Hamiltonian Welfare

How do you justify entitlement spending under the Constitution? Two words: Alexander Hamilton.

Apparently, he’s the only politically correct Founding Father. Don't expect any Broadway shows to open any time soon with titles such as "Adams!," "Madison!," "Jefferson!" or "Washington!"

"A Hamiltonian reading of the Constitution is where we're at right now," Greg Weiner of Assumption College said at the annual meeting of the Philadelphia Society in Dallas on April 1, 2017. The Philadelphia Society is a group of conservative intellectuals formed in the wake of the Goldwater defeat in 1964.

Indeed, here's what Hamilton (!) himself had to say about the General Welfare clause of the Constitution in his Report on Manufactures in 1791:

"It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

"The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

"No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."

Fascinating.

Certainly Hamilton was NOT willing to sacrifice either the revolution or the founding for abolition.

But he was a serious, and early, abolitionist.

Franklin was, as i understand it, and consistent with your post, a little slower in becoming a full-fledged abolitionist....which given the context, is understandable.

Adams, honestly, I don’t know enough to say one way or another on that issue. I do not think that Ron Chernow thinks Adams was as strong an abolitionist as Hamilton. (But Chernow didn’t write a book about Adams... :)).

One point is for sure, however.

Among the most important Founders, abolition was not a huge stretch. Even the Virginian, Washington, freed his slaves on his death. (Isn’t that correct?).

I suppose if you MUST take away a political lesson from Hamilton the broadway show, it is simply this: the Founding of America was, really and truly, for everyone. It wasn’t just for the rich, white guys. Yes, it took a while for the blessings of liberty to be secured for the posterity of the founders. But it happened, and at great cost. But I think we can say in good conscience, the Founding was for everyone.

The show makes me full of gratitude and awe, for these truly great (but human) men and women.

Give Hamilton a chance. It’s not a hip hop show. It really isn’t....it’s really amazing, well done, beautiful, tragic, poignant, inspiring and informative.

I'm glad you enjoy it. The hip-hop music is really a deal-breaker for me. Hip-hop is almost nausea-inducing for me. But I admit I'm a musical snob. 99% of what I listen to is classical. Any show that is based in a hip-hop/rap style of music was simply not targeting me. And the creator of the show is a jerk, so do I really need to listen to what he has to say about anything?

I also do not like the look of Hamilton from the few clips I have seen. It seems to be very stylized in the manner of a Shakespeare production with characters simply performing numbers in the middle of nowhere with scantily clad chorines in pantaloons and corsets in some numbers. And, sorry, I don't like the inter-racial cast playing historical figures. Since so many of the fans of the show are libs, I wonder if they would have rejected it had the characters been played by people who looked a bit like their historical counterparts? Maybe they went inter-racial because white guys can't rap?

I hear ya, and I understand that the gap here is unbridgeable. Being a musical snob is a good thing....we need more of that, not less...I just think that Hamilton passes the test. As I became more and more familiar with it, while it is popular the way they use motifs is Wagnerian, though obviously more accessible. But it really is subtle and psychological also. And the pathos that it generates in the second act reminds me of Mahler....Mahler “could” be accused of stringing together musical cliches. However...somehow...magically...his cliches are strung together in such a way that the whole is something massive and powerful.

With regards to the casting....I think anytime that someone causes us to look at the founding fathers again with a jarring physical statement, it causes us to see them as more human, and less two dimensional. Perhaps it’s just me, but even though I’ve had a lifetime of near obsession with the founders, the $1 bill and the $10 bill simply do not bring those great men to life. Rather, those images tend to make them look less real and more remote. Hamilton changes all that.

That the show is admired by libs is honestly baffling to me. The only value in it that libs would approve of is..the adultery. Otherwise, it celebrates courage, hard work, freedom, liberty, marriage, faith and forgiveness. I do think that perhaps liberals being obsessed with race were drawn in by the casting, as you note. But after that, I don’t get their attraction to it. It’s a source of mystery to me.

Plenty more to say, but certainly don’t intend to argue and I appreciate your response ...and certainly respect the opinion.,..best regards.

And, sorry, I don't like the inter-racial cast playing historical figures. Since so many of the fans of the show are libs, I wonder if they would have rejected it had the characters been played by people who looked a bit like their historical counterparts?

This has been a point of contention on Broadway (and Hollywood) for a very long time. I recall there were almost strikes when Jonathan Pryce was cast as an Asian in Miss Saigon, over actual Asian actors.

Recently, the issue came up here on FR when NBC did a live performance of The Sound of Music, and Audra McDonald was cast as Mother Abbess.

In that thread, I posted the following:

Although I love Audra McDonald ( A wonderful Broadway performer ), I just cannot help but wonder... would Austria in the 1930’s really have a BLACK Mother Abbes?
Since this has been mentioned several times now, let me just say...
When it comes to musical theater, there already comes a certain expectation of "willful suspension of disbelief," if only that people do not break out into song and dance in the middle of a serious conversation in real life.
Given that we already agree to suspend belief at the theater door, what's wrong with looking past the race of the actor for the character, too, and just enjoy the talented performance?
Why suspend the belief of choreographed interactions, but not anything else?

I'll summarize the mainline rebuttals below:

The Sound of Music is supposed to be historically correct.
Suspension of disbelief deals with fiction not history.
Heck why stop there?? Why not played by Mick Jagger???

Me...
Suspension of disbelief deals with portrayal, too.
Take Oliver!, for instance. Was Dickens' London an accurate portrayal of Elizabethan times? Did the street sellers sing and dance in unison all time, wondering about "Who will buy?"
Same for Les Miserables and Paris. Only I couldn't see Russell Crowe as Javert, and not because he wasn't French.
We could go on. How about how Carrie Underwood wasn't speaking with an Austrian accent? She supposedly grew up on that mountain by Salzberg, right? But we are willing to suspend that fact in the storytelling...

There’s a difference in hearing something that we know doesn’t match, and seeing something that we know doesn’t match.

Oliver was not about a historical family — this was.
Carrie wasn’t there for her acting skills but for her singing skills.
I hope they reciprocate and give her a part in the family in Oprah’s live for television remake of a Color Purple???

Me...
Oliver was not about a historical family — this was.
True, but we're talking about the character of the Mother Abbess, not the von Trapps. The Mother Superior was likely a fictionalized character, albiet positively white, notwithstanding that there was a real Mother Superior at the Nonnberg Abbey.
But let's do talk about the von Trapps. The thing about musical theater is that beautiful music should not be off-limits to others to perform, just because of their race. That's why most people look past the race of the performer when they play a role.
For instance, what if someone tried to produce an all-black The Sound Of Music? Personally, I think that would be more accepted than the notion of an all-white Porgy and Bess, but that's because the African-American community zealously protects "black" arts, while simultaneously demanding entry into the arts of others. Still, white performers do sing the music of Gershwin, but just in concert and not in a staged production.
And then there were the Shakespearean men who played women's roles. Somehow, the audience of that time was able to look past that.

So, for me, if there is a libertarian aspect to this it is that access to the arts should not limit highly talented individuals who do not "look like" the characters they are portraying. Is that real "white privilege" because so many historical figures were European, and so only white people can portray them in musical theater?

-PJ

I do agree to an extent. I am an opera fan, and I have been seeing mixed-race casts for decades. I do not know why it bothers me less in opera. Maybe it is something akin to what you alluded to with the unreality of Dickensian London in Oliver!. Operas are so over-the-top unreal to start with that I do not expect reality. A black soprano in a white part is no less accurate than a fat white woman playing a slim beautiful woman dying of consumption.

I think part of the reason I am bothered by Hamilton is that so many of its fans are young libs who probably don't know squat about history and will come away with the sense that something happened that really didn't.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.