I recently finished reading a biography of one of my favorite historical figures—ALEXANDER HAMILTON, AMERICAN, by Richard Brookhiser. I have wanted to read this book ever since reading Sister Revolutions: French Lightning, American Light. In my ongoing attempts to understand leadership from a more faithful perspective I find that my dreams of leadership pull me towards dissidents and revolutionaries. Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela, and yes, Alexander Hamilton. Brookshire makes these observations in the introduction of his book:
…Many of the leaders of the American Revolution were rich, powerful men—Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock. None had come from so far back as Hamilton.
But the Revolution was over. How then could the experience of Greene, or Hamilton, be repeated? What made Hamilton’s rise in the world more than an episode, or a detail in a dramatic life, is that he had thought of ways to bring light to the talents of other men as well as himself: an interlocking system of law, finance, and work that would enable his countrymen to become conscious of their resources. He did not outline his plans to his Fourth of July audience; there were not many details yet to outline. But he had been thinking of the problem for years, and the rest of his life, especially his term as treasury secretary, would be devoted to it. Most men who make it provide for their families, thank fortune, and maybe give to charity. Some raise the drawbridge behind them. Hamilton, who had already come from the Caribbean to the pulpit at St. Paul’s, and would go on to more glittering prizes yet, wanted to generalize his experience. That is why he is a great man, and a great American. Americans like to think of themselves as self-made, even though few of us are. Hamilton was, and wanted to give others the opportunities to become so. (emphasis mine)
I find Hamilton’s biography completely fascinating. He is known for writing the majority of the Federalist Papers, defending and supporting the US Constitution (even though he did not completely agree with it), laying the foundations of the US economic system, and setting many precedents in the US legal system. Many of the events of his life are overshadowed by his unusual and untimely death—killed by the Vice President of the United States in a duel. Ironically, Hamilton was not a very successful politician in spite of the profound influence he had in the forming of our government. The world of politics was not his venue. As the above excerpt points out, he was more willing to share his opportunities with others than he was to accumulate power for himself.
I find it unfortunate that leadership paradigms tend to value those who quest for power more than those who live to give their power away. As an ecclesial dreamer this tendency is puzzling to me. It is so strange to me that Built to Last and Good to Great are consistently recommended as good books for church planters when there are many much better books. Here is another interesting quote from Brookhiser’s book:
There is a statue of Hamilton in front of the Treasury Department in Washington, D.C., and millions of tourist pass it on their way to the White House next door. But it is not a destination. Hamilton, we feel, belongs where he is, on the $10 bill, not on Mt. Rushmore.
All things being equal, I will choose Hamilton’s leadership paradigm over Jefferson’s any day. I have to admit I have a hard time understanding why people who give their power away are seen as a threat by those who try to accumulate as much power as possible. Maybe they know intuitively that the first will be last and they are trying their hardest to fight against that.
