The rightwing Manhattan Institute recently honored a Betsy DeVos with its Alexander Hamilton Award.
Mercedes Schneider brilliantly explains that Betsy DeVos knows nothing about Alexander Hamilton or his convictions. Indeed, her anti-government views are the opposite of Hamilton’s, but she doesn’t know that.
Schneider writes:
According to MI, its Alexander Hamilton Award is named such “because, like the Manhattan Institute, he was a fervent proponent of commerce and civic life. ” However, Hamilton was clearly pro-centralized government, which makes the award an MI misnomer since MI uses it to honor the likes of DeVos, whose ideology is much more in line with the Antifederalists of Hamilton’s day.
The contradiction did not go unnoticed; on May 03, 2019, Think Progress published an article entitled, “Betsy DeVos Appears to Have No Idea Who Alexander Hamilton Was” From the article:
…The entire purpose of the agency Education Secretary DeVos leads is to use the resources of the federal government to foster better public education. Let’s also set aside the fact that the overwhelming majority of American primary and secondary school students — 90 percent — are educated by government-run schools. If DeVos plans to fight for “freedom from government,” she is in the worst possible job.
Yet DeVos doesn’t just appear to be rejecting the core mission of her agency and the foundational premise of the American education system. She also seems to have no idea who Alexander Hamilton is or what he sought to accomplish as the architect of much of America’s economic system. The early history of the United States was, to a large extent, a battle between a Jeffersonian model built on agriculture, small government, and slavery; and a Hamiltonian model built on capitalism, economic expansion, and a robust centralized government.
Hamilton’s core insight was that healthy markets and a robust manufacturing sector do not emerge from the ether so long as centralized authorities do not interfere. Rather, the vibrant economy that Hamilton helped build depends on a strong central government authority.
Below are excerpts from DeVos’ speech for the MI event, which she characteristically uses as a slant for her own pro-choice, anti-union agenda:
The Federalist Papers, to which Hamilton contributed a great deal, cautioned against a tyranny of factions. These groups of agitators jealously protect and advance their own self-interests to the detriment of just about everyone else.
Sound familiar? Education unions, the association of this, the organization of that… those are today’s factions. One of their own, the late Al Shanker, said this: “I don’t see a voice for students in the bargaining process. I think it’s one of the facts of life… the consumer, basically, is left out.”
That union boss admitted then what’s still true today: factions keep student voices out. But it’s way past time to let them in!
Note that the Federalist Papers were meant to assuage public fears about a centralized, federal government, but DeVos tries to shape a reference to them in order to discredit teachers’ unions.
DeVos is single-minded. She believes that her mission in life is to destroy public schools, weaken the federal government, and crush teachers’ unions. Why is this woman in charge of the U.S. Department of Education, which she despises?
This is one of Mercedes Schneider’s best pieces.
She concludes, with irony:
At the opening of her MI speech, DeVos comments, “I must admit I’m not sure what I’ve done to deserve such an honor.”
Indeed.
So many layers to that sandwich.

“BetsyDeVosED: “If every student is part of the public, then every way and every place a student learns is ultimately of benefit to the public. That should be the new definition of public education.”
I don’t think ed reformers have thought this through.
This is an argument for public funding of virtually everything.
I love that she phrased it as “if, then”. Plug in any word after “then” and just start issuing vouchers. Housing, medical care (absolutely- more so than education, I would argue), food, gasoline for the family car under the :”transportation” section of “benefit to the public”.
I read that the ed reform plan for vouchers is too radical for even Heritage and Cato and I can see why! 🙂
Do they see where they’re headed with this new definition of “public”? No, of course not. That would slow them down and it’s essential to push it thru before anyone gets wise to it.
LikeLike
Personally, I think DeVos is mentality and emotionally unstable, and that she learned nothing of value when she went to school. I honestly feel SORRY for DeVos, but not sorry enough to EXCUSE her HORRID actions and her GREED.
LikeLike
Someone should email Bernie Sanders and tell him Betsy Devos backs Medicare for All, as long as it’s funded with a voucher. I don’t think she would argue that “medical care” is NOT of “benefit to the public”. They can’t take their voucher and go to a private school if they’re sick.
Free college, too:
“If every student is part of the public, then every way and every place a student learns is ultimately of benefit to the public. That should be the new definition of public education.”
LikeLike
So now home schooling is a public school. That means that home schoolers should be subject to regulation, oversight and government accountability.
LikeLike
And you can use the voucher to make your mortgage payment!
Why not? It’s a public school. According to the incredibly rigorous and well thought out Theory of Ed Reform that Secretary DeVos has finally given us.
I wondered where they were going with this. To the MOON. It has no end.
LikeLike
The right wing zealots twist concepts to suit their own personal bias. DeVos is a perfect example of a right wing Christian that interprets everything according to her own narrowly focused agenda. The sad thing is that people like DeVos have been elevated in government thanks mostly in my view to ALEC and the Koch Brothers. It is the work of the rest of us to get these extremists out of government so we can return to some version of normalcy. We need to rid ourselves of the impact of ALEC, the “Freedom Coalition” and any other libertarian extremists or remnants of the Tea Party. We need to separate the affairs of state from religion.
LikeLike
If Betsy DeVos’s ignorance on this, or any other subject for that matter, surprises anyone, I can’t imagine why.
She is a callow, self-absorbed heiress.
LikeLike
“Education spending, Milton Friedman said, “will be most effective if it relies on parental choice and private initiative.” The godfather of school choice was right then, and he’s still right today.”
I’m grateful they’re finally admitting Milton Friedman is the “godfather”.
They’re way more radical than Friedman. He believed public schools should still exist and didn’t actively work against them.
LikeLike
I want to send my child to a private school that rich people “choose”, following the ed reform argument for vouchers, so my voucher needs to be 21k.
How can you deny me my choice? It’s a public school. Now. By proclamation.
LikeLike
These same people have no problem denying women the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. Georgia and other states are trying to limit abortion to six weeks before many women are even aware they are pregnant.
LikeLike
No one is asserting that Ms. DeVos is an historian. But how can you deduce, that she does not know who Alexander Hamilton was? That is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Hamilton’s belief in a strong central government is diametrically opposed to DeVos beliefin weak or no government. You missed the point.
LikeLike
I guess I did. Do you have some information, that Ms. DeVos believes in “weak or no government”. Her positions on reproductive rights, etc. seem to paint her as in favor of more governmental controls over person’s rights. Is she really an anarchist?
LikeLike
The interesting thing about the federalists vs the antifederalists is that both saw their philosophies as a way to unite what was then a disperate group of fairly large geographic areas. The models they had in mind were European, and none was very big. When the anti-Federalist, Jefferson, made it into the Presidency, he behaved a great deal like a Federalist, supporting the Embargo Act to try to keep the US out of the Napoleonic Wars and acquiring Louisiana, a strictly unconstitutional act. His focus became preserving the idea of a United States of America, and it made him look a lot more Federalist than he talked as anti.
Then there was the New Deal era of FDR and LBJ. In many ways, they accepted the federalist model of a national promotion of the common good in contrast with the state’s rights people who wanted to use the right of the states to preserve Jim Crow, the right of a company to hurt its employees, and similar aims. Whereas Jefferson saw the state as the most likely to protect civil liberties, his successors saw that the goal was the protection of civil liberties. Hamilton saw that the federal promotion of the public good through encouraging commerce was a positive. FDR agreed, beginning things like TVA that are accepted by all but a radical fringe today. Then the civil rights movement grew up when the most active protection of the rights of the individual lay with a federal government that was active in the protection of these rights. Suddenly, there was more individual protection from a central government than a local government. Hamilton for everybody.
Modern day states rights people chafe at governmental regulation when it suits them and champion regulation when it aligns with their goals. Thus the goals are the point. Some want a government that gets out of their life except to tell women when they can end a pregnancy. Others want high tariffs on imported goods except for the ones they are wanting to buy. Perhaps it was always about the small issues.
LikeLike
She deserves nothing but being shown the door. She a waste of the planet’s resources with no social redeeming value.
LikeLike
I’m waiting for Lin Manuel-Miranda to make a public statement as to this revolting development, seeing as what has been done (obliterated) to Puerto Rico’s public school system.
LikeLike