Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Jefferson

[Tarheel]

After one of my recent lengthy posts (some would say rant?) to describe the two-party system in America along with a eConversation with another X'er I have found myself spending a lot of time reading (in many cases re-reading parts of old tomes that I've forgotten) and researching the roots of the this peculiarity for the American political system.  (For those interested my post on the two party system is under the "Hey Kaos..." topic.)

As a part of that process I ran across this article today which I thought was quite interesting in that it is a brief post-mortem of what happened to the election this year and specifically what happened to the Republican Party.

In my opinion the writer's reasoning is muddled at best (I really think that The ONE won in Virginia and NC because of the minority vote...simple as that) but his conclusion is interesting and not off-the-mark; I might agree with it if I wasn't so tired tonight.  At any rate, I thought that some of my X'er friends might be interesting in reading the article too so here it is, from The Politico.com; no it's not a long article and all emphasis is my own:

Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Hamilton
By: John Feehery
November 21, 2008 09:09 AM EST
 
Thomas Jefferson, a gentleman farmer, disliked the hustle and bustle of the big cities, distrusted the moneyed interests and New York financiers, and favored the revolutionary spirit of France. Alexander Hamilton, a New Yorker through and through, saw debt as necessary to financial expansion, and in his heart of hearts, appreciated the monarchism of England. Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other, and their antipathy has carried through the ages.

As America matured, the battle lines became more complicated. Proponents of Mr. Hamilton’s love of capitalism moved from the cities to the leafy suburbs. Those who shared Mr. Jefferson’s distrust of financiers often stayed in the country.

Through the years, the states of Virginia and New York assumed the personalities of these two founding fathers. The Old Dominion remained solidly socially conservative throughout the 20th century, first in the Democratic Party, and later in the Republican Party, with Jefferson’s agrarian sensibilities. The Empire State, birthplace of Rockefeller Republicans and Tammany Hall, became much more moderate on social issues and much more oriented to Wall Street.

This past election saw a rare occurrence. Virginia and New York agreed that Republicans were not worthy of their support. Not only did both states vote for Barack Obama. Both states are now dominated by the Democratic Party. Their Senators are all Democrats. Both of their governors are Democrats. Their Congressional delegations have Democratic majorities.

Why did this happen?

My theory is not that the new Democratic Party is so great for either the Hamiltonian financiers or the Jeffersonian populists.

My theory is that Republicans, in their attempts to curry favor with both groups, alienated both instead.

Republicans promoted a free-market philosophy meant to appeal to big business interests. Their economic philosophy is pure Hamilton.

But while trying to stay true to their Hamiltonian roots, they also sought to curry favor with rural America — the Jeffersonians among us. In their efforts to do so, they promoted a socially conservative agenda that alienated many Hamiltonians who now live in the suburbs of both New York and Washington, D.C.

It is not that Republicans have not been responsive to their base constituencies. Indeed, they have been too responsive to their constituencies.

New Yorkers see Republicans and can’t get past their pandering to the religious right. So they voted against their economic interests and supported the Democrats.

Virginians see Republicans and can’t get past their embrace of free-market ideology and their antipathy to building more roads and infrastructure. While many Virginians may agree with some elements of the GOP’s social conservatism, they want good old-fashioned competence from their elected leaders. So they voted for a much more liberal Democratic Party than they are used to supporting.

By its very nature, this posthumous alliance between Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Jefferson is fragile. It is based more on anger at the Republicans than any deep love of the new Democratic Party.

And the Democrats can easily screw this up. Their redistributionist economic philosophy may alienate those financiers who supported Mr. Obama, Mr. Schumer and Mr. Emanual in the last two elections. And their radical social policies may alienate those Virginians who still value tradition.

Edmund Burke once said: “When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people.”

The leaders of the Republican Party have indeed become bidders in the auction of popularity. Instead of taking tough steps to promote the general interest, they have attempted to satisfy the many special interests that make up their base. As a result, they alienated just about everybody, and in the process, they unified the two factions that had previously remained divided, those of Mr. Jefferson and of Mr. Hamiliton.

The link:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15779.html