For his part, while Hamilton favored a more active role for government in promoting commerce, his ultimate aim was almost the same as Jefferson\u2019s: securing the rights proclaimed in the Declaration. But by enhancing commerce, Hamilton aspired to enable ordinary Americans to emulate his path of rising to prosperity through their own initiative and industry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both men would surely have been horrified by the enormous and intrusive bureaucracy that the progressive movement bequeathed to us. As Rosen puts it, \u201cin the name of Jefferson\u2019s commitment to equal economic opportunity, Roosevelt had buried Jefferson\u2019s commitment to limited government\u201d (though Rosen surely errs in calling his program \u201cHamiltonian\u201d). Rosen does cite Ronald Reagan\u2019s \u201cJeffersonian criticisms\u201d of the Great Society \u201cantipoverty\u201d program of FDR\u2019s successor Lyndon Johnson for undermining welfare recipients\u2019 incentive to work, while also noting how the articles of impeachment that Congress drew against Richard Nixon, drawing on Federalist <\/em>no. 69, finally \u201crefuted\u201d Jefferson\u2019s charge that Hamilton had been a monarchist<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, in the area of constitutional interpretation, Rosen quotes Justice Antonin Scalia\u2019s embrace of \u201cthe interpretative approach of the Hamiltonian justice Joseph Story\u201d according to which the Constitution\u2019s words should be construed neither broadly nor strictly, but rather taking them \u201cin their natural and obvious sense\u201d (though that phrase obviously leaves considerable room for dispute in particular cases). But Rosen departs from Scalia by insisting that \u201cthe central dispute on the Supreme Court\u201d since the Founding \u201chas not been between originalism and non-originalism, but between liberal and strict construction of federal power\u201d: how would that distinction apply to decisions applauded by \u201cliving constitutionalists\u201d like Roe <\/em>v. Wade<\/em>, which have no grounding in the Constitution\u2019s text at all? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Whatever one\u2019s judgment of these controversies, it is impossible to differ with Rosen\u2019s concluding judgment that \u201cthe greatest threat to the American Idea\u201d throughout our history has come not from those who inconsistently apply Hamilton\u2019s or Jefferson\u2019s principles, but \u201cfrom those who have rejected the principles entirely,\u201d from Calhoun and others who renounced the claim of natural human equality as \u201ca self-evident lie\u201d to \u201cprogressive and conservative ideologues today\u201d who would replace the Constitution entirely with a \u201cresort to violence.\u201d Taken as a whole, Rosen\u2019s book offers a learned and sober account of the relevance of Hamilton\u2019s and Jefferson\u2019s principles to America\u2019s past, present, and possible future. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Read it all<\/a>.<\/p> National Constitution Center President & CEO Jeffrey Rosen discusses his book, "The Pursuit of Liberty: How Hamilton vs. Jefferson Ignited the Lasting Battle Over Power in America."
Watch here: https:\/\/t.co\/pYS9vkWqTb<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/jj7ARdujMR<\/a><\/p>— Washington Journal (@cspanwj) December 25, 2025<\/a><\/blockquote>