It’s Always Been Hamiltonian Statecraft

Walter Russell Mead discusses Hamiltonian foreign policy, connecting it to modern political movements like Jacksonian populism and Jeffersonian isolationism. He suggests Hamilton’s views were more about national business interests than pure patriotism, portraying a more colonial mindset. This type of governance, where government and business overlap, led to a ineffective mercantilist system that favored certain groups with privileges. Hamilton’s approach contrasts with modern ideas of free trade and state restraint, highlighting a shift in political ideology in the 21st century. The romanticized view of Hamilton as a patriotic figure is challenged, revealing an agenda more aligned with British economic models than with autonomous American values.

As trade expanded globally, it became clear that economic protectionism was not sustainable. Hamilton's ideas led to state intervention and foreign policy that often prioritized American interests over true humanitarian goals. Historical examples show that initiatives like the League of Nations and interventions in countries were more about supporting American interests than promoting self-determination or global peace, as evidenced by the actions of presidents like Wilson and Obama.

American foreign policy has often been driven by self-interest rather than genuine humanitarian concerns. Throughout history, the U.S. has supported various regimes and military interventions that align with its economic and strategic goals, such as funding Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen and backing Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Rather than promoting democracy or punishing evildoers consistently, the U.S. has prioritized securing business interests worldwide. This pattern suggests that American leaders have frequently acted based on realpolitik rather than principled foreign policy. Even with occasional calls for a more restrained approach, like those made by recent presidents, the overarching trend has leaned towards maintaining a powerful presence globally to safeguard national interests rather than fostering meaningful alliances or humanitarian outcomes.

America has often intervened in conflicts mainly to benefit powerful groups such as bankers and defense contractors, rather than for genuine reasons. This pattern reveals a reliance on strategic interests rather than humanitarian ones. Additionally, Hamilton's legacy is critiqued as being rooted in promoting national interests and mercantilism, rather than serving the public or championing democracy. This highlights a historical tendency to prioritize elite agendas over the nation's well-being, urging a critical reevaluation of American political motives throughout history.