By Joseph C. Cascarelli, Esq.
Introduction
This article is first and foremost about the American Middle Class, specifically looking at how politicians contemporaneously define Middle Class, but also how past statesmen (like Alexander Hamilton) and how hopefully future philosophic or genuine statesmen ¹ (imitating Hamilton) will define the American Middle Class utilizing insightful criteria set forth by that ancient philosopher and expert on the Middle Class – Aristotle. This article will then address a secondary issue, the tax issue, which is: Whether America’s tax policy, specifically as applies to the American Middle Class, should start with correctly identifying who fits or should fit into our definition of the American Middle Class. Stated differently, whether we should continue to define the Middle Class “by the numbers” (quantitative criteria), or whether we should think outside the box and utilize qualitative (that is, Aristotle’s) criteria – with the ultimate objective of defining membership in Middle Class for the political purpose that Middle Class exists in the first place: Stability.
The American Middle Class Under Siege.
The past four years have been depressing and even crushing, especially with all the bad that came out of that 2020 Summer of Love experience followed by years of high inflation during the Biden/Harris Administration (2021-2024).² Conspiracy theories can be ignored: Most Americans saw with their own eyes, live on television, the riots that seem to deliberately target certain American cities, and those riots seemingly targeting many American small businesses with burning and pillaging, while state and local law enforcement failed to come to the rescue, whether through negligence or “stand down” orders issued by municipal and/or state government authorities. As eyewitnesses to these events via television, Americans felt in the pits of their stomach that the American Middle Class was (perhaps not intentionally at the start, but certainly over time) becoming the convenient focus and target for regime engineering created by COVID-19’s lockdowns.³ Democrat Rahm Immanuel’s declaration – “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before” ⁴ – while cryptic, nonetheless gives evidence to this belief. These COVID-19 mandates may have started out with good intentions, but it did not take long to see through the fog and understand the political purpose behind these mandates: controlling the behavior and defeating the willpower of the fiercely independent American middle-class. Today, more so than ever before in our Country’s history, America seems to be moving closer and closer to all-out socialism, and eventually Marxist style communism.⁵ Americans need to keep this economic, political, and historical reality in mind whenever our politicians propose a new tax program. We need to listen very carefully to what they say when assessing whether what they say aligns with our common sense.
Since the dawn of civilization, governments have taxed their people. Tax policies have never been neutral. Taxes are not raised exclusively for the purpose of raising revenue for its own sake. Governments don’t save money in the same way that little children get a thrill in seeing the piggy banks get swell every time Mom and Dad give them pennies for their allowance. Taxes have always served a political purpose. Taxes have always favored one faction or over another in the social and political order. For this reason, when politicians offer tax proposals, we Americans should force their hands to offer tax breaks that specifically favor the American Middle Class. Why? Answer to this question begs two preliminary questions:
(1) Why should the American Middle Class be favored?
(2) Who are or should be included as members in this favored Medical Class?
Why the Middle Class Should Be Favored
To answer the question why the Middle Class should be favored, we turn to that ancient philosopher and expert on the Middle Class: Aristotle.
Aristotle’s genius shows in his identification of a new political regime ⁶ called Polity (which, today, we would call “mixed government” and which the American Founders and especially the Framers of the U.S. Constitution of 1787 call a republic.) According to Aristotle, a Polity is a just regime⁷ created, paradoxically, by the combination of two bad or unjust regimes.⁸ A Polity combines oligarchy (a bad regime, dangerous to civil stability and tranquility) with democracy (equally dangerous to civil stability and tranquility and therefore bad), according to Aristotle; and, when combined, the quantitative elements of “the few” (oligarchy) and “the many” (democracy), which are dangerous to civil stability, now neutralize each other. In other words, the qualitative elements of the oligarchy (love of wealth and, more importantly, the influence of individual merit that leads to wealth) combine with the qualitative elements of democracy (love of equality that leads to the multiplication of offices in government combines with the love of equality that opens the door to sharing equally in these offices among all citizens) contribute to the formation of a new form of government, the Polity, in which the bad elements of oligarchy and democracy “check each other” – what we today call the “system of checks and balances”, making civil stability more promising than oligarchy or democracy in isolation of each other. ⁹ This combination gives rise to a politically significant middle class. ¹⁰ In a Polity – a Republic – the social order is marked by a sizeable and indeed increasing middle class. It is with the middle class that stability in a regime comes about. ¹¹
Interlude: How Contemporaneous American Politicians Define Middle Class in the Context of Taxes
Before we proceed to the follow-up question ¹² – Who are or should be included in membership for this favored Medical Class? (and Aristotle’s and later Alexander Hamilton’s answer to this question) – it is appropriate that we understand how contemporary politicians define the American Middle Class.
Every two years somebody is running for political office in the United States and invariably the topic of taxes becomes prominent. One side argues in favor of raising taxes. The other side argues in favor of reducing taxes. At the end of the day, both sides argue that the “middle class” will benefit: One side argues that if corporate income taxes are reduced, more “middle-class” workers will indirectly benefit because we will see an increase in jobs for “middle class” workers. Sometimes this is referred to as “trickle-down economics”. The other side argues that if individual income taxes are reduced (while increasing the corporate tax rate), the “middle class” will directly benefit (presumably the corporations will pick up the deficit in tax revenues created by the “middle class” paying less taxes, the net result being that “middle class” workers will have a net increase in annual disposable income, at least for those members of the “middle class” who do not lose their jobs.) Clearly, this is oversimplified, but for our intended purpose: To focus on how, for years, we have defined “middle class”. First, let’s begin with a reasonable assumption based on experience: We Americans love numbers. We find truth in numbers. We are all familiar with the maxim: “Numbers don’t lie.” And so, when our politicians commence defining “middle class”, they generally start with numbers – earned income levels, net taxable income levels, etc. For example, we generally start with an assumption that the so-called “middle class” includes those individuals (taxpayers) who make more than X but less than Y in income taxes (pretend you are running for office and therefore feel free to assign whatever numbers you want for “X” and “Y”).
Let’s take a relatively recent tax proposal as an example because the very name of this particular legislation proposed by Kamala Harris in 2018 and again resurrected by her in 2024 leaves no room for dispute that “middle class” in America today is defined “by the numbers”: This proposed legislation is called, LIFT (Livable Incomes for Families Today) the Middle-Class Act.¹³ In other words, the words “Middle Class” are emblazoned in the very title of this legislation. Like everything that comes out of Congress, this statute is not an easy read. That said, for our limited purpose of getting a sense of how our politicians define “middle class”, most of us can agree with the premise that, in America, we define “middle class” by numbers, specifically by certain income levels as evidenced by the fact that the essence of the LIFT the Middle-Class Act is to provide a refundable tax credit up to $3,000 per year for low- and middle-income adult workers and $6,000 per married couple. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget:
“For a childless individual, the LIFT credit would be refundable up to $3,000 for anyone earning more than $3,000 but less than $30,000 per year. If an individual earns less than $3,000 a year, the LIFT credit would match income dollar for dollar, meaning someone who earns $2,000 per year would receive a $2,000 credit. For those earning more than $30,000 per year, the credit would phase out by 15 cents for every dollar earned above $30,000, disappearing fully above $50,000 of income. The credit and phase-out thresholds would double to $6,000, $60,000, and $100,000 for a married couple. A single parent would receive a $3,000 credit, but the phase-out threshold would be between $80,000 and $100,000, rather than $30,000 and $50,000.”¹⁴
In other words, 2024 Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris¹⁵ defines “middle class” by the numbers: Individuals and Couples who earn between $30,000 and $50,000 per year are deemed “middle class”. Individuals and Couples who earn less than $100,000 per year are also “middle class”. Those who earn more than $100,000 are, well, not middle class. They are the rich ones.
This article does not aim at criticizing the justice or fiscal soundness of Ms. Harris’ proposed legislation. Rather, the point here is simply to point out what appears to be a general rule: We, in America, tend to define “middle class” by “numbers” – specifically, ranges of earned income. That is just the start of our analysis. This article argues that defining middle-class by the numbers totally misses the more important political issue, which is: Should we be defining the American Middle Class by entirely different criteria. And, if yes, then why?
Every contemporary politician mouths this familiar argument: “we have to protect the middle class” because “the middle class is essential for our democracy”. Yet, I scarcely believe that they know why this is true. The fact that they define “middle class” by the numbers tells me that they have never thought outside the box, as for example seriously read or understood why it might be important to consult Aristotle when answering this question.
Return to Aristotle: How to Begin to Define Middle Class Correctly
In the academic community in which political philosophy is studied, Aristotle is generally accepted as the expert on the Middle-Class. In the final analysis, some may disagree with Aristotle, but unquestionably all begin with Aristotle. In his famous book The Politics, Aristotle starts out by saying that, when attempting to define “middle class”, one must understand that there are two foundational aspects of “middle class” – quantitative and qualitative – and each requires a correct understanding, especially their relationship to one another.
In What Way Quantitative is Relevant in Aristotle’s Defining of Middle Class
When discussing the quantitative aspect of defining middle class, Aristotle is not talking about things like income tax brackets or earned income levels. Instead, Aristotle is talking about the size of the middle class relative to the regime’s other classes: Aristotle is arguing the need for a polity or republic to have larger (as opposed to smaller) numbers of citizens who comprise the middle class. The larger the size of the middle-class population in a polity, greater will be the likelihood that that polity will be and remain stable – that is, resist the inclination to change one’s regime (read: form of government), especially by means of revolution.¹⁶ As explained in Section 3 of this article, polity refers to a specific form of regime – a constitution (small “c”) or way of life – that is comprised of a healthy mix of democracy (a majority whose way of life is grounded in a balance between liberty and equality) and oligarchy (a minority whose way of life is centered on wealth, and particularly the pursuit of wealth). Generations of political philosophers and statesmen after Aristotle, particularly followers of Cicero and Montesquieu, refer to polity as a republic. The Framers of the American Constitution (capital “C”) fall into this group of statesmen. They created a “mixed regime” comprised of (1) monarchy (the Executive or Office of the Presidency), (2) aristocracy (the Judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court), (3) oligarchy (the higher Legislative branch or the Senate), and (4) democracy (the lower Legislative branch known as the House of Representatives.)¹⁷ In short, when the Framers gave us the Constitution of 1787 (before it was changed by President Wilson’s 17th Amendment: Direct Election of Senators),¹⁸ the Framers gave us a Republic,¹⁹ not a democracy.²⁰ Why is this information important? Because it informs us that the Framers thought like Aristotle.²¹ If not political philosophers themselves, the Framers were nonetheless philosophic or genuine statesmen²² – political men of action who, like Aristotle, looked beyond the numbers (quantitative factors) to qualitative factors when constructing the American Republic. It was the qualitative component about the middle class that the Framers (particularly Alexander Hamilton), as statesmen, factored into their construction of the American Republic. Hamilton saw in the middle-class certain key virtues – the same qualitative traits that Aristotle argued are essential to defining “the middling class” – that would be created by his (Hamilton’s) economic plan in order to lend stability in the Republic’s inevitable decline in time towards democracy.²³
Aristotle Explains the Importance of the Qualitative when Defining Middle Class in light of its Intended Purpose.
Having explained the real role “of numbers” (the quantitative aspect of the Middle Class), Aristotle begins his analysis in earnest of the true nature of the “middling class” by declaring that the “middling” or Middle Class must be a class unto itself that is demonstratively “in the middle”. Sounds tautological. It isn’t. Here, Aristotle is at his logical best, asking: In the middle between what? In answer: The definition of “middle” implies two extremes. These two extremes will define what the Middle-Class is by nature and the end, that is, the purpose the Middle Class serves by nature.
We return to Aristotle’s criteria for regime analysis. Let’s summarize: The polity or republic starts with the fact that it is a combination of two bad regimes – in Aristotle’s criteria of regime analysis, (1) oligarchies, which are bad regimes because of their excessive pursuit of wealth and (2) democracies are bad regimes because of their excessive pursuit of equality (contemporary expression of this would be “equity”) and/or excessive pursuit of liberty (contemporary expression of this would be “licentiousness” if not outright public expression of sexual promiscuity).
How does this combination turn two bad things into something that is good? Let’s make use of an analogy using chemistry: oligarchy and democracy are like sodium and chloride. In isolation of each other, sodium and chloride are toxins, poisons in other words that will literally kill you. But when you combine oligarchy (utilizing our chemistry analogy, Sodium) with democracy (again, utilizing our chemistry analogy, Chloride) you come up with ordinary table salt (Aristotle’s polity).
As an aside, Salt was immensely valuable in ancient times because salt was the means to preserve meat before the arrival of refrigeration. So harmless, and indeed so beneficial and valuable, was table salt that Roman soldiers used the bulk of their pay to purchase salt (from the Latin: sal) to preserve life’s essential food for legionnaires on the march – hence the origin of the phrase, “he is worth his salt!” implying that the soldier was valued by his legion: “literally, to be worth one’s pay” (from the Latin word for pay: salarium). When oligarchy and democracy are combined (like sodium and chloride), you come up with a regime that is, like common table salt, most beneficial to man, his country, and the civilization he wants to build.
But what keeps these two antagonistic elements – oligarchy and democracy – in check? Aristotle’s answer: the Middle Class. Aristotle’s Middle Class literally stands in the middle between oligarchy and democracy. In short, the Middle Class performs a transformative role, making oligarchs and democrats in the regime less dangerous to one’s country’s constitution (small “c” or way of life).
To perform its transformative role – again utilizing the chemistry analogy of neutralizing two toxins – Aristotle’s Middle Class, as a class, must be sufficient in numbers (here is where the quantitative factor comes into play) in order to be effective in neutralizing the pull (here is where the qualitative favor comes into play) between oligarchic tendencies (e.g., pursuit of wealth to the point of making capitalism an end in itself, and even arguing that profit is more important than poor work conditions or that profits justify breaking immigration laws to reduce manufacturing costs) and democratic tendencies (e.g., giving in to the temptation of being envious of all the good things that the wealthy have, to the point of actually believing that the wealthy never really worked hard for all the good things they have – indeed, believing that the wealthy should demonstrate their allegiance to democracy by being equitable, that is, by sharing their wealth considerably, by force if necessary, with the so-called have-nots.) We can now grasp how Aristotle’s quantitative and qualitative elements work in tandem.
Aristotle’s Qualitative and Quantitative Conjoin to Support the Virtue of Reasonableness in the Character of the Middle Class.
Here is where the quantitative aspect of Aristotle’s definition of Middle Class returns to the conversation: The Quantitative has practical consequences. When the middle class is small, the middle class simply lacks requisite political clout to (1) persuade oligarchies to be more reasonable and to (2) persuade democracies to be more reasonable for the common good. When we think seriously about defining “middle class”, yes numbers are indeed important to Aristotle, as we have just seen. This Quantitative aspect is an important support for Reason: Reasonableness in a significant body of citizens makes for calm in public discussion of political issues. Belief in being reasonable is the hallmark of Aristotle’s magnanimous man – General and later President George Washington (“First in War, First in Peace”) being America’s standard bearer of the magnanimous or great-souled man. Magnanimous Washington was known for his reasonableness, always calming the passions of Hamilton and Jefferson during heated cabinet meetings. Reasonable is key to stability.
But our modern way of defining “middle class” by the numbers – that is, by income tax levels for instance – entirely misses Aristotle’s point about why a sizably large and therefore strong middle class is necessary for a polity, especially a republic inclining towards democracy, which again, is a bad regime, according to Aristotle.²⁴ Here is the bridge where Aristotle crosses over to the importance of the qualitative aspect of his definition of Middle Class – specific traits that reveal what makes the Middle Class what it is, which in turn informs us why the Middle Class is so essential to a healthy democratic republic.
Aristotle’s Eight Qualitative Traits that Make Middle Class What it is by Nature.
In his outstanding commentary on Aristotle’s Politics,²⁵ Professor Thomas L. Pangle identifies eight (8) qualitative traits that, together, make the “middle class” what it is – that is, defines the true nature of the Middle Class. According to Professor Pangle, these traits “powerfully dampen class conflict between rich and poor” and “strongly promote the unity, solidarity, and stability that may be said to be what the city [read: state, country, nation] as a whole ‘by nature’ seeks.”²⁶ Those eight traits that are the essentials of what make a Middle Class what it is can be enumerated as follows:
- Moral Superiority.
- Preoccupation with personal business.
- Security.
- This class is itself free from factional strife.
- Supports the weaker side of competing factions.
- Resistance to regime change.
- The glue that naturally holds a society together.
- Provides ground for the best lawgivers for the regime.
Having identified these hallmarks, we can now elaborate the details of the eight traits:
1. Moral Superiority
This class is the class that has a “middling, measured amount” of (that is, modest) property holdings, which in turn “avoids the insolence and overreaching wickedness that wealth inspires, and the petty criminality and cheating that poverty impels”, thereby inclining this special class within society towards that which “easily heeds reason”.²⁷
2. Preoccupation with Personal Business
This class is that class that “least likes to rule or wishes to rule”; in other words, this class focuses on personal business, not politics;²⁸ and, in contemporary America, we might especially identify this trait particularly with entrepreneurs (as opposed to career politicians and even government bureaucrats).
3. Security
This class, precisely because they have “sufficient wealth so as to not envy and to covet, and thus to threaten the wealth of the rich, and yet not so much wealth that they are looked at with envying covetousness by the poor”,²⁹ is that class within society that is most likely to be secure in itself – in short, that class that feels self-assured that they can trust their own judgment and values, which in turn reinforces their sense of moral superiority: These are the men and women noted for rugged individualism, the epistome of independence.
4. This Class Is Itself Free from Factional Strife
Unlike the upper and lower classes which, historically, engage in factional strife – insolence in the upper class and envy in the lower class frequently being the source of this factional strife³⁰ – this other class (the “middling class”) – is the class that, being “secure in itself”, this class “neither plots against nor is plotted against”,³¹ and for this and other related reasons is “very free of factional strife”.³²
5. Supports the Weaker Side of Competing Factions
This class, historically, is the class that “supports whichever of the two rival classes of rich and poor is weaker at any time”; and, because it does so, this class “prevents the coming into being of excessive extremes” which is precisely why this class is called, according to Aristotle, the “middling class”.³³ In a word, this is the class that wittingly or unwittingly keeps things in balance by taking the side of the weaker competing faction.³⁴
6. Resistance to Regime Change
Precisely because this “middling class” is secure in its station in life, simultaneously supporting the weaker side while itself being free from sectional strife, this class – the “middling class” according to Aristotle – is prone to be a bulwark against regime change because tyranny “arises from the newest democracy and oligarchy” and “much less from the middle-class regimes and those akin to it.”³⁵
7. The Glue that Naturally Holds a Society Together
This class is the class that tends to avoid the “specific vices that prevent rich and poor from knowing how to share in ruling and being ruled as free men” inasmuch as “the wealthy are bred in luxurious indulgence that tends to render them unwilling and unable to tolerate being ruled, while the poor are bred to be too humble to be able to exercise authority”³⁶ ; as such, this class is a community that “wishes to be constituted as much as possible from those equal and similar” to themselves.³⁷ Because moderation and justice and liberality (generosity) are the glue that holds a society together; and, because these virtues are the hallmarks of the “middling class”, the Aristotelian Middle Class is the glue that holds society together.³⁸
8. Provides Ground for the Best Lawgivers for the Regime
Paradoxically, precisely because the middling class is a class of mediocrity and humdrum life, Aristotle tells us that “the best lawgivers belong to the middling citizens.”³⁹
Item 8 needs further explanation. This is one of the few occasions when Aristotle does not offer an explanation to what appears to be a bald assertion, potentially unfounded, but will be explained when the discussion turns to Alexander Hamilton. In the meantime, Aristotle’s 8th trait roughly corresponds to Alexis de Tocqueville’s insight that members of the bar in America are (1) democrats by birth and interest and (2) aristocrats by habit and taste. He writes: ”Lawyers … may be looked upon as the natural bond and connecting link of the two great classes of society”,⁴⁰ i.e., oligarchy and democracy. Precisely because they constitute this “natural bond and connecting link”, lawyers (and therefore especially lawgivers who are lawyers by vocation), being the mean between oligarchy and democracy in a mixed or republican regime, affirms Aristotle’s point that the “middling class” holds the secret to making the best lawgivers in a polity or republic.⁴¹
On basis of these eight (8) traits, it may be said that that regime is best (Aristotle’s choice of words) that provides for most people a way of life that is in accord with virtue as the “mean/middle” – this is the definition of virtue in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics: the mean between two extremes. This is the essence of the Aristotelian Middle Class.⁴² And this is the essence of Aristotle’s well-designed polity: A Midde Class par excellence.⁴³ To sum things up thus far, Aristotle tells us that you know whether you have a meaningful “middle class” in your country if that class is the class that is performing the transformative role in your country, making oligarchs and democrats in the regime less dangerous to the Republic. Again, Professor Pangle says this better: The middle class is that “economically constituted” class that “plays a decisive, transformative role, standing between the rival classes of rich and poor, and profoundly altering their tense dynamic.”⁴⁴
Alexander Hamilton’s Economic Plan: Alignment with Aristotle’s Middle Class
Class Structure Following the War of Independence and in the Early Republic
In the years of the Early Republic, America was undoubtedly agrarian. According to that noted historian of Early American History, Richard B. Morris, people in farming areas represented 95% of the total population in 1790.⁴⁵ According to that other noted historian of Early American History, John C. Miller, the division within this farming community, particularly in the South, was between wealthy large plantation owners and small self-sufficient farmers.⁴⁶ It was primarily in New England and the Middle Atlantic regions of Early America where one finds the genesis of an American Middle Class; according to another noted historian of Early American History, Russel Blaine Nye, the class below the “landed aristocracy”, both in the North⁴⁷ and the South,⁴⁸ “came the professional men (law, medicine, clergy, civil servants), the lesser merchants and shippers, the upper-middle economic and educational group.”⁴⁹ If there was an American Middle Class at all at the time of adoption of the Constitution of 1787, it would find representatives in the banking and mercantile professions⁵⁰ – the gentlemen class, so to speak, who could aspire to the American aristocracy as a result of merit (of course, birth and wealth did not hurt, as these helped to produce in him “training, piety, talent, virtue, feeling, and a certain indefinable ‘natural worth’”), where the line between “Gentleman” and “Gentry” blurred, giving rise to the idea of a “class of leaders” in the minds of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in their attempt to reconcile the “upper class” and the “practical American political and social situation”⁵¹ at the time of the Revolutionary and Early American Periods.⁵² It was this “class of leaders” that Alexander Hamilton targeted for his idea for the creation of a bona fide American Middle Class.
Alexander Hamilton’s Economic Plan for the American Republic: Prosperity, Yes – But Soul Craft⁵³ is the Heart of Hamilton’s Economic Plan
President George Washington, in his 1796 Farewell Address encouraged his fellow Americans to join with him in making the United States of America a Great Nation.⁵⁴ Alexander Hamilton’s fully integrated economic plan, as set forth in detail in his two Reports on the Public Credit,⁵⁵ Report on Manufactures,⁵⁶ and Report on a National Bank⁵⁷ envisioned the creation of a distinctly new American middle class founded in manufactures, commerce, and finance, to both complement and supplement the existing plantation aristocracy and small farm democracy, with the ultimate aim of making America a Great Nation in the Universe of World States, then dominated by Great Britain, France, and to some extent Spain and Holland. This concept of Great Nation⁵⁸ has a moral tone to it. Hamilton endeavored to capture this tone in his economic plan.
Let’s begin with Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures. The noted biographer of Alexander Hamilton, Jacob E. Cooke, points out that the following advantages would accrue from the development of manufactures in the nascent United States: “the division of labor, the substitution of machinery for manual labor, the establishment of new investment possibilities, the enlargement of economic opportunity, and the creation of an expended market for American planters and famers”⁵⁹ (America’s then “upper class” and “lower class”, respectively.) Regarding “enlargement of economic opportunity”, Hamilton envisioned that manufacturing would give “farmers the opportunity to take on a second job”, thereby helping farmers “scale the ladder of economic opportunity, especially the prudent ones, who could use their extra pay to increase the acquisition of land (and even capital).”⁶⁰ Professor Michael Chan, the author of an important book that analyzes Aristotle’s and Hamilton’s economic, commercial, and ethical principles, summarizes as follows: “The lure of premiums [read: profits] piques not only men’s interests, but also their thumotic⁶¹ desire for honor or distinction. In this way, entrepreneurs (who combine the traits of risk taking and inventiveness) receive not only the support but also the ‘countenance’ or the uniquely powerful imprimatur, of government. Since man is also an imitative creature, the gradual effect of such a policy is to inculcate an entrepreneurial spirit among capitalists and citizens in general.” As Aristotle put it, “whatever the authoritative element conceives to be honorable will necessarily be followed by the opinion of other citizens.”⁶² In short, Hamilton wanted to build an American Middle Class built on the backs of men who take pride in themselves, but also expecting due recognition for their accomplishments. In other words, it’s not just “all about the money”. It’s about character, about personal honor for one’s accomplishments. Hamilton envisioned that his Report on Manufactures would serve an additional moral objective: “To inspire ‘confidence’ in individuals, or in classical terms, to fortify the thumotic, or spirited, part of the soul to overcome fear.”⁶³ In other words, Hamilton wanted to create an American “middle class” that, because of their merits in the business community, their praises would be sung by – this middling class would receive the imprimatur of, that is, the seal of approval from – their government and fellow citizens. In other words, the purpose of the Report on Manufactures was to educate government official to inspire and reward meritocracy in American society.
Hamilton’s Reports on Public Credit (first and second reports) likewise had a financial and political objective ⁶⁴ namely, to reduce and eventually pay off the debt of a then near penniless and upstart federal government which assumed debts incurred by the States and the Confederation Congress, who funded the War of Independence. But it is the moral purpose of the Reports on the Public Credit that often escapes the attention of most: Pacta observanda sunt! Promises are meant to be honored! To borrow a phrase from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Hamilton wanted the American Middle Class to “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade in their business conduct.”⁶⁵ The Shays Rebellion (and other lesser-known debtor riots following the end of the War of Independence leading up to the ratification of the Constitution of 1787 by the several States) sent the message, to foreign governments and to American citizens alike, that it’s okay to break contracts at will, whether by governments or citizens. Hamilton’s Reports on the Public Credit intended to discredit and dispel this heresy – this growing feeling that every man can decide for himself what justice is and therefore every man can decide for himself which promises needs to be kept and which ones do not. Hamilton’s Reports on the Public Credit were aimed at “nothing less than a change in the American character.”⁶⁶
It was Hamilton’s ambition that America be “industrious, entrepreneurial, innovative, temperate, sagacious, energetic, diverse, urbane, mobile, refined, and lawful.”⁶⁷ As Professor Chan writes: “Unlike a Machiavellian prince who frequently appeals to men’s low necessities and violates principles of good faith, Hamilton appealed to the middle ground of men’s souls, where reason meets interest because he took seriously the obligations of good faith.”⁶⁸ Professor Chan’s conclusions about Hamilton are borne out by the following statement of principles stated, in Hamilton’s own words, in the Report on the Public Credit: “Governments like individuals have burthens which out to be deemed sacred, else they become mere engines of violence, oppression, extortion, and misery. Adieu to the security of property [,] adieu to the security of liberty. Nothing is then safe – all our favourite notions of national & constitutional rights vanish. Everything is brought to a question of power; right is anathematized, excommunicates, and banished. In the code of moral and political obligations that of paying debts holds a prominent place.”⁶⁹ In other words, once governments – and especially its citizens – start down the slippery slope of altering contracts, indeed breaking promises according to abstract principles of right (like Equity and other Alpha Bet Soup social justice theories that are incompletely thought out by ambitious intellectual and political demagogues), there is no end to selfish dishonoring of the sanctity of agreements.⁷⁰
Alignment: Alexander Hamilton’s Economic Plan and Aristotle’s Middle Class
Hamilton’s economic plan, therefore, was premised on cultivating in the American character the spirit of personal honor: keeping one’s word, fulfilling promises, and honoring contracts. It does not take a Ph.D. to understand that these traits are an essential ingredient – the glue that naturally holds a society together⁷¹ – for building an Aristotelian Middle Class and ultimately creating stability in the political and social order of a regime. Therefore, let’s see how Hamilton’s Economic Plan aligns with the eight qualitative traits that Aristotle tells us defines a true Middle Class.
Hamilton’s economic plan, whose moral objectives aim at making Americans “industrious, entrepreneurial, innovative, temperate, sagacious, energetic, diverse, urbane, mobile, refined, and lawful”,⁷² therefore aims at bringing about Aristotle’s first (1st) and foremost Middle-Class qualitative trait: Moral Superiority⁷³ that yields fruit that is the glue that naturally holds a society together,⁷⁴ which is Aristotle’s seventh (7th) qualitative trait. Hamilton’s ambition that Americans be “industrious, entrepreneurial, innovative, temperate, sagacious, energetic” aligns with Aristotle’s second (2nd) qualitative trait: That citizens be preoccupied with their personal business. Hamilton intended to give birth to an American Character that least likely wants to be engaged in politics – or put another way, a citizenry that prefers management in business to being a ruler in the political forum (which is a very different kind of a ruler-ruled relationship.) Writing about Hamilton’s Political Economy, Professor Federici tells us that “Economic nationalism was not the whole of Hamilton’s political economy. Promoting domestic order and prosperity formed an equal focus, and that purpose also would require the development of manufacturing and the liberty for entrepreneurs to create more efficient ways of producing goods and services.”⁷⁵ This symbiotic interrelationship between prosperity and domestic order with efficiency and productivity aligns with Aristotle’s second (2nd) qualitative trait (citizens being preoccupied with their personal business) that, in turn, gives rise to Aristotle’s third (3rd) qualitative trait, which is Security: citizens of this class, because of the aforementioned, are secure in themselves – they are secure in their property (constituted of moderate holdings); are not envious of the rich and super rich; are not contemptuous of the poor – to the contrary, this class tends to be charitable and generous towards all in genuine need, or, as Professor Eidelberg explains: “Lacking the envy of the poor and the avarice of the rich, the middle class possesses the virtues essential to a ‘polity’, namely, moderation and justice. In addition, the possession of adequate property on the part of middle-class persons in conducive to the virtue of liberality, or as [President Woodrow] Wilson said, generosity;”⁷⁶ ; and, precisely because they are secure in themselves, they have no interest in engaging in or becoming a part of a faction, unless they are compelled to do so (such as threats to their family and children, property and business), and so aligns with Aristotle’s (4th) qualitative trait, which relates to being a class is itself free from factional strife. And precisely because this class is marked by the quality of being reasonable and, because reasonableness is essential to stability, this “middling class” is, by nature or by habitude or by both, adverse to factional strife; indeed, it is in this class’s self-interest to move toward and support the Right in politics when the Left goes to extremes and alternatively to move in the direction of and support the Left in politics when the Right goes to extremes. This tendency to be “middling” is the hallmark of Aristotle’s fifth (5th) qualitative trait, that is, being the class that supports the weaker side of competing factions, is the efficient cause of divided government in American politics. In the United States, divided government describes the situation in which one party controls the White House (executive branch), while another party controls one or both houses of the United States Congress (legislative branch). This quality in turn gives rise to and indeed reinforces Aristotle’s sixth (6th ) qualitative trait, which is that the “middling class” is resistant to regime change, especially revolutionary change. And this brings us back to our point of origin: What purpose does Aristotle (and Hamilton) see as the essential role of the Middle Class in a polity or republican form of government? The answer is and by now should be most clear: Stability.
Aristotle’s and Hamilton’s View of the Role of Government in Building the Middle Class
Contemporary Conservatives, especially in the Republican Party, starting with President Ronald Reagan,⁷⁷ see government as “the problem” and therefore should avoid playing too much an active hand in economics and society. President Trump, also a Conservative and a Republican, appears to be different from President Reagan in this regard and, as best as I can judge, is more like Alexander Hamilton. President Trump, for example, is favorable to protective tariffs, bounties, and similar politico-economic devices such as these in support of the national common good⁷⁸ that falls within his “Make America Great Again” mantra. But so was Hamilton of like mind,⁷⁹ who once wrote: “Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and new world!” ⁸⁰ This Father of the American Financial System, who was probably the first American thinker who fully understood Economics, was himself slavish to neither mercantilism nor free market economic (laisse faire) theories. ⁸¹ Hamilton was a statesman par excellence, meaning that Hamilton understood that Economics is the Handmaiden of Politics – but not partisan politics (power for the sake of power) but instead national greatness. ⁸² Is this not the same pursuit of President-elect Trump’s “Make America Great Again”?
As Professor Eidelberg points out, “Hamilton did not identify, publicly or privately, with any class of society ⁸³ – the mark of a genuine liberal. Rather, he used commercial men for political ends, namely, the establishment of a great and powerful republic.”⁸⁴ Although political pundits try to force Trump into one or another devious caricature, as if to make him look as if he identifies with one enviable class (e.g., billionaires) or another despicable class (e.g., racists), President Trump (when you put aside his sometime difficult-to-tolerate public persona) really does come across as sincerely putting America first – or, to use Professor Eidelberg’s formula, not identifying publicly or privately with any class of American society but instead identifying himself simply with America itself. In other words, President-elect Trump may just be the 21st Century Alexander Hamilton that practically everyone got wrong until the appearance of that Broadway hit, Hamilton! In other words, President-elect Trump may just be a genuine liberal, like Hamilton, precisely because he puts America First. If Trump’s economic plans align with Hamilton’s which align with Aristotle’s Middle Class, this speculation will be proved true.
Practical wisdom is the virtue of the genuine or philosophic statesman, and economics is his practical instrument for bringing about political greatness for a Great Nation.⁸⁵ Anyone who knows anything about Hamilton’s earliest years knows that Hamilton, born in the Caribbean and orphaned at an early age, was hired as a clerk at the age of 11 by the import-export trading business owned by Beekman and Cruger. According to Hamilton’s famous biographer, Ron Chernow, Hamilton was “schooled in a fast-paced modern world of trading ships and fluctuating markets” and was charged with “monitor[ing] a bewildering inventory of goods” by a firm that “dealt in every conceivable commodity required by planters”; consequently, Hamilton “had to mind money, chart courses for ships, keep track of freight, and compute prices in an exotic blend of currencies, including Portuguese coins, Spanish pieces of eight, British pounds, Danish ducats and Dutch stivers.”⁸⁶ In short, long before Hamilton became soldier in the American Revolution, aid-de-camp to General George Washington, hero at the Battle of Yorktown,⁸⁷ Secretary Treasurer for President Washington, author of his economic and financial Reports, and ultimately statesman, Alexander Hamilton was – started out – as an entrepreneur in the West Indies. This is important because this fact underscores Aristotle’s eighth (8th) qualitative trait: Analyzing the previous seven essential elements that make up a bona fide Middle Class, Aristotle comes to the conclusion that “the best lawgivers belong to the middling citizens.”⁸⁸ Precisely because Alexander Hamilton was a genuine or philosophic statesman, Hamilton understood the art of statesmanship. And, that great trophy of his statesmanship – his Economic Plan for American Greatness founded on the creation of Middle Class unique to the American Character – was spawned in Hamilton’s earliest childhood years as a clerk, as an entrepreneur – a true self-made man. ⁸⁹
As an aside, more than occupation it is the spirit of the entrepreneur – the individual who thinks outside the box – that marks a man or woman as belonging to the middling citizens; this is what gives regime its best hope for a “best lawgiver”. Might the next President fit this bill? ⁹⁰ We shall have to wait and see.
In the meantime, this is key to any politician and would be statesman who contemplates proposing a new tax plan for the so-called American Middle Class. Proposing a plan that is “by the numbers” (such as Kamala Harris’ “LIFT the Middle Class”, which defines “middle class” by a $50,000 and a $100,000 income threshold) is not an act of statesmanship, but rather an act of partisanship, aimed mostly, if not exclusively, at consolidating votes among a certain class of citizens – be it the federal, state, local bureaucratic class (the average federal employee salary being $67,080 and median salary being $71,131), effectively giving rise to a kind of “welfare dependency” designed to keep you “poor” – a member of democracy, in other words) or that other class of citizens who are already welfare dependent.
Stated differently, tax legislation defining Middle Class ultimately “by the numbers” proves that the politician does not fully understand or care to appreciate exactly what the Middle Class is by nature and does not understand or intentionally dismisses the purpose that the Middle Class is intended to serve (at least in Aristotle’s and Hamilton’s view) in a republican form of government that is increasingly moving in the direction of democracy, indeed totalitarian democracy. Not “numbers” but “character” is the essence of Aristotle’s and Alexander Hamilton’s Middle Class. Professor Eidelberg’s summation of the essence of their Middle Class is defining: “Quite apart from the factor of size [referring to the advantage of a large versus small middle class], however, the character of the middle class will depend on the manner in which its members earn their livelihood, as well as on their customs, religious beliefs, and their education in general.⁹¹
The American Middle Class, as designed by Hamilton in line with Aristotelian criteria, is less an economic class per se as much as it is an occupation or group of occupations that are characterized by a certain spirit, ethos, indeed character. Better yet, as previously states, entrepreneurial is not a class but a state of character focused on honor, distinction, risk taking and inventiveness (thinking outside the box), ruggedly individual, independence in judgment and action. It bears repeating that it was Hamilton’s ambition that America be “industrious, entrepreneurial, innovative, temperate, sagacious, energetic, diverse, urbane, mobile, refined, and lawful.”⁹²
The statesman needs to think hard about identifying which occupations that best fit this mold, and a tax plan, like Hamilton’s economic plans, should be designed to capture this spirit and advance its cause.
While assessing who fits the bill for “membership” in this Aristotelian-Hamiltonian Middle-Class clearly gets more complicated when applying Aristotle’s qualitative criteria of regime analysis than when relying on existing American quantitative criteria (e.g., income tax brackets or earned income levels), I submit to the reader that, when devising a genuinely equitable tax program, America is and will be much better served if our genuine statesmen utilize Aristotle’s qualitative criteria when deciding who actually belongs, indeed should belong, to the American Middle Class.
Summation
Why? Why is America better served by an effort that cannot be anything less than extraordinary? Because this is the statesman’s job. The statesman’s job – as distinct from the mere politician’s job (whose preponderant focus is on getting elected over and over again) – is to enlarge the Middle Class. Professor Eidelberg explains: “By enlarging the size of the middle class, the statesman contributes to a regime’s stability, which is a necessary condition for the cultivation of human excellence. Statesmen, says Aristotle, ‘should devote their effort to the construction of stability.” ⁹³ Stability (i.e., peace, particularly civil peace or freedom from civil discord) is the precondition for the cultivation of human excellence. ⁹⁴ Hamilton tells us in his Farmer Refuted essay, that man has a duty to “beatify his existence”.⁹⁵ Professor Karl-Friedrich Walling elaborates on the meaning of Hamilton’s call to mankind “beatify his existence”, writing: “In his youth, Hamilton wrote of a right not merely to property but also to beatify our lives, to try to do something splendid with our existence. [Hamilton] blessed commercial society because it could arouse men from the idleness, boredom, and misery that often results from work unsuited to their capacities and tastes.”⁹⁶ This was the aim of Hamilton’s Economic Plan for America. But it could not be achieved in the 1790s any more than it can be achieved again in 2024 if America lacks genuine or philosophic statesmen at the helm. Of course this will take effort, greater effort than if one goes down the “by the numbers” path – that’s what mere politicians do. True American statesmen – men who belong to “the family of the lion or the tribe of the eagle” – put America first, above petty ambitions to stay in power, and make the effort to identify those Americans who truly belong to the AristotelianHamiltonian-American Middle Class by searching “the manner in which its members earn their livelihood, as well as on their customs, religious beliefs, and their education in general.” The best way to begin, if history (as for example in the case of Alexander Hamilton) is to be our best guide, is to start with the entrepreneurial class. This is very clear in Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures: “When all the different kinds of industry obtain in a community, each individual can find his proper element, and can call into activity the whole vigor of his nature.”⁹⁷ Hamilton tells us that when this is done, “The community is benefited by the services of its respective members, in the manner, in which each can serve it best.” In other words, Hamilton’s economic plan is designed, specifically, to encourage promotion of individuality in the American character in order to bring unity, prosperity, stability, and unity to this Great Nation. My vote for defining the American Middle Class is to follow the lead of Alexander Hamilton, who follows Aristotle: That class who combines the traits of an independent spirit, of risk taking, and of inventiveness is the best candidate because that class has the greatest entrepreneurial spirit. ⁹⁸
Moral of the Story
The Declaration of Independence tells us that government is instituted to protect the right of its citizens to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Aristotle teaches us, in The Rhetoric, that Happiness is Prosperity conjoined with Virtue.⁹⁹ Alexander Hamilton provides us with the methodology for accomplishing both prosperity and virtue, starting with building the Middle Class on firm foundations that aligns with Aristotle’s teleological view that nature does nothing in vain; and, in the case of the Middle Class, nature intends the truly “middling class” to supply the eight traits essential for providing stability in a polity, that is, in a republican form of government. This is the challenge for the American statesman: creating a tax structure that aligns itself with the American character into which Alexander Hamilton tapped for building a formidable economic plan (the original “Make America Great Again” plan) and aligned with Aristotle’s strategy to make democracy safe for a republican government through the creation of a bona fide middling class that entrenches stability. The task of the philosophic or genuine statesman in democratic republic is or will be to educate the American people about these truths.¹⁰⁰
Footnotes
¹ Insofar as I know to be true, this phrase originates with Professor Paul Eidelberg. He tells us that the philosophic statesman “emphasize[s] not the desirable so much as the feasible” because he is “limited by the power of rhetoric”; “the political thought of th[is] statesman is largely shaped by the philosopher”; but, while he “makes use of antecedent political theories”, he adjusts them “to the practical purposes of the statesman on the one hand and to the character of his audience on the other” (which is why he is a statesman and not a philosopher). That said, this kind of statesman is philosophic precisely because he “modifies the moral and intellectual horizon of his audience”, “his motive being the common good” (as well as “love of fame”) and that his “articulation of the common good becomes the community’s standard of judgment”; “thus conceived, the common good is, in a very real sense, his political autobiography”. “The genuine statesman does not formulate comprehensive and long-range plans as a detached and unaffected spectator”, to the contrary, “his political decisions, or his public policies he sets in motion, are emanations of his own personality”. Being “unwilling to share “the field of glory with mediocrities”, in the final analysis, these statesmen are “not party men but regime men”: The philosophic statesman “personifies, as it were, the best regime in practice, [while] the philosopher the best regime in theory”; “the philosopher a lover of the divine”, animated by “a quest for wisdom”, while the philosophic “statesman is “a lover of the political” and therefore is “is animated by the quest for fame”, properly understood as seeking “to be honored by no less than philosophic statesmen like himself”. In Lincoln’s words: the philosophic or genuine statesman yearns to belong to “the family of the lion or the tribe of the eagle”. Paul Eidelberg, A Discourse on Statesmanship: The Design and Transformation of the American Polity, (University of Illinois Press, 1974), pp. 11, 19, 92, 111, 270, 375, 442.
² Average Inflation for the Years: 2020 (1.4%). 2021 (7%). 2022 (6.5%). 2023 (3.4%). 2024 as of October 2024 (2.4%). Source: US Inflation Calculator, Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: All items in U.S. city average, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ inflation/current-inflation-rates/.
³ See Gerard Delanty, Pandemics, Politics, and Society: Critical Perspectives on the Covid-19 Crisis: “Accord James M. Edwards Sr., Middle class households starting to erode: New Castle News (Posted May 14, 2021) https://www.ncnewsonline.com/opinion/columns/middle-class-households-starting-to-erode/article_6c1531f5-26c0-5852-bffd-dfa638a9c20a.html And see Middle class households starting to erode | Columns | ncnewsonline.com; (Posted May 14, 2021). https://www.ncnewsonline.com/opinion/ columns/middle-class-households-starting-to-erode/article_6c1531f5-26c0-5852-bffd-dfa638a9c20a.html. And see Democrats Do Not WANT a Middle Class (drhurd.com) (Posted on March 24, 2020). https://drhurd.com/2020/03/24/democrats-do-not-want-a-middle-class/. Accord Charles Kadlec, The Democratic Party’s Secret Attack On The Middle Class (forbes.com): https://www.forbes.com/sites/ charleskadlec/2012/10/22/the-democratic-partys-secret-attack-on-the-middle-class/.
⁴ Rahm Emanuel, Let’s make sure this crisis doesn’t go to waste, Washington Post (March 25, 2020) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/25/lets-make-sure-this-crisis-doesnt-go-waste/.
⁵ Tomes have been written about Marxism and communism, taking into consideration the Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist variations. But for purposes of simplicity: Communism amounts to the removal of private ownership of property, resting that ownership in the hands of the State wherein the differences between classes (rich vs. poor, among other classes) have been resolved the conflict dialectic of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel that involves a three-step process: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Following Hegel, Marx claims that Hegel’s methodology was correct expect in one respect. There is no spiritual anything; everything is material. Accordingly, over the course of history, the dialectic has involved conflict or struggle between classes: monarchy vs. feudal land-owning nobility, that nobility vs. commercial aristocracy, that aristocracy vs. capital owning industrialist, until finally the last conflict of the bourgeoisie owners of industrial capital vs. workers who own little property and certainly no capital. The latter are famously known as the proletariat. According to Marx, History reaches its final Hegelian resolution when the capitalist society is deposed by the proletariat who politically force – literally force – ownership of capital in the hands of the State. Only then will there be a classless society, which is the goal of Marxist Communism.
⁶ “New” is relative to Plato’s formulation of regime names, . Aristocracy. Timocracy. Oligarchy. Democracy. Tyranny. In other words, Plato’s regime analysis did not envision a Polity, later called republic.
⁷ See Aristotle, The Politics §1279a-24 (Barker Translation, p. 114): According to Aristotle, “when the masses govern the country with a view to the common interest, the name for this species (or policies) – the name of Polity.” See Paul Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, Aristotle’s Criteria of Regime Analysis: “In one regime, the many are moderate; they rule with a view to the common good; that regime is just. Aristotle names such a regime as a ‘polity’.” p. 107.
⁸ See Paul Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, Aristotle’s Criteria of Regime Analysis: “Aristotle regards democracy and oligarchy as unjust regimes. Stated very simply, democracy is an unjust regime because the many, who comprise the poor, rule in their own interests and at the expense of the few, who comprise the rich. Conversely, oligarchy is an unjust regime because the few, who are rich, rule in their own interests and at the expense of the man, who are poor.” p. 40.
⁹ See Aristotle, The Politics §1295b-29 (Barker Translation), p. 182: “It is clear from our argument, first, that the best form of political society [i.e. Polity] is one where power is vested in the middle class, and, secondly, that good government is attainable in those states where there is a large middle class – large enough, if possible, to be stronger than both of the other classes, but at any rate large enough to be stronger than either of them singly; for in that case its addition to either will suffice to turn the scale, and will prevent either of the opposing extremes to become dominant.”
¹⁰ Carnes Lord, Essay on Aristotle, at p. 143. History of Political Philosophy, 3rd Ed., edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey. (Emphasis supplied)
¹¹ Carnes Lord, Essay on Aristotle, at p. 145, in History of Political Philosophy, 3rd Ed., edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey: “It is not sufficient to identity the mixed regime [i.e., the Polity] generally as the regime that is best or most acceptable for most cities. Because the regime is in the last analysis not merely a certain arrangement of offices but a way of life for the city as a whole, it would seem that regimes that attempt to reconcile the interests of the powerful and disparate groups through institutional means alone are bound to be in some sense artificial constructs and thus constantly subject to political instability. But what if one could construct such a regime around a group that would itself act to bridge the sociopolitical and ideological differences that nurture instability? This appears to be the though underlying Aristotle’s remarkable and unexpected praise of the middle class and its potential political rule [citation omitted].” (Emphasis supplied).
¹² The previous, or first, question being: Why should the American Middle Class be favored? The follow up question is: Who should be included in this new definition of the American Middle Class?
¹³ “LIFT (Livable Incomes for Families Today) the Middle-Class Act”. https://www.congress.gov/bill/ 116th-congress/senate-bill/4/text.
¹⁴ Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Kamala Harris’s LIFT the Middle Class Act, Oct 1, 2019 (Taxes) https://www.crfb.org/blogs/kamala-harriss-lift-middle-classact#:~:text=The%20LIFT%20the%20Middle%20Class%20Act%20would%20provide,on%20the%20num ber%20of%20children%20a%20taxpayer%20has.
¹⁵ This article was composed when Ms. Harris was a candidate. Since then, it is now history that she lost to former and now future President Trump. That said, the reason for utilizing Ms. Harris’ tax proposal is not undone by the events of November 5th 2024. The purpose here is simply to reinforce how most, if not all, contemporary American politicians think when defining who is inside and who is outside the Middle Class for tax favored treatment. In short, for these politicians, it’s “all about the numbers”. This article argues for a different methodology.
¹⁶ Even the half-hearted student of the history of Europe during the 19th and 20th Centuries remembers that these two centuries were fraught with internal, that is, civil discord – and in France and Russia especially, revolutions. One of the reasons why these European countries were easily given to revolution is because they lacked a Middle Class the likes of which Aristotle describes. True, these countries had the beginnings of a capitalist style middle class; but they lacked the necessary soul that Aristotle is describing in his 8 qualitative traits that he believes gives rise to a true Middle Class capable of performing an essential transformative role in society and politics to escape the danger and destruction of revolutions.
¹⁷ See Paul Eidelberg, The Philosophy of the American Constitution: A Reinterpretation of the Intentions of the Founding Fathers (Free Press, 1968) and A Discourse on Statesmanship: The Design and Transformation of the American Polity (University of Illinois Press, 1974).
¹⁸ Prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed by the States through their legislatures, not through popular election. Democrat Woodrow Wilson advocated for an amendment to allow the People to directly elect Senators to the Congress instead of through action by the States. See Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913), https://www.gutenberg.org/ ebooks/14811.
¹⁹ It is a well-known fact that when Benjamin Franklin exited Independence Hall on the final day of the Federal Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, a woman stopped him and asked him: “Dr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?” Franklin laconically snorted: “A Republic, Madame, if you can keep it.” https://constitutioncenter.org/education/classroom-resource-library/classroom/perspectives-on-theconstitution-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it
²⁰ Arguably, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution of 1787 democratized the Senate, and may have changed the direction of the Republic. With the House and the Senate now being directly elected by the People instead of by the States (i.e., the State legislatures), only the aristocratic body of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Electoral College stand in the way of the full transition of the American Republic into an American democracy. It is assumed that this will eventually take place, driving home the point of this article: The need to fully appreciate the role of the Middle Class and why the Middle Class, especially a large Middle Class, is essential for stability in a democratic republic inclined towards outright democracy.
²¹ I do not claim that the Framers were “Aristotelians” any more than they were “Lockeans”, as some historians argue, in the sense of being “disciples” of either Aristotle or John Locke. Rather they thought like Aristotle. Aristotle’s Politics is a search, not for ideal, but rather the best regime. The Framers were men who were classically trained but, more importantly, were men of common sense – eminently practical men adopting that which is the best, that is most feasible, given the facts at hand.
²² Study footnote 1 supra, Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, pp. 11, 19, 92, 111, 270, 375, 442. In Lincoln’s words: the philosophic or genuine statesman is a very different kind of politician; he is one who yearns to belong to “the family of the lion or the tribe of the eagle”, a founder in other words.
²³ We should not forget that the Framers of the Constitution of 1787 did not have the same occultist love for democracy that the legacy media and even some conservative media voice, as well as Republican politicians who espouse conservative opinions. We should keep in mind that it is historically accurate to say that, when the Framers spoke of democracy, they did so with trepidation – fear of what we saw in the 2020 Summer of Love and the mindless lockstep conforming of the majority to COVID-19 restrictions that nearly crushed the middle class.
²⁴ Polybius is perhaps more outspoken than Aristotle, and maybe even Hamilton, about the true nature of democracy and the danger of democracy gone to excess, which Polybius calls “mob rule”: “ * * * when in their senseless mania for reputation they have made the populace ready and greedy to receive bribes, the virtue of democracy [i.e., love for freedom and equality] is destroyed, and it is transformed into a government of violence and the strong hand. For the mob, habituated to feed at the expense of others and to have its hopes of a livelihood in the property of its neighbors, as soon as it has got a leader sufficiently ambitious and daring, being excluded by poverty from the sweets of civil honors, produces a reign of mere violence. Then come tumultuous assemblies, massacres, banishments, and redivisions of land, after losing all trace of civilization, it has once more found a master and a despot. This is the regular cycle of constitutional revolutions, and the natural order in which constitutions change.” On Roman Imperialism, Book VI, Regnery/Gateway (1980), pp. 180-181. The 2020 Summer of Love (Looting and Murder) experience in Seattle, Portland (https://politifix.com/summer-of-love-looting-and-murder), Minneapolis, and St. Louis provided many Americans with a first hand witness account via television of what a Marxist revolution might look like in 21st Century America.
²⁵ Thomas L. Pangle, Aristotle’s Teaching in the Politics, at 187.
²⁶ Id. (Emphasis in original).
²⁷ Id. at 187, referencing Aristotle’s Politics, section 1295b5-11) Professor Pangle tells us that, while he utilizes the 1984 Carnes Lord translation of Aristotle’s Politics, the translations of his book, Aristotle’s Teaching in the Politics, are his own. Accordingly, the translations of Aristotle cited herein are Pangle’s.
²⁸ Id. at 187, referencing Aristotle’s Politics, section 1295b5-12.
²⁹ Id. at 187, referencing Aristotle’s Politics, section 1295b13-28. Accord Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, p.196: “Unlike the poor, the middle class does not covet the goods of others. This should not be taken to mean that the middle class is utterly free from this vice. But inasmuch as the members of the middle class enjoy a greater degree of security, they do not covet the possessions of the rich.” (Emphasis added)
³⁰ Accord Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, p.196: “When the poor are envious of the rich, they are more apt to be filled with ill will or resentment.” “[The poor] may regard themselves as victims of injustice. * * * they may regard the possessions of the rich as undeserved if not ill gotten, and their character as suspect if not vicious. Furthermore, given the feeling of injustice that accompanies their envy, the poor are more susceptible to factional strife or to the seditious designs of ambitious demagogues”.
³¹ Id. at 187, referencing Aristotle’s Politics, section 1295b29-33.
³² Id. at 187, referencing Aristotle’s Politics, section 1296a7-9. Accord Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, p.196-197: “In contrast, should a middle-class person harbor envy, it will probably be neutral in disposition or unaccompanied by ill will of the feeling of injustice. Accordingly, such a person will not begrudge the more affluent members of society; indeed, he is more likely to respect their character. This would render him more amiable and just in his relations with other and less prone to engage in factional strife.”
³³ Id. at 188, referencing Aristotle’s Politics, section 1295b38.
³⁴ A prime example of this is America’s “divided government” when one political party controls the White House and the other political party controls the Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Divided_government_in_the_United_States. See also Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, p.197: “In a ‘polity’, the middle class can hold the balance of power between the rich and the poor and will prevent either from becoming dominant.”
³⁵ Id. at 188, referencing Aristotle’s Politics, section 1296a3-6. (Emphasis added) Accord Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, p.198: “Finally – and this is of crucial importance – the middle class is neither servile like the poor, nor arrogant like the rich. Here it may be noted that the mean between servility and arrogance is deference, a quality especially prominent among the members of the middle class. This quality renders them more amendable to reason and to restraints of law. * * * In fact, middle-class people will be especially concerned about the preservation of law and order. Meanwhile, they will be less afflicted by the ambition of the rich, who according to Aristotle, are prone to crimes more destructive of a regime thank those of the poor.” (Emphasis supplied)
³⁶ Id. at 187, referencing Aristotle’s Politics, section 1295b13-28. (Emphasis supplied)
³⁷ Id. at 187. (Emphasis added)
³⁸ See Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, p.197-198: “ Lacking the envy of the poor and the avarice of the rich, the middle class possesses the virtues essential to a ‘polity’, namely, moderation and justice. In addition, the possession of adequate property on the part of middle-class persons in conducive to the virtue of liberality, or as [President Woodrow] Wilson said, generosity.”
³⁹ Id. at 189, referencing Aristotle’s Politics, section 1296a3-6.
⁴⁰ 1 Democracy in America 325 (Dover Books).
⁴¹ Accord Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, p.198: “ * * * deference, a quality especially prominent among the members of the middle class * * * makes possible that manly obedience without which one cannot acquire the first of command. Indeed, Aristotle maintains that the best legislators have come from the middle class.” (182) (Emphasis supplied)
⁴² Id. at 186. Professor Pangle elaborates by quoting key passages from Aristotle: “he [Aristotle] astonishes us by proclaiming the availability of a practicable regime that accords with virtue as a whole, and hence ‘happiness’. ‘If or since * * * it was nobly said in the Ethics [1106a32ff] that the happy life is the life unimpeded in accordance with virtue; and virtue is a mean’; then ‘necessarily the mean [middling] life must be the best – the life of the mean [middle] that happens to be possible for the various individuals’; and (Aristotle takes a momentous further step) ‘the same definitions as these must necessarily hold for the virtue and vice of city [polis] and regime [politeia] (1295a25-40).” According to Carnes Lord, politeia is frequently taken to be used in its generic sense of “regime” rather than in its specific sense of “polity,” and the use of such devices is characteristic of “well-blended” regimes—polities and aristocracies that approach polities. See footnote 51 to Carnes Lord, Aristotle’s Politics, Second Edition, University of Chicago Press.
⁴³ See Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, p. 196 : “What distinguishes a well-designed and difficult to recognize ‘polity’ from the poorly designed and the easy-to-recognize ‘polity’ just mentioned is that the former, unlike the latter, is not a stratified regime with a fixed order of classes. The well-designed ‘polity’ which Aristotle himself has in mind is not divided between the rich and the poor. Rather, it is a middle-class regime par excellence. Accordingly, under the material mode of regime analysis, the character of the middle class must be distinguished from that of the other classes.” (Emphasis in original)
⁴⁴ Thomas L. Pangle, Aristotle’s Teaching in the Politics, at 187.
⁴⁵ Richard B. Morris, The Forging of the Union (1781-1789), Harper & Row – 1987, p. 7.
⁴⁶ John C. Miller, The Federalist Era (1789-1801), Harper Torchbooks – 1960, p. 105.
⁴⁷ As represented by the Van Renselaers, Van Cortlandts, Bayards, Livingstons, and Schuylers of New York, and the Saltonstalls and Dudleys of New England. Id. at 105.
⁴⁸ As represented by the Byrds, Blands, Lees, Carys, Fairfaxes, and Wyatts of Virginia. Id. at 105.
⁴⁹ Russel Blaine Nye, The Cultural Life of the New Nation (1776-1830), Harper Torchbooks – 1960, p. 105 – 106. Professor Nye is careful to point out that, while “Revolutionary society had its own kind of aristocracy”, American aristocracy at that time was not “really ‘aristocratical’ in the European sense.” Id.
⁵⁰ As represented by the Hancocks, Faneuils, and Amorys of Boston; the Lows, Waltons, Wolcotts, Brockholsts, and Jays of New York; the Browns and Whartons of Rhode Island; the Morrises, Binghams, Shippens, Whartons, and Pembertons of Philadelphia; and the Izards, Rutledges, Laurences, and Pinckneys of South Carolina. Id. at 105.
⁵¹ Russel Blaine Nye, The Cultural Life of the New Nation (1776-1830), p. 106.
⁵² Id. at 107.
⁵³ George F. Will, Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and Recovery of Deliberative Democracy.
⁵⁴ The phrase Great Nation is a term of art in medieval political philosophy. The phrase is meant to capture the distinction between a community that is ordinary from a community that is other. In the philosophical writings of Al-Fārābī and Moses Maimonides, it is religion that distinguishes the ordinary from the nation that is great.
⁵⁵ Hamilton insisted that the new debt, funded by the federal government promoted by the Reports on the Public Credit, be incurred only if accompanied by means for paying it off; and “Hamilton insisted that the debt not grow beyond the fiscal means of the nation.” Michael Federici, The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, (John Hopkins University Press, 2012), p. 202.
⁵⁶ Hamilton advocated the development of industry with the assistance of government policies like bounties, tariffs, and subsidies, which were essentially taxes to generate revenue to finance the national debt. Id.
⁵⁷ Michael Federici, The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, p. 202: “A national bank was part of Hamilton’s plan, as it would serve, with the Treasury Department, as an institutional mechanism for implementing fiscal and monetary policies.”
⁵⁸ In connection with the famous Washington Farewell Address of 1796, neither George Washington’s nor Madison’s draft of 1792 utilizes the phrase “Great Nation”. Significantly, in the 1796 final draft, Washington includes, and Hamilton affirms, the use of the phrase Great Nation. The Washington-Hamilton final draft reads as follows: “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it – It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue?” (Emphasis supplied)
⁵⁹ Jacob E. Cooke, Alexander Hamilton: A Biography, (Scribners – 1982) p. 101.
⁶⁰ Michael D. Chan, Aristotle and Hamilton: On Commerce and Statesmanship, (University of Missouri Press – 2006), 105-151.
⁶¹ Thumos, also spelled Thymos (Ancient Greek: θυμός), is the Ancient Greek concept of ‘spiritedness’ (as in “a spirited stallion” or “spirited debate”). The word indicates a physical association with breath or blood and is also used to express the human desire for recognition. Jorgenseon, Chad (2018). The Embodied Soul in Plato’s Later Thought. Cambridge University Press. pp. 6–38.
⁶² Id at 156-157, citing multiple pages of the Report on Manufactures, as well as Federalist Papers Nos 11, 53, and 56, and Aristotle’s Politics 2.11.1273a-40: 82.
⁶³ Id. at 156.
⁶⁴ See Michael P. Federici, The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, (Johns Hopkins University Press – 2012), p. 31: “The report [i.e., Report on Manufactures] advocated the development of industry with the assistance of government policies like bounties, tariffs, and subsidies. The aim of these policies was union, national security, and economic prosperity.”
⁶⁵ FINRA Rule 2010.
⁶⁶ Michael P. Federici, The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton at 183, citing George Will, who stated that Hamilton’s various economic reports were “an exercise in statecraft as soulcraft.” (Emphasis added) See e.g., George F. Will, Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and Recovery of Deliberative Democracy p. 153, 158-159, 165; and see Hamilton, Farmer Refuted, Papers of Alexander Hamilton (PAH) 1: 87; and Karl-Friedrich Walling, Republican Empire: Alexander Hamilton on War and Free Government (University Press of Kansas, 1999) at 205.
⁶⁷ Id at 183.
⁶⁸ Id. at 171 (My Emphasis).
⁶⁹ Hamilton, Report on the Public Credit, in Michael D. Chan, Aristotle and Hamilton: On Commerce and Statesmanship, at 173. See Michael Federici, The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, p. 206; “While taxes were a necessary part of financing government, they could be destructive to the nation’s economic health if they are too high. In other words, Hamilton believed that the amount of debt of a nation could responsibly handle depended on the size and strength of its economy and the efficiency of its revenue system. * * * If the nation was already deeply in debt when war came, the financial capacity of the nation to fight would be greatly reduced. Keeping the debt at a responsible level was not only important for the economy but a matter of national security. This is one of the reasons Hamilton was willing to go to great lengths to avoid war in the 1790s.” This fact underscores the genius and powerful argument of Hamilton’s moral-legal-military strategy and real politick Cabinet Memorandum to President Washington (Nootka Sound Controversy, 15 September 1790).
⁷⁰ Michael D. Chan, Aristotle and Hamilton: On Commerce and Statesmanship, at 174.
⁷¹ Aristotle’s Politics, section 1295b13-28.
⁷² Michael P. Federici, The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, p. 183.
⁷³ Again, this is that class that has a “middling, measured amount” of (that is, modest) property holdings, which in turn “avoids the insolence and overreaching wickedness that wealth inspires, and the petty criminality and cheating that poverty impels”, thereby inclining this special class within society that “easily heeds reason.” Aristotle’s Politics, section 1295b5-11.
⁷⁴ Aristotle’s Seventh (7th) Trait, supra. Aristotle’s Politics, section 1295b13-28. Again, this class is a community that “wishes to be constituted as much as possible from those equal and similar” to themselves; is the class of moderation and justice and liberality (generosity), exhibiting these virtues that best holds a society together.
⁷⁵ Michael P. Federici, The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, p. 213.
⁷⁶ Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, p.197-198 (Emphasis supplied).
⁷⁷ By the way, President Reagan is one of my American heroes.
⁷⁸ See Michael P. Federici, The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, (Johns Hopkins University Press – 2012), p. 31: “The report [i.e., Report on Manufactures] advocated the development of industry with the assistance of government policies like bounties, tariffs, and subsidies. The aim of these policies was union, national security, and economic prosperity.” (Emphasis supplied)
⁷⁹ See Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, p. 94: “One of the persistent themes of Hamilton’s papers in The Federalist is the theme of greatness. This theme is brilliantly developed by Gerald Stourzh in his Alexander Hamilton and the Idea of Republican Government [Stanford University Press, 1970].” (Emphasis in original)
⁸⁰ The Federalist, Essay No 11 (Modern Library, pp. 66, 69). (Emphasis supplied)
⁸¹ Michael D. Chan, Aristotle and Hamilton: On Commerce and Statesmanship, at 154-158, and especially 199: “[Hamilton’ embraced elements of mercantilism and protectionism as ways to shield the new republic from international competition that might stunt the growth of its emerging industries. In some instances, his economic ideas were intimately bound up with two overarching objectives: solidifying the nation and providing for the defense.”
⁸² As Professor Federici points out: “Hamilton certainly thought that national greatness was important, but there is little evidence that he was willing to sacrifice the happiness of citizens to achieve it, especially in regard to their economic well well-being. It is more likely the case that he saw these two objectives as intertwined to the point that one was necessary for the other.” Michael P. Federici, The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, p. 193.
⁸³ Elsewhere, Professor Eidelberg writes, in effect, that Hamilton was one of those few who are genuine statesmen, putting his country first above class, both the wealthy and the poor. As Professor Eidelberg writes: “Hamilton indeed had a contempt for wealth – though he knew how to use the wealthy for his cause. And, too, he had a contempt for popularity – even when he served the cause of popular government In serving that cause, Hamilton displayed the classical virtue of magnanimity, the very virtue he saw essential to the presidency.” (Emphasis supplied) Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, p. 99.
⁸⁴ Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, p. 372.
⁸⁵ Regarding the meaning of Great Nation, see footnotes 53 and 57, supra.
⁸⁶ Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton (Penguin Books, 2004) p. 29.
⁸⁷ See Phillip Thomas Tucker, Ph.D., Alexander Hamilton’s Revolution: His Vital Role as Washington’s Chief of Staff (Skyhorse Publishing, 2017), p. xii: “Hamilton led the charge on imposing Redoubt Number Ten, while sending a Continental battalion – under the command of his best friend, Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens – swinging around to gain the bastion’s rear: a clever pincer movement guaranteed to catch the enemy by surprise. Once again and so often in the past, this gifted young man in a bue Continental officer’s uniform had proved that he could success ins almost any goal that he sought to attain. Hamilton’s remarkable tactical success in capturing this strategic redoubt in conjunction with the capture of the adjacent redoubt by the French, sealed the fate of Yorktown and the British-Hessian-Loyalist army. Lord Charles Cornwallis had no choice but to surrender his enter army: a turning point not only in American history, but also in world history.” (Emphasis supplied)
⁸⁸ Id. at 189, referencing Aristotle’s Politics, section 1296a3-6.
⁸⁹ See Phillip Thomas Tucker, Ph.D., Alexander Hamilton’s Revolution: His Vital Role as Washington’s Chief of Staff, p. xiii: “* * * no Founding Father of America overcame greater adversity and more setbacks early in life than Alexander Hamilton, who became a master at doing the impossible, regardless of the odds. This irrepressible young man elected himself to lofty heights because he possessed an uncanny ability to dream big and almost miraculously overcome the seemingly insurmountable obstacles stemming from family tragedies, cruel twists of fate, and hard luck that were no fault of his own. * * * * Hamilton succeeded by way of his own impressive array of abilities (a true self-made man) as one of the most extraordinary men not only of the Revolutionary War Era, but also of American history.” (Emphasis supplied)
⁹⁰ I think so. Entrepreneurial is NOT a class, but a state of mind that becomes materialized in moral character. Thus, even if President Trump was born with a silver spoon as some pundits like to speculate, this would not make him any less entrepreneurial. Again, Entrepreneurial is not a class but a state of character focused on honor, distinction, risk taking and inventiveness (thinking outside the box), ruggedly individual, independence in judgment and action. Trump checks the box for all these traits.
⁹¹ See Eidelberg, Discourse on Statesmanship, p. 196 at footnote 3. (Emphasis supplied).
⁹² Michael P. Federici, The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton at 183.
⁹³ See Paul Eidelberg, The Philosophy of the American Constitution: A Reinterpretation of the Intentions of the Founding Fathers (Free Press, 1968), p. 198.
⁹⁴ See Michael D. Chan, Aristotle and Hamilton: On Commerce and Statesmanship, at 184: “Hamilton himself conceded that industrial society is a mixed blessing, but on balance, he believed that it offered each citizen the best opportunity for ‘beatifying his existence’ or doing something splendid with his life”.
⁹⁵ Hamilton, Farmer Refuted, Papers of Alexander Hamilton (PAH) 1: 87.
⁹⁶ Karl-Friedrich Walling, Republican Empire: Alexander Hamilton on War and Free Government (University Press of Kansas, 1999) at 205.
⁹⁷ Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, in Samuel McKee, ed., Alexander Hamilton: On Public Credit, Commerce, and Finance, (Liberal Arts Press 1957), p. 195.
⁹⁸ To appreciate the importance of entrepreneurship of the middle class and the connection to stability, read: Karen Mills, Contributor, Entrepreneurship and the Middle Class: Growing Our Economy From the Middle Out, Huffington Post https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ entrepreneurship-and-the_b_3731884 (Aug 11, 2013, 04:31 PM EDT; Updated Dec 6, 2017).
⁹⁹ Aristotle, The Rhetoric, Bk. I, Section 1.5 [Happiness Defined. Its Constituents.] p. 24. (Appleton, Century, Crofts – 1932), Lane Cooper, trans.
¹⁰⁰ See Alexis de Tocqueville and the Art of Democratic Statesmanship. Brian Danoff and I. Joseph Hebert, Jr, editors, (Lexington Books, 2011), Introduction by Brian Danoff, p. 2: “The task of democratic statesmanship is well described by de Tocqueville in the introduction to Democracy in America, wherein Tocqueville declares that “The first duty imposed on those who now direct society is to educate democracy; to put, if possible, new life into its beliefs; to purify its mores; to control its actions; gradually to substitute understanding of statecraft for present inexperience and knowledge of place; and to modify it as men and circumstances require. [citation omitted] In this passage, Tocqueville articulates a conception of statesmanship that is close, in some regards, to that of the ancients. In his Politics, Aristotle insisted that “It is a mistake to believe that the ‘statesman’ is the same as the monarch of a kingdom or the manager of a household, or the master of a number of slaves.” [citation omitted] This is mistaken because the goal of the genuine statesman is to educate the citizenry, to make them virtuous so that they are fit for free government – – fit, that is, for ruling and being ruled.” The same duty of the Executive,applies also to the Judiciary – specifically, the Supreme Court – for a similar purpose: “The statesman’s duty, especially in a republican form of government, is to educate and elevate the opinions of The People, particularly with respect to its founding principles, in order to cultivate a higher discourse among the citizenry about the nature of republican government. [citations omitted] But, in addition to this responsibility, judicial statesmanship includes the duty of explaining the justice of a particular law [citations omitted] this is or might be consistent with republican government guaranteed by the Constitution.” [citations omitted] See Joseph C. Cascarelli, Esq., Is Judicial Review Grounded in and Limited by Natural Law? 30 Cumberland Law Review, 3:373, at 437-438 (2000).
