Hamilton would want Clinton in ‘the room where it happens’

The 2016 presidential election leaves Americans with a dismal choice between Donald Trump’s degrading bombast and Hillary Clinton’s scandal-prone inauthenticity. Young voters and many conservatives especially feel forced to choose between a Republican that they detest and a Democrat that they distrust.

Rather than abstain or cast a ballot for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, voters should look to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “ten dollar Founding Father without a father,” the currently ubiquitous Alexander Hamilton. What would Hamilton do? 

He would vote for Hillary Clinton.

How can I make such bold assertion? After a constitutional oddity left Hamilton’s nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, and chief rival, Aaron Burr, with an equal number of electoral votes in the presidential election of 1800, the decision fell to the House of Representatives controlled by Hamilton’s Federalist Party. When Federalist members appealed to Hamilton — the de facto Federalist leader — for guidance, Hamilton staunchly supported Jefferson, arguing that the Sage of Monticello at least had “pretentions to character,” whereas Burr eschewed it altogether.

Sound familiar?

{mosads}House Federalists disliked Burr’s political opportunism — Burr had once been a Federalist, though not an ardent one — but their distrust of Jefferson ran much deeper. Well aware of Hamilton’s long-running feud with Jefferson, most Federalists expected Hamilton to support his fellow New Yorker Burr. Yet from the very beginning, Hamilton opposed Burr, arguing, “[Burr’s] public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggrandizement.”

Or, as Miranda channels Hamilton in the musical, “I have never agreed with Jefferson once, we have fought on like 75 different fronts, but when all is said and all is done, Jefferson has beliefs and Burr has none.”

While Trump has received numerous historical comparisons during his rapid political ascent, the best comparison is Aaron Burr. The two men arose from aristocratic backgrounds — Burr the grandson of legendary theologian Jonathan Edwards and Trump the son of a real estate tycoon. Both men parlayed their privileged upbringing into Ivy League educations and both men possessed larger-than-life personas that attracted scores of admirers. Both men created considerable wealth in legitimate business — Burr as a star attorney and Trump as a real estate developer — but also engaged in dodgy business deals that reeked of deceptive practices if not outright fraud.

After turning to politics, both men displayed a remarkable political fluidity, grasping whatever ideological bent provided the fastest avenue to political advancement. As campaigners, Burr and Trump displayed a knack for building grassroots support and breaking through traditional demographic barriers.

Finally and perhaps most disturbing, both men threatened violence should their political ambitions be stymied. Trump’s repeated threat that his supporters might riot if he is “cheated” out of the presidency echo’s Burr’s early 1801 suggestion that depriving him of the presidency might result in a “reversion to the sword.”

Perhaps due to his decades of experience with Burr throughout the Revolutionary War, New York City legal community, and national political scene, Hamilton found the prospect of a Burr presidency utterly unacceptable. Like modern conservatives who distrust and even despise Hillary Clinton, Hamilton loathed the prospect of a Jefferson presidency, labeling his rival “by far so dangerous a man.” Nonetheless, Hamilton insisted that a president must have principles of some form. Burr had none, Hamilton declared — Jefferson at least had pretensions to them.

Modern conservatives should consider Hamilton’s rationale for supporting Jefferson over Burr. Hamilton argued that Burr would “endeavor to disorganize both parties and form a third composed of men fitted by their character to be conspirators.” Remind you of Trump? Hamilton understood that Burr’s political movement would legitimize people bent on the injustice, prejudice and subversion, thus endangering the social structure that allowed a “bastard orphan son of a whore and a Scotsman” to become a founding father.

More importantly, Hamilton recognized that Burr’s dearth of political character sowed the seeds of despotism. “That great ambition unchecked by principles is an unruly Tyrant,” Hamilton wrote in early 1801. While Americans often think that tyranny only takes of form of the dogmatic ideologue, Hamilton argued that an American tyrant would be a charismatic and flexible demagogue, wholly willing to abandon his principles to fulfill his personal lust for power and esteem.

Trump checks all of these boxes and then some. In 1801, Hamilton supported his arch-nemesis rather than hand the presidency to a man whose supporters’ best defense is, “don’t worry, he doesn’t really believe what he is saying.” He would do the same in 2016. Only slightly modifying Miranda’s lyrics, Hamilton would say, “The people are asking to hear my voice, the country is facing a difficult choice. If you were to ask me who I’d promote, Hillary has my vote.” 

Scott C. Miller is a Ph.D. candidate in early american political economy and business history at the University of Virginia.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.