Matt Stoller explores all the multiplicitous ironies of the chattering class’s embrace of the hip hop musical about the fellow John Adams described as “the bastard brat of a Scots peddler.”
Before it was even written, the play was nurtured at the highest levels of the political establishment. While working through its material, Miranda road-tested song lyrics at the White House with President Obama. When it was performed, Obama, naturally, loved it. Hamilton, he said, â€œreminds us of the vital, crazy, kinetic energy thatâ€™s at the heart of America.â€ Michelle Obama pronounced it the best art she had ever seen.
The first coupleâ€™s comments were just the leading edge of a cultural explosion of praise. Actress Kerry Washington called it â€œlife changing.â€ Lena Dunham said, â€œIf every kid in America could see Hamilton they would thirst for historical knowledge and then show up to vote.â€ Saturday Night Live featured a sketch wherein Lorne Michaels begged guest host Miranda for Hamilton tickets (â€œI can do a matinee!â€). Itâ€™s perhaps harder to list celebrities who havenâ€™t seen Hamilton than those who have. And in Washington, D.C., politicians who havenâ€™t seen the show are considered uncool.
Admiration for the play crossed the political spectrum. Conservative pop-historian Niall Ferguson opened up a book talk, according to one witness on Twitter, â€œwith a rap set to music inspired by Hamilton.â€ Former secretaries of the treasury praised it, from Tim Geithner to Jack Lew to Hank Paulson. So did Dick Cheney, prompting Obama to note that the wonder of the play was perhaps the only thing the two men agreed on. Trevor Noah asked if Bernie Sanders, who had just seen the play, ran for president just so he would be able to get tickets. Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago and former White House chief of staff, raised eyebrows by jetting off to New York City to see a performance of Hamilton the night after Chicago teachers went on strike.
Itâ€™s not just that Hamilton is about a founding father, and thus inherently making statements about who we are as a culture. Itâ€™s become a status symbol within the Democratic establishment, offering them the chastened consolation that they might still claim solidarity with the nascent American democracy of the eighteenth century thatâ€™s stubbornly eluded them in the present-day political scene. Hillary Clinton quoted the play in her speech accepting the Democratic nomination, and told a young voter, â€œIâ€™ve seen the show three times and Iâ€™ve cried every timeâ€”and danced hard in my seat.â€ The play has become a political football in the era of Trump. When Trumpâ€™s vice president, Mike Pence, saw the show, one of the cast members read him a special note, written by Miranda and several cast members, asking Pence to protect all of America. Hamilton cast members helped lead the Womenâ€™s March in Chicago to protest Trumpâ€™s inauguration. Right-wing website Breitbart has a hostile mini-Hamilton beat, noting that the playâ€™s producers specifically requested non-white actors to fill the cast.
And after Trump won, Hamilton became a refuge. Journalist Nancy Youssef tweeted she overheard someone at the Pentagon say, â€œI am reaffirming my belief in democracy by listening to the Hamilton soundtrack.â€
Whatâ€™s strange about all of this praise is how it presumes that Alexander Hamilton was a figure for whom social justice and democracy were key animating traits. Given how Democrats, in particular, embraced the show and Hamilton himself as a paragon of social justice, you would think that he had fought to enlarge the democratic rights of all Americans. But Alexander Hamilton simply didnâ€™t believe in democracy, which he labeled an American â€œdisease.â€ He foughtâ€”with military forceâ€”any model of organizing the American political economy that might promote egalitarian politics. He was an authoritarian, and proud of it. …
[I]tâ€™s useful to recognize that Hamilton the play is not the real story of Alexander Hamilton; rather, as historian Nancy Isenberg has noted, itâ€™s a revealing parable about the politics of the finance-friendly Obama era. The play is based on Ron Chernowâ€™s eight-hundred-page 2004 biography of Hamilton. Chernow argues that â€œHamilton was an abolitionist who opposed statesâ€™ rights, favored an activist central government, a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution and executive rather than legislative powers.â€ Hamilton, he notes, â€œsounds . . . like a modern Democrat.â€ The abolition arguments are laughably false; Hamilton married into a slaveholding family and traded slaves himself. But they are only part of a much broader obfuscation of Hamiltonâ€™s politics. …
Hamilton had tremendous courage, insight, and brilliance. He is an important Founder, and not just because he structured early American finance. His life sheds light on some deep-rooted anti-democratic forces that have always existed in America, and in particular, on Wall Street. Much of the far-reaching contemporary Hamilton PR offensive is connected to the Gilder Lehman Institute, which is financed by bankers who back the right-wing Club for Growth and American Enterprise Institute (and support Hamiltonâ€™s beloved gold standard). Robert Rubin in 2004 started the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution, which laid out the framework for the Obama administrationâ€™s financial policies. Chernow has made millions on books fawning over J. P. Morgan, the Warburg financial family, and John D. Rockefeller. And thanks largely to the runaway success of Hamilton the musical, Chernow is now, bizarrely, regarded as a court historian of American democracy in the mold of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
Read the whole thing.