The assertion is often made that we live in “Alexander Hamilton’s America.” Hamilton, a co-author of The Federalist, served as Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington and was the principal architect of that administration’s policies. As a leader of the Federalist Party, Hamilton often clashed with his Democratic-Republican critics, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, primarily over the role and scope of the federal government in relation to the Constitution.
The analogy to “Hamilton’s America” is partially true in that the United States has developed a diversified, dynamic economy. However, defining Hamilton as the architect of centralized federal power is a mistake. Many conservatives and libertarians are quick to condemn Hamilton for today’s “big government,” which is ironic, given that for decades conservatives once held Hamilton in high regard.
During the twentieth century, progressives advocated for a stronger federal government. To justify their argument, they borrowed the idea of using “Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends,” as progressive historian Herbert Croly described it.
Although Hamilton’s legacy continues to be debated, it is more accurate to argue that we live in a nation shaped largely by the liberal policies and administrative structures implemented under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR’s New Deal was transformational—not only for American government but also for the Constitution itself—resulting in what amounted to a constitutional revolution that fundamentally altered the nation’s political culture.
The late Judge Robert Bork described the New Deal as an “economic and governmental upheaval.” FDR’s New Deal, building on Woodrow Wilson’s disdain for a traditional, institutional view of the Constitution, advanced the argument that the founding document was outdated and a hindrance to progress. Wilson wrote that “our life has broken away from the past,” and that “the old political formulas do not fit the present problems; they read like documents taken out of a forgotten age.” He argued that the nation was entering “a new organization of society.”
FDR expanded on this theme. He contended that while the Founders created a government suited to their time, they also recognized that conditions would change. “The plan of government that they had prepared was made, not rigid but flexible—adapted to change and progress,” Roosevelt said.
Conservatives understand that change is inevitable, but it must be prudent and remain within constitutional bounds. As President Herbert Hoover explained, “My idea of a conservative is one who desires to retain the wisdom and experience of the past and who is prepared to apply the best of that wisdom and experience to meet the changes which are inevitable in every new generation.”
The New Deal was more than a reform agenda—it redefined the federal government’s role. FDR argued that Washington must provide the ideological and programmatic foundation to “guarantee” economic security for the American people. He claimed that the Constitution was inadequate for such purposes and that the federal government had to assume new powers to fulfill this mandate. As he wrote:
“This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights… But as our Nation has grown in size and stature, and as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.”
Roosevelt went further, stating that “in our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident,” proposing what he called a “second Bill of Rights.” This new framework asserted that government was responsible for ensuring employment, housing, education, and income stability for workers, farmers, and families—protecting citizens from “the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.”
In doing so, FDR expanded federal power well beyond the limits envisioned by the Founders, eroding the principles of federalism reinforced by the Tenth Amendment. As Judge Bork observed, the New Deal created a “sudden and enormous centralization of power in Washington over matters previously left to state governments or left in private hands—a centralization accomplished largely through the assumption of greatly expanded congressional powers to regulate commerce and lay taxes.”
Over the last 90 years, the size and scope of the federal government have reached unprecedented levels—whether measured by the growth of agencies and programs or the proliferation of rules and regulations. Culturally, Americans have also embraced FDR’s concept of economic security, repeatedly demanding that elected officials preserve spending and entitlement programs regardless of the debt burden.
The public outcry over President Donald Trump’s DOGE efforts is a case in point. Protests erupted nationwide over proposed spending reductions and the elimination of waste. Similarly, the passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” triggered partisan panic, with many states—particularly Democratic ones—fearing how reforms to the tax code, Medicaid, and SNAP might affect their budgets. The deeper problem is that states and localities have grown dependent on federal aid, leaving them under Washington’s thumb.
Americans increasingly look to the federal government for solutions to every problem—childcare, housing, education, and healthcare among them. Even some conservatives have adopted New Deal logic to justify federal intervention in “pro-family” policies. Both major political parties now accept a Rooseveltian view of presidential power.
With a $37 trillion national debt and a federal government that perpetually lurches from one fiscal crisis to the next, we must ask: How long can the spirit and practice of Wilson and FDR’s progressivism continue before the republic is broken beyond repair?
Rather than rejecting Hamilton, the nation must rediscover his constitutional conservatism. Culturally, Americans must renew their commitment to the principles of limited government and federalism. Politically, both parties must set aside ideological rigidity and pursue the common good rather than narrow partisan agendas. Legally, courts must again enforce the original meaning of the Constitution. As Judge Bork wrote, “There is much to be said, therefore, for a Court that attempted to preserve federalism, which is a real constitutional principle, by setting limits to national powers.”
It is time to remember the wisdom of President William Howard Taft, who reminded us that the federal government has constitutional limits and that government “cannot make the rain to fall, the sun to shine, or the crops to grow.”
John Hendrickson is Policy Director at Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation and Stephen M. King is a Professor of Political Science at Regent University
Print a PDF