Out Of Left Field: Jefferson, Hamilton — and Trump

Thomas Jefferson challenged Alexander Hamilton when he was at his least democratic in views and actions.  
We owe Jefferson a huge debt; none of it is paid in the hit Miranda play.
Now, during this 2016 election, we can note Donald Trump marching to Hamilton’s worst beat (not that Trump probably knows much about Hamilton or American history).
I feel awkward even putting Trump’s name in the same sentence with Hamilton.  
Hamilton was a genius who made substantial contributions to the new nation.
Trump, on the other hand, is a personal ogre to many in the Republican Party.  
In last week’s Wall Street Journal, Deputy Editorial Page Editor Bret Stephens concluded that Trump “is a sociopath,” that “he is morally unfit for any office, high or low.”
By different routes, Trump is as likely to destroy the Republican Party as Hamilton’s actions led to the demise of the Federalist Party.
Unlike Trump, Hamilton was a leader with policies and actions.  
However, he ran into trouble because his  extreme approach favored the rich and privileged (sound familiar?)
Hamilton’s comprehensive economic programs were “top down,” from taxation falling disproportionately on workers and farmers to special financial benefits lavished on government bondholders (our first scandal of insider trading).
Unlike Trump, Hamilton was not driven for wealth himself, but his programs allowed others to use the system to enrich themselves.  
In fairness to Hamilton, it should be said his strategy was to attach the wealthiest Americans to support the national government because he literally made them stakeholders.
Jefferson and Madison were quick to highlight the disparities of government burdens and benefits.  
They became masters of their own “branding” when they called the Hamilton-led Federalists “the Aristocrat Party,” and the “Hog Party.”
Because of Hamilton’s other undemocratic actions, by the time of his death in 1804, as Hofstra’s Broadus Mitchell noted, the Federalist Party was already dying.
Indeed, by 1807, the term Federalist had become such an embarrassing political label that the party leaders in Hamilton’s home New York state got rid of it, changing their name to the “American Party.”
If Trump loses worse than Alf Landon, as Stephens and conservative George Wills advocate, perhaps the old GOP can use the alternative label adopted when the first party of the privileged died.
For all of his brilliance in “thinking continentally” and properly recognizing the importance of the national government, Hamilton, like Trump, shared the curse of arrogance.
The admiring historian, Richard B. Morris writes about Hamilton: “Opinionated and self-assured, he lacked that understanding of the art of compromise, the mastery of which is so essential to the aspiring politician.”
For all of his boasting that his book “The Art of the Deal” ranks next to the Bible, Trump’s arrogance and stupidity (worse than ignorance) has GOP leaders looking for ways to replace him as their candidate.
There is a danger of over-reach in comparing Trump’s current excesses to Hamilton’s more than 200 years ago.  
However, just a few can be mentioned that show parallels for these two men.
In each of these instances Jefferson (and Madison) offered more enduring democratic values.
1. Hamilton undermined ambassador John Jay, perverting his own role in the cabinet regarding foreign policy, even using a secret code to make sure the Treaty with England in 1795 suited his goals (see J.P. Boyd’s “Number 7: Alexander Hamilton’s Secret Attempts to Control Foreign Policy).  
Trump is increasingly criticized by CIA leaders for disregarding American and international laws when he rambles on about Putin, NATO and torture.
2. Quick to use military power to control dissent, on two occasions Hamilton manipulated to place himself at the head of newly organized American armies to give a lesson of proper authority to protestors — first the so-called Whiskey Rebels in 1794 and then in 1798 when he got President Adams to name him second in command to retired Washington for national military security.  
Jefferson opposed these resorts to intimidation as violations of the rights of citizens to protest, as well as Hamilton’s exaggerated claims of danger.  
Now, Trump constantly says that only he can protect us from terrorism and nuclear danger (he did not seem to know the difference between the nuclear “triad” and the “trinity”).
Unlike Trump who managed to get five deferments to avoid serving during the Vietnam War, Hamilton volunteered to leave the comfort of being Washington’s scribe to take a battlefield command.
Only now, do we hear Trump say: “I always wanted to get a Purple Heart.”
3. Although he was an immigrant himself (the play’s first song is about not “missing my shot” for success, Hamilton urged vigorous enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts.  
In 1798, Hamilton wrote about new immigrants: “My opinion is that the mass ought to be obliged to leave the country.”
He was open to some exceptions — “favor of merchants,” and those “whose demeanor among us has been unexceptionable.”
Then, with anticipation of Trump, Hamilton adds: “There are a few such.” [he did not go as far as Trump in categorizing “some good people” beyond murderers and rapists]        
To his everlasting glory, Jefferson led the opposition on all these matters, with passionate and intelligent support of the Bill of Rights.
Conservative writer, Yuval Levin, in “The Fractured Republic, captures the dangerous appeal of Trump.
He notes that citizens have real frustrations and grievances, but politicians like Trump “simply embody or articulate that frustration” without real diagnosis or policy proposals.    
The many “Pinocchios,” already given to Trump for outright lies show his betrayal of democracy and respect for regular citizens.  
Hamilton said: “Your people, sir, are a great beast; they seldom judge or determine correctly.”
Jefferson who believed in “benevolence” responded: “If we think the people not enlightened enough to exercise power with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take power from them, but inform their discretion through education.”
He concluded: “We must preach my dear sir a crusade against ignorance, for if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.”