Dueling Visions: Hamilton v Jefferson
A framework for understanding why America is the way it is
Earlier this week, I had the privilege of re-reading a phenomenal interview between Yaschma Mounk and Marc Dunkelman about the latter's new book "Why Nothing Works." At the core of the interview — and, by extension, the book — lay a discussion of two different American mentalities that many find crucial to understanding American history. The interview — and other pieces — inspired me to spend a week diving into these mentalities to better understand what they are, how they differ, and how we've continually oscillated between them.
Alexander Hamilton (Hamiltonian)
One of the more well-known founding fathers (especially due to his semi-biographical musical), Hamilton rose from humble beginnings with the help of his adoptive father, eventually serving in the Revolution and co-creating the constitution (and with it, American democracy and government as we know it.) He also authored a large share of The Federalist Papers, distinguishing himself as both a practitioner and theorist of politics. Later, he served as the first secretary of the treasury, using the office to carry out novel — and at times controversial — policy moves. Ultimately, Hamilton left the government to pursue other ventures and eventually died from duel-related injuries.
The Hamiltonian vision closely parallels Hamilton's views and actions. It calls for a strong state and definitive action to drive the country forward, with an emphasis on top-down and government-led solutions. The vision has parallels (more ideologically than in terms of policy platforms) in the strategies that are widely attributed to the rise of the Four Asian Tigers and in the German Zollverein system.
In addition to seeing a decisive role for the state, Hamiltonians often have a clear direction in which they want to move: more industry, more manufacturing, and more economic strength. Via tariffs, the assumption of state debt, and the creation of a national bank, Hamilton sought to transform America into a unified manufacturing powerhouse. So, too, his followers seek to use the government to transform America from the top down.
Thomas Jefferson (Jeffersonian)
Jefferson is undoubtedly the more famous of the two. His background was also a little untraditional, albeit less so, and he eventually worked his way up to become one of Virginia's leading men. An incredibly well-read and well-learned man, Jefferson quickly became a lawyer and politician. He, too, would contribute to America's founding — co-authoring the Declaration of Independence, drafting dozens of state laws, and representing the fledgling nation in France — and serve in Washington's cabinet — though as secretary of state, not secretary of the treasury.
Jefferson's vision differed greatly from Hamilton's, emphasizing agriculture, not manufacturing. A yeoman farmer himself (albeit one whose slaves and employees did most of the work), he envisioned an American of independent farmers, uniting only when necessary to defend themselves or promote the general welfare.
The Jeffersonian vision is much more restrictive when it comes to state action and emphasizes both a minimal and a non-intrusive state. It is a largely bottom-up vision, with Jefferson opposing practically all of Hamilton's policy proposals in favor of letting the emergent order of the markets take charge.
A Quick Addendum:
Interestingly, there are strong parallels between the dichotomy between the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian visions and the dichotomy between Sowell's constrained and unconstrained visions. The top-down, unconstrained vision is very much Hamiltonian — albeit with a greater emphasis on the solvability of most problems — while the bottom-up, constrained vision is Jeffersonian.
Hamilton and Jefferson throughout history
Before conducting a brief tour through American history, I will note that what I am about to say is not the consensus view (indeed, there is no consensus view) but rather my take.
Hamilton's view was largely dominant in the republic's early years, with many of his policy proposals becoming reality. At the same time, we saw the flourishing of early American manufacturing (whether this was due to his system or not, we cannot determine conclusively.) Henry Clay's complementary (and quite Hamiltonian) American System was also influential and led to new infrastructure and tariffs. However, Jackson's reign brought policy changes and a return (or at least a partial one) to the Jeffersonian mindset. Jackson even ended the first bank of the United States and rejected many attempts to build out infrastructure.
Jeffersonianism remained dominant throughout the 1800s, though the Hamiltonian impulse would occasionally surface. The most notable instances were the Pacific Railway Act and Homestead Act, though there were a number of other instances. Yet the Jeffersonian mindset was in control, in large part because of the limited means for the state to effect change.
During the late 1800s and early 1900s, however, the Progressive movement shook things up. While there were some Jeffersonian tendencies within the movement—especially in its advocacy for the direct election of senators and other citizen influence-boosting measures—many of its most adopted ideas used the state and state power to move the country forward.
These Hamiltonian tendencies became dominant in the 1930s during the New Deal and remained strong through the 1960s and 1970s. Yet Jeffersonian tendencies resurfaced once again in the form of citizen skepticism of big government — due to a mixture of overzealous government action and new political movements — leading to NEPA and other laws that gave citizens increasing ability to halt government action. Ultimately, the Jeffersonian strand reclaimed dominance, leading to a rise in Zoning laws, vetocracy, and other barriers that enabled citizens and localities to block things.
Hamilton and Jefferson today
To me, we are still in the throes of Jeffersonianism today. But rather than seeing either ideology as fully good or fullybad, I view these two ideologies as existing on opposite ends of a spectrum. In line with Aristotle's concept of the golden mean, the ideal place is in the middle, not at either extreme. After all, Hamilton's vision is often key in confronting national challenges, while Jefferson's vision is critical to restraining Leviathan and keeping the government in check. Indeed, this is where the analogy between these two visions and Sowell's dueling visions breaks down — in his system, constrained is generally less dangerous, while unconstrained is often disastrous.
To move forward, we must roll back some of the excesses of the Jeffersonian tendency — namely vetocracy, excessive zoning laws, excessive ways to block the government, and so forth — to help us raise our state capacity. Yet, we must ensure that we do so in a way that does not leave us vulnerable. Both of our founding fathers have a place, and it is only by embracing the tension between their views that we can truly flourish.