One just leaving the old order behind, here on the frontier of European civilization.
Hamilton was a creature of that age and speaks little to a highly urbanized and technologically intertwined creature of today. Best we understand the differences before we take these 18th century comparisons too far.
In the late 18th century the path to fame and fortune was almost exclusively through public service. The instrumentality of wealth, whether nascent or established was via the tools of government.
That was truly an age of education as the path to power and power as the path to riches. It was only just recently that some small portion of education was available outside the church so it was also just recently that separation of church and state was even marginally possible. For if you were not rich it was finally possible, more in America then in Europe, to go from the lay middle class via secular training into government service still deeply infested with ambitious clergy.
A different age. One just leaving the old order behind, here on the frontier of European civilization.
Hamilton was a creature of that age and speaks little to a highly urbanized and technologically intertwined creature of today. Best we understand the differences before we take these 18th century comparisons too far.
5
At the very least, his ideas, provide relevant input to how we got to where we are today and why. This allows us to 'rethink' all of the time and place factors that influenced his life and his thinking, and perhaps leverage the relevant while discarding the flawed assumptions in his theories.
Personally, I believe that the 'leading edge' of humanity is evolving away from our animal heritage into something more holistically human. Our past, including Hamilton's, is littered with the inherited animus of creatures with far less ability to represent the best interests of humans.
Personally, I believe that the 'leading edge' of humanity is evolving away from our animal heritage into something more holistically human. Our past, including Hamilton's, is littered with the inherited animus of creatures with far less ability to represent the best interests of humans.
History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. (attributed without confirmation to Mark Twain).
While I won't be able to see the Play, I will seek to read the Book. My gratitude commonly goes to David Brooks, who so commonly shares his scope of wisdom
and breadth exposure with us. My world is greater because he not only explores.....but also exposes so much I would never see without his presence.
and breadth exposure with us. My world is greater because he not only explores.....but also exposes so much I would never see without his presence.
2
It is too bad that tickets to this show are prohibitively expensive and have been sold out for weeks. There are so many NYC school children that would benefit from seeing a production like this, but none of them will. its a shame.
10
There is a lottery system offering $10 tickets online and $20 at the theatre. No, an entire class can't attend, but it does go one step foward in making art accessible to all.
2
but YOU would have the opportunity to teach the story, to teach the book, the lesson to be remembered. Create an assignment - use the opportunity. It's a fresh take on an experience we knew not enough about! You could act it out in your room. Seize the play!
1
From my poetry collection, American Software:
ALEXANDER HAMILTON OF NEW YORK
I am out here early
I'm surprised by the light
I walk this city
I polish its stones
I laugh at the grass
I will take this path down to the slip
I am off to cross the Hudson
I have a pistol and an old brass button
I intend to kill a man
I was not born here
I was an orphan
I came ashore as a child
I was schooled in this country
I was taught to speak plain
I learned to take care of myself
I stole a piece of bread from a yardman
I took a spoon
I saw myself in the spoon
I was half-happy
I looked with two eyes
I measured my way
I was free
I say look at that
I will show you the passageways
I'll take you down the alleyways
I ask you to look with me
I have a handful of brown dirt
I feel the roots of the world
I see the boat waiting
I see its rope dangling
I feel the wind penetrating my black wool coat
I take every footstep with care and culpability
I am always surprised by daylight
I remember that bitter winter
I was aide-de-camp to a future president
I picked up a branch and shook it at the cold sun
I tried to scrape it off the sky
I watched it fall on its own accord
I was never more hungry
I feel the pitch of this boat
I roll with the water turning
I know this river
I will stand firm
I made a promise to myself
I will come back to that city
I will see everything that comes
I will note everything that goes
I will give up these oars
I will attend this contest
I am coming ashore.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON OF NEW YORK
I am out here early
I'm surprised by the light
I walk this city
I polish its stones
I laugh at the grass
I will take this path down to the slip
I am off to cross the Hudson
I have a pistol and an old brass button
I intend to kill a man
I was not born here
I was an orphan
I came ashore as a child
I was schooled in this country
I was taught to speak plain
I learned to take care of myself
I stole a piece of bread from a yardman
I took a spoon
I saw myself in the spoon
I was half-happy
I looked with two eyes
I measured my way
I was free
I say look at that
I will show you the passageways
I'll take you down the alleyways
I ask you to look with me
I have a handful of brown dirt
I feel the roots of the world
I see the boat waiting
I see its rope dangling
I feel the wind penetrating my black wool coat
I take every footstep with care and culpability
I am always surprised by daylight
I remember that bitter winter
I was aide-de-camp to a future president
I picked up a branch and shook it at the cold sun
I tried to scrape it off the sky
I watched it fall on its own accord
I was never more hungry
I feel the pitch of this boat
I roll with the water turning
I know this river
I will stand firm
I made a promise to myself
I will come back to that city
I will see everything that comes
I will note everything that goes
I will give up these oars
I will attend this contest
I am coming ashore.
6
Oh David, now you've done it! You've broken my cherished "false equivalency" meter. Really: comparing Alexander Hamilton to Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G.? In what universe? Hamilton was Washington's Chief of Staff during the Revolutionary War, one of the circle of brilliant young men including Henry Knox, who Washington trusted completely with the most important work of the new nation. Hamilton was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, a champion of a strong centralized government, the author of a single national currency and founder of a national banking system. How do we get Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. in the same sentence? Hamilton and his wife are buried in the cemetery at Trinity Church, Wall Street. The street thugs Shakur and BIG? Who knows, and who cares. Their picture is not on any US currency, either. BTW, Hamilton showed up, in person, to fight his own battles, something our current crop of military service-avoiding Republican war-mongers might reflect on.
104
As you say, Hamilton was a war hero and a self-made financial genius. He was also a champion of making the system work and working through the system, not of defining himself in opposition to it. Rapper comparisons? Not really.
1
Oh, you haven't the vaguest clue of Tupac's intellectual depth. Under a different time or place, he could have very well left a Hamilton-like legacy. He was a philosopher in the truest sense and worthy of a second look.
David's pieces are always unpretentious and educational. Too bad we can't say the same of his smug audience.
David's pieces are always unpretentious and educational. Too bad we can't say the same of his smug audience.
3
I can see you point regarding Biggie, but i recommend you examine the life of Tupac Shakur more closely before you make that statement...
2
Fantastic. Students across the US need to see this . . .the history, determination, politics, civics in the magic of the theatre. That's education!
Hope some gazillionaire funds productions of Hamilton in all our schools with privileged kids sitting next to deeply poor kids with discussion afterwards
Hope some gazillionaire funds productions of Hamilton in all our schools with privileged kids sitting next to deeply poor kids with discussion afterwards
16
please read the comment by Ozzie 7 below . . . perhaps you'll ease up a bit.
Brooks writes: "(Hamilton) believed in an aristocracy, though one based on virtue and work, not birth".
I did a double-take, blinked, and to re-establish sanity looked up the definition of aristocracy. Aristocracy is the polar opposite of a system "based on virtue and work, not birth".
Your attempt at sleight-of-hand is as inept as Steve Martin pretending to be a magician. At least Steve's routine was funny.
I did a double-take, blinked, and to re-establish sanity looked up the definition of aristocracy. Aristocracy is the polar opposite of a system "based on virtue and work, not birth".
Your attempt at sleight-of-hand is as inept as Steve Martin pretending to be a magician. At least Steve's routine was funny.
12
Unlike computer programming languages wherein the meaning of a word is defined by a formal specification, English is a Natural Language, both spoken and written. 'Aristocracy' is in the process of having its meaning reversed along the lines seen in this Brooks article. A few years ago a similar thing happened to the word, 'Incredible'.
I deplore this fact of language usage in human society, but, apparently, it is part of what allows 'innovation' to happen. Does Brooks know what he is doing? Probably, yes. And he probably realizes that many people want to stick to the 'old' definition, but will the new definition actually replace the old? Who knows?
I deplore this fact of language usage in human society, but, apparently, it is part of what allows 'innovation' to happen. Does Brooks know what he is doing? Probably, yes. And he probably realizes that many people want to stick to the 'old' definition, but will the new definition actually replace the old? Who knows?
Brooks is entirely correct. In fact, this is a very prevalent late 18th-early 19thc concept (cf. Carlyle's chapter "The Aristocracy of Talent" in "Past and Present").
Republican "magic" is generally weak and ineffective. The notable thing and wonder of it is that it manages to get them elected..........or is that the dollars that they use to pump propaganda?
I guess one thing in their favor is that due to 'conservatives' among the founding father's the Constitution was forced to incorporate a structure of 'State governance' that favored autocracy over democracy.
This helps to promote and justify the silly Republican idea that government should be run more like 'a business' (aka, an autocracy).
Democratic governance is ALL about ALL of the people, not just the happenstantially elite among us. It's messy, but it keeps the focus on humans rather than on 'golden-calf-like' things.
I guess one thing in their favor is that due to 'conservatives' among the founding father's the Constitution was forced to incorporate a structure of 'State governance' that favored autocracy over democracy.
This helps to promote and justify the silly Republican idea that government should be run more like 'a business' (aka, an autocracy).
Democratic governance is ALL about ALL of the people, not just the happenstantially elite among us. It's messy, but it keeps the focus on humans rather than on 'golden-calf-like' things.
Mr. Brooks, you refer to Hamilton as "this dead white man". A brief refresher course on your history would reveal that like our current president, Hamilton was half black. This was, at least in part, one of the issues that some of his rivals, including Burr had against him.
5
Mr. Brooks:
Hamilton was visionary whose advocacy for the creation of a central
bank was a driving force toward true nationhood. Like progressives he favored social mobility and that central government should should "actively subsidize" it.
Like conservatives he believed in a free market system that would foster a climate of personal acheivement. There is nothing uncomfortable about that vision.
"Relatively unfettered capitalism" as we know it today doesn't fit a Hamiltonian vision. If he believed in system rigged to ensure an aristocracy based on birth he would not have feared the nation being run by oligarchs.
As you state, he believed in a system that rewarded virtue and work. He also believed in a system that was responsible to all its citizens. In short, he helped establish the idea of the American dream. In his version there wasn't
any cheating.
Hamilton was visionary whose advocacy for the creation of a central
bank was a driving force toward true nationhood. Like progressives he favored social mobility and that central government should should "actively subsidize" it.
Like conservatives he believed in a free market system that would foster a climate of personal acheivement. There is nothing uncomfortable about that vision.
"Relatively unfettered capitalism" as we know it today doesn't fit a Hamiltonian vision. If he believed in system rigged to ensure an aristocracy based on birth he would not have feared the nation being run by oligarchs.
As you state, he believed in a system that rewarded virtue and work. He also believed in a system that was responsible to all its citizens. In short, he helped establish the idea of the American dream. In his version there wasn't
any cheating.
1
Brooks has the ability to put life into life, even when dueling is about death.
There is something to be learned from the arts that affects the core of pragmatism: it's a prism for us all. It helps us find a deeper meaning in our existence that is not so existential -- so hard.
I renewed by season ticket to the opera for that very reason. It helps our spirit, and out spirit is what tempers our perspective -- making us a more gentle society. I'm motivated by this article.
There is something to be learned from the arts that affects the core of pragmatism: it's a prism for us all. It helps us find a deeper meaning in our existence that is not so existential -- so hard.
I renewed by season ticket to the opera for that very reason. It helps our spirit, and out spirit is what tempers our perspective -- making us a more gentle society. I'm motivated by this article.
It is quite amazing to read negative comments from people who obviously haven't seen the show. The tickets to the show are NOT several hundred dollars, there is a lottery for $20 tickets every day. Mr. Miranda wrote a musical that will change the course of musical theater in America. I had a sense of history being made as I watched it. I'm sure it will transfer to Broadway, and anybody who cares about theater, should make an effort to go see it.
4
Buried in Mr. Brooks' columns, even his theater reviews, are kernels of what he really believes, or wants to slip into the narrative to subvert it.
For instance, "Unlike populists of left and right…" What baloney. Here is the definition of populist from Merriam-Webster:
Definition of POPULIST
: a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized : a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
Can you imagine a Republican advocating against monopolies? They've done such a good job with our monopolistic banks, for instance. There is no such thing as a populist of the right representing the common people in our country. However, the Republicans have recognized the anger of the 99% and the popularity of Elizabeth Warren and now are trying to appropriate the word.
Nice try, Mr. Brooks.
For instance, "Unlike populists of left and right…" What baloney. Here is the definition of populist from Merriam-Webster:
Definition of POPULIST
: a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized : a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
Can you imagine a Republican advocating against monopolies? They've done such a good job with our monopolistic banks, for instance. There is no such thing as a populist of the right representing the common people in our country. However, the Republicans have recognized the anger of the 99% and the popularity of Elizabeth Warren and now are trying to appropriate the word.
Nice try, Mr. Brooks.
7
Brooks forgot to mention that Hamilton was one of the original protectionists. That was part of the "experience," as Ha-Joon Chang has pointed out in Kicking Away the Ladder.
See Hamilton's Report on Manufactures here: http://www.constitution.org/ah/rpt_manufactures.pdf
But why bother with reality when you're cherry-picking the past to support a modest, humble centrist political position in the present?
PS: If you want to experience a piece of art that brilliantly captures the ordeals of public life, read Vidal's Lincoln. If you want to get a ficitonal sense of what Hamilton might have been like, read Vidal's Burr. If you want to read a real moralist, try La Rochefoucauld, who was properly scornful of all puffery and self-love. This one may be relevant.: "Humility is often merely a pretence of submissiveness, which we use to make other people submit to us. It is an artifice by which pride debases itself in order to exalt itself; and though it can transform itself in thousands of ways, pride is never better disguised and more deceptive than when it is hidden behind the mask of humility."
See Hamilton's Report on Manufactures here: http://www.constitution.org/ah/rpt_manufactures.pdf
But why bother with reality when you're cherry-picking the past to support a modest, humble centrist political position in the present?
PS: If you want to experience a piece of art that brilliantly captures the ordeals of public life, read Vidal's Lincoln. If you want to get a ficitonal sense of what Hamilton might have been like, read Vidal's Burr. If you want to read a real moralist, try La Rochefoucauld, who was properly scornful of all puffery and self-love. This one may be relevant.: "Humility is often merely a pretence of submissiveness, which we use to make other people submit to us. It is an artifice by which pride debases itself in order to exalt itself; and though it can transform itself in thousands of ways, pride is never better disguised and more deceptive than when it is hidden behind the mask of humility."
2
I'm not up on the latest Hamilton biographies, but the ones I read some years ago spoke of the possibility of his being of mixed birth, with some black blood in him. And of this being a persistent rumor in the early years of the U.S.
For an interesting perspective on Hamilton, visit the Falls in Paterson, New Jersey where a statue of the man is situated on the overlook of the falls. It is suprising how few residents of New York and New Jersey have ever visited the Falls--beautiful, impressive, second only to Niagara Falls and only a forty minute drive from midtown Manhattan. This is perhaps because of what has become of the city itself, which fell on hard times. Hamilton's SUM, or Society of Useful Manufactures, proved a disppointment, and the city, once known for silk production, later became synonymous with labor strife, particularly during the great strike in the silk factories. Paterson's factory district, for a while a ghost town, is now being resurrected and gentrified as boutiques and luxury apartments.
Didn't Hamilton die with massive debt and penniless? Some proponent of unfettered capitalism! He was the father of OPM
Hamilton the believer in strong central government as well as capitalism, governance by the best people, and cities verses Jefferson the believer in an agrarian society of yeomen with strong democracy and less central government, who saw labor as captives of employers and thus not free men. Then we see the views of the political descendants of these two adversaries, which does not really conform to either one's views. The progressives end up supporting democracy but also the needs of people who live in cities and the ability of the central government of overcome the injustices which come from the intolerances of communities which demand conformance to participate. The conservatives end up supporting oligarchy but oppose a functioning central government that enables people to enjoy individual liberties and control over their lives which does not conform to the desires of the local community and who despise the needs of a nation state and of people who live in cities.
1
I wonder if Brooks paid for his ticket? I looked into getting two tickets as a gift for hubby - ouch! $800 each. The show sounds wonderful and is sure to entertain those who have successfully climbed that social mobility ladder. Two tickets probably amount to the annual discretionary spending budget for many households. Guess its simple supply-demand but NYC is in the stratosphere. Let's hope we don't run out of water.
5
Hamilton seems to be a good many people's projection area and this piece shows that I might have underestimated Mr. Brooks's curiosity of late and his will (not gift - did you notice his "Latino, but ambitious" sentence in the last paragraph?) to integrate other cultures into his America. This is a struggle that lies ahead for many conservatives and we certainly notice Mr. Brooks efforts to chart an intellectual path for them.
1
Hamilton's beautiful house in upper Manhattan is still standing and well worth a visit. I was surprised when the National Park rangers said unequivocally that he had African ancestry. Is this now an established fact? (I'd been aware that his political enemies accused him of that!) Adds a bit more to the hip-hop aspect.
1
Wasn't Hamilton, something of a brilliant climber, a proto-champion of a more powerful central government, perhaps directed by the Right People. And wasn't Jefferson was the daddy of States Rights and champion of the yeoman farmer?
Well then we should not be taking this great man off the $10 bill and replacing him with the likes of Ronald Reagan, unless we include the chimp!
"Hamilton assaulted Jefferson because he did not believe a country dominated by oligarchs could be a country in which poor boys and girls like him would have space to rise and grow."
Too bad Hamilton's active life brought him to such an early, tragic end (which often seems assure fame). He might have changed his mind and supported his former foe if he could have witnessed Jefferson (by then a somewhat reformed aristocratic oligarch) signing into law the Louisiana Purchase. The legislation that literally provided the very room to grow Mr. Brooks is talking about. Maybe he would have later joined Adams and Jefferson in a circle of correspondence between friends who were once enemies. That would have been an interesting conversation.
Too bad Hamilton's active life brought him to such an early, tragic end (which often seems assure fame). He might have changed his mind and supported his former foe if he could have witnessed Jefferson (by then a somewhat reformed aristocratic oligarch) signing into law the Louisiana Purchase. The legislation that literally provided the very room to grow Mr. Brooks is talking about. Maybe he would have later joined Adams and Jefferson in a circle of correspondence between friends who were once enemies. That would have been an interesting conversation.
1
Happily, a hip-hop musical, acted, sung and danced by "minority" performers provides a history lesson!
I would love to know what it took to present it in NYC. However, I suspect that we owe, again, Joe Papp our appreciation.
If Spielberg's "Lincoln" was an inspiration, then may he, and Daniel Day-Lewis, accept my Thank You, too.
In such times (as in The New Gilded Age), we benefit from such "entertainment"!
I would love to know what it took to present it in NYC. However, I suspect that we owe, again, Joe Papp our appreciation.
If Spielberg's "Lincoln" was an inspiration, then may he, and Daniel Day-Lewis, accept my Thank You, too.
In such times (as in The New Gilded Age), we benefit from such "entertainment"!
1
Mr. Brooks,
Having also seen the play, I must add that you are out of your element as a theater critic. Entitled to express a view, well that's okay but if you look at your "review" you cite the book and its contents far more than the stylistic aspects of the play. And that stylistic aspect is one that, in my opinion, gets in the way of the central stories to be told: the man and his relationship to New York and America and the pathos that is his and his main adversary, Aaron Burr.
The second act, which avoids the story telling gimmickry aspects that is hip hop, is far better and one that takes the audience much closer to the main subjects of the play - Hamilton and Burr.
In the end, the perceived coolness of hip hop with its often incomprehensible rapid fire wordplay that draws people like you into its web actually separates the audience from the characters of the play and the deeper, more substantive elements that a quality play about a most interesting topic could and should convey.
Who knew conservative Mr. Brooks would prefer hip hop style over substance?
Having also seen the play, I must add that you are out of your element as a theater critic. Entitled to express a view, well that's okay but if you look at your "review" you cite the book and its contents far more than the stylistic aspects of the play. And that stylistic aspect is one that, in my opinion, gets in the way of the central stories to be told: the man and his relationship to New York and America and the pathos that is his and his main adversary, Aaron Burr.
The second act, which avoids the story telling gimmickry aspects that is hip hop, is far better and one that takes the audience much closer to the main subjects of the play - Hamilton and Burr.
In the end, the perceived coolness of hip hop with its often incomprehensible rapid fire wordplay that draws people like you into its web actually separates the audience from the characters of the play and the deeper, more substantive elements that a quality play about a most interesting topic could and should convey.
Who knew conservative Mr. Brooks would prefer hip hop style over substance?
9
Alexander Hamilton has always been my favorite most fascinating Founding Father. Considering when and where and how he started out in life and where he ended up in so relatively few living years is an amazing contrast with his peers.
I particularly respect and like all of the Founding Fathers who did not own slaves. This is much more the America of Alexander Hamilton in practice instead of the rhetorical America of myth of Thomas Jefferson. When given a choice between following the advice of both men Washington mainly went with Hamilton. As did President Thomas Jefferson.
It is always gratifying when the "tortoise competes and beats the hare". But I have always been troubled by the mythology that presumes that the rise of Hamilton and others like him is somehow evidence of a universal pervasive egalitarian meritorious America. That was not and is not the America that we live in.
A Hamilton here or a Jackson or Lincoln or Grant or Truman or Ford or Reagan or Clinton there does not significantly alter American reality. An Obama added to that list is not American redemption and forgiveness for a past where no one like him was possible.
Progress to be sure. But there is still a distance between American verbal and written rhetoric of "the promised land" and practical American reality.
I particularly respect and like all of the Founding Fathers who did not own slaves. This is much more the America of Alexander Hamilton in practice instead of the rhetorical America of myth of Thomas Jefferson. When given a choice between following the advice of both men Washington mainly went with Hamilton. As did President Thomas Jefferson.
It is always gratifying when the "tortoise competes and beats the hare". But I have always been troubled by the mythology that presumes that the rise of Hamilton and others like him is somehow evidence of a universal pervasive egalitarian meritorious America. That was not and is not the America that we live in.
A Hamilton here or a Jackson or Lincoln or Grant or Truman or Ford or Reagan or Clinton there does not significantly alter American reality. An Obama added to that list is not American redemption and forgiveness for a past where no one like him was possible.
Progress to be sure. But there is still a distance between American verbal and written rhetoric of "the promised land" and practical American reality.
49
One of the big and important differences between Hamilton and Jefferson and Madison was the interpretation of the General Welfare clause. Hamilton believed it was a "default', that it essentially gave to the federal government (Congress) the right to do anything the advanced the generally welfare. Madison believed that only the powers specifically listed could be exercised by Congress, and anything else was reserved to the state.
During our history, the SCOTUS wavered back and forth until 1937 in Helvring v Davis in which Hamilton was declared the winner. Here is an excerpt from Cardozo's opinion:
"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare'... There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views... The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event... The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law...."
So not only can Congress spend on anything that advances the general welfare, but Congress gets to decide what is general welfare and what is specific welfare.
During our history, the SCOTUS wavered back and forth until 1937 in Helvring v Davis in which Hamilton was declared the winner. Here is an excerpt from Cardozo's opinion:
"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare'... There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views... The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event... The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law...."
So not only can Congress spend on anything that advances the general welfare, but Congress gets to decide what is general welfare and what is specific welfare.
15
" The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgement " ... Sounds like an advocacy of constitutionally limited government rather than rule by the tyranny of the majority in accordance with some sort of vague " General Will " of the people.
1
Hamilton and his sons, Lincoln, Eishenhower and Obama (yes, Obama that ambitious, island-born outsider) used the power of the state to seed our future prosperity: the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 which welded together a single American market; the interstate highway system, and Solyndra. Have you heard? Government loans to solar power manufacturers will bring in five billion dollars in profit for Uncle Sam (Solyndra's half billion dollar loss is the exception), and help us catch up with the renewable energy revolution we trail behind.
Meanwhile, investment banks on Wall Street invest in nothing but their own accounts anymore, knowingly selling garbage on the full faith and credit of their reputations while wiping out trillions of dollars in private wealth.
Uncle Sam and venture capital made Silicon Valley. The spirit entrepreneurial state, while bowed, is unbroken. Hamilton would be pleased; wish I could afford a ticket to his show.
I have met David Brooks twice, and found him to be a thoughtful, modest man. Next time I see him at "our" bar, I hope he will share a beer with me and toast Hamilton and tell me more. I have a tenner in my pocket, I'm buying.
Meanwhile, investment banks on Wall Street invest in nothing but their own accounts anymore, knowingly selling garbage on the full faith and credit of their reputations while wiping out trillions of dollars in private wealth.
Uncle Sam and venture capital made Silicon Valley. The spirit entrepreneurial state, while bowed, is unbroken. Hamilton would be pleased; wish I could afford a ticket to his show.
I have met David Brooks twice, and found him to be a thoughtful, modest man. Next time I see him at "our" bar, I hope he will share a beer with me and toast Hamilton and tell me more. I have a tenner in my pocket, I'm buying.
4
How fortunate, David Brooks, to have the disposable income to attend a brilliant "piece of art" at The Public Theatre! Alexander Hamilton was born "an outside child" in Nevis, British West Indies in 1757, and via King's College (Columbia University in NYC), he became a Founding Father of our United States. Hamilton's first son (of 8 children) named Phillip died in a duel just 3 years before his Father, Alexander, was killed by Aaron Burr (English hero, American traitor) in Weehawken, NJ in 1804. He died in his late 40s. Bravo and kudos to Lin-Manuel Miranda for his "Hamilton", an exciting and visionary hip-hop musical I hope to see someday!
4
I wondered what sorts of complaints this column would generate. I never really imagined a snarky comment about Brook's being able to afford to go to a play. So should we take from this that, until everyone can afford to live near of travel to and then attend the theater, no one should be able to go?
2
So, what would Hamilton be today? A Grand Old Tea Party Republican? No. A centrist Democrat? Possibly. He believed in and fought for a strong central government, with a national banking system to dominate its economic life, and a Constitution of inherent or implied powers, fully capable of justifying its capacity to govern the country. He opposed the idea of semi-independent states able to challenge central government authority. His instinct was to fight entrenched, privilege position. Perhaps he would today eschew politics for the most part, and become a hedge fund manager, amassing great wealth, which because of his inherent merit, he thought he deserved. Hard to say -- that's the problem of confusing the politics of the late 18th century with ours today.
28
Bravo
I can't even imagine Alexander Hamilton as a hedge fund manager. You might need to take another look at the details of his policies.
Nice post. I might add that Hamilton was pro laissez-faire in an economy that did not include mega-corporations. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say in Hamilton's day in theory you had to show a benefit to the general welfare to get a corporate charter from the legislature. Unfortunately this system was rife with corruption, and showing a benefit to the legislators became the de facto requirement to get a corporate charter.
1
Hamilton's greatest legacy was in realizing that, left to their own devices, the states could not be trusted to act in the best interests of the new nation and that the bloody efforts at gaining independence would be for nothing unless a strong central government reigned in the feckless, irresponsible, juvenile entitlement-minded state legislators.
Just like today.
Just like today.
10
The "quintessential contemporary rappers" are not immigrants. The vast majority are born and raised right here in America. This is their home and they are as American as you are Mr. Brooks. They may seem foreign to you, and vice versa I suspect, but they have not immigrated, I know this will shock you, many are actually from middle-class or higher, unbroken homes.
4
Hamilton was and still is not celebrated sufficiently for the gifts he left behind in this country. His demise at the hand of an egotist does not negate the fact he established an order we still use today. His contributions to the Federalist Papers, the US banking system and economics should be required reading if we can ever reestablish civics as a subject in schools. In many ways, as impressive as Jefferson was, Jefferson was still a slave owner and slave abuser. Hamilton on the other hand was our consummate immigrant, hungry, desire to succeed and over come obstacles. Hamilton represents what we later became because of the immigrants we allowed in and their desire to be free.
7
"Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike." - Alexander Hamilton
Hamilton inherently understood Obama-hating Republicans.
"There are seasons in every country when noise and impudence pass current for worth; and in popular commotions especially, the clamors of interested and factious men are often mistaken for patriotism." - Alexander Hamilton
Hamilton inherently understood the fake patriotism, Know-Nothingism, nihilism and denialism so wildly and recklessly popular in today's Republican Party.
"This process of election affords a moral certainty that the office of President will seldom fall to the lot of any many who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. " - Alexander Hamilton
Hamilton understood that Americans are unlikely to vote for ideological clowns, shills and cranks to the Presidency.
Alexander Hamilton was obviously an intelligent, studied and nuanced man.
Most importantly, Hamilton knew the importance of acting like an informed, educated adult was important to govern a great nation.
I'm sure he would have been thrown out of the ideological head-in-the-sand-pretzel that passes for today's Republican Party a very long time ago.
Hamilton inherently understood Obama-hating Republicans.
"There are seasons in every country when noise and impudence pass current for worth; and in popular commotions especially, the clamors of interested and factious men are often mistaken for patriotism." - Alexander Hamilton
Hamilton inherently understood the fake patriotism, Know-Nothingism, nihilism and denialism so wildly and recklessly popular in today's Republican Party.
"This process of election affords a moral certainty that the office of President will seldom fall to the lot of any many who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. " - Alexander Hamilton
Hamilton understood that Americans are unlikely to vote for ideological clowns, shills and cranks to the Presidency.
Alexander Hamilton was obviously an intelligent, studied and nuanced man.
Most importantly, Hamilton knew the importance of acting like an informed, educated adult was important to govern a great nation.
I'm sure he would have been thrown out of the ideological head-in-the-sand-pretzel that passes for today's Republican Party a very long time ago.
139
Good comments; except for the part about Americans being "unlikely to vote for ideological clowns, shills and cranks . . ." I could name several. Bet you could too.
7
Socrates,
I have long admired your soccer skills and your political and social understanding. You comments on Charles Blow's wonderful op-ed piece were a coup de grace. We all know of Dr Johnson's hatred of Edmund Burke and Johnson numerous quotes about the brilliant scoundrel but I think the 1775 definition of scoundrel should have been in order. Burke was indeed the most vile of bipeds he sowed dissension and discord where ever he went. Here in Canada our sociopaths who preach anti Semitism and white supremacy call themselves the Edmund Burke Society and in the US you have pundits like David Brooks who praise Burke's insight and philosophy, and politicians like Ted Cruz who use Burke as their model.
I like your use of Hamilton's quotes to illustrate that Hamilton was no follower of the divine right of Kings, aristocrats or oligarchs. Brooks' capacity to see 1775 through his "conservative" 2015 windows is indeed telling. I think next time he is feeling ill he may want to visit the barber doctor down the street to draw out a pint of the bad humors.
I have long admired your soccer skills and your political and social understanding. You comments on Charles Blow's wonderful op-ed piece were a coup de grace. We all know of Dr Johnson's hatred of Edmund Burke and Johnson numerous quotes about the brilliant scoundrel but I think the 1775 definition of scoundrel should have been in order. Burke was indeed the most vile of bipeds he sowed dissension and discord where ever he went. Here in Canada our sociopaths who preach anti Semitism and white supremacy call themselves the Edmund Burke Society and in the US you have pundits like David Brooks who praise Burke's insight and philosophy, and politicians like Ted Cruz who use Burke as their model.
I like your use of Hamilton's quotes to illustrate that Hamilton was no follower of the divine right of Kings, aristocrats or oligarchs. Brooks' capacity to see 1775 through his "conservative" 2015 windows is indeed telling. I think next time he is feeling ill he may want to visit the barber doctor down the street to draw out a pint of the bad humors.
6
What figure in American History best epitomizes what the idea of "America” is all about: social mobility; perseverance and reinvention of oneself! Hamilton’s battles with Jefferson were well documented only to be balanced and tempered by Washington's impartiality.... Born of illegitimacy and not native to American soil, Hamilton had to fight for legitimacy and his place within American aristocracy. What lesson is to be learned from Hamilton’s life, for his day he was the true liberal to Jefferson's conservatism. Washington’s administration was blessed to have two gifted intellectual giants vying to steer America to their own version. It is unfortunate how today’s politician’s intellectual competencies have slipped and how the betterment of America has been subservient to the self-aggrandizement of political office.
3
David, you state that "unlike progressives, he believed in relatively unfettered finance and capitalism to arouse energy and increase social mobility." Of course the devil's in the details, but I dare say that most progressives I know would agree with this statement.
It's the conservatives today who, on the one hand, rail against the Federal Reserve and yet, while bemoaning the government from bailing out the banks that are too big to fail, fail to do anything to make them bigger. I think Hamilton would have been pleased to see Geithner/Obama pumping money into the banks by giving them virtually unlimited free overnight money every night for banks to use to make profits to bolster their reserves to make them stable --while at the same time supporting Dodd/Frank to at least say their are limits to our largesse.
Secondly, I think Hamilton would have taken issue with your definition of an aristocracy based on virtue and work, not birth. Hamilton would certainly have added intellect and education.
Finally, for someone who spoke so eloquently in the Federalist papers about the need for a strong Federal government, he would have choked over today's Saint Reaganite conservative attitude that government is not the solution it's the problem.
Most of all, he, like his intellectual peers Jefferson and Madison, agreed on the necessity to compromise. Where are Obama's intellectual peers, let alone their willingness to compromise? Boehner? McConnell? Ryan? Don't make me laugh.
It's the conservatives today who, on the one hand, rail against the Federal Reserve and yet, while bemoaning the government from bailing out the banks that are too big to fail, fail to do anything to make them bigger. I think Hamilton would have been pleased to see Geithner/Obama pumping money into the banks by giving them virtually unlimited free overnight money every night for banks to use to make profits to bolster their reserves to make them stable --while at the same time supporting Dodd/Frank to at least say their are limits to our largesse.
Secondly, I think Hamilton would have taken issue with your definition of an aristocracy based on virtue and work, not birth. Hamilton would certainly have added intellect and education.
Finally, for someone who spoke so eloquently in the Federalist papers about the need for a strong Federal government, he would have choked over today's Saint Reaganite conservative attitude that government is not the solution it's the problem.
Most of all, he, like his intellectual peers Jefferson and Madison, agreed on the necessity to compromise. Where are Obama's intellectual peers, let alone their willingness to compromise? Boehner? McConnell? Ryan? Don't make me laugh.
18
Thank you for bringing the play "Hamilton" to the attention of those of us who admire his great legacy.
"Unlike populists of left and right, he believed in an aristocracy, though one based on virtue and work, not birth." But he was a populist, and a great one. As the first Secretary of the Treasury, he used tariffs and an industrial policy to propel the United States on its path to economic greatness. Sadly, the last several decades, our misguided leaders have reversed that policy, and the economic damage is easy to see, for those who are not blinded by ideology: low wages and inequality.
Perhaps this play will inspire our inept political class to open their eyes, and see the obvious solution to our economic decline.
"Unlike populists of left and right, he believed in an aristocracy, though one based on virtue and work, not birth." But he was a populist, and a great one. As the first Secretary of the Treasury, he used tariffs and an industrial policy to propel the United States on its path to economic greatness. Sadly, the last several decades, our misguided leaders have reversed that policy, and the economic damage is easy to see, for those who are not blinded by ideology: low wages and inequality.
Perhaps this play will inspire our inept political class to open their eyes, and see the obvious solution to our economic decline.
8
My uncle of Scottish-French descent, brought up in Newark, NJ at the turn of the 20th century, educated in France and England, the youngest graduate of Princeton in 1933, went on to Harvard Law School.
After transferring to the Military Intelligence Service on the General Staff in Washington, Edmund was Acting Counsel to the Army-Navy Liquidation Commission in Paris in 1945.
My uncle was an humanitarian, a devout Catholic, a justice of the peace, an historian. A Democrat with conservative views and a family man, education was a top priority, and his children successfully branched out in to their own field of interest.
In his memoirs he wrote of extraordinary events as men on the moon and medical advances; he was also to see the deterioration of family values. Pacing the train platform in CT., waiting to take this niece back to her duty station in New York, he would give a history lesson: 'Hamilton! And you've never heard of Burr! Let me tell you'.
Let me tell you, Edmund, that your niece is none the wiser since, but cares more about what is happening to America since you've been gone. We need persons and officers of your caliber more than ever with a sense of chivalry, reason and vision. We have one of our finest American Presidents ever. His name is Mr. Barack Obama, and he has invited The People to join him in rebuilding our Country.
You might wish to hear at last report that we are going forth in these times of adversity, Burr, Hamilton and all.
After transferring to the Military Intelligence Service on the General Staff in Washington, Edmund was Acting Counsel to the Army-Navy Liquidation Commission in Paris in 1945.
My uncle was an humanitarian, a devout Catholic, a justice of the peace, an historian. A Democrat with conservative views and a family man, education was a top priority, and his children successfully branched out in to their own field of interest.
In his memoirs he wrote of extraordinary events as men on the moon and medical advances; he was also to see the deterioration of family values. Pacing the train platform in CT., waiting to take this niece back to her duty station in New York, he would give a history lesson: 'Hamilton! And you've never heard of Burr! Let me tell you'.
Let me tell you, Edmund, that your niece is none the wiser since, but cares more about what is happening to America since you've been gone. We need persons and officers of your caliber more than ever with a sense of chivalry, reason and vision. We have one of our finest American Presidents ever. His name is Mr. Barack Obama, and he has invited The People to join him in rebuilding our Country.
You might wish to hear at last report that we are going forth in these times of adversity, Burr, Hamilton and all.
3
There is no doubt that Brook's laudatory commentary is right on.In fact it is a Broadway phenomenon-meaning that the demand for the play is so great that if you are lucky to secure a seat, a ticket would run you several hundred dollars.A far cry from up by the bootstraps theme of the play itself. It is truly ironic that the venue is the Public Theatre
5
What a great way to explore American history on the stage. If would be wonderful for every student in NYC to have free access to great theater like Lin-Manuel Miranda's, "Hamilton." Such a memorable play would be motivation for students to study history more carefully and draw connections within their own lives. I would imagine wonderful history and social studies lessons which could contrast the potential for equal opportunity access during Hamilton's time frame compared to with now. Also, study the formation of the uniquely American two-party system and its development with the help of the rise of journalism throughout American history. Unfortunately, it seems great productions like "Hamilton," are financially elusive for the general public due to the exorbitant price of theater tickets. I wonder how Hamilton would comment regarding the discrepancy between the optimistic message of the minority hip-hop delivery of the production and the reality of mobility for the same demographic of American voters.
7
Actually, these tickets are sold though the Public Theater (a non-profit organization) and they do provide discounts. I also know that 75 public school students are going to be attending a performance for Free next week (I know because I paid for those tickets). This is one production that is walking the walk.
4
I hope the play is filmed for a widely distributed DVD so we all can see it, and it could indeed be used to bridge the gap in today's sense of history's relevance.
Once it has finished its run at prohibitive cost for audiences, why not put it out there for the rest of us, particularly young people. History is interesting, surprising and terrific to learn over one's whole life when presented in an accessible way. Good books, good films, plays, etc.
It would help these days if more public figures weren't so embarrassingly ignorant of the reality of history!
Once it has finished its run at prohibitive cost for audiences, why not put it out there for the rest of us, particularly young people. History is interesting, surprising and terrific to learn over one's whole life when presented in an accessible way. Good books, good films, plays, etc.
It would help these days if more public figures weren't so embarrassingly ignorant of the reality of history!
"It is a hip-hop musical about a founding father. If that seems incongruous, it shouldn’t."
Of course it should. How about a rock opera on the life of Mother Teresa?
Of course it should. How about a rock opera on the life of Mother Teresa?
3
There's a rock opera about Jesus, so what?
Um...ever heard of Jesus Christ Supertar?
Sounds like fun. When do we start?
Let us also not forget that Hamilton is the reason that there is a requirement in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution that the President of the United States be a "natural born citizen," or, born in this country. The Jefferson and Adams wanted to keep the foreign-born Hamilton from becoming President. That currently "hallowed requirement" was nothing more than an attempt to spite a political enemy. So, before we treat the provision as a sacred tenet of American principle, a closer study shows America's greatness and its flaws in one little provision of the constitution.
41
Could you cite some sources? Neither Adams nor TJ was involved in writing the Constitution. Madison was a Jefferson ally, but if Article II, Section 1 is his handiwork, you might provide some proof.
1
That's what I thought, but historians generally agree that, given the understanding of the eligibility clause at that time, Hamilton most likely would have been able to run for president since he was a resident of New York before the Constitution was adopted.
Also, Hamilton himself supported the idea that only natural born citizens should be eligible to run for president. In a draft constitution, Hamilton himself wrote, "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
Also, Hamilton himself supported the idea that only natural born citizens should be eligible to run for president. In a draft constitution, Hamilton himself wrote, "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
And if Hamilton was truly of African descent, could it have been race? Just a thought.
I wish I could get a ticket!
Me too.
"He sought redemption in a national mission, personal meaning in a glory that would be realized by generations to come."
He may well have found that redemption in the establishment of Hamilton College which was chartered a few years after his death. The profile for the Class of 2018: 23% students of color from the United States (8% Asian-American; 5% African-American; 7% Hispanic/Latino; 3% Multi Racial.)
One of our leading liberal arts colleges located in the hills of Clinton, N.Y., Hamilton's mission statement, in part, states: "The fundamental purpose of a Hamilton education is to enable young women and men of unusual gifts to realize their fullest capacities, for their own benefit and that of the societies in which they live."
That statement of purpose portrays many facets of Hamilton's own life and suggests he was successful in achieving Plutarch's "archaic belief that death could be cheated by the person who wins eternal fame."
He may well have found that redemption in the establishment of Hamilton College which was chartered a few years after his death. The profile for the Class of 2018: 23% students of color from the United States (8% Asian-American; 5% African-American; 7% Hispanic/Latino; 3% Multi Racial.)
One of our leading liberal arts colleges located in the hills of Clinton, N.Y., Hamilton's mission statement, in part, states: "The fundamental purpose of a Hamilton education is to enable young women and men of unusual gifts to realize their fullest capacities, for their own benefit and that of the societies in which they live."
That statement of purpose portrays many facets of Hamilton's own life and suggests he was successful in achieving Plutarch's "archaic belief that death could be cheated by the person who wins eternal fame."
1
Wasn’t Hamilton an advocate for strong central govt, as well as meritocracy? Strong govt would unite the colonies and provide a basis for business to flourish and citizens to raise their living standards. Both are now being subverted and weakened by the right wing party Brooks pushes. But he still writes his romanticized columns weekly.
27
It seems that the play might be less historically respectful than advertised; but it follows the ruts that what passes for history long wore into this road we all travel: it demonizes Burr while seeing Hamilton as the tragic, conflicted hero.
I've made a study of many years, on and off, of Aaron Burr and the decades-long competition with Hamilton that certainly destroyed Hamilton's life, but also in a very real sense destroyed Burr's, as well, as the effects of that fateful duel were one reason why he left the U.S. for years, essentially on a self-imposed banishment conducted in Europe -- the major reason being Thomas Jefferson's unhinged pursuit of him for treason, which he clearly did not commit.
I hasten to advise the unwary that they shouldn't get their history from historical novels, but Gore Vidal limned well that fateful competition in his best, "Burr", its likely reasons (that don't reflect badly on Burr), and the tragic story of two of the most brilliant men our country ever produced (or, in Hamilton's case, nurtured), fated to become deadly competitors because they shared a long moment when great events and actions were conceived; and were both of a quality that made the clash inevitable as each vied for ultimate distinction.
With regard to BOTH Hamilton and Burr, Gordon Gekko's final words in Wall Street 2 provide all necessary wisdom: "Human beings. We gotta give 'em a break ... we're all mixed bags."
But because David liked it, I plan to see the play.
I've made a study of many years, on and off, of Aaron Burr and the decades-long competition with Hamilton that certainly destroyed Hamilton's life, but also in a very real sense destroyed Burr's, as well, as the effects of that fateful duel were one reason why he left the U.S. for years, essentially on a self-imposed banishment conducted in Europe -- the major reason being Thomas Jefferson's unhinged pursuit of him for treason, which he clearly did not commit.
I hasten to advise the unwary that they shouldn't get their history from historical novels, but Gore Vidal limned well that fateful competition in his best, "Burr", its likely reasons (that don't reflect badly on Burr), and the tragic story of two of the most brilliant men our country ever produced (or, in Hamilton's case, nurtured), fated to become deadly competitors because they shared a long moment when great events and actions were conceived; and were both of a quality that made the clash inevitable as each vied for ultimate distinction.
With regard to BOTH Hamilton and Burr, Gordon Gekko's final words in Wall Street 2 provide all necessary wisdom: "Human beings. We gotta give 'em a break ... we're all mixed bags."
But because David liked it, I plan to see the play.
1
He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up.
12
Good, thank you
Unlike everybody else who is seeing a political message here, I want to say thanks for alerting me to this work. It sounds worth the train trip into New York. Usually, hip-hop musical is not something I would go out of my way for.
2
Mr. Brooks uses the word "moral" a lot in his writings but I am not clear how he defines that term. "I suspect that many will leave the theater wondering if their own dreams and lives are bold enough, if their own lives could someday be so astounding." It feels like Republicans increasingly put forth "bold" ideas but boldness by itself does not seem to be a value to me- nor does living an "astounding life". An everyday life of going to work every day and raising a family in a world made rougher by Republican policies can be " an astounding life".
8
While most of this article appeared to be a sincere accolade for the play - a metamorphosis of a courageous person of 200 plus years ago into a modern day presentation, with music as yet unknown at the time of Hamilton, as well as apparent expression of emotions that were certainly held in check in the 1700's, there's always the last paragraph. "The spirit of grand aspiration and national greatness" does not live on in this country. That's been replaced in large part by a morass of shallow political meanness, greed, unfairness, torture, a large dose of suffering for the masses, and a level of dishonesty from those in power that our forebears would be embarrassed to know had come out of their creation.
On a micro level, maybe people can be inspired by the Hamilton tale. But in the grand scheme of things, it takes a time warp and a flight of fancy by Brooks to stretch the limits of credulity about what this country has become.
On a micro level, maybe people can be inspired by the Hamilton tale. But in the grand scheme of things, it takes a time warp and a flight of fancy by Brooks to stretch the limits of credulity about what this country has become.
2
"Like Tupac Shakur and the Notorious B.I.G., he died in a clash of male bravado?"
Being murdered in drive-by shootings is not the same as stopping a bullet in a pistol duel. Bit of a stretch for that metaphor, eh?
Being murdered in drive-by shootings is not the same as stopping a bullet in a pistol duel. Bit of a stretch for that metaphor, eh?
6
"... The core fact about Hamilton and the strain of Americanism he represents: The relentless ambition of the outsider."
Naturally this would appeal to a Republican like Brooks. This aspect of American myth is perhaps the most damaging piece of the Rightist nonsense we must now face on a daily basis. And it is Horatio Alger-based (barnyard epithet.)
One could say I come from an old American family, one that emigrated in the early 1700's. But this family was Quaker, and they came to escape religious persecution and live peaceful lives, NOT to become big shots. (And they did not come to Massachusetts where they could be killed for their beliefs but settled south of Philadelphia where they would be accepted.)
Their goal was not an easy one, and they moved many times across the frontier, something it seems many peacefully oriented Americans needed to do.
Now it is time for these peaceful Americans to sit, to stop, to say "no more of this fake "American" aggression, let us have peace and justice in this country."
For everybody.
Naturally this would appeal to a Republican like Brooks. This aspect of American myth is perhaps the most damaging piece of the Rightist nonsense we must now face on a daily basis. And it is Horatio Alger-based (barnyard epithet.)
One could say I come from an old American family, one that emigrated in the early 1700's. But this family was Quaker, and they came to escape religious persecution and live peaceful lives, NOT to become big shots. (And they did not come to Massachusetts where they could be killed for their beliefs but settled south of Philadelphia where they would be accepted.)
Their goal was not an easy one, and they moved many times across the frontier, something it seems many peacefully oriented Americans needed to do.
Now it is time for these peaceful Americans to sit, to stop, to say "no more of this fake "American" aggression, let us have peace and justice in this country."
For everybody.
7
Ah Alex Hamilton, we dodge and weave, attempting to find some solid footing to fill his column with blood, glory and allegory. Going to pass on the snarky comments. But don't we have more topical people to hang our hats on. Or is this David Brooks job, write about dead presidents and people of the past to help resurrect their legacies as we find out that in many cases they weren't nice people? Just wondering.
I hardly doubt Hamilton ever imagined the unfettered capitalist would gamble away and nearly lose everything they owned? And, what makes a man go to blows, anyhow? His own make-up? It couldn't be.
I love the theater --- there is no better feeling than being entertained.
I love the theater --- there is no better feeling than being entertained.
Hamilton would have been, like Obama, not one of us in Giuliani parlance. He may have challenged Giuliani to a duel.
51
I find it hard to stomach being told about Alexander Hamilton by David Brooks. And Brooks' weaving in the hip-hop thing seems only to act 'cool'.
Hamilton wouldn't care much for Brooks or the Neocons or Netanyahu.
Hamilton wouldn't care much for Brooks or the Neocons or Netanyahu.
12
@Joe...ouch...your comment feels desperate to be negative where no negative exists. David loved the show. You seem to say that he doesn't deserve to...or because you have political differences with David, he shouldn't enjoy something that you enjoy. Yikes. If that is the case, one must look inward.
1
"Aaron Burr, who is the crafty one, the utilitarian manipulator..."
Anyone interested in actual history of of Aaron Burr should read a magnificent book by the historian Nancy Isenberg called "Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr". Isenberg basically demonstrates that virtually everything that people think they know about Aaron Burr was invented by his enemies, and handily debunks these myths. You come away from it realizing that most of the common wisdom was the historical equivalent of "Al Gore claims that he single-handedly invented the Internet", smears by people with motive to do so that were simply never questioned or not very deeply until they became etched in stone despite being false.
David Brooks, as usual, just repeats the lazy cliches, as in the line quoted above, though to be fair to him as it sounds like this theater piece does as well. However anyone interested in getting history from a source other than a musical should definitely check out that book, one of the best I've ever read.
Anyone interested in actual history of of Aaron Burr should read a magnificent book by the historian Nancy Isenberg called "Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr". Isenberg basically demonstrates that virtually everything that people think they know about Aaron Burr was invented by his enemies, and handily debunks these myths. You come away from it realizing that most of the common wisdom was the historical equivalent of "Al Gore claims that he single-handedly invented the Internet", smears by people with motive to do so that were simply never questioned or not very deeply until they became etched in stone despite being false.
David Brooks, as usual, just repeats the lazy cliches, as in the line quoted above, though to be fair to him as it sounds like this theater piece does as well. However anyone interested in getting history from a source other than a musical should definitely check out that book, one of the best I've ever read.
15
Timedzone
Thank you for shedding some light in one of America's darkest corners. America was founded at a time when if you needed a doctor you went to the barber to draw some blood. Jefferson, Franklin and Adams left enough written material to tell us who they were and the hopes they had for the country. The founding fathers all called themselves Christian even Carroll who was Catholic and was rumoured to be a Freemason. That Conservatives have chosen to refer to those that believed in Christ's words and actions as deists as opposed to the word Christian they use to cover up their greed for money and power.
Jefferson was indeed an educated and elite member of society and he indeed was a slave owner but he was a scientist and believed in evolution before Darwin entered the scene. Jefferson would no doubt embrace Obama as a product of the country he founded. Jefferson the plant breeder said "The greatest gift which can be rendered to any country is to add a useful plant to its culture......"
Real history is not a good place for self professed conservatives.
Thank you for shedding some light in one of America's darkest corners. America was founded at a time when if you needed a doctor you went to the barber to draw some blood. Jefferson, Franklin and Adams left enough written material to tell us who they were and the hopes they had for the country. The founding fathers all called themselves Christian even Carroll who was Catholic and was rumoured to be a Freemason. That Conservatives have chosen to refer to those that believed in Christ's words and actions as deists as opposed to the word Christian they use to cover up their greed for money and power.
Jefferson was indeed an educated and elite member of society and he indeed was a slave owner but he was a scientist and believed in evolution before Darwin entered the scene. Jefferson would no doubt embrace Obama as a product of the country he founded. Jefferson the plant breeder said "The greatest gift which can be rendered to any country is to add a useful plant to its culture......"
Real history is not a good place for self professed conservatives.
2
A reasonable source of conservative ideas and analyses would be welcome and I once thought Mr. Brooks could be just that. (Listen to him on heresthething.org. He is smart and, surprisingly, charming.) However, the disconnect between his policy choices and their outcomes, which seem to clash with his artistic and intellectual sentiment, is increasingly baffling. So instead, I read the smart, conservative journal of opinion, edited by my progressive son, and written by his fellow high school brainiacs.
1
"Hamilton assaulted Jefferson because he did not believe a country dominated by oligarchs could be a country in which poor boys and girls like him would have space to rise and grow."
Was Hamilton prescient about the extreme inequality we're facing today? Clearly the oligarchs are once again the root cause of this wide disparity in income levels and wealth distribution. Clearly this inequality saps the energy of those aspiring to join the rising tide. Does Mr. brooks really believe that the oligarchs are responsible and that such inequality pushes further down those aspiring to join the middle class? Sometimes I wonder.
Was Hamilton prescient about the extreme inequality we're facing today? Clearly the oligarchs are once again the root cause of this wide disparity in income levels and wealth distribution. Clearly this inequality saps the energy of those aspiring to join the rising tide. Does Mr. brooks really believe that the oligarchs are responsible and that such inequality pushes further down those aspiring to join the middle class? Sometimes I wonder.
2
Yes, there is romance in Hamilton, but he lived in a different time, when America was a small, generally agrarian outpost. It's sweet to see him as a cultural meme, but current results may differ.
4
Hamilton was the visionary genius in that "agrarian outpost" who listened to Jefferson's plans to vouchsafe American democracy in land, and instead imagined time plus interest piling American wealth not across the continent but straight up to the sky. You live in his world: Jeffersonian ends with Hamiltonian means. He would find your observation sweet, no doubt.
Same as it ever was.
I am guessing by your take you don't look to the past and are not one of those strict constructionists. ;)
Same as it ever was.
I am guessing by your take you don't look to the past and are not one of those strict constructionists. ;)
Seems to me, then, that he cheated death after all. What could be more splendiferous than having your life turned into a hip-hop musical.
There are no romantics about virtue and glory these days, witness our solemn president as he proclaims another edict or another veto. He reminds one of the Spartan soldier at the Pass of Thermopild, swinging his sword that naught shall pass.
As for your close, David: our..."wondering if our own dreams and lives are bold enough", the short answer is: "No!" "Astounding" describes an all-together different matter of a mindless leader swinging his sword, shouting, "It will not pass."
There are no romantics about virtue and glory these days, witness our solemn president as he proclaims another edict or another veto. He reminds one of the Spartan soldier at the Pass of Thermopild, swinging his sword that naught shall pass.
As for your close, David: our..."wondering if our own dreams and lives are bold enough", the short answer is: "No!" "Astounding" describes an all-together different matter of a mindless leader swinging his sword, shouting, "It will not pass."
2
Hamlilton--and all of the founders--has had a couple of centuries to build their reputations as brilliant, charismatic and infallible. At the time they actually lived, however, their reputations were not as worthy of canonization. They argued, they sulked and they compromised when they had to. Yes, they had their John Boehners and Mitch McConnells, but the founders were able to put them aside. Besides all that, Brooks is writing about a musical play, not real life. Does anybody seriously think somebody will write a musical about any of our Republican "leaders"? A comedy, maybe. Sarah Palin would be a good subject.
1
Glad that you enjoyed Hamilton, but labeling it a Hip Hop musical doesn't quite do justice to the blend of musical styles Miranda has included in this wonderful show. Like most labels, it serves as a Cliff Notes of source that in no way tells the entire story.
4
"Unlike progressives, he believed in relatively unfettered finance and capitalism to arouse energy and increase social mobility. Unlike conservatives, he believed that government should actively subsidize mobility. Unlike populists of left and right, he believed in an aristocracy, though one based on virtue and work, not birth."
This sounds like a true idealist who really doesn't understand human nature. His dreams might have been great, but his notions seem overly optimistic about the nature of man.
If Hamilton is looking down, he must be horrified that his wish for government to intervene in creating social mobility to create a "virtue-based aristocracy of wealth" makes Don Quixote seem like Putin.
What we have instead today is unfettered finance and capitalism that decreases social mobility; a government unable to subsidize mobility; and an oligarchy (not aristocracy) often based on birth due to education, and sometimes based on inheritance.
And this oligarchy is working hard to preserve its edge by securing its advantages behind closed doors in the form of favorable tax and regulatory laws.
I wonder what Hamilton would say about campaign finance laws and the ability of said oligarchy to purchase its permanence?
This sounds like a true idealist who really doesn't understand human nature. His dreams might have been great, but his notions seem overly optimistic about the nature of man.
If Hamilton is looking down, he must be horrified that his wish for government to intervene in creating social mobility to create a "virtue-based aristocracy of wealth" makes Don Quixote seem like Putin.
What we have instead today is unfettered finance and capitalism that decreases social mobility; a government unable to subsidize mobility; and an oligarchy (not aristocracy) often based on birth due to education, and sometimes based on inheritance.
And this oligarchy is working hard to preserve its edge by securing its advantages behind closed doors in the form of favorable tax and regulatory laws.
I wonder what Hamilton would say about campaign finance laws and the ability of said oligarchy to purchase its permanence?
124
I applaud this comment but disagree with one point: the notion that Hamilton was an "idealist who really doesn't understand human nature." My take-away from Chernow's book is that Hamilton was generally hard-headed and realistic, as in his correct prediction that the French Revolution would overreach and collapse into bloodshed and tyranny. He did tend to assume that most rich people were more civic-minded and much less greedy than many of them turned out to be.
Christine, great comment, but I think most very wealthy Americans inherited their money. Certainly six of the top ten did, and two others inherited most of it. This is an hereditary aristocracy like the one we we overthrew during the Revolution of 1776. And this is a key fact -- for more, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec).
1
Alexander Hamilton would have been in the streets leading riots in the early years of this century, following the deliberate destruction of the serial Clinton surpluses, which even the Randist Maestro Greenspan, on Dubya's 5th day in office, declared to Congress had the country on the path to paying off the entire national debt by the end of 2010:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010125/default.htm
He would be shocked at the concept of Too Big to Fail/Too Big to Jail.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010125/default.htm
He would be shocked at the concept of Too Big to Fail/Too Big to Jail.
18
Again, Mr Law:
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
Are you sure you want have serial surpluses?
If you go to http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-... ,
you can see how the Clinton surpluses contributed to the disaster 8 years later. Look carefully at the first chart.
Briefly, deficits and surpluses are flows of financial assets (money) between the federal sector and the non-federal (private) sector. When we have a deficit, money flows into the private sector; it is income for people and businesses. When we have a surplus, money flows out of the non-federal sector. When there is a shortage of money coming in, people turn to borrowing, in this case, mostly mortgages. When the borrowing finally exceeded the ability of people to make payments, the bubble burst, and we had 2008. Although Bush had deficits, the money did not flow to the people who spend it and was sequestered in the coffers of banks and the Rich and used for speculation. Also, the deficits were not large enough to counteract the flow of money from the private sector out of the country (trade balance).
All this can be seen in the first chart which shows the flows of money.
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
Are you sure you want have serial surpluses?
If you go to http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-... ,
you can see how the Clinton surpluses contributed to the disaster 8 years later. Look carefully at the first chart.
Briefly, deficits and surpluses are flows of financial assets (money) between the federal sector and the non-federal (private) sector. When we have a deficit, money flows into the private sector; it is income for people and businesses. When we have a surplus, money flows out of the non-federal sector. When there is a shortage of money coming in, people turn to borrowing, in this case, mostly mortgages. When the borrowing finally exceeded the ability of people to make payments, the bubble burst, and we had 2008. Although Bush had deficits, the money did not flow to the people who spend it and was sequestered in the coffers of banks and the Rich and used for speculation. Also, the deficits were not large enough to counteract the flow of money from the private sector out of the country (trade balance).
All this can be seen in the first chart which shows the flows of money.
Len - Again, no one is talking about actually paying off the entire debt; something will always come up that will prevent that, most notably should be infrastructure projects which should replace war spending.
Our point is the fiscal idiocy of GOP'ers having run up huge deficits in what were supposedly ' good ' times, which is when even the big bad ol' Keynes said debt levels should be brought down.
GOP'er cronyism and fear of the deal they signed with Grover Norquist took precedence over all else; we should not forget.
Our point is the fiscal idiocy of GOP'ers having run up huge deficits in what were supposedly ' good ' times, which is when even the big bad ol' Keynes said debt levels should be brought down.
GOP'er cronyism and fear of the deal they signed with Grover Norquist took precedence over all else; we should not forget.
2
Mr Law, I am not talking about paying off the entire debt which has only happened once in 1835. I and talking about paying it down significantly (> 10%) which has ALWAYS led to disaster.
"Unlike progressives, he believed in relatively unfettered finance and capitalism to arouse energy and increase social mobility."
I'm pretty much a flaming liberal. I believe in "relatively unfettered". The key word is "relatively". One needs to find the right balance between total greed, justice, fairness and the common good. Why this is a slam against "progressives" (or conservatives) is beyond me.
I'm pretty much a flaming liberal. I believe in "relatively unfettered". The key word is "relatively". One needs to find the right balance between total greed, justice, fairness and the common good. Why this is a slam against "progressives" (or conservatives) is beyond me.
46
pjd, the word is "relatively" that scares the uneducated, feeble minded and just plain gullible. That the GOP has such a strong hold on our country says so much about its people, a people afraid to learn, consequently hiding their collective heads in the sand and allowing opportunists to exploit them. The Founding Fathers were brilliant men who may not have gotten everything right, but I bet they assumed others like them, educated philosophers, would continue the dialogue, but something went wrong and the end result is the GOP's strong hold on our country.
I wish a play or film would be produced based on Gore Vidal's "Burr", a novel in which both Hamilton and Jefferson are skewered.
I doubt Hamilton would have anything in common with today's Republicans/conservatives, and would be appalled at the state of our economy.
I doubt Hamilton would have anything in common with today's Republicans/conservatives, and would be appalled at the state of our economy.
60
If "Burr" is your compass, Kevin, you need it read it more carefully. Hamilton was a conservative who would have been right at home today with the Kochs. It was Burr who would be fulminating against them, except that he'd also be trying to figure out how to take them,
1
I confess it has been many decades since I read "Burr", and, with the passage of time and age, one's memory fades; however, Hamilton was a conservative of the old school, and I cannot imagine him aligning with the Kochs, not to mention the religious zealots, racists, anti-government, anti-science, Republicans of today.
1
I am suspicious when the "moral code" allows for relationships with multiple women -- and I suspect that such behavior comes at the expense of others. To me it shows how we pick and choose how we view ourselves and others and how behaviors can be cast in subjective ways.
As a veteran target for intellectual communing from men, I want to say that some men keep it to a friendship and intellectual exchange and some interject other facets of a relationship. I, for one, can tell the difference. In my opinion, the latter group of men are not significantly different from men with mistresses, especially those who leave their mistresses in the lurch, because this group of men does something analogous; through the magic of rationalizing that it is only friendship and an intellectual exchange, when a reasonable man would know that they are deriving far more from it, they end up shirking responsibilities they have created for themselves. What Hamilton was doing I don't know, but to the extent he is being used as a model for this kind of dubious social intercourse, I am not okay with it, as it is too often used in a way that allows men to say they are doing one thing while they are actually doing something else, and something far less acceptable and far more damaging to others.
As a veteran target for intellectual communing from men, I want to say that some men keep it to a friendship and intellectual exchange and some interject other facets of a relationship. I, for one, can tell the difference. In my opinion, the latter group of men are not significantly different from men with mistresses, especially those who leave their mistresses in the lurch, because this group of men does something analogous; through the magic of rationalizing that it is only friendship and an intellectual exchange, when a reasonable man would know that they are deriving far more from it, they end up shirking responsibilities they have created for themselves. What Hamilton was doing I don't know, but to the extent he is being used as a model for this kind of dubious social intercourse, I am not okay with it, as it is too often used in a way that allows men to say they are doing one thing while they are actually doing something else, and something far less acceptable and far more damaging to others.
19
Excellent comment, Diana.
1
If I recall correctly, it became public and Hamilton had to acknowledge his affair. He paid a political price for it because many viewed it as wrong behavior.
1
Did you see the play? It doesn't seem that you did as Hamilton was not portrayed in it as a "model" for the "dubious social intercourse" that you describe. You may have a particular ax to grind based on your personal--or as you put it "veteran"-- experience), but it really has nothing to do with Hamilton, the historic figure, the play or Mr. Brooks" column.
2
To quote:
"The cast at the Public Theater is mostly black and Latino, BUT it exudes the same strong ambition as this dead white man from centuries ago." (my emphasis)
Why "BUT"? Why not "and"?
"The cast at the Public Theater is mostly black and Latino, BUT it exudes the same strong ambition as this dead white man from centuries ago." (my emphasis)
Why "BUT"? Why not "and"?
203
That grabbed me as well. Glaringly.
7
Wow. Thank you for this. I learn so much from the Comments section.
10
The mostly black and Latino cast exudes the same strong ambition as this dead white man from centuries ago.
1
Of the founding fathers, Hamilton is one of the most consequential INTERNATIONALLY and he was WAY ahead of his time on the issues.
The dollar has its power today because Hamilton made sure that the US would never default on its debts. Its written into the constitution. A great legacy by itself.
Hamilton's 1792 Report on Manufactures became THE STANDARD PLAN for industrial policy to catch up with England for the entire world in the 19th century. It included things like elimination of internal barriers & transportation improvements to expand markets, a national (central) bank to stabilize the currency and insure a supply of credit and a tariff to protect industry from the United Kingdom.
Our application of the plan was limited. We applied tariffs. We haltingly invested in transportation until the Erie Canal proved Hamilton correct. But the national bank was apposed by Jefferson & Jackson bc of their own problems with financiers. Jackson killed the Bank of the US so we suffered a series of booms & busts over 75 years.
But the plan fell into the hands of Friedrich List who took it back to Europe where continental powers winced at the dominance of England. Germany implemented the plan BEFORE unification, as did almost all of Europe. In 1850 Britain produced more manufactures than the rest of Europe combine but by 1910 was eclipsed by Germany and by then most of the continent & Japan had been industrialized behind Hamiliton's plan. For better or worse It transformed the world.
The dollar has its power today because Hamilton made sure that the US would never default on its debts. Its written into the constitution. A great legacy by itself.
Hamilton's 1792 Report on Manufactures became THE STANDARD PLAN for industrial policy to catch up with England for the entire world in the 19th century. It included things like elimination of internal barriers & transportation improvements to expand markets, a national (central) bank to stabilize the currency and insure a supply of credit and a tariff to protect industry from the United Kingdom.
Our application of the plan was limited. We applied tariffs. We haltingly invested in transportation until the Erie Canal proved Hamilton correct. But the national bank was apposed by Jefferson & Jackson bc of their own problems with financiers. Jackson killed the Bank of the US so we suffered a series of booms & busts over 75 years.
But the plan fell into the hands of Friedrich List who took it back to Europe where continental powers winced at the dominance of England. Germany implemented the plan BEFORE unification, as did almost all of Europe. In 1850 Britain produced more manufactures than the rest of Europe combine but by 1910 was eclipsed by Germany and by then most of the continent & Japan had been industrialized behind Hamiliton's plan. For better or worse It transformed the world.
88
This dude is all over the board. Bank of the United States I & II were highly controversial and despised by the Western farmers and business people who had credit squeezed by Eastern banks when they needed it the most. There were booms and busts prior to the BOUS I & II. Central banks were at the storm of the Mississippi Scandal and the South Sea Bubble in England and on the Continent. I am sure Alex Hamilton had his reasons for favoring financial elites over the common man, like he grew up as a clerk in a counting house (later day brokerage house, think Alan Greenberg erasing the board at Bear Sterns) His blood line kept him out of the sugar fields. So, Alex Hamilton is another one who got the hand up by his relationships. That he cashed his ticket is what he should be admired for. But to give credit for all these topics mentioned is a little much of a stretch.
1
On the central banks and the history of the United States, I recommend the very readable, "An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power" by John Steele Gordon
On the impact of Hamilton's Report on the Plan for Manufactures I recommend the very readable "Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction" by Oxford Economic Historian Robert C. Allen
Also: on the use and history of industrial policy, beginning with Hamilton's Report on Manufactures see "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism" by Cambridge developmental economist Ha Choon Chang, a protege of Joseph E. Stiglitz.
Certainly a central bank is a controversial subject. The massive panic of 1907 demonstrated the need for the kind of power found in a central bank through the reliance upon one man, J.P. Morgan to stop the collapse. Morgan died shortly there after and consequently the Federal Reserve system was created to play the role he filled. In the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve failed in its role. It might be argued that the creation of a rudder doesn't substitute for bad piloting which in part was the result of bad understanding of macro-economics and monetary policy and also the bias of the leadership in the Federal Reserve. Generally speaking, while monetary policy may not keep economic contraction from happening, they can moderate them.
For history of U.S. recessions See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
On the impact of Hamilton's Report on the Plan for Manufactures I recommend the very readable "Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction" by Oxford Economic Historian Robert C. Allen
Also: on the use and history of industrial policy, beginning with Hamilton's Report on Manufactures see "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism" by Cambridge developmental economist Ha Choon Chang, a protege of Joseph E. Stiglitz.
Certainly a central bank is a controversial subject. The massive panic of 1907 demonstrated the need for the kind of power found in a central bank through the reliance upon one man, J.P. Morgan to stop the collapse. Morgan died shortly there after and consequently the Federal Reserve system was created to play the role he filled. In the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve failed in its role. It might be argued that the creation of a rudder doesn't substitute for bad piloting which in part was the result of bad understanding of macro-economics and monetary policy and also the bias of the leadership in the Federal Reserve. Generally speaking, while monetary policy may not keep economic contraction from happening, they can moderate them.
For history of U.S. recessions See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
3
If Mr. Brooks is trying to say that the facts are that our government actively subsidizes, in a myriad of ways, the mobility of the wealthy, who enjoy unfettered finance, and who have become the aristocracy of our day, I would say he is right, but I don't know that we need a dramatic play to point that out, no matter how much symmetry, or more like irony, one might find in it. Upward mobility is as fictitious as a play is, well a play. We know this because the price of a seat, says so. Dying in a shoot out doesn't seem to be so astounding, now days, either. All we can know from a play such as this, though, is that people can dream, have been dreaming for a while, and that even with years and years in a society where the lesson to take away from this play has been learned over and over, nothing really has changed. Having read Mr. Brooks many times, one can not help but feel that this article is more a commentary about himself than anything else. Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Hamilton are interesting contrasts, but what we seem to need is a little less of both and something more in the middle, even if it is less astounding.
24
I think that's what he's saying. I think Mr. Brooks says the play--and his article--is a challenge not only to think, but to act. I think he is saying that Hamilton did not wait for things to change, but changed them.
Even if that might be what he is saying, and I think he is, that is an illusion, and that is my point. We have this heroic sense about ourselves that is just kind of unreal, and we raise the "founding fathers" to a level of uncommon ground in the process, which they surely do not deserve. We really need to step back and do an honest appraisal. Mr. Brooks is providing support for something that is basically untrue. I always liked Mr. Hamilton. I thought he had great ideas. Then I came to understand that he had some ideas that were different from mine, and he seemed not able to deliver over time, in the world that I came to know. It is a nifty and almost romantic concept being presented and obviously supported by you, that somehow all we need to do is to dare to be great. Mr. Jefferson owned slaves. Had children by them. People eat it up all the time. It's a scam. I really can not think of anyone that made it rich that I like, and that is what Mr. Brooks is really talking about here. Mr. Brooks has a very funny sense about things. He seems sensitive in some ways but grossly oblivious in other ways. On NPR I watch him trying to get one up at the end of the segments, when there can be no response from anyone, inserting some pap that is intended for his right wing audience, who, one would think by now, is on to him as a closet flake, but he some how survives. T.S. Elliot spoke about this. It is called the Waste Land, and Mr. Brooks farms it like a crop.
Brilliant with the pen and with language, in general, Hamilton died in a duel with pistols. And not immediately after being wounded, but after a slow and painful death that followed such grievous, yet wickedly incomplete, wounds.
Hamilton's example is that a country takes its virtue and its character from the inside-out. When you are led and motivated by character, the messy collisions in the marketplace are not as sadistic as when the moneyed class cleverly winks and proceeds to pillage the very population on which they depend.
His climb from poverty and suffering did not permit him to forget his good fortune, and his heart remained committed to the kind of honor that is a buzzword and largely forgotten trait.
Today we do not examine the interior lives of each other. We believe that it is secondary to the empirical and visible. And we are sadly very wrong on that score.
Hamilton's example is that a country takes its virtue and its character from the inside-out. When you are led and motivated by character, the messy collisions in the marketplace are not as sadistic as when the moneyed class cleverly winks and proceeds to pillage the very population on which they depend.
His climb from poverty and suffering did not permit him to forget his good fortune, and his heart remained committed to the kind of honor that is a buzzword and largely forgotten trait.
Today we do not examine the interior lives of each other. We believe that it is secondary to the empirical and visible. And we are sadly very wrong on that score.
99
Not much of a duel, Hamilton is believed to have intentionally thrown his shot after he drew first. Had Burr been a man of honor, he too would have seen the stupidity of what they were doing but, instead, killed our greatest immigrant.
2
Brooks believes that "Unlike progressives, he [Hamilton] believed in relatively unfettered finance and capitalism to arouse energy and increase social mobility."
Well, of course, Brooks doesn't define "relatively," and he doesn't define "progressive". But I read a lot of Paul Krugman, whom most would regard as progressive, and Krugman argues often for some regulation but against over-regulation. I would say that Krugman, like most economists, "believes in relatively unfettered finance and capitalism to arouse energy and increase social mobility."
Well, of course, Brooks doesn't define "relatively," and he doesn't define "progressive". But I read a lot of Paul Krugman, whom most would regard as progressive, and Krugman argues often for some regulation but against over-regulation. I would say that Krugman, like most economists, "believes in relatively unfettered finance and capitalism to arouse energy and increase social mobility."
150
Yes, but the contemporary "conservative" narrative demands that Krugman be branded a "leftist" - an absurdity that itself reveals most of his vocal critics are nothing more than ideologues of the first order.
14
I don't believe that Hamilton would have applauded or even endorsed writing naked (no reserves) credit default swaps, a la AIG. He would have seen it as a fraud upon the public and not merely unfettered finance.
2
Why not extol the primary contributor to the Federalist Papers if you're a (conservative) Republican like Mr. Brooks. Yet with his brilliant casting for the musical I'm sure Joe Papp anticipated this embrace and put Brooks in an impossible debate position.
4
I must be missing the irony or point of your comment about Joe Papp since he has been dead since 1991 and obviously was not responsible for casting this show.
1
Joe Papp didn't do much of anything. He's been gone for a long time. (But, like Hamilton, his influence continues.)
Joe Papp would have had to do the casting from the grave as he passed on some years ago.
I suppose there's some charm in the naiveté with which Mr. Brooks warps the latest book he's read, movie he's seen, or (new!) theater piece he's experienced to support his philosophical ideals of morality and proper living.
And I suppose Joe Papp would have smiled to see that a Public Theater production would please a morally driven conservative, yet I would imagine the smile tinged with irony.
After all, Papp created the Public out of the need for an inclusive place, where ideas that challenged current morals and the status quo that would not be tolerated on Broadway could be aired. Its first production was the musical HAIR which at the time was scandalous for challenging morality and patriotism. Papp, in my opinion, was a 20th century titan who had a vast influence on culture by producing theater that not only entertained the masses but made them think.
Papp, too, was driven by the relentless ambition of the outsider. being the child of Jewish immigrants. His tireless efforts reshaped the nature of theater in New York; without them it's quite possible that a musical about dead white men, set to hip-hop and played by blacks and latinos, would never have seen the light of day. Mr. Brooks could have mentioned that.
But that would give rise to the notion that dreams and lives that are "bold enough" can also be used to deconstruct morality, and for Mr. Brooks that just won't do.
And I suppose Joe Papp would have smiled to see that a Public Theater production would please a morally driven conservative, yet I would imagine the smile tinged with irony.
After all, Papp created the Public out of the need for an inclusive place, where ideas that challenged current morals and the status quo that would not be tolerated on Broadway could be aired. Its first production was the musical HAIR which at the time was scandalous for challenging morality and patriotism. Papp, in my opinion, was a 20th century titan who had a vast influence on culture by producing theater that not only entertained the masses but made them think.
Papp, too, was driven by the relentless ambition of the outsider. being the child of Jewish immigrants. His tireless efforts reshaped the nature of theater in New York; without them it's quite possible that a musical about dead white men, set to hip-hop and played by blacks and latinos, would never have seen the light of day. Mr. Brooks could have mentioned that.
But that would give rise to the notion that dreams and lives that are "bold enough" can also be used to deconstruct morality, and for Mr. Brooks that just won't do.
119
So much for ambition. He planned on winning a duel.
http://youtu.be/YBA0cFlsyaQ
http://youtu.be/YBA0cFlsyaQ
2
Your conclusion would be disputed by many historians. Hamilton apparently fired into the air, and he probably expected Burr to do the same. But, of course, anyone who expected Aaron Burr to behave with integrity invariably experienced disappointment.
Firing into the air (deloping) was frowned upon by the code duello.
1
Firing into the air (deloping) was forbidden by the code duello providing the rules for these affairs. Hamilton would have been disgraced as a coward had he done so. It was only acceptable AFTER the duellist had faced and survived the shot of his opponent.
1
I wonder what Hamilton would make of today's unfettered finance and capitalism that subjugates the poor and middle class. When Hamilton though about social mobility I suspect that he wasn't imagining that the mobility would be almost exclusively downward.
Hamilton believed in an aristocracy based on virtue and work, which is essentially a meritocracy. But in his column of 1/24/2013, "The Great Migration," Brooks has doubts about the kind of meritocracy that uses its power to try to relieve income disparity.
Hamilton would weep to see what our country has become. He might have been pleased at how things were going through most of the 20th century, when progressive ideals predominated. Education flourished for the middle class. Civil rights became a national cause. Taxes supported the building of infrastructure, and ensured the financial security of the citizenry.
As I read Mr. Brooks' tribute to Hamilton, I wondered how he could wax rhapsodic (or rap-sodic, considering the musical format) about a man who would be vilified by today's conservatives. Hamilton seemed to have a prodigious intellect, and valued learning. He was concerned about government becoming an oligarchy that would disadvantage the poor. He sought the esteem of thoughtful people. In short, he stood for everything that today's conservatives despise. I wonder what he would make of pundits who shill for these people?
Hamilton believed in an aristocracy based on virtue and work, which is essentially a meritocracy. But in his column of 1/24/2013, "The Great Migration," Brooks has doubts about the kind of meritocracy that uses its power to try to relieve income disparity.
Hamilton would weep to see what our country has become. He might have been pleased at how things were going through most of the 20th century, when progressive ideals predominated. Education flourished for the middle class. Civil rights became a national cause. Taxes supported the building of infrastructure, and ensured the financial security of the citizenry.
As I read Mr. Brooks' tribute to Hamilton, I wondered how he could wax rhapsodic (or rap-sodic, considering the musical format) about a man who would be vilified by today's conservatives. Hamilton seemed to have a prodigious intellect, and valued learning. He was concerned about government becoming an oligarchy that would disadvantage the poor. He sought the esteem of thoughtful people. In short, he stood for everything that today's conservatives despise. I wonder what he would make of pundits who shill for these people?
413
Bravo!
32
gemli:
Let's not romanticize EITHER Hamilton OR Burr in their appreciation for the plight of the everyman; but if anyone was more likely to appreciate him it was Burr, a highly distinguished member of Jefferson's own Democratic-Republican Party, that was a ton more Democrat in today's sense than Republican. Hamilton was at heart an inveterate Tory.
But that wasn't the point of the comment, was it, gemli? The point was to provide an opportunity to accuse David Brooks of being a shill for conservatives. Far from being a shill, he's very much the real deal, whether you like him for it or not. But you might just accept him for what he is and address his arguments, when he makes conservative arguments, rather than avoiding them to hurl gratuitous thunderbolts at him for his beliefs -- that seem to be consistent with enough of the country's to provide us with an undivided Republican Congress.
Let's not romanticize EITHER Hamilton OR Burr in their appreciation for the plight of the everyman; but if anyone was more likely to appreciate him it was Burr, a highly distinguished member of Jefferson's own Democratic-Republican Party, that was a ton more Democrat in today's sense than Republican. Hamilton was at heart an inveterate Tory.
But that wasn't the point of the comment, was it, gemli? The point was to provide an opportunity to accuse David Brooks of being a shill for conservatives. Far from being a shill, he's very much the real deal, whether you like him for it or not. But you might just accept him for what he is and address his arguments, when he makes conservative arguments, rather than avoiding them to hurl gratuitous thunderbolts at him for his beliefs -- that seem to be consistent with enough of the country's to provide us with an undivided Republican Congress.
3
@Richard: 18% turnout does not equal a mandate.
4
There is no doubt that Hamilton is a fascinating figure; there is little doubt that he would be one of perhaps few Founders and Framers who would smile at what America has become in the two-plus centuries after his death, some of which was presaged in his staggeringly influential articles in the Federalist Papers. Ironically, given their strong dislike and distrust of each other, John Adams might be another. Hamilton allowed his personal ambition, and the remarkable way he tried to manipulate the 1796 and especially the 1800 Elections to serve his own interests, to destroy the very party he had co-founded. This at least delayed the arrival and consecration of some of his preferred policies for decades. It's possible that due to his remarkable triumph over Jefferson in Washington's eyes in the early 1790s this young man in an awful hurry thought he could do anything. For years Jefferson was extolled at Hamilton's expense in the history books, a gross oversimplification at best, but it's good historians have taken the time and labor to reevaluate Hamilton and his ideas. It's very easy to see why he and they appeal to Mr. Brooks.
16
False equivalency indeed. For better or worse, the hip hop crowd and founding fathers not only spoke a different language, but had different thought processes.
This columns harkens back to a column David recently did about Plato's thymotic urge. Here he implicitly states that Hamilton's life and the hip-hop artists come from the same human impulse system.
They do not. One is a product of the transcendental aesthetic and the other the transcendental logic, as espoused by Kant. Hamilton helped to define a system called the United States. Artists like Tupac and BIG tear down systems or give flight to another.
I suppose one could draw an analogy between Tupac and Lord Byron. But not Hamilton. He achieved the transcendent by building a system, and he is thus more like Moses, Jesus, Lincoln, etc.