<p>Who do you think had a better vision for the United States and why?</p>
<p>This is based on opinion, but for me, I'd say Hamilton.</p>
<p>x strong central government to maintain order and preserve Union
x tariffs & excise taxes to pay government debt
x national bank
x Hamilton's financial program
x loose interpretation of constitution
x large peacetime army & navy</p>
<p>similar to what we have today.</p>
<p>I prefer Jefferson's policies, for the reasons kchen stated. Hamilton is the statist/mercantilist and Jefferson the agrarian classical liberal/whig. Asking your preference is to ask your position: are you a statist or minarchist (for a minimal state)?</p>
<p>But Hamilton was far more correct in his predictions, as contemporary society is hardly agrarian (About 2% of jobs are in farming), and more industrial, but even more so comprised of services, which neither imagined.</p>
<p>Jefferson....I'm a democrat! Hamiltonians...go big business Republicans? I prefer my rights, hehehe. Sorry to make this political I guess.</p>
<p>Oh BTW, soooooooo funny:
My history teacher was impersonating Jefferson, and I was impersonating Hamilton (we were doing a "conversation" as an educational thing, you know...)
My Teacher: So, Hamilton, what do you think of the bank?
Me: I think the national bank is a delicious idea. Maybe even as delicious as Sally Hemings [Jefferson's black slave and lover]
Teacher: Well, my wife died, and I needed--I needed--
Me: Chocolate.
Teacher: WHAT??!!?
Me: Ooooooooops.Hehe just kidding.</p>
<p>In the beginning, I preferred Hamilton's way.</p>
<p>However, Jefferson and his followers began to expand their views, and soon, the Federalists died out. It was then that I supported the Anti-Federalist view.</p>
<p>Along with the above reasons (posted by kchen), Hamilton because he envisioned an urban, industrial society, much like what America has become today. Jefferson, on the other hand, envisioned an agrarian society.</p>
<p>jimbob1225, Jefferson was not a leftist. The contemporary analogue is libertarian (though it may differ a bit), between libertarianism and classical liberalism. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism</a>
Jefferson's political philosophy, ie. classical liberalism, has almost no representatives in modern politics, except possibly one in Congress, Ron Paul. And classical liberalism has no home on the one dimensional right-left continuum, although it tends to have more adherents on the right.</p>
<p>The occurrence of Hamilton's predictions do not make his positions any more valid.</p>
<p>That's why the traditional left-right continuum is so flawed! It takes into account the socio-economic position, but not the authoritative/anarchist scale. The only ACCURATE way to measure a politician's position relative to other leaders is with a two dimensional plot. For example, Stalin is viewed by many to be a member of the far-right, because he was so staunch an authoritarian, but economically he was incredibly Liberal. In reality, he was a member of Authoritarian Left, as opposed to the Libertarian, Jeffersonian Left.</p>
<p>For more information, go to PoliticalCompass.com</p>
<p>Wow. You guys are really intelligent. I have no idea what you guys are saying. I only understand post #2.</p>
<p>"It takes into account the socio-economic position" Civil/social liberty, like the freedom of speech, is not socioeconomic - it seems valuable to both the poor and the rich, to oversimplify. And in general, laissez-faire economies provide more wealth than more statist alternatives. Stalin was an extreme leftist economically, and an authoritarian socially.</p>
<p>Exactly! You answered your own argument there.</p>
<p>The FLAW with the 1789 French Assembly Left/Right scale is that it doesn't take into account the authoritative/libertarian perspective, and you have groupings like Ghandi, Walt Brown, and Stalin in the same region.</p>
<p>Even more troublingly, what is left and what is right in MODERN Russia? Do the Stalinists fit on the left, because they are communists, or on the right, because they are so conservative/authoritarian at the same time? Do Russian reformers go on the left, as they are inherently liberal, or on the right, because they ARE trying to move Russia to a freer-market stance? Weren't FDR and Stalin both technically to the left of other major figures of the day? The only way to contrast these seemingly diametrically opposed leaders is by comparing the "authoritarian-ness" of each leader. The only accurate way to plot politicians is with two axes. The X-axis, for example, measures left/right position and the Y-axis measures the fasco/anarchist scale. In this case, FDR and Stalin would both fit on the left, but one high and the other low on the Y axis...</p>
<p>Jefferson was so overrated, HAMILTON you can talk about him so much more on an essay :P</p>
<p>next time you pay something with 10$ bills say: You can call me Aaron Burr cause I'm dropping Hamiltons. =)</p>
<p>I loved that SNL skit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have no idea what you guys are saying. I only understand post #2.
[/quote]
Hey, thanks!</p>