July 4th

I just finished reading Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton, which I might not have picked up were it not for the musical Hamilton.  After visiting Philadelphia, I realized how very little I know about the American Revolution and the early history of the United States. Plus, I do love a good biography.  This one is a ripper, an 800-page beast of a book and a real page turner. Hamilton was a fascinating cat, no doubt, a rare combination of genius and will power, of brilliant mind and astonishing work ethic. He was probably a little unstable and more than a little manic (I mean, come on, the dude died in a friggin' duel with the friggin' vice president), but the great ones often are.

In reading the book, I was struck by the fact that America's partisans fractures were baked in right from the very beginning of the republic. There were those who advocated for a strong, central government and universal human rights and there were those who advocated for states rights and individual liberties. Sound familiar?

Hamilton and the Federalists were proponents of a strong central government with taxing authority, a central bank, national currency, and a standing military force. As a result, they were characterized as covert Monarchists who secretly plotted to elevate George Washington to the status of King. When I was growing up, I was taught that Hamilton was a ruthless capitalist and cultural elite, the very essence of what we now call the one-percent.  I was taught that Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton's political foe, was the democratic ideal, the man of the people. And yet, Hamilton was born a penniless pauper and a bastard to boot. He was an ardent abolitionist and fiercely meritocratic.  He engineered his rise in the world with nothing but his considerable talents and charm. He sought to establish an orderly, fair system of governance, knowing that peace and prosperity are the best guarantors of liberty and justice for all.

When I was growing up, I was taught that Jefferson, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a democratic genius, a real man of the people. In reality, much of Jefferson's political philosophy was designed to protect his life, his liberty, his property.  Jefferson was born into wealth, owned huge tracts of land and dozens of slaves. Jefferson didn't just inherit slaves, he traded in slaves, kept a slave-concubine and allowed the children he sired with her to remain in slavery. When he died, he did not free his slaves in his will, they were sold at auction.

Jefferson despised the very idea of a central government and vehemently opposed the establishment of a national Constitution and Bill of Rights. He believed in life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but only for white men with money.  He helped to pass a law proclaiming slaves to be 3/5ths of a human being; not human enough to qualify for basic rights or dignity, but human enough to be partially counted in the census, thus increasing southern states' representation in Congress.  He is remembered as the genius who engineered the Louisiana Purchase, but no-one remembers his intention to convert that vast tract of land into slave-holding states. Throughout his career, Jefferson's chief political concern was to protect his right to hold slaves and profit from their labor.

Hamilton was the self-made man who is remembered as an elitist. Jefferson was an obscenely wealthy and unrepentant slaver who is remembered as a man of the people. Fascinating.

The Jeffersonians were right about at least one thing: strong central governments do tend towards tyranny. Police shootings on the street, the prison-industrial complex, drones indiscriminately raining death from the skies above Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, all are strong evidence of the tyranny of strong central governments. Even something as petty as opacity and impenetrability of government bureaucracies, even that is a form of tyrany. Like everything in life, there is no black and white. Where do we as a society draw the line between between freedom and security?

The question of strong, central authority versus individual liberties has been much on my mind lately as I've watched the rise of Donald Trump, a billionaire blowhard who styles himself as avatar of the common people. I don't believe he has the least interest in the common people, or in anything at all other than himself, but apparently many of my white, working class brothers and sisters do. He is a demagogue who appeals not to the better angels of our nature, but to our basest fears and prejudices. Trust me, I know Trump is nothing like Jefferson; for all his faults, Jefferson was a great intellect and no-one has ever said that about Trump. But, Trump is smart enough to take a page out of Jefferson's playbook.

Many of Trump's supporters live in mortal fear of a strong central government, which they equate with tyranny. A strong central government gave us things like the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Clean Air Act, protections that we now take for granted; protections that make us a better  people and this a better world. However, a strong central government also gives us things like mass incarceration and police brutality.   It's ironic to me that Trump's mostly white, middle class, male supporters are terrified of tyranny and yet they make up a majority of police, prison guards and military personnel.  Who is tyrannizing whom?

The world is full of assholes. The strong will always prey on the weak, the many will oppress the few. Which is worse? The tyranny of the one percenters or the tyranny of the masses?