Published on January 17, 2010
Hamilton, who had been instrumental in making the convention a reality, wanted a far stronger centralized government than most of his fellow delegates were willing to grant. Yet despite the failure of his own ideas to catch on, Hamilton realized the new Constitution was far superior to the ineffectual Articles of Confederation. Therefore he used all of his energy and talent towards influencing its ratification. Almost overnight, Hamilton went from a lukewarm backer to chief supporter and would go on to write the majority of the greatest set of essays in defense of the Constitution in American history, The Federalist Papers.
Hamilton’s decision to support the Constitution and to become its biggest defender during the ratification period was rooted solely in pragmatism. The Constitution, despite its imperfections, represented for him the best possible instrument through which his dream of an economically and militarily powerful nation could be accomplished. If Hamilton had to compromise on small details in order to accomplish big goals, then so be it, and his story can be viewed as an important lesson for conservative voters as they head into the 2010 election year.
Just as Hamilton had definitive views for the ideal Constitution, conservatives have definitive views for the ideal Republican candidate. Conservatives want Republican candidates to be as conservative as they are, who will fight the expansion of the size of government, reduce the bureaucracy, cut taxes, promote free market solutions, and vote pro-life. Moreover, they want these candidates, if elected, to represent conservatism 100 percent of the time and any deviation from these core principles will be viewed as a betrayal.
As we all know, however, no politician is going to be able to please everyone all of the time. Just as the country has a politically diverse citizenry, our public leaders will mirror that diversity. Furthermore, with only two major political parties to choose from moderate candidates are forced to pick sides and therefore will not be as committed to the party’s ideological base. For committed conservatives this inevitably leads to the reality that some Republican candidates are not going to be their ideal first choice. When this happens, they are faced with a dilemma: vote for a Republican who sometimes betrays conservative principles or throw away your vote and help allow a liberal Democrat to win.
This is where we can learn from Hamilton’s experience. While I am not comparing the importance of Hamilton’s decision to that of the modern voter, the point is that sometimes in life—and especially in politics—we have to compromise and take the best deal we can get. (For those who say that compromising is akin to “selling out,” we should remember the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, who always went after the best deal he could get first and then said he could go back and get the rest later.) And that is why conservatives, if they are not successful in nominating their ideal choice during the primary, should still support and vote for the general election Republican candidate. That person may not be perfect, but it still beats a liberal Democrat any day of the week. In the end, it’s all about looking at the big picture; Hamilton and Reagan could do it and conservatives need to do it as well.