Review by Choice Review
Cost juxtaposes the thinking of two pivotal American founders by showing the respective strengths and weaknesses of their thoughts, especially with regard to issues of political economy. Hamilton and Madison joined in support of the US Constitution because they favored liberal government (the protection of individual rights), republicanism (self-government), and nationalism. They created rival parties when Hamilton, in seeking to promote prosperity through public-private partnerships that would secure the support of financial elites, inclined the nation in the direction of oligarchy. Madison subsequently sought government neutrality among factions through "a sensible middle ground between the extremes of Republican simplicity and Federalist elitism," including some Hamiltonian programs like the national bank and modest tariffs. Ultimately, Madison set in motion a system in which factions combined to push the nation toward ochlocracy, or rule by majority factions, which he had decried in Federalist No. 10, and that accentuated sectional divisions. Cost uses public-choice economics to explain what went wrong, and advocates returning to fundamental principles that promote the common good over special interests. Summing Up: Highly recommended. All readership levels. --John R. Vile, Middle Tennessee State University
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
Weekly Standard senior writer Cost traces the republican beliefs of James Madison and the mercantile leanings of Alexander Hamilton, arguing that competing political philosophies in the earliest years of the United States "prefigured contemporary American politics." Cost's distillation of the source material-the Federalist Papers and Hamilton's essays on government-allows readers with a basic grasp of Constitution-era U.S. history to follow along. Madison's views vested the people with sole authority for government, with a great variety of parties and interests in "well-organized political conflict" and carefully calibrated tension. Hamilton was far more disposed toward strong executive power and favoring the wealthy. Cost's descriptions of postindependence political wrangling and the first decades of the new United States are clear and easily grasped, but his application of the extended battle of ideas through the 19th century is less persuasive, as it is based on an out-of-date understanding of ideas: this early generation of political conflict was vital to the foundation of the country, but given ensuing conflicts such as those over the acceptability of slavery, the American ideological landscape has since become much more complex than accounted for by this work. This is more valuable as a resource on colonial political philosophy than as an explanation of the U.S.'s current conflicts. (June) © Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review by Library Journal Review
Editor (The Weekly Standard) and author (A Republic No More) Cost dispels the myth that the Founding Fathers had a single, unified vision for the nascent United States in this compelling monograph of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and their dueling ambitions for the country. The author describes two themes within which Hamilton and Madison shaped their ideals; for Hamilton, it was national vigor, while Madison sought republican balance. Hamilton hoped to turn the wealthy into conduits for advancing national interests by giving them short-term advantages in the commercial sector. Madison, however, viewed the government as a neutral entity, creating fair policies that benefitted the common good. But rather than pit these goals against one another, Cost makes it clear that both men were justified in their pursuits and that their friendship, devolving into a feud over time, is emblematic of a clash in fundamental American values present since George Washington left office. Equal parts fascinating and alarming, this work illustrates how corrupt our government has always been. VERDICT A fair assessment of two Founders' legacies and highly relevant to our current political climate.-Jessica Holland, Lexington, KY © Copyright 2018. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Review by Kirkus Book Review
Founding Fathers worried over inequality, popular sovereignty, and economic growth.Controversy over the meaning of the Constitution, the powers of the presidency, and the reach of federal government; concern about the political influence of wealthy citizens and corruption among elected officials; questions about the effects of tariffs on economic stabilitythese issues that beset contemporary America began in its earliest days. Focusing on James Madison (1751-1836) and Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804), Weekly Standard contributing editor Cost (A Republic No More: Big Government and the Rise of American Political Corruption, 2015, etc.) offers a revealing look at how their contrasting political philosophies shaped the new nation's domestic and foreign policies. Although they eventually became fierce opponents, Madison and Hamilton began as allies, sharing a belief "that people were easily led astray by selfish interests that undermined the cause of good government." State oversight could not be trusted to rein in opportunism and greed. Their proposals for fostering a strong federal government, however, were at odds: Hamilton envisioned a system emulating Britain's, where senators, appointed by an electoral college, would serve for life, as would the president. Only members of the House would serve three-year terms. The "natural aristocracy" would be drawn from wealthy men, who, merely by virtue of their wealth, had proven their talent for leadership. He proposed a strategy of mediation whereby "individual factions within society would receive direct benefits from the government" in the expectation that they would invigorate the economy and therefore benefit the whole nation by growing its industries. Madison, on the other hand, saw a society dominated by agriculture, "populated by able-bodied, independent farmers." Deeply suspicious of warring factions, he proposed two chambers of Congress, apportioned according to population, with the power to veto state laws. Madison's views were held by Republicans, including Jefferson and James Monroe; Hamilton's, by Federalists, including Washington and John Adams. All recognized the difficulty of balancing nationalism, liberalism, and republicanism, and all saw the risk of factions usurping popular sovereignty.A well-argued examination of the nation's founding principles. Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
