[Hamilton] is a great man, but, in my judgment, not a great American. —U.S. President-elect Woodrow Wilson, Democrat (1912)1
When America ceases to remember [Hamilton’s] greatness, America will be no longer great. —U.S. President Calvin Coolidge, Republican (1922)2
America at her best loves liberty and respects rights, prizes individualism, eschews racism, disdains tyranny, extolls constitutionalism, and respects the rule of law. Her “can-do” spirit values science, invention, business, entrepreneurialism, vibrant cities, and spreading prosperity. At her best, America welcomes immigrants who seek to embrace the American way, as well as trade with foreigners who create products we want. And she is willing to wage war if necessary to protect the rights of her citizens—but not self-sacrificially nor for conquest.
America hasn’t always been at her best, of course. Beyond her glorious founding (1776–1789), America’s best was exhibited most vividly in the half century between the Civil War and World War I, an era Mark Twain mocked as the “Gilded Age.” In truth, it was a golden era: Slavery had been abolished, money was sound, taxes were low, regulations minimal, immigration voluminous, invention ubiquitous, opportunity enormous, and prosperity profuse. The capitalistic North both outpaced and displaced the feudalistic South.
America today flirts with the worst version of herself.3 Her intellectuals and politicians routinely flout her Constitution. Gone is her firm adherence to separation of powers or checks and balances. The regulatory state proliferates. Taxes oppress while the national debt grows. Money is fiat, finance is volatile, production is stagnant. Populists and “progressives” denounce the rich and condemn economic inequality. Government-run schools produce ignorant voters with anticapitalist biases. Freedom of speech is increasingly assaulted. Racism, riots, and hostility toward policemen abound. Nativists and nationalists scapegoat immigrants and demand walled borders. Self-defeating rules of military engagement preclude the swift defeat of dangerous, barbaric enemies abroad.
Those wishing to see America at her best again can be inspired and informed by the writings and achievements of her founding fathers. And, fortunately, interest in the works of the founders appears to have grown in recent years. Many Americans today, despite their generally poor education, glimpse America’s distant greatness, wonder how the founders created it, and hope to regain it.
Most Americans have a favorite founder. A recent poll indicates that
40% of Americans rate George Washington, the general who defeated the British in the American Revolution and the nation’s first president, as the greatest Founding Father. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, is second [23%], followed by Benjamin Franklin [14%], with later presidents John Adams [6%] and James Madison [5%] further down the list.4
There’s no doubt among scholars (and rightly so) that Washington was “the indispensable man” of the founding era.5 But the poll omits one founder who was crucial to the birth of the United States of America in myriad ways: Alexander Hamilton.6
Despite a relatively short life (1757–1804),7 Hamilton was the only founder besides Washington who played a role in all five of the key stages comprising the creation of the United States of America, and a more crucial role in each successive stage: establishing political independence from Britain,8 achieving victory in the Revolutionary War, drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution, creating the administrative architecture for the first federal government, and drafting of the Jay Treaty with Britain as well as the Neutrality Proclamation, which secured the “completion of the founding.”9
The colonial Americans’ declaration of independence from Britain didn’t guarantee a subsequent victory at war, nor did America’s war victory guarantee a subsequent federal constitution. Indeed, not even the Constitution guaranteed that initial federal officeholders would govern properly or cede power peacefully. There was much more to the founding than a couple of documents and a war. How did the documents come to be? How were they defended intellectually? How was the war won? Who was responsible for the countless pivotal aspects of the founding that amounted to the creation and sustenance of the land of liberty?
Besides Washington, no one did more than Hamilton to create the USA, and no one worked as closely and as long (two decades) with Washington to design and enact the details that made the difference. The enduring, mutually supportive alliance between Washington and Hamilton (ably assisted by other Federalists),10 proved indispensable to creating a free and sustainable USA.11
What historians call the “critical period” in American history—the dissension-filled years between the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown (1781) and Washington’s inauguration (1789)—was marked by national insolvency, hyperinflation, interstate protectionism, near mutiny by unpaid officers, debtor rebellions, laws violating creditors’ rights, lawlessness, and threats by foreign powers. Those were years of the disunited states.12
The Articles of Confederation—proposed by the Continental Congress in 1777 but not ratified until 1781—provided only a national, unicameral legislature with no executive or judicial branch. The legislators could do nothing absent unanimous approval from states, which was rare. The Continental Congress (perhaps most notable for issuing worthless paper currency) was substantially impotent, and its inertia prolonged the war and nearly caused its loss. Washington and his top aide, Hamilton, witnessed firsthand the injustice and suffering such ill governance can cause (as did soldiers at Valley Forge). America’s degeneration continued in the critical period, yet Jefferson and the anti-Federalists opposed any plan for a new constitution or any workable national government.13 Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists, in contrast, fought tirelessly to put the “U” in USA.14 Hamilton also left this legacy: a model, through his voluminous papers and well-known public acts, of rational statesmanship.
The reasons Hamilton is not properly recognized for his many vital works and accomplishments are essentially threefold. First, his political opponents during the founding era (many of whom outlived him and Washington by many decades) spread malicious myths about him and his aims.15 Second, historians and theorists who favor as a political ideal unrestrained democracy embodying a supposed “will of the people” (even if “the people” will to violate rights) have opposed Hamilton’s ideals, claiming that a rights-respecting, constitutionally limited republic “privileges” elites who are most successful at life.16 Third, statists have strained to find illiberal elements in the founders to support the notion that they were not really for free markets, and they have spread myths to the effect that Hamilton advocated central banking, mercantilism, protectionism, and was a proto-Keynesian fan of deficit finance or a proto-Soviet fan of “industrial policy” (i.e., economic interventionism).17
In truth, Hamilton more strongly opposed statist premises and policies than any other founder.18 He endorsed a constitutionally limited, rights-respecting government that was energetic in carrying out its proper functions. The question for Hamilton wasn’t whether government was “too big” or “too small” but whether it did the right things (uphold law and order, protect rights, practice fiscal integrity, provide for the national defense) or the wrong things (enable slavery, redistribute wealth, issue paper money, impose discriminatory tariffs, or engage in selfless wars). In Hamilton’s view, government must do the right things in big ways and mustn’t do the wrong things even in small ways.
Grasping Hamilton’s importance requires not only an account of his role in the founding of the USA (briefly sketched above), but also a fair analysis of his core views, including their distinctiveness relative to those of his critics’ views. Toward that end, we’ll consider his ideas in regard to constitutionalism, democracy and religion, political economy, public finance, and foreign policy.19
Hamilton believed firmly in constraining and directing legitimate government power by a succinct, broadly worded “supreme” law of the land: a constitution. Above all, he held, a nation’s constitution must protect rights (to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness) by delegating to the state limited and enumerated powers. Like most classical liberals, Hamilton didn’t endorse a notion of “positive rights,” that is, the idea that some people must be made to provide for the health, education, and welfare of others. In logic and morality there can be no “right” to violate rights. In Hamilton’s view, rights are to be secured through three coequal branches of government, with a legislature only writing laws, an executive only enforcing laws, and a judiciary only judging laws relative to the constitution. To fully protect rights, government also must be administered fairly (e.g., equality under the law) and efficiently (e.g., fiscal responsibility). Hamilton’s constitutionalism, which other Federalists embraced as well, drew heavily on the theories of Locke, Blackstone, and Montesquieu.20
The philosophic grounding for a rights-respecting government, per Hamilton, is that “all men have one common original, they participate in one common nature, and consequently have one common right. No reason can be assigned why one man should exercise any power over his fellow creatures more than another, unless they voluntarily vest him with it.”21 And “the success of every government—its capacity to combine the exertion of public strength with the preservation of personal right and private security, qualities which define the perfection of government —must always depend on the energy of the executive department.”22
Hamilton held that government’s proper purpose is to preserve and protect rights. And in contrast to his opponents, he recognized that a potent and energetic executive is necessary to enforce law, to protect rights, and thus to establish and maintain liberty. The Articles of Confederation, he observed, lacked an executive, and this absence led to lawlessness.
Hamilton defended republican instead of democratic government23 because he knew the latter was prone to capriciousness, demagoguery, majority tyranny, and rights violations.24 He was critical also of nonconstitutional monarchy (the hereditary rule of men instead of the rule of law) because it too was prone to being capricious and violating rights. Realizing that democracy and monarchy alike could be despotic, Hamilton, like most Federalists, endorsed a constitutional principle known as “mixed” government, akin to that advocated by Aristotle, Polybius, and Montesquieu, which held that government is more likely to be both humane and durable if constituted as a balance of elements reflecting monarchy (executive branch), aristocracy (senate and the judicial branch), and democracy (legislative branch).25
Hamilton also conceptualized the crucial, rights-protecting doctrine of “judicial review,” whereby an appointed judiciary, as a distinct branch rendered independent of popular consensus, rules on whether legislative and executive acts obey or violate the constitution. Hamilton denied government’s right to violate rights—whether to satisfy the will of the majority or for any other reason. He and other Federalists often have been accused of wanting “centralized” government power, but the Articles already concentrated power in a single branch (a legislature). The new Constitution dispersed and decentralized that power across three branches and included checks and balances to ensure that overall power was limited.
Hamilton’s critics in his day not only opposed the new Constitution; some opposed the idea of an enduring constitution as such. Jefferson, in particular, held that no constitution should last more than a generation, and that older charters ought to be perpetually jettisoned and successive ones redrawn (if drawn at all) to permit a continuance of the “general will” and majority consent26—even if majorities might elect to institutionalize racism and slavery;27 to impede the spread of commerce, industry, and finance; to violate civil liberties;28 or to impose egalitarian redistributions of wealth.29 Indeed, the longest chapter in a recent history of egalitarian U.S. politicians is devoted to Jefferson, whereas Hamilton gets brief mention because, “contrary to the other American revolutionaries,” he “understood inequality neither as an artificial political imposition nor as something to be feared. He saw it as an ineluctable fact—‘the great and fundamental distinction in society,’ he declared in 1787, which ‘would exist as long as liberty existed’ and ‘would unavoidably result from that very liberty itself.’”30
Going further still in his concern for man’s rights, Hamilton also condemned the French Revolution,31 not because it ended a monarchy but because its regicidal zealots brought unrestrained democracy, anarchy, terror, and despotism to the people of France. Jefferson, in contrast, applauded the French Revolution and claimed that it echoed America’s revolt.32
Rights were also the concern of Hamilton and the Federalists (Washington excepted) when they adamantly opposed both racism and slavery. Among other humane acts, in 1785 Hamilton was instrumental in founding the New York Manumission Society, which caused the state to begin abolishing slavery in 1799.33 On these and other crucial matters, Hamilton and the Federalists were far more enlightened and principled than their more popular opponents.34
The U.S. Constitution, federal government, and unification of previously dissenting states—each crucial to securing rights—wouldn’t have occurred without Washington and Hamilton, and the nation wouldn’t have survived as free and as united as it did without their political progeny, Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party (founded in 1854).
In the 1780s, Hamilton called repeatedly for a convention, a constitution, and unity among the states; and Washington agreed to Hamilton’s admonitions that he (Washington) head the convention and the first federal government. Unlike Jefferson and Adams, who were abroad at the time, Hamilton participated in the 1787 convention, helped draft the Constitution, and then wrote most of The Federalist Papers, which explained the principles of rights-protecting government and the separation of powers, the dangers of a single-branch Continental government, and the case for a new charter of liberty. Hamilton’s arguments also helped overcome formidable anti-Federalist opposition to the Constitution at state ratifying conventions (especially in his home state of New York).
Like few others, Hamilton recognized the philosophical distinctiveness and historical significance of the 1787 convention and subsequent ratification debate. Most governments existed due to conquest or fortuitous hereditary succession, and most of those formed after revolutions were authoritarian. In Federalist #1, Hamilton told Americans that they were “to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” Moreover, he argued, although authoritarian rule in America certainly was to be avoided, lasting liberty and security were impossible without a strong executive. In Federalist #70, he argued:
[E]nergy in the Executive [branch of government] is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy.
Judging The Federalist Papers as a whole, Washington wrote, they have “afforded me great satisfaction.”
I have read every performance which has been printed on one side and the other of the great question [Constitution or not] lately agitated [and] I will say that I have seen no other so well calculated (in my judgment) to produce conviction on an unbiased mind, as [this] Production. . . . When the transient circumstances and fugitive performances which attended this crisis shall have disappeared, that work will merit the notice of Posterity; because in it are candidly discussed the principles of freedom & the topics of government, which will be always interesting to mankind so long as they shall be connected in Civil Society.35
Jefferson, too, extolled the immense value of The Federalist Papers (aka The Federalist). He told Madison he had read them “with care, pleasure and improvement” because they provided “the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” Jefferson didn’t support the Constitution until after it was ratified and amended, but he saw how The Federalist “establishes firmly the plan of government,” which “rectified me in several points.”36
Yet in smear campaigns against the Federalists, critics (then and today) falsely charged Washington, Hamilton, and their allies with “monarchical” aggrandizement and assaults on “states’ rights.” In truth, as advocates of limited, rights-protecting government, the Federalists primarily sought to supplement the already precarious, single-branch Continental government with an executive branch and a judicial branch, and thereby to create an efficient, workable government with powers checked and balanced so the nation wouldn’t tip into either tyranny or anarchy.37 “As to my own political Creed,” Hamilton wrote to a friend in 1792, “I give it to you with the utmost sincerity. I am affectionately attached to the Republican theory. I desire above all things to see the equality of political rights exclusive of all hereditary distinction firmly established by a practical demonstration of its being consistent with the order and happiness of society.” He continued:
It is yet to be determined by experience whether [Republicanism] be consistent with that stability and order in Government which are essential to public strength & private security and happiness. On the whole, the only enemy which Republicanism has to fear in this Country is in the Spirit of faction and anarchy. If this will not permit the ends of Government to be attained under it—if it engenders disorders in the community, all regular & orderly minds will wish for a change—and the demagogues who have produced the disorder will make it for their own aggrandizement. This is the old Story. If I were disposed to promote Monarchy & overthrow State Governments, I would mount the hobby horse of popularity—I would cry out usurpation—danger to liberty &c. &c—I would endeavour to prostrate the National Government—raise a ferment—and then “ride in the Whirlwind and direct the Storm.” That there are men acting with Jefferson & Madison who have this in view I verily believe.38
Of course, state constitutions already existed, and the new federal Constitution didn’t displace them. But few protected rights as well as the federal charter. Most had protectionist features, many enshrined slavery (the federal charter permitted a prohibition of slave imports starting in 1808), and some (Massachusetts) even mandated taxpayer funding of schools or churches. The aim of Article I, Section 10, of the federal Constitution was to stop states’ assaults on liberty—not to increase but to decrease governmental capacity to violate rights. In addition to forbidding states from printing irredeemable paper money, it forbade them from passing targeted, discriminatory laws (bills of attainder); ex post facto laws; laws impairing “the obligation of contracts”; protectionist laws; acts granting “any title of nobility”; and conspiratorial compacts against liberty among the states or with foreign powers. The states, especially in the South, weren’t the havens of liberty today’s anarcho-libertarians claim.39
An important yet rarely acknowledged fact about the Declaration of Independence is that it cited a lack of sufficient government. Yes, Britain’s king had violated Americans’ rights, but he also had “abdicated Government here” in America; “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good”; forbade “his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance”; “refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people”; “obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing Judiciary powers”; and “dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly,” which left the states “exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.” Liberty, the Federalists recognized, wasn’t possible without law, order, and security.
The establishment and maintenance of rights-protecting law, order, and security as the proper function of government was profoundly important to Hamilton and the Federalists. They held that government must abide by the supreme law of the land (the Constitution)—and that citizens and firms must abide by statutory, criminal, and commercial law. They recognized that capricious law enforcement is dangerous and breeds injustice and lawlessness. But not everyone agreed. For instance, when Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists reacted firmly against the perpetrators of Shays’s Rebellion (i.e., against legitimate creditor claims in 1786), the Whiskey Rebellion (against a light excise tax in 1794), and Fries’s Rebellion (against a mild land and slave tax in 1799), they were accused of tyranny by critics who excused the rebels and urged still further revolts. In 1794, Hamilton argued as follows:
What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of security in a Republic? The answer would be: an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws—the first growing out of the last. It is by this, in a great degree, that the rich and powerful are to be restrained from enterprises against the common liberty—operated upon by the influence of a general sentiment, by their interest in the principle, and by the obstacles which the habit it produces erects against innovation and encroachment. It is by this, in a still greater degree, that caballers, intriguers, and demagogues are prevented from climbing on the shoulders of faction to the tempting seats of usurpation and tyranny. . . . A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government. . . . A large and well organized Republic can scarcely lose its liberty from any other cause than that of anarchy, to which a contempt of the laws is the high road.40
In making a case for a new federal constitution and a practical form of legitimate sovereignty, Hamilton and the Federalists weren’t curbing liberty but better preserving it by curing the lack of governance, which, by flirting with anarchy, invited tyranny.41 Although it’s often assumed that the anti-Federalist, Jeffersonian approach was solidly rights-based and descended from Locke, in truth it departed in crucial ways from principled positions on individual rights and free markets.42 Some revolutionary-era critics of Hamilton and the Federalists seemed to fear not a loss of liberty, but rather a diminution of their power to persist in state-sanctioned liberty violations—the same kind of fear felt later by slaver-secessionists in the Confederacy. Other critics, precursors of today’s anarcho-libertarians and neo-confederates,43 seemed to detest Hamiltonian principles, not because they put the nation on some inevitable path to statism but because the principles meant (and mean) that it was possible to effect a rationally designed plan of governance that better protected rights, even from the states’ encroachments. Anarchists, believing all forms of government to be oppressive, deny that such governance is possible.
The extent to which American government today is statist, whether at the state or federal level, has mostly to do with changes over the past century in the culture’s philosophy—toward altruism, “social justice,” and direct (unrestrained) democracy—and little if anything to do with Hamiltonian doctrines or governance.
Hamilton today would be appalled to learn that for a century the United States has been governed not by principled, constitutional statesmen, but by pandering, democratic politicians who have failed to uphold and apply the Constitution, especially its equal protection clause (see today’s discriminatory laws, taxes, and regulations), and have failed in myriad ways to protect property rights. Like recent scholars such as Tara Smith, Bernard Siegen, and Richard A. Epstein, he would extol objective judicial review and see the welfare-regulatory state as involved in unconstitutional takings and restrictions.44
Unlike their opponents, Hamilton and the Federalists strongly distrusted democracy, or rule by “the people” (“demos”), because historically (and on principle) it didn’t protect rights and liberty. Rather, democracy typically degenerated into anarchy, mutual envy, spoliation, and then tyranny as mobs enlisted brutes to restore order. Hamilton saw that democracies invite demagogues, unprincipled agitators, and power lusters who appeal to the people’s worst emotions and prejudices to aggrandize themselves and government power.
Writing in Federalist #1, Hamilton observed that “of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” In Federalist #85, he observed that history offers “a lesson of moderation to all the sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue, in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain.” At New York’s ratifying convention (June 1788) he said,
[I]t has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity: When they assembled, the field of debate presented an ungovernable mob, not only incapable of deliberation, but prepared for every enormity. In these assemblies, the enemies of the people brought forward their plans of ambition systematically. They were opposed by their enemies of another party; and it became a matter of contingency, whether the people subjected themselves to be led blindly by one tyrant or by another.45
Hamilton recognized that rationality, intelligence, and knowledge matter, and that “the people” en masse are, by definition, not the best and brightest. He understood that “the people” can and often do adopt a herd mentality, through which they can descend to a low and potentially dangerous common denominator. He knew that truth and justice aren’t determined by popular opinion.
At the 1787 constitutional convention, Hamilton argued that “this government has for its object public strength and individual security,” that a popular assembly unchecked by constitutional law has an “un-controlling disposition,” and that we must “check the imprudence of democracy.” He further noted that “the voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God,” but “however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact,” for “the people are turbulent and changing” and “seldom judge or determine right.”46 Thus, he argued, those not directly and popularly elected—the president, senators (at the time),47 and judiciary—must prevent rights-violating popular rule.
In response to “charges that he was an elitist promoting a tyrannical aristocracy,” recounts Maggie Riechers in “Honor Above All,” Hamilton said:
And whom would you have representing us in government? Not the rich, not the wise, not the learned? Would you go to some ditch by the highway and pick up the thieves, the poor, and the lame to lead our government? Yes, we need an aristocracy to be running our government, an aristocracy of intelligence, integrity, and experience.48
Hamilton saw that the problem is not “elites” per se (as many claim today). Those with higher education and financial success can be poor political thinkers or become less enlightened over time. But people with substantial knowledge of the humanities who also have succeeded substantially in life are rarely worse political thinkers or practitioners than the broad populace—especially when the populace has been “schooled” by the government. (On that last note, whereas Jefferson, Adams, and others advocated public schools, Hamilton and most Federalists did not.)
Although the U.S. Constitution itself directly pledged a republican form of government, America over the past century has become more democratic, which partly explains why she’s also become more statist. At every level of government now, people face a punitively redistributive and regulatory state. This is not a Hamiltonian conception of America.
The best of America also has been secular, not religious. The Puritans of New England and the Salem witch trials, in the early colonial era, are obvious examples of America at her worst, especially compared to later periods, when Jefferson and others (including Hamilton) extolled religious liberty and the separation of church and state. But the far greater damage to America in the past century has come not from violations of that legal separation but from a spread of religious belief that undergirds ever-increasing demands for “social justice” and ever-more interventionism by a welfare-regulatory state. On this score, what models, among the founders, might Americans today turn to for guidance?
Jefferson and several other founders were substantially religious—even deriving their moral code from the Bible. At times, Jefferson obsessed about the morals prescribed by religion, as when he issued his own version of the Bible (shorn of its miracles), within which he found rationalizations for slavery. He also believed that Jesus provided “the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man.”49 “Eternal bliss” is attainable, wrote Jefferson, if you “adore God,” “murmur not at the ways of Providence,” and “love your country more than yourself.”50 Today, those on the religious “right” and religious left alike invoke such views to justify a Christian welfare state.
Hamilton, in contrast, was one of the least religious founders.51 He did believe in the existence of a deity and held that it was the source of man, hence also of man’s rights. Like others in his day, he erred in assuming a supernatural element in “natural rights.” But he didn’t espouse the need to adore God or love your country more than yourself or the like. Neither did he attend church regularly. Although on his deathbed he twice requested communion, he twice was denied it by ministers who were his friends and knew that he was no deep believer.
Hamilton may have been a deist, but that was the extent of his religiosity. He certainly didn’t regard God as an intervening force nor as a needed one. Known for his logical and lawyerly writing, Hamilton never cited the Bible in any argument, as he didn’t believe it should inform or control politics (or vice versa).52 Working with other Federalists at the 1787 convention, he made sure the Constitution (unlike the Declaration) also invoked no deity. Indeed, Section 3 of Article VI, which Hamilton and the Federalists strongly endorsed, said no federal officeholder or employee was required to accept any religion (the “no religious test”), and this applied to the states also, as officers at both levels were required to uphold the Constitution. Whereas Ben Franklin, in a moment of gridlock and despair at the convention, moved to have the assembled framers pray for God’s assistance, Hamilton objected, saying there was no need for “foreign aid.” The motion was quietly tabled. On occasion Hamilton unabashedly even mocked or denounced religionists. He once wrote that “there never was any mischief but had a priest or a woman at the bottom,” and later, that “the world has been scourged with many fanatical sects in religion who, inflamed by a sincere but mistaken zeal, have perpetuated, under the idea of serving God, the most atrocious crimes.”53
The combined effect of democracy and religion has been destructive to America. Indeed, it has violated rights, curbed liberty, and fueled growth of the welfare state.54 To the extent that Americans accept the idea that we must love others as much as ourselves and be our brother’s keeper and the like, Americans will continue supporting politicians who pass and enforce laws to ensure that we do. And to the extent that such religiously minded Americans gain more direct—that is, more democratic—control over government, federal and state governments will become more tyrannical. Religion and democracy are antithetical to liberty and prosperity.
On the spread of democracy in the past century, observe that many Americans in the late 19th century had no right to vote at the federal level, yet in business and personal matters they were relatively free, low taxed, and unregulated. Today, nearly all have a right to vote, but for the past century the only “electable” politicians have been those who damned the rich, redistributed wealth, and violated rights in accordance with biblical (and Marxist) injunctions.
Hamilton embodied and contributed to the enlightened century in which he lived, one guided largely by vox intellentia (the voice of reason) instead of medievalism’s vox dei (the voice of god). Yet the ideals of reason and constitutionalism gave way, in the early 19th century, to those of religion and democracy. Religion (i.e., acceptance of ideas on faith) would come in new, secular forms, such as transcendentalism and, later, Marxism. The Federalist party faded away, and Hamiltonian principles were eclipsed by demands for rule by “the people” (democracy), with vox populi (the voice of the people) as the new (albeit secular) god. Fortunately, Hamiltonian ideas were strong enough to inspire and enable Lincoln and the new GOP to extend the Federalist system, abolish slavery, and give America her so-called Gilded Age, up to World War I. But, thereafter, democratic populism became dominant, to her great detriment.
Hamilton’s last letter, to a fellow Federalist in 1804, expressed his worry that there might be an eventual “dismemberment” of the United States, “a clear sacrifice of great positive advantages, without any counterbalancing good,” which would bring “no relief to our real Disease; which is Democracy.”55
His worry was well founded.
Political economy studies the relationship between political and economic activity, or, more broadly, political and economic systems. Even though “capitalism” as a politico-economic term wasn’t coined until the mid-19th century (with a derogatory meaning, by French socialists),56 Hamiltonian political economy was essentially pro-capitalist in both theory and practice.
Unlike some of his critics, Hamilton argued that all sectors of the economy are virtuous, productive, and interdependent. Labor must be free (not enslaved) and mobile, as should goods and capital, both domestically and internationally. Hamilton and the Federalists insisted that property rights be secured and protected; government must recognize and support the sanctity of voluntary contract, and impose penalties on those who refuse to meet their legal or financial obligations. Hamilton held that taxes (including tariffs) should be low and uniform in rate, not discriminatory, favor-based, or protectionist; and there should be no coercive redistribution of wealth.57 His only case for public subsidy was to encourage the domestic production of munitions that might prove critical to America’s national defense. He recognized that the young and vulnerable nation relied too heavily for such things on foreign powers, including potential enemies.
Hamilton’s views on political economy are most clearly presented in his Report on Manufacturers (1791), where he shows how the various economic sectors—whether agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, or finance—are productive and mutually supportive. He saw a harmony of inter-sectorial self-interest and rejected what we now call “class warfare.” Unlike Adam Smith, who stressed the role of manual labor in wealth production, Hamilton stressed the role of the mind: “To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind,” he wrote, “by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted.” And he saw that rational effort and productiveness thrived best in a complex, diversified economy: “Every new scene which is opened to the busy nature of man to rouse and exert itself is the addition of a new energy” for the economy, he wrote. And “the spirit of enterprise, useful and prolific as it is, must necessarily be contracted or expanded in proportion to the simplicity or variety of the occupations and productions which are to be found in a Society.”58
Hamilton also cheerily welcomed immigrants, especially those who seek “exemption from the chief part of the taxes, burthens, and restraints which they endure in the old world” and those who prize “greater personal independence and consequence, under the operation of a more equal government, and of what is far more precious than mere religious toleration—a perfect equality of religious privileges.” Hamilton held that it was in “the interest of the United States to open every possible avenue to emigration from abroad.” Unlike today’s anti-immigration nationalists, Hamilton was a pro-immigration individualist.
In his Report on Manufactures, Hamilton extolls a “system of perfect liberty to industry and commerce” and says that “the option ought, perhaps, always to be in favor of leaving industry to its own discretion.” He also worries that nations abroad do not permit perfect economic liberty and that this can disadvantage America. By “perfect liberty” Hamilton does not mean that government must play no role or that it should keep its hands off the economy in the sense of not even protecting rights (as some libertarian anarchists today misconstrue the doctrine of laissez-faire). Hamilton denies that there should be such a complete separation of government and the economy. In accordance with its obligation to uphold property rights and enforce contracts, a proper government necessarily “helps” those who produce, earn, and trade wealth—and it “harms” those who instead choose to rob, defraud, or extort. In Hamilton’s view, these are not favors or privileges, but political acts of justice.
Hamilton also recognized that legitimate state functions, such as those of the police, military, and courts, require funding, which can come only from wealth producers. A proper government provides legitimate services that foster economic productiveness. And a moral citizenry financially supports such a government so that it can do so.
In short, Hamilton’s political economy isn’t “statist,” “mercantilist,” or “corporatist” (as libertarian detractors claim and illiberal sympathizers hope); rather, it is, simply, capitalist.
Critics of Hamilton’s political economy—especially Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams—denied the legitimacy and probity of banking, finance, commerce, and (to a lesser extent) manufacturing. They did so because they were enamored of the French doctrine of “physiocracy,” the notion that economic added value and productive virtue derive from agriculture exclusively. On this view, if other sectors, such as (urban) manufacturing, exhibit wealth—especially great wealth—it must be ill-gotten gain, achieved at the expense of hard-working farmers and planters.59 Equal legal treatment, on this view, privileges undeserving sectors; respectful treatment of the “moneyed interests” somehow harms the “landed interest.” Such false charges were especially disingenuous coming from slaveholding plantation aristocrats.
Some of Hamilton’s critics also believed that farming and agriculture are divinely superior to all other kinds of work. Jefferson, for instance, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, asserted that “those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God,” that in them alone God “made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue.” He also said we must “never wish to see our citizens occupied at a work-bench, or twirling a distaff.” Instead, he said, “for the general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops remain in Europe.”60
Many scholars have explained (typically with a strong hint of approval) that the political economy of Jefferson and the anti-Federalists was predominantly anticapitalist—in some ways even fuel for the modern environmentalist movement—and that many of its features persist today, in public attitudes and economic policies, both in America and globally.61
America was well served by Hamiltonian political economy. In its heyday, during the half century following the Civil War (1865–1914), U.S. economic production multiplied rapidly, as innovation, invention, and living standards skyrocketed. In contrast, the spread of more democratic and populist political rule over the past century—and with it more public spending, taxing, and regulating—has brought a deceleration in output growth, and even stagnation.
Hamilton was a strong proponent of sound and stable money (a gold-silver standard), a vigorous private banking system, restraint on government spending (what he called “economy”), low and uniform tax and tariff rates, minimal regulation, a diminishing public debt, and solidity in public credit (defined as an adequate capacity to borrow). America has been at her best when these monetary-fiscal elements have been institutionalized, as they were in the 1790s and (to a lesser extent) in the 1920s. Unfortunately, these elements are not operative today, and America is suffering accordingly.
Hamilton was known by senior officials for his financial acumen and was appointed by President Washington as the first U.S. Treasury secretary. He witnessed America during her “critical period” (1781–1789) suffering from an array of depreciating state monies, massive debts, burdensome taxes, interstate protectionism, and economic stagnation. Upon taking office, Hamilton began authoring comprehensive plans of fiscal and monetary reform, which, once approved by Congress and administered by his office, transformed America from a debt-defaulting bankrupt nation issuing worthless paper money into an honorable debt-paying nation practicing fiscal rectitude and issuing gold- and silver-based dollars.
Critics claimed that Hamilton’s reforms were intended to benefit only public bondholders and the “moneyed interests” on Wall Street, but in truth all economic sectors benefited from a more stable and predictable governance and the corresponding extension of rational, foward-looking business planning in the marketplace. And, in the 1790s, with freer trade, U.S. imports tripled.
Critics then (as now) misclassified Hamilton as a champion of expansive government debt, as if he were a proto-Keynesian enamored of deficit spending as a means of boosting the economy. In truth, however, Hamilton’s Treasury in 1789 inherited massive debt. It was not Hamilton’s fault that the Revolutionary War entailed huge deficit spending. Wars cost money. And, in fighting the Revolutionary War, the U.S. government spent a great deal more money than it collected in taxes (Jefferson and others opposed tax financing).62 Consequently, the war was financed in part by loans from patriotic and wealthy Americas, loans from France and the Dutch, issuance by Congress of irredeemable paper money, underprovisioning of soldiers, underpaying of officers, and commandeering of resources from private citizens.
Whereas Jefferson and others demanded postwar defaults and debt repudiations,63 Hamilton defended the sanctity of contract and demanded honorable repayments. He arranged to service all federal debts and even to consolidate, assume, and service state debts at the federal level, arguing that independence from Britain and the war were won nationally, that states shouldn’t be left unequally burdened by war debts, and that each should start fresh with little debt, low taxes, and no tariffs. In 1790, the U.S. public debt burden was 40 percent of GDP; but Hamilton, helped by congressional Federalists, halved that to just 20 percent of GDP by the time he left office in 1795.
When Hamilton saw public debt as excessive or in default he counseled calm and explained how to fix it by affordable resumptions of payment. Longer term, he advised principal reduction by budget surpluses achieved mainly by restraint on spending. In a 1781 letter to Robert Morris, then superintendent of finance, Hamilton wrote that “a national debt if it is not excessive will be to us a national blessing; it will be powerful cement of our union.”64 Critics have omitted the context to suggest Hamilton believes “a national debt . . . is a national blessing.”65 Not so. His view is that public borrowing mustn’t be a major source of funding, nor excessive, nor unserviceable, nor repudiated.
In 1781, Hamilton, foreseeing a union few others did, counseled Morris not to despair about the debt. By his reckoning, he could craft a plan to begin fully servicing it soon after the war, to the benefit of all parties. And that’s exactly what he did. He also wanted to facilitate reductions in U.S. debt. In 1790, he wrote Congress that “so far from acceding to the position that ‘public debts are public benefits,’ a position inviting to prodigality, and liable to dangerous abuse,” the body should codify “as a fundamental maxim, in the system of the public credit of the United States, that the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.” He advised steady repayments so that in a decade “the whole of the debt shall be discharged.”66 Fearing America might become more democratic and overaccumulate debt, in 1795 he wrote of “a general propensity in those who administer the affairs of government to shift off the burden [of spending] from the present to a future day—a propensity which may be expected to be strong in proportion as the form of the state is popular.”67
Hamilton’s financial reforms also fostered nationwide banking in America, as well as efficient, low-burden tax collection through the Bank of the United States (BUS), which was chartered from 1791 to 1811. This was no “central bank,” as some libertarians and statists claim. Privately owned, the BUS issued gold-and-silver-convertible money and lent little to the federal government. No such prudential features describe today’s actual, politicized central banks. Hamilton arranged specifically for the BUS to be apolitical, quite unlike the Federal Reserve. “To attach full confidence to an institution of this nature,” he wrote, “an essential ingredient in its structure” is that it “be under a private not a public direction, under the guidance of individual interest, not of public policy,” never “liable to being too much influenced by public necessity,” because “suspicion of this would most likely be a canker that would continually corrode the vitals of the credit of the Bank.” If ever “the credit of the Bank be at the disposal of the government,” there would be a “calamitous abuse of it.”68 Hamilton made sure that didn’t happen. The bank was a success precisely because, unlike today’s central banks, it was privately owned and operated, as well as monetarily sound.
Hamilton and the Federalists saw that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and thus the rights, liberty, and security of the American people. In other words, they held that America must promote and protect its rational self-interest, that the standard for conducting international relations is the need of the U.S. government to secure the rights of U.S. citizens.69 On this key principle, as we’ll see, Hamilton and the Federalists differed considerably from the views of Jefferson, the anti-Federalists, and their progeny.70
Rational self-interest calls for defending a nation against foreign aggressors as much as for cooperating and trading with friendly states, whether by treaty, military alliance, open borders, or international trade. Hamilton eschewed a foreign policy of weakness, appeasement, vacillation, defenselessness, self-sacrifice, surrender, or breaking promises. Nor did he advocate imperialism, “nation-building,” or altruistic crusades to “make the world safe for democracy” (Woodrow Wilson), or pursuing a “forward strategy for freedom” (George W. Bush) for people fundamentally unwilling or unable to achieve it.
Hamilton (and the Federalists) also believed that national defense required a reasonably paid standing army and navy plus an academy (West Point) for professional training. Opponents insisted that this was too costly and inferior to reliance on patriotic but amateur militia assembled temporarily in response to invasions. As sequential presidents in the early 1800s, Jefferson and Madison radically reduced spending on the army and navy. Jefferson also helped fund (and prolong) Napoleon’s wars via the Louisiana Purchase and imposed a trade embargo on Britain, which decimated the U.S. economy and exposed America to a near loss of the War of 1812.
In Hamilton’s time, the major U.S. foreign policy challenges pertained to relations with Britain and France. Disputes about the meaning and consequence of the French Revolution, which began only months after Washington’s first inauguration, revealed the differences between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian foreign policies.
Despite the war against Britain, and France’s support of America, during the postwar period, Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists found the British government more civilized, law abiding, constitutional, and predictable than the French government, even though both remained monarchies. Even before 1789, France’s monarchy was unchecked by a constitution, whereas Britain’s, at least, was constitutionally limited. With the Treaty of Paris in 1783, America had begun a rapprochement with Britain—solidified later by the Jay Treaty of 1795—and trade relations between the countries soon expanded.
These new peace and trade agreements were defended strenuously by Hamilton and the Federalists but opposed by Jefferson, Madison, and their emerging political party (the Democratic Republicans), who despised Britain and adored France—despite the beheading of Louis XVI and the royals, Robespierre’s Reign of Terror, and Napoleon’s despotic, imperialistic reign. To their credit, Hamilton and the Federalists consistently condemned the French Revolution and its aftermath. Hamilton even predicted the rise of a Napoleonic-type despot.71
Jefferson, U.S. foreign minister in Paris from 1784 to 1789, applauded the French Revolution and frequently smeared its critics (including Washington and Hamilton) as “monocrats.” In January 1793, only weeks before the regicide, Jefferson, now U.S. secretary of state, wrote how his “affections” were “deeply wounded by some of the martyrs,” but how he’d rather “have seen half the earth desolated” “than [the French Revolution] should have failed.”72 A month later France declared war on Britain. Washington asked his cabinet for advice, and Hamilton wrote the long letter that became the president’s Neutrality Proclamation of May 1793. Jefferson and Madison opposed neutrality, insisting that the United States back France—meaning that America would again be at war with Britain—despite what France had become. They held that not self-interest but gratitude for France’s assistance during America’s Revolutionary War should decide the matter. And they believed it was always legitimate to depose or kill monarchs and install democracies, even if doing so brought chaos and the impossibility of rights-protecting constitutionalism.
Hamilton saw that France was motivated not by goodwill for America but by a desire to weaken Britain. He held that the United States wasn’t obliged to remain in a treaty with France, given its post-1789 brutality, its radical change in form of government, and its eagerness to wage war on a nation that had become a top U.S. trading partner.
Hamilton’s international policy was and is often falsely described as “protectionist.” Tariffs were the most common source of government funding in this era, and Hamilton adamantly opposed trade disruptions that might reduce tariff revenues and boost the national debt. He held that if tariff rates were low and uniform, they were justifiable and relatively painless. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 had originated in Hamilton’s valiant attempt (at the 1786 Annapolis Convention) to craft an agreement to reduce interstate tariffs and quotas. In short, Hamilton wanted a free trade zone for America. The eventual product of 1787, a fully ratified U.S. Constitution, plainly prohibited interstate trade barriers. These were hardly the motives or actions of a protectionist.
As Hamilton put it in 1795, “the maxims of the United States have hitherto favored a free intercourse with all the world. They have concluded that they had nothing to fear from the unrestrained completion of commercial enterprise and have only desired to be admitted upon equal terms.”73 Jefferson and Madison, in contrast, sought higher tariffs to minimize resort to excise taxes (which they deemed more onerous to freedom). They also favored tariff discrimination, with higher rates imposed on imports from Britain and lower ones on imports from France. And, as presidents, both adopted protectionist policies, which damaged the U.S. economy and sabotaged U.S. foreign relations.74
Whether regarding war and peace or protectionism and trade, Hamilton usually was restrained and cosmopolitan, whereas his opponents were typically aggressive and provincial. He eschewed foreign adventurism and empire building; they praised it. According to Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson, Jefferson “wished genuinely to reform the world” yet also “feared contamination by it,” so his foreign policy was a perpetual “alternation between interventionist and isolationists moods and policies.” They continue, in their book, Empire of Liberty: The Statecraft of Thomas Jefferson, that Jefferson thought “free political and economic institutions would flourish in America only if they took root elsewhere, an idea that has, in turn, underlain much of the crusading impulse in the century.” He also held “the conviction that despotism [abroad] meant war,” and, “on this view, the indispensable condition of a lasting peace was the replacement of autocratic regimes by governments based on consent.”75 These were the roots of “progressive” schemes to “make the world safe for democracy,” depose autocrats for ballot boxes, and selflessly and interminably entangle the United States abroad. Hamilton, in contrast, wanted strong yet defensive U.S. military power; he knew that democracy was more likely to be the unsafe option globally. As Michael P. Federici writes in The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, Hamilton’s foreign policy was free entirely of the “messianic pretensions in twentieth-century nationalisms like Wilsonianism and the New Deal or totalitarian ideologies.”76
From the time he came to America in 1772 as a young immigrant, to the time and effort he expended on behalf of the Revolution, independence, war, the Constitution, and early presidencies, Hamilton was the quintessential American. He was an indefatigable statesman, master builder of a political-fiscal foundation so rational and solid that, for the next century, it enabled the United States to become even freer and more prosperous.
Writing in 1795, Hamilton said that the rest of the world should come to see the United States as a moral-political role model, “a people who originally resorted to a revolution in government, as a refuge from encroachments on rights,” “who have a due respect for property and personal security,” who “have in a very short period, from mere reasoning and reflection, without tumult or bloodshed, adopted a form of general government calculated” so as to “give strength and security to the nation, to rest the foundations of liberty on the basis of justice, order, and law.” The American people, he said, “have at all times been content to govern themselves without intermeddling with the affairs or governments of other nations.”77 Writing in 1784, at age 27, Hamilton cherished the prospect of constitutional liberty in America, but he also feared its eventual loss:
If we set out with justice, moderation, liberality, and a scrupulous regard to the constitution, the government will acquire a spirit and tone, productive of permanent blessings to the community. If on the contrary, the public councils are guided by humour, passion and prejudice; if from resentment of individuals, or a dread of partial inconveniences, the constitution is slighted or explained away, upon every frivolous pretext, the future spirit of government will be feeble, distracted and arbitrary. The rights of the subject will be the sport of every party vicissitude. There will be no settled rule of conduct, but everything will fluctuate with the alternate prevalency of contending factions.
The world has its eye upon America. The noble struggle we have made in the cause of liberty, has occasioned a kind of revolution in human sentiment. The influence of our example has penetrated the gloomy regions of despotism, and has pointed the way to inquiries, which may shake it to its deepest foundations. Men begin to ask everywhere, who is this tyrant, that dares to build his greatness on our misery and degradation? What commission has he to sacrifice millions to the wanton appetites of himself and the few minions that surround his throne?
To ripen inquiry into action, it remains for us to justify the revolution by its fruits. If the consequences prove, that we really have asserted the cause of human happiness, what may not be expected from so illustrious an example? In a greater or less degree, the world will bless and imitate! But if experience, in this instance, verifies the lesson long taught by the enemies of liberty; that the bulk of mankind are not fit to govern themselves, that they must have a master, and were only made for the rein and the spur, we shall then see the final triumph of despotism over liberty. The advocates of the latter must acknowledge it to be an ignis fatuus and abandon the pursuit. With the greatest advantages for promoting it, that ever a people had, we shall have betrayed the cause of human nature.78
Hamilton’s critics, with insufficient evidence and considerable context dropping, have accused him variously of being a monarchist, a nationalist, a cronyist, a mercantilist, a protectionist, and an imperialist. In truth, he was none of those things. He viewed such positions as variations on Old World error and adamantly opposed them. Here are some of Hamilton’s most important positions and efforts—along with correspondingly false accusations about him:
Without too much difficulty, Hamilton could have done what many American colonists in his time chose to do: remain safely the loyal subject of Britain, comfortably placed to participate in its zealous devotion to monarchism, mercantilism, and imperialism. Hamilton could have stayed and lived and worked in his beloved New York City, which the British occupied peaceably during a long war. Instead, he spent two decades—longer than anyone else—helping Washington build and launch the United States of America, which meant fighting to create a new nation that rejected monarchism, mercantilism, and imperialism. There is evidence that, in the first few decades of the 19th century, some of Hamilton’s most virulent opponents changed some of their views and came to believe much of what Hamilton himself had contended initially—most notably about constitutionalism, manufacturing, finance, slavery, and foreign policy.79 This further speaks to Hamilton’s originality, courage, and prescience.
Some say America’s best is neither fully Hamiltonian nor fully Jeffersonian, but instead a judicious, balanced mix of each. The first, it is believed, would bring too much elitism, capitalism, or inequality, the latter too much populism, agrarianism, or democracy. Yet America suffers from the latter, not the former. For decades she’s been morphing into a European-style “social democracy,” a socialist-fascist system achieved not by bullets (revolting) but ballots (voting), as if democracy can whitewash evil.
In a short life, Hamilton made America the best that he could. It was pretty good indeed. She hasn’t always lived up to the heights he wished for her. But, today, as in the founding era, America at her best is Hamiltonian.
This article was originally published in The Objectivist Standard and has been reposted with the author's permission.
Dr. Richard M. Salsman is an assistant research professor of political economy at Duke University, founder and president of InterMarket Forecasting, Inc., a senior fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, and senior scholar at The Atlas Society. In the 1980s and 1990s he was a banker at the Bank of New York and Citibank and an economist at Wainwright Economics, Inc. Dr. Salsman has authored five books: Breaking the Banks: Central Banking Problems and Free Banking Solutions (1990), The Collapse of Deposit Insurance and the Case for Abolition (1993), Gold and Liberty (1995), The Political Economy of Public Debt: Three Centuries of Theory and Evidence (2017), and Where Have all the Capitalists Gone?: Essays in Moral Political Economy (2021). He is also author of a dozen chapters and scores of articles. His work has appeared in the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, Reason Papers, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Sun, Forbes, the Economist, the Financial Post, the Intellectual Activist, and The Objective Standard. He speaks frequently before pro-liberty student groups, including Students for Liberty (SFL), Young Americans for Liberty(YAL), Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), and the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).
Dr. Salsman earned his B.A. in law and economics from Bowdoin College (1981), his M.A. in economics from New York University (1988), and his Ph.D. in political economy from Duke University (2012). His personal website can be found at https://richardsalsman.com/.
For The Atlas Society, Dr. Salsman hosts a monthly Morals & Markets webinar, exploring the intersections between ethics, politics, economics, and markets. You can also find excerpts from Salsman's Instagram Takeovers HERE that can be found on our Instagram each month!
Rent Selling Countries are More Corrupt and Less Wealthy -- AIER, May 13, 2022
In the field of political economy in recent decades an important and valuable emphasis has been placed on “rent seeking,” defined as pressure groups lobbying for (and getting) special favors (bestowed on themselves) and disfavors (imposed on their rivals or enemies). But rent seeking is only the demand side of political favoritism; the less-emphasized supply side – call it rent selling– is the real instigator. Only states have the power to create zero-sum political favors, disfavors, and cronies. Cronyism isn’t a brand of capitalism, but a symptom of hybrid systems; interventionist states that heavily influence socioeconomic results actively invite lobbying by those who are most affected and can most afford it (the rich and powerful). But the root problem of favoritism isn’t one of demanders who bribe, but of suppliers who extort. ‘Crony capitalism’ is a blatant contradiction, a ruse to blame capitalism for the results of anti-capitalist policies.
NATO Expansion as an Instigator of the Russia-Ukraine War -- Clubhouse, March 16, 2022
In this 90-minute audio interview, with audience Q&A, Dr. Salsman discusses 1) why national self-interest should guide US foreign policy (but doesn’t), 2) why NATO’s decades-long expansion eastward toward Russia’s border (and hints it might add Ukraine) has fueled Russia-Ukraine conflicts, and the current war, 3) how Reagan-Bush heroically (and peacefully) won the Cold War, 4) how/why Democrat presidents in this century (Clinton, Obama, Biden) have refused to cultivate post-Cold War peace, have been pushers of NATO, have been unjustifiably belligerent towards Russia, and have undermined U.S. national strength and security, 5) why Ukraine is unfree and corrupt, is not a genuine U.S. ally (or NATO member), is not relevant to U.S. national security, and is undeserving of official U.S. support of any kind, and 6) why today’s bipartisan, near-ubiquitous support for a wider war, promoted heavily by the MMIC (military-media-industrial-complex), is both reckless and ominous.
Ukraine: The Facts Don’t Excuse Putin, But They Do Condemn NATO -- The Capitalist Standard, March 14, 2022
You needn’t excuse or endorse Putin’s brutish pugilism to recognize plain facts and reasonable strategic concerns: to acknowledge that NATO, the American warmongers, and Russo-phobes made much of this conflict possible. They’ve also instigated a Russia-China alliance, first economic, now potentially military. “Make the world democratic” is their battle cry, regardless of whether locals want it, or whether it brings liberty (rarely); or whether it topples authoritarians and stages a fair vote. What mostly happens, post-toppling, is chaos, carnage, and cruelty (see Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.). It never seems to end because the nation-breakers never learn. NATO has been using Ukraine as a puppet, effectively a client state of NATO (i.e., the U.S.) since 2008. That’s why the Biden crime family is well known for “pulling strings” there. In 2014, NATO even helped foment the coup d’etat of Ukraine’s duly elected pro-Russia president. Putin reasonably prefers Ukraine be a neutral buffer zone; if, as NATO-Biden insists, that’s not possible, Putin would rather simply wreck the place — as he’s doing — than own it, run it, or use it as a westward stage for invasions of other nations.
The Costly but Deliberate U.S. Labor Shortage -- AIER, September 28, 2021
For more than a year, due to Covid-phobia and lockdowns, the U.S. has suffered various types and magnitudes of labor shortages, the case in which the quantity of labor demanded by would-be employers exceeds quantities supplied by would-be employees. This isn’t accidental or temporary. Joblessness has been both mandated (by shutdowns of “nonessential” businesses) and subsidized (with lucrative and extended “jobless benefits”). That makes it difficult for many businesses to attract and hire labor of sufficient quantity, quality, reliability, and affordability. Material or chronic surpluses and shortages reflect not “market failure” but the failure of governments to let markets clear. Why is so much of this unclear even to those who should know better? It’s not because they don’t know basic economics; many are ideologically anti-capitalist, which biases them against employers; channeling Marx, they falsely believe capitalists profit by underpaying workers and over-charging customers.
From Fast Growth to No Growth to De-Growth -- AIER, August 4, 2021
Increasing prosperity over the long term is made possible by sustained economic growth over the short-term; prosperity is the broader concept, entailing not merely more output but a quality of output valued by buyers. Prosperity brings a higher standard of living, in which we enjoy better health, longer lifespans, and greater happiness. Unfortunately, empirical measures in America show that its economic growth rate is decelerating, and it’s not a transitory problem; it’s been happening for decades; Sadly, few leaders recognize the grim trend; few can explain it; some even prefer it. The next step could be a push for “de-growth, ”or successive contractions in economic output. The slow-growth preference was normalized over many years and this can happen also with the de-growth preference. Today’s de-growth acolytes are a minority, but decades ago the slow-growth fans also were a minority.
When Reason is Out, Violence is In -- Capitalism Magazine, January 13, 2021
In the aftermath of the Trump-inspired right-wing assault on the U.S. Capitol last week, each “side” rightly accused the other of hypocrisy, of not “practicing what they preach,” of not “walking the talk.” Last summer left-wingers tried to justify (as “peaceful protest”) their own violence at Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, and elsewhere, but now denounce right-wing violence at the Capitol. Why is hypocrisy, a vice, now so ubiquitous? Its opposite is the virtue of integrity, which is rare these days because for decades universities have inculcated philosophical pragmatism, a doctrine which does not counsel “practicality” but instead undermines it by insisting that fixed and valid principles are impossible (hence dispensable), that opinion is manipulable. For the pragmatists, “perception is reality” and “reality is negotiable.” In place of reality, they prefer “virtual reality,” instead of justice, “social justice.” They embody all that is fake and phony. All that remains as a guide to action is rank opportunism, expediency, “rules for radicals,” whatever “works” – to win an argument, advance a cause, or enact a law – for now at least (until . . . it fails to work). What explains today’s bi-partisan violence? The absence of reason (and objectivity). There is (literally) no reason for it, but there’s an explanation: when reason is out, persuasion and peaceful assembly-protest also are out. What remains is emotionalism – and violence.
Biden’s Disdain for Shareholders is Fascistic -- The Capitalist Standard, December 16, 2020
What does president-elect Biden think of capitalism? In a speech last July he said, “It’s way past time we put an end to the era of shareholder capitalism – the idea that the only responsibility a corporation has is with shareholders. That’s simply not true. It’s an absolute farce. They have a responsibility to their workers, their community, to their country. That isn’t a new or radical notion.” Yes, it’s not a new notion – that corporations must serve non-owners(including the government). Everyone these days – from the business professor to the journalist to the Wall Streeter to the “man on the street” – seems to favor “stakeholder capitalism.” But it’s also not a radical notion? It’s fascism, plain and simple. Is fascism no longer radical? Is it the “new” norm –albeit borrowed from the 1930s (FDR, Mussolini, Hitler)? In fact, “shareholder capitalism” is redundant, and “stakeholder capitalism” is oxymoronic. The former is genuine capitalism: private ownership (and control) of the means of production (and its output, too). The latter is fascism: private ownership but public control, imposed by non-owners. Socialism, of course, is public (state)ownership and public control of the means of production. Capitalism entails and promotes mutually beneficial contractual responsibility; fascism destroys that, by brutally severing ownership and control.
The Basic Truths of Saysian Economics and Their Contemporary Relevance –- Foundation for Economic Education, July 1, 2020
Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832) was a principled defender of the constitutionally limited state, even more consistently so than many of his classically liberal contemporaries. Most known for “Say’s Law,” the first principle of economics, he should be considered one of the most consistent and powerful exponents of capitalism, decades before the word was coined (by its opponents, in the 1850s). I’ve studied quite a lot of political economy over the decades and consider Say’s Treatise on Political Economy (1803) the best work ever published in the field, not only surpassing contemporary works but also those like Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) and Ludwig von Mises’s Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (1949).
Fiscal-Monetary 'Stimulus' is Depressive -- The Hill, May 26, 2020
Many economists believe public spending and money issuance create wealth or purchasing power. Not so. Our only means of obtaining real goods and services is from wealth creation —production. What we spend must come from income, which itself must come from producing. Say’s Law teaches that only supply constitutes demand; we must produce before we demand, spend or consume. Economists typically blame recessions on “market failure” or “deficient aggregate demand,” but recessions are due mainly to government failure; when policies punish profits or production, aggregate supply contracts.
Freedom Is Indivisible, Which Is Why All Types Are Now Eroding -- Capitalism Magazine, April 18, 2020
The point of the principle of indivisibility is to remind us that the various freedoms rise or fall together, even if with various lags, even if some freedom, for a time, seems to be rising as others fall; in whatever direction the freedoms move, eventually they tend to dovetail. The principle that freedom is indivisible reflects the fact that humans are an integration of mind and body, spirit and matter, consciousness and existence; the principle implies that humans must choose to exercise their reason – the faculty unique to them – to grasp reality, live ethically, and flourish as best they can. The principle is embodied in the better-known one that we have individual rights – to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness – and that the sole and proper purpose of government is to be an agent of our right of self-defense, to constitutionally preserve, protect, and defend our rights, not to abridge or nullify them. If a people wants to preserve freedom, they must fight for its preservation in all realms, not just those in which they most live, or most favor – not in one, or some, but not others, and not in one or some at the expense of others.
Tripartite Governance: A Guidepost for Proper Policymaking -- AIER, April 14, 2020
When we hear the term “government” most of us think of politics – of states, regimes, capitols, agencies, bureaucracies, administrations, and politicians. We call them “officials,” presuming they possess a unique, elevated, and authoritative status. But that’s only one type of governance in our lives; the three types are public governance, private governance, and personal governance. Each I best conceived as a sphere of control, but the three must be balanced properly, to optimize the preservation of rights and liberties. The ominous trend of late has been a sustained invasion of personal and private governance spheres by public (political) governance.
Free Things and Unfree People -- AIER, June 30, 2019
Politicians today assert loudly and sanctimoniously that many things – food, housing, health care, jobs, childcare, a cleaner-safer environment, transportation, schooling, utilities, and even college – should be “free,” or publicly subsidized. No one asks why such claims are valid. Are they to be accepted blindly on faith or affirmed by mere intuition (feeling)? It doesn’t sound scientific. Shouldn’t all crucial claims pass tests of logic and evidence? Why do freebie claims “sound good” to so many people? In fact, they’re mean, even heartless, because illiberal, hence fundamentally inhumane. In a free, capitalist system of constitutional government there is to be equal justice under law, not discriminatory legal treatment; there’s no justification for privileging one group over another, including consumers over producers (or vice versa). Every individual (or association) must be free to choose and act, without resorting to mooching or looting. The freebies approach to political campaigning and policymaking brazenly panders to mooching and, by expanding the size, scope, and power of government, also institutionalizes looting.
We Should Celebrate Diversity in Wealth Too -- AIER, December 26, 2018
In most realms of life today, diversity and variety are justifiably celebrated and respected. Differences in athletic and artistic talent, for example, entail not only robust, entertaining competitions, but fanatics (“fans”) who respect, applaud, award, and handsomely compensate the winners (“stars” and “champions”) while also depriving (at least relatively) the losers. Yet the realm of economics — of markets and commerce, business and finance, income and wealth — elicits a near-opposite response, even though it’s not, like sporting matches, a zero-sum game. In the economic realm, we observe differential talents and outcomes unequally compensated (as we should expect), but for many people, diversity and variety in this realm are disdained and envied, with predictable results: a perpetual redistribution of income and wealth by punitive taxation, stiff regulation, and periodic trust-busting. Here winners are more suspected than respected, while losers receive sympathies and subsidies. What accounts for this rather odd anomaly? For the sake of justice, liberty, and prosperity, people should abandon their anti-commercial prejudices and cease deriding unequal wealth and income. They should celebrate and respect diversity in the economic realm at least as muchas they do in the athletic and artistic realms. Human talent comes in a variety of wonderful forms. Let’s not deny or deride any of them.
To Deter Gun Slaughters, the Federal Government Must Cease Disarming the Innocents -- Forbes, August 12, 2012
Gun control-advocates want to blame mass shootings on “too many guns,” but the real problem is far too few guns and too little gun freedom. Restrictions on our Constitution’s 2ndAmendment right to bear arms invite slaughter and mayhem. Gun-controllers have convinced politicians and law enforcement officials that public areas are especially prone to gun violence and have pushed for onerous bans and restrictions on gun use in such areas “gun-free zones”). But they are accessories to such crimes, by encouraging government to ban or restrict our basic civil right to self-defense; they’ve goaded stray crazies into publicly slaughtering people with impunity. Self-defense is a crucial right; it requires gun-toting and full use not only in our homes and on our property but also (and especially) in public. How often do gun-wielding policemen actually prevent or stop violent crime? Almost never. They are not “crime-stoppers” but note-takers who arrive at a scene. Gun sales have jumped in the past month, after the movie theater slaughter, but that didn’t mean those guns could be used in movie theaters – or in many other public venues. The legal prohibition is the real problem – and the injustice must be terminated immediately. The evidence is overwhelming now: no one any longer can claim, in candor, that gun-controllers are “pacific,” “peace-loving,” or “well-meaning,” if they are avowed enemies of a key civil right and abject abettors of evil.
Protectionism as Mutual Masochism -- The Capitalist Standard, July 24, 2018
The logical and moral case for free trade, whether it’s inter-personal, international, or intra-national, is that it’s mutually beneficial. Unless one opposes gain per se or assumes exchange is win-lose (a “zero-sum” game), one should herald trade. Apart from self-sacrificing altruists, no one trades voluntarily unless it benefits oneself. Mr. Trump pledges to “make America great again,” a noble sentiment, but protectionism only hurts rather than helps do that job. Roughly half the parts in Ford’s best-selling trucks are now imported; if Trump has his way, we couldn’t even make Ford trucks, let alone make America great again. To “buy American,” as the nationalists and nativists demand, is to eschew today’s beneficial products while underrating the benefits of yesterday’s globalization of trade and fearing tomorrow’s. Just as America at her best is a “melting pot” of personal backgrounds, identities, and origins, so also products at their best embody a melting pot of globally-sourced labor and resources. Mr. Trump claims to be pro-American but is unrealistically pessimistic about her productive power and competitiveness. Given the benefits of free trade, the best policy any government can adopt is unilateral free trade (with other non-enemy governments), which means: free trade regardless of whether other governments also adopt freer trade.
Best Case for Capitalism -- The Capitalist Standard, October 10, 2017
Today marks the 60th anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged (1957) by Ayn Rand (1905-1982), a best-selling novelist-philosopher who extolled reason, rational self-interest, individualism, capitalism, and Americanism. Few books this old continue to sell as well, even in hardcover, and many investors and CEOs have long praised its theme and insight. In a 1990s survey conducted for the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club, respondents named Atlas Shrugged as second only to the Bible as the book that made a big difference in their lives. Socialists understandably reject Rand because she rejects their claim that capitalism is exploitative or prone to collapse; yet conservatives are wary of her because she denies that capitalism counts on religion. Her major contribution is to show that capitalism isn’t only the system that’s economically productive but also the one that’s morally just. It rewards people of honesty, integrity, independence, and productiveness; yet it marginalizes those who choose instead to be less-than-human, and it punishes the vicious and the inhumane. Whether one is pro-capitalist, pro-socialist, or indifferent between the two, this book is worth a read – as are her other works, including The Fountainhead (1943), The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism (1964),and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1966).
Trump and GOP Condone Monopoly Medicine -- The Capitalist Standard, July 20, 2017
The GOP and President Trump, having brazenly broken their campaign promises by refusing to “repeal and replace” ObamaCare, now claim they’ll just repeal it and see what happens. Don’t count on that. At root, they don’t really mind ObamaCare and the “single payer” system (government medicine monopoly) to which it leads. Abominable as it is, they accept it philosophically, so they also accept politically. Trump and most Republicans condone the socialist principles latent in ObamaCare. Perhaps they even realize it’ll continue to erode the better aspects of the system and lead to a “single-payer system” (government monopoly on medicine) –which Obama [and Trump] have always said they wanted. Nor do most American voters today seem to object to this monopoly. They might object to it decades from now, when they realize that access to health insurance doesn’t guarantee access to health care (especially not under socialized medicine, which reduces quality, affordability, and access). But by then it’ll be too late to rehabilitate those freer elements that made America medicine so great in the first place.
The Inequality Debate: Senseless Without Consideration of What is Earned -- Forbes, February 1, 2012
Instead of debating the truly monumental questions of our troubled times – namely, What is the proper size and scope of government? (answer: smaller), and Should we have more capitalism or more corporatism? (answer: capitalism) – political media instead are debating the alleged evils of “inequality.” Their shameless envy has run rampant lately, but the focus on inequality is convenient for conservatives and leftists alike. Mr. Obama accepts a false theory of “fairness” that rejects the common-sense, merit-based concept of justice that older Americans might recognize as “desert,” where justice means we deserve (or earn) what we get in life, if by our free choice. Legitimately, there is “distributive justice,” with rewards for good or productive behavior, and “retributive justice,” with punishments for evil or destructive behavior.
Capitalism Isn't Corporatism or Cronyism -- Forbes, December 7, 2011
Capitalism is the greatest socio-economic system in human history, because it’s so moral and so productive– the two features so essential to human survival and flourishing. It’s moral because it enshrines and fosters rationality and self-interest – “enlightened greed,” if you will – the two key virtues we all must consciously adopt and practice if we’re to pursue and attain life and love, health and wealth, adventure and inspiration. It produces not only material-economic abundance but the aesthetic values seen in the arts and entertainment. But what is capitalism, exactly? How do we know it when we see it or have it – or when we haven’t, or don’t? Capitalism’s greatest intellectual champion, Ayn Rand (1905-1982), once defined it as “a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” This recognition of genuine rights (not “rights” to force others to get us what we wish) is all-crucial and it has a distinctive moral foundation. In fact, capitalism is the system of rights, liberty, civility, peace and non-sacrificial prosperity; it’s not the system of government that unjustly favors capitalists at others’ expense. It provides a level legal playing field plus officials who serve us as low-profile referees (not arbitrary rule-makers or score-changers). To be sure, capitalism also entails inequality – of ambition, talent, income, or wealth – because that’s how individuals (and firms) really are; they’re unique, not clones or inter-changeable parts, as the egalitarians claim.
Holy Scripture and the Welfare State -- Forbes, April 28, 2011
Many people wonder why Washington seems forever mired in a stalemate about what policies might cure excessive spending, budget deficits and debt. We're told that the root of the problem is "polarized politics," that "extremists" control the debate and preclude solutions that only bipartisan unity can deliver. In fact, on many issues both "sides" wholly agree – on the solid basis of a shared religious faith. In short, not much changes because both sides agree on so much, especially about what it means to "do the right thing" morally. It's not widely reported, but most Democrats and Republicans, whether from the left or right politically, are quite religious, and thus tend to endorse the modern welfare state. Even if not all politicians feel so strongly about this, they suspect (rightly) that voters do so. Thus even minor proposals to restrain government spending elicit accusations that the proponent is callous, heartless, uncharitable, and un-Christian – and the charges ring true to most people because Scripture has long-conditioned them to embrace the welfare state.
Where Have All the Capitalists Gone? -- Forbes, December 5, 2010
After the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and dissolution of the USSR (1991), almost everyone conceded that capitalism was the historic "victor" over socialism. Yet interventionist policies reflecting largely socialist premises have returned with a vengeance in recent years, while capitalism has been blamed for causing the 2007-2009 financial crisis and global economic recession. What explains this seemingly abrupt shift in the world's estimate of capitalism? After all, apolitical-economic system, whether capitalist or socialist, is a broad and persistent phenomenon that cannot logically be construed as beneficial one decade yet destructive the next. So where have all the capitalists gone? Curiously, a "socialist" today means an advocate for the political-economic system of socialism as a moral ideal, yet a "capitalist" means a Wall Street financier, venture capitalist or entrepreneur – not an advocate of the political-economic system of capitalism as a moral ideal. In truth, capitalism embodies the life-enhancing, wealth-creating ethic of rational self-interest –of egoism, of "greed," if you will – which is perhaps most blatantly manifested in the profit motive. So long as this humane ethic is distrusted or despised, capitalism will suffer unearned blame for any social-economic ill. The collapse of socialist regimes two decades ago didn't mean capitalism was finally being hailed for its many virtues; the historic event only merely reminded people of capitalism's productive ability – an ability already long-proven and long-acknowledged even by its worst enemies. Persistent animosity toward capitalism today rests on moral, not practical grounds. Unless rational self-interest is understood as the one moral code consistent with genuine humanity, and the moral estimate of capitalism thus improves, socialism will keep making comebacks, despite its deep and dark record of human misery.