Hoo-boy. This load of neo-Confederate hooey again.
the difference between Hoover and Romney is negligible.
Herbert Hoover didn't believe in "gay marriage" or state ownership of the medical profession.
For the record, Thomas Jefferson was a notorious free thinker and supporter of the Jacobin revolution in France. Alexander Hamilton was a true American conservative.
Believe it or not, not every issue comes down to the size of the government (and Hamiltonian government is not "big government" by contemporary standards; to equate Hamiltonian government with "progressive" government is simply ridiculous).
I’m not a neo-confederate. The Republican Party was founded by old Whigs after that party broke up. The Whigs believed in spending money on massive infrastructure programs. These programs in the 19th century, just like today, were wasteful boondoggles. The old Whigs also supported a national bank, which you’ll recall President Jackson had disbanded via a veto.
Homosexual marriage wasn’t an issue when Herbert Hoover was alive and as such it’s an irrelevant point to bring up. After the stock market crash Hoover increased taxes and Federal spending. He created many of the welfare programs that FDR later expanded into the New Deal. Romney is little different, he believes in massive government spending. Sure, he would like to spend on different things than Obama but it’s spending all the same.
I never suggested Jefferson was a perfect man. In the 19th century the debate was whether Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian government would be followed. Jefferson had argued for limited government, low taxes and little government spending. Hamilton on the other hand argued for higher taxes and massive Federal spending on internal “improvements”. (infrastructure) Hamilton also argued for a Federal bank and Federal oversight of finance. He also pushed the notion of “implied” powers in the Constitution. In other words, he lay the groundwork for the modern notion of a “living” constitution whose words don’t really matter.