As we gear up for 2012 and beyond, American attention is increasingly returning to the oldest battle in our political history: the battle between the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians that split George Washington’s cabinet down the middle and established our first party system.

Are Newt Gingrich & President Obama both Hamiltonians? And if so, does categorizing them as such paper over too many differences in making the connection?

That fight was essentially over three things that divide us intensely today: the role of the federal government, the nature of the credit system, and the future of the social hierarchy. Alexander Hamilton favored a strong federal government at home and abroad, a centralized credit system similar to the British one with a Bank of the United States acting as our central bank, and believed that the best educated and most widely experienced people in the United States constituted a natural aristocracy and should play the leading role in our politics.

But the center has shifted on most of these questions. The “strong federal government” envisioned by Hamilton is probably the kind of government Ron Paul goes to bet at night dreaming about. The modern economy is much more dynamic and complex than the one Hamilton contended with, and the international system and our role in it as changed dramatically.

Thomas Jefferson disagreed with virtually everything Hamilton believed. He wanted a weak federal government, detested Hamilton’s banking system, and feared that the alliance of a social elite with a powerful government and a strong central bank would turn the US into a European-style aristocratic or monarchical society.

Jefferson’s political views were rooted in an agrarian society composed mostly of individualistic farmers. How relevant is that to the current political debate. Is anyone who doesn’t want to abolish the FED, essentially zero out military spending, and restore state supremacy in the federal/state relationship a Hamiltonian? And even if they are, does that have much relevance as a political category today?

Be sure to read the whole essay to consider how well Meade makes the connection. Personally, while I would buy that much of the political ideology of today evolved from the debate between Hamilton & Jefferson, I’m not sure using those categories provides much analytical leverage in the modern world. D.GOOCH

But the best visual he provided in his talk on the growth of the purchasing power of the dollar didn’t involve any complicated statistics. Rather, he took pictures for items for sale in a 1975 Sears catalog and their 1975 price and juxtaposed them with equivalent items from today. On each slide was an estimate of the # of hours a working class person would have to work to buy the product. For example, the color TV from the 75 catalog took 154 hours to earn. It took 11 to earn the flat screen TV today. And note how much more that TV can do today, and how much more reliable (remember TV repairmen?), and with more than 3 channels.

It was a powerful illustration of the argument I thought…and quite ingenious too. How lucky I was to spend a couple of hours in the car with Don one-on-one, taking him to and from Little Rock. A truly edifying experience!