mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Blue Civil War
Will the Left Turn on Hamilton?
Features Icon
show comments
  • Tom

    “Disowning Hamilton on “diversity” grounds would mean disowning all the architects of the American experiment.”

    To the progressives and SJWs, that’s a feature, not a bug.

  • Anthony

    “Will the Left turn on Hamilton?” Or better still, will Americans (left, right, indifferent) properly align Alexander Hamilton’s contributions to our country? “Other than Hamilton’s great patron, colleague, and friend George Washington and his lineal political descendant Abraham Lincoln, no one deserves more gratitude, interest, and credit for the relative success of the U.S.A. as a state, society, and economy than Alexander Hamilton.” ( arbitrary Left/Right distinction aside)

  • Fat_Man

    “Progressiveism” is no longer about progress. And today’s “leftism” has no points of contact with any version of the “left” at any time in the past, recent or remote. All they have left is tribalism.

  • Beauceron

    Wonderful post– thoughtful and informative.

    “even though one of the play’s critics quoted in the Times has elsewhere dismissed Chernow as “a prototypical white historian.” ”

    It begs the question, what exactly does a “a prototypical white historian” consist of? Tweed jacket with elbow patches? Pipe? That strikes me as a downright bigoted statement.

    “The people who run today’s Democratic Party are more business-friendly,
    more technocratic, and more comfortable with class inequalities than
    their 20th-century predecessors, and their rainbow-coalition liberalism
    often focuses more on issues of race and culture and identity than on
    economic populism.”

    That because, increasingly, they’re the party of the elite wealthy. Republicans, more and more, are becoming a party with large poor and middle class support, at least among whites.

  • Anthony

    Observation (Us and Them, Left and Right, Progressives and Conservatives, etc.):

    “In the Dr. Seuss story (Star-Bellies and Plain-Bellies [Substitute Humans], McBean exits laughing and rich, convinced that the Sneetches will never learn. But he is wrong, for by the end of the book they do come to understand that, with or without stars, Sneetches are Sneetches.”

    “Would that human society were as enlightened. True, we have evolved to be social animals with both positive and negative traits, demonstrating strong tendencies for cooperation and altruism as well as conflict and violence. But as our long, bloody history of violence against others of our species shows, we seem to be quite willing to pay a high price for the right to group-based warfare, with group boundaries constructed along arbitrary demarcations of religion, race, and geography and requiring little more than distinctive stigmata and status as cues. We plot, scheme, and plan intergroup violence, all of which suggest highly conscious and reflective acts of hostility. But even here, we will see the hand of automatic feelings and beliefs emerging from blindspots as igniters and stokers of intergroup conflict.” (Blind Spot, Mahzarin R. Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald)

  • pajarosucio

    “…or perhaps politics has not played a major role in propelling the show’s popularity.”

    This might be the analysis closest to the bone. I admit I have not seen the play, but I have also not seen responses to the play that elevate Hamilton to the level of some sort of progressive avatar. It seems that most people have found it merely entertaining.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service