#ImWithHer: Hamilton Would Vote For Hillary
What Would Alexander Hamilton Do? He Would Vote For Hillary Clinton — And Conservative Voters Should Follow Suit.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of government,” Hamilton said in exasperation, “let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.” — A.Ham
What Do You Know About The Election of 1800?
If you are not a bona fide history buff or a fan of the phenomenon that is Hamilton: The American Musical, I would bet the answer is — not much.
Imagine this: “Nasty political mud-slinging. Campaign attacks and counterattacks. Personal insults. Outrageous newspaper invective. Dire predictions of warfare and national collapse. Innovative new forms of politicking capitalizing on a growing technology.”
Sound familiar? This excerpt could easily be describing the current election, but it’s not. The Election of 1800 was down-right dirty — the accusations egregious. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Lin-Manuel Miranda seemed slightly amused as he compared the bizarre nature of the current election with one that happened so many years ago: “… this election cycle is bizarre. But it’s no more bizarre than the election in 1800, wherein Jefferson accused Adams of being a hermaphrodite and Adams responded by [spreading rumors] that Jefferson died, so Adams would be the only viable candidate. He was counting on news to travel slow!”
Bet you never read about that in your history textbook!
According to Joanne B. Freedman of History Now, “The presidential election of 1800 was an angry, dirty, crisis-ridden contest that seemed to threaten the nation’s very survival.”
First, let’s revisit the Election of 1800.
Or, perhaps something more traditional?
Many believe the Election of 1800 to be the birth of our modern political party system. Not exactly.
Opposing sides did offer teams of candidates, tickets, if you will; however, not in the way we know the ticket today. Either of the two candidates on each ticket could become president with a majority vote. The candidate with the second highest number of votes would become the vice president. In the event of a tie, the election would move to the House of Representatives for a tie breaking vote. Ideally.
So, here’s the situation: John Adams is a Federalist and the incumbent running with Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. They stand against Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, Democratic Republicans.
John Adams and Alexander Hamilton are the two men viewed as leaders among the Federalists. Hamilton despises Adams, and having actively worked backstage against his campaign in 1796, finds him “unfit” for the nations highest office. Efforts of Hamiltonian Federalists to sway the vote to Pinckney failed miserably.
In the Democratic Republican camp, Jefferson struck a deal with Burr, in which Burr agreed he wouldn’t actively campaign for the presidency, but support Jefferson and work along side him as vice president.
Then, the situation got interesting.
Burr was an ambitious and, often, self-centered man, waiting for the opportunity to rise in politics. Realizing he was running neck-in-neck with Jefferson, Burr developed a strategy and actively campaigned to seize the office for himself.
First a tie, then a deadlock in the House of Representatives left Jefferson scrambling for a way to ensure that he would come out of the mess on top. Fortunately for Jefferson, Hamilton hated both Jefferson and Burr, but hated Jefferson less. He was the lesser of two evils — the same way Jefferson was the lesser of two evils when compared to Adams. Hamilton threw his support behind Jefferson.
Hamilton was willing see his “party” defeated in the Election of 1800 for the good of the order. As every true leader should, he put his love of country above his personal ambitions and partisan ideologies. This politically smart and savvy move has become known as the Hamilton Rule.
Note that during the Election of 1800 Hamilton found himself in a situation similar to that of many voters today. In an Op Ed for Fox News (Yes. I am quoting Fox!), David Ross Meyers wrote, “Hamilton faced a choice similar to the one Republicans are facing today. During the election of 1800, Hamilton had to choose between endorsing Thomas Jefferson, his life-long political rival with whom he disagreed on almost every major issue — or Aaron Burr, a dishonest man of flawed character, who many feared would lead America down a dangerous path of tyranny and oppression. Mr. Hamilton chose to endorse Jefferson.”
“A true leader doesn’t jump on the populist bandwagon — especially when that bandwagon threatens to irretrievably harm their country and party. A true leader explains why that candidate cannot and should not be trusted, and is willing to suffer any consequences that might result from standing strongly behind their position.” — David Ross Meyers
“Better to lose to a true enemy whose policies you can fight and repudiate, rather than to a false friend whose schemes will drag you down with him. This is a painful choice, but it also embraces realism while protecting the possibility of recovery in the future. The need to live to fight another day is why conservatives should adopt a Hamilton Rule” — The Federalist, Tom Nichols
Republicans, it’s time to open your eyes and be real about the situation in which you find yourselves. This post is for you. I am transparently and unabashedly biased in favor of Hillary; however, not one of the articles I have attached to this post are flattering or kind to my candidate in any way. In fact, they are altogether unflattering, some downright ruthless. Republicans are staging their own “Repexit” — leaving the Party en mass or, at the very least, lending their support to the candidate they know is fit to govern. They are saying #ImWithHer. Will you?
Why should you vote for Hillary:
Here are 15 pretty damn good reasons:
Trump is:
- A Narcissist
- Emotionally Unstable and Impulsive
- A Chrony Capitalist at Heart
- Lacking in Principles
- Ambitious to a Fault
- Charging Forward with No Substantive Policies and NO REAL PLAN
- Vocally Supporting policies you Abhor (abortion?)
- Devoid of Morals
- An Intolerant, Insulting, Divisive Bigot
- An Admirer of Tyrants like Putin
- Endorsed by Kim Jong-Un
- Endorsed by Putin, too
- Empowered by Scapegoating Outsiders, Foreigners, and Minorities
- Attacking the Core Conservative Principles of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion
- Calling on America to Commit War Crimes
Trump’s party loyalty is negotiable but Republicans will be blamed for his failures. The hard work that has been done to rebuild the Republican Party will be for naught. It will take decades to recover from a Trump disaster. History has it’s eyes on you . . .
In the words of David Ross Myers,
“ [Hillary Clinton]… is clearly qualified to be president. She possesses judgment and self-restraint. She does not have a track record of irrational, risky, and unsound business decisions and public comments. She has a long record of public service. She can be trusted with controlling our military and nuclear weapons. Mr. Trump cannot.
Any Republican who claims that it’s better to elect Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton either lacks proper judgment, or has become so blinded by partisan ideology that they have lost objectivity.
Many of the GOP voters who support Trump are backing his candidacy because they are desperate for change in Washington. But Republican leaders who embrace Trump aren’t hearing the public’s message or embracing change. Instead, they’re doing what they have always done: whatever is necessary to gain or retain political power.”
