The short answer based on the classical definitions of liberal and progressive is yes. The long answer based on the modern versions of the two terms, however, is not so simple due to the slow but steady modification of the meaning of liberalism by the political left between the time of the American Revolution and today. The difference between the meaning of classical liberalism (as defined by 18th century political economists and philosophers), varies greatly from what our media today would define as liberalism. The original classical definition of “liberal” at the time of the American Revolution and the industrial revolution focused on the freedom of individuals, free markets, civil liberty, free trade and small government that supported not hindered these freedoms. The modern version of the term liberal, as massaged by the Democrat Party, has become more and more redefined to be identified with socialist/communist agendas. In effect, liberalism in the United States is becoming American Marxism.
The actual definition of progressive when dealing with politics and education refers to step by step movements in a new and positive direction, with a favorable view of urban industrial society and employing liberal ideas. Modern American progressives are by definition linked to present day liberals. Progressives and liberals are rapidly embracing Marxism, which is neither new nor positive.
The four founding fathers being considered in this paper are James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. These four are among the most prominent of the entire group, and are fairly representative of the founding fathers’ range of political and economic philosophical thought. Before delving into the known or assumed political and/or economic philosophy of the above referenced four founding fathers, it is important to understand the dominant political/economic thought at the time of the American Revolution that formulated the basis of the American Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the overall design of the American government. Two men in two different centuries conceptually crystallized the basic drive to enhance the lives of individuals during the Era of Enlightenment.
In The Two Treatises of Government (1689) John Locke put forth the following concepts: that citizens are naturally free and conditionally convey some of their natural rights to government in order to more securely enjoy their lives, liberty and property, that government should be subject to majority rule and the separation of legislative and executive powers, and that government and churches should exercise religious tolerance. In The Wealth of Nations (1776) and earlier works Adam Smith introduced the concept that self interest in a free market environment drives efficiency and that properly functioning free markets automatically channel self-interest toward socially desirable results. Both would be in agreement that in a functioning free market based social system the natural equality of individuals is the key to free market competition. Even though, in summation, their respective positions on societal choices supports the concept of a small minimally intrusive, tolerant government, there is also the recognition that no one has the right to exercise power beyond what is right. In essence, government through rational laws should act as a referee and not a player. The rights of the individual is the primary focus of both John Locke’s and Adam Smith’s political and economic philosophy which forms the foundation of free market societies and modern economics.
The basic differences among the founding fathers center around the size and power of the federal government versus the sovereignty of the individual states. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison favored states rights over federal government. They both saw the need, however, to strengthen the central government immediately following the Revolution because the governmental structure on the federal level was not sufficient to deal effectively with the resulting war related debts and unresolved issues. Even though they strongly defended the individual sovereignty of states and agrarian America they were pragmatic regarding situations and functions that were federal in nature. Thomas Jefferson’s belief in equality and the rights of individuals (the common man) are clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence (of which he was the primary author). These values and his fear of abuse by the over concentration of power on the federal level are further confirmed by his strong support for the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. James Madison shared Jefferson’s view of political equality, as well as the need for laws which would restrict the unmerited accumulation of wealth (IE the basis for antitrust laws where the government is a referee and not a player). Even though he advocated states rights over federal government, he did facilitate the creation of a central bank and other federal functions on a pragmatic basis. Leading up to the Constitutional Convention he joined with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in writing the Federalist Papers in support of a stronger federal government than was set up by the Articles of Confederation. His immense efforts in the drafting of the Constitution earned him the title “Father of the Constitution”.
John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, in contrast, were advocates of a strong central government, Hamilton far more-so than Adams. John Adams, however, did not support the unlimited power of federal government because he did not trust Congress. He had an elitist (and at times tolerant) attitude towards governing and felt that, at the time, conflict and anarchy were a greater threat to American society and the republic than excessive federal authority. He believed and acted according to the premise that the executive branch should be above politics and that the legislature was corruptible. John Adam’s frugality, support of low taxes and overall economic philosophy placed him in between the commercialism of Hamilton and the agrarianism of Jefferson. Even thought he and Thomas Jefferson disagreed on the balance of power between the states and the federal government, they were close friends and had a lot of respect for each other. Alexander Hamilton, was far more aggressive in his preference of a strong central government, fewer states rights and broad federal powers to enact laws that were necessary and proper (within the bounds of the Constitution, which he interpreted loosely). Like Adams he held an elitist attitude regarding governance where a small group of talented, intelligent men would govern in the best interest of everyone. This elitist attitude carried over to his economic preference that a small number of wealthy, well educated individuals run the major industrial and commercial companies, funded in part by a central bank, in the best interest of their companies, their employees and the overall economy.
What the founding fathers had in common were the concept of checks and balances in the design of the federal government and the intention that government on the federal or state level, along with the central bank and the banking system, should be purposed to support the expansion of productive capital and commerce. Jefferson’s and Madison’s focus was on the agrarian side of the economy while Adams’ and Hamilton ‘s focus was on the expansion of production in the industrial Northeast. Adams and Hamilton were more elitist in their overall design of government and commerce with a strong central government and national bank supporting industrial growth. Although they all emphatically espoused individual freedom, Jefferson and Madison were more clear in their writing and statements regarding the issue of equality and the rights of the individual states. All founding fathers believed in the constitutionality of laws and the rule of law. They were all a product of the Era of Enlightenment, John Lock, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and their contemporary political philosophers who set the groundwork for modern Western political and intellectual culture. There is little doubt, due to their attitude towards and distrust of unbridled federal governmental power, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams would not, under any interpretation, fit into the modern liberal and progressive mold in America which has embraced Marxist values.
Alexander Hamilton, however, has been heavily canonized by the left because segments of his economic philosophy has been construed by the political left to be socialistic in function. Hamilton was ultimately pragmatic, flexible and efficiency driven. He held the position that a strong economy was critical tot the survival of the Republic. He had a good understanding of the importance of applied science and industrialization in the production process, as Adam Smith so aptly outlined. As discussed above, he proposed that a small number of wealthy, well educated individuals run the major industrial and commercial companies, backed by loans from a central bank, in the best interest of their companies, their employees and the overall economy. This was his pragmatic approach to the immediate need for stable economic growth to ensure the survival of the new republic. The lens through which the political left theorizes that Hamilton’s economic philosophy and Hamilton himself would support modern liberalism and progressivism hinges on two premises. First, is that his pragmatic approach to a central bank’s support of industrial production can rationally be translated into governmental direction and control (which would implicitly assume that the bankers and the politicians knew better than the industrialists themselves). Second, is that Hamilton’s view of the best way to ensure the growth of productive capital at the time of the Revolution, when the nascent economy lacked significant structure, would remain static in the case of a mature efficient economy.
Given Hamilton’s pragmatic approach to efficiency and economic growth, his recognition of Adam Smith’s relevance, coupled with his complete support for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it would be hard to imagine that he would not have recognized the success of the free market in a mature economy and the pivotal role of the entrepreneur if he were alive today. He certainly would not support a socioeconomic system that has never proven to be a sustainable success when the existing American free market system is the best that has ever been. If he were alive today he surely bemoan the damage that has been done to the definitions of liberal and progressive and fight against the Marxist system that has historically stymied economic growth were it exists and would jeopardize all of freedoms the Founding Fathers and the colonies fought so hard to achieve. Also, given the amount of attention he paid to the expansion of productive capital it is highly likely that he would agree more with supply side advocates than those of Keynesian persuasion. Keep in mind that Alexander Hamilton had died more than ten years before the birth of Karl Marx, and that the lack of an actual reaction on the part of Hamilton to the socialist/communist model allows the political left in America to interpret his wording and intent in a manner that fits into their redefined modern liberal agenda. Would the “liberal” left be working so hard to change and distort American History and demonize the Founding Fathers if they believed the Founding Fathers would support their socialist/communist agenda?
So I pose the question, would the Founding Fathers have considered themselves Liberals or Progressives if they were living today? WHAT DO YOU THINK?