‘Hamilton’ Isn’t Conservative At All

Conservatives are wrong about the terrible musical

Hamilton, the musical sensation of the Obama era, wants to send a message to the new Trump administration. Its producers cancelled performances of the hip-hop musical at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to protest the admin’s takeover of the cultural institution. Some conservatives were happy with the move. Peachy Keenan called Hamiton a “cringefest” and asked: “Can we stop doing the ‘thugged-out black dudes wearing breeches and waistcoasts’ thing please?” (The musical, for those who don’t know, depicted the Founding Fathers as non-white rappers.)

This criticism drew fiery defenses of the musical from many prominent conservatives. They insisted Hamilton is actually a conservative masterpiece. “Hamilton is one of the most conservative pieces of culture produced this century—deeply patriotic, historically accurate, and elevating Hamilton over Jefferson,” argued ABC contributor Sarah Isgur. Conservative podcaster Mary Katharine Ham fully agreed, saying: “It’s also runs counter to central tenets of the wokest left’s ideas by inviting young people of color to see themselves in a culturally popular (and eloquent!) telling of the Founding and the idea of American exceptionalism in themselves.” National Review editor Kathryn Jean Lopez tied the musical to the only issue she cares about, bizarrely claiming it’s pro-life because it shows Alexander Hamilton growing up in an orphanage. (Oliver Twist must be the most pro-life work in history by this strange standard.) Hannah Cox, host of the inappropriately titled “Based Politics,” argued: Hamilton is one of the best pieces of culture ever made. It’s deeply patriotic, lyrically brilliant - a masterpiece - pretty historically accurate. The only issue I have with it is it takes Hamilton’s side over Jefferson’s…for quite obvious reasons.” She further claimed it’s racist to not like it for raceswapping the Founding Fathers. (People subverting the meaning of “based” is why I say “keyed” instead.)

These claims are absurd. Only an idiot would believe Hamilton is a conservative work of art. The musical is the embodiment of Obamaism. It imagines the founding as animated by the same multicultural liberalism of the 44th president. Changing the founders from white to black wasn’t merely about winning over young non-whites to the story of America–it excised the whiteness of the Founding.

It should be noted that the only figure played by a white actor in the musical is King George III, the villain. That’s intentional, as Screen Rant explains:

Much of Hamilton's story centers around the United States' bid for independence; it's to leave the Old Word Order behind and start a new one in the image of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and the other Founding Fathers. By making these figures into people of color, they're re-framing that story; at the same time, King George being white helps provide a much clearer delineation between the two. Like Seabury, King George is a relic of what was before; someone who wants to keep the status quo because it works for him, rather than change it for the better of others.

This also conveys to young people that the Founders were actually black, as one writer cheerfully recounts:

I read about a young boy who asked his mom why we say Barak Obama is the first black US president because after watching Christopher Jackson play George Washington in the Hamilton musical, he thought Washington had been black as well. I thought it was adorable, and frankly quite wonderful.

This revisionism is in line with the 1619 Project, the much-criticized endeavor to portray blacks as the true founders of America. It might be a bit more patriotic than Nikole Hannah-Jones’s creation, but it conveys the same message. This is a land built by blacks and immigrants. Whites only got in the way. The king’s whiteness makes that foundational aspect of America alien and imposes a false multicultural fantasy in its place.

Without whiteness, America wouldn’t be America. It’s what gave us the ideas and principles that animated the Revolution and the Constitutional Convention. To bestow these ideas on to others is to erase that history, not convey it to another generation.

Hamilton also proclaimed a fervent pro-immigration message. One of its most popular numbers is “Immigrants (We Get The Job Done).” The Broadway hit imagines Hamilton as a proud immigrant who thinks migration is what makes America great. That’s not how it was in real life. Hamilton was not really an immigrant. He moved from a Caribbean British colony to a continental British colony. It was part of the same culture and the same empire. Hamilton, as a politician, was an immigration restrictionist. He did not praise immigrants for getting the job done. He thought that the newcomers disrupted social order and altered the nation’s character.

That important fact is changed to make Hamilton a proto-Obama.

The people behind Hamilton wanted it to be lib propaganda. Lin-Manuel Miranda campaigned aggressively for Hillary Clinton at the height of the musical’s popularity. This included a cringe-inducing rap on late night TV about why you should vote for Hillary. Soon after Trump’s 2016 election, cast members lectured Mike Pence about how the administration threatens people’s lives after the incoming vice president attended a performance. The fact the producers are pulling the musical from the Kennedy Center to protest Trump illustrates its left-wing core.

On top of all this, Hamilton is corny as hell. Black guys dressed as founding fathers conducting rap battles is the definition of lame. Contrary to what Mary Katharine Ham says, the audience for this musical was not young people of color. It was the same white liberals who frequent Broadway in the first place. Bad taste and liberal politics made it a hit.

It was the perfect musical for the Obama era. As a corny black guy governed our nation, our elites became obsessed with a performance that depicted the Founders as corny black guys. White liberals would rather see the Founding Fathers as that rather than Anglo-Saxons.

There isn’t a great wealth of explicitly conservative art, so right-wingers naturally try to find elements they like in what’s available. There are plenty of otherwise apolitical films with conservative messages, such as Lord of the Rings. But there are many works with explicitly liberal messages that conservatives can’t claim as their own. Hamilton is one such example.

It presents a patriotic, friendlier version of the same American story the 1619 Project sought to tell. If commentators think that’s conservative, then what the hell is the meaning of conservative?