IT IS not surprising that Mike Pence was booed and scolded at a performance Friday of the Broadway musical, Hamilton. The play is a celebration of the replacement of the European peoples of America, something Trump voters want to limit. Gregory Hood, writing last April at American Renaissance, called the extremely popular play a “subversive jab” at the Founders:

Hamilton is a wildly successful production put together by the Puerto Rican Lin-Manuel Miranda. It is based on Ron Chernow’s 2004 biography of the Founding Father, and tells the story of Alexander Hamilton’s life in musical form. This is an unlikely subject to be celebrated by pop culture, but Hamilton has a gimmick: The entire cast is non-white, the soundtrack is influenced by hip-hop and R&B, and the performance style is . . . black. We see the Founding Fathers recast as braggadocious rappers beefing with each other rather than as the soldier-statesmen familiar to previous generations. Not surprisingly, Michelle Obama called it “the best piece of art in any form that I have ever seen in my life.” Given her intellect, she is probably telling the truth.

There is of course, one white character: the bad guy, King George III. But from George Washington to (surprisingly) Aaron Burr, all of the American Revolutionaries are non-white. Thus, “whiteness” is associated with a backward past of unearned privilege and power, while “blackness” is a revolutionary force that overturns an unjust society. The racial makeup of the cast is an act of subversion, a mocking insult to the European-Americans who actually built the country.

In this retelling, Hamilton is a Big Man in Charge ready to flaunt his power and wealth. The creator of the American financial system, opponent of mass democracy, and champion of centralized power is transformed from a Federalist elitist into an honorary black man with the swagger and ego of a Chicago pimp. Just as the lowest street hustler dreams he can be Jay Z, Hamilton has been repackaged as a model for multicultural America. This is what the critics mean when they talk about making the Founding Fathers “relevant” to young people; Hamilton will be shown in schools just as 1776 was.

Of course, Hamilton devoted his remarkable talents to building what he saw as the correct social structure. He was often accused of favoring monarchy, and spoke warmly of the British political system the Americans had just overthrown. And it was Hamilton who spoke suspiciously of immigrants, arguing that “an influx of foreigners” would “change and corrupt the national spirit.”

But the play’s portrayal of Hamilton isn’t entirely wrong. He really did come from nothing. He was born in the West Indies–not in the 13 colonies–and was an immigrant rather than established American gentry like Washington or Jefferson. Though the High Federalists whom he led were obsessed with social decorum and standing, John Adams mocked Hamilton as “the bastard brat of a Scotch peddler.”

Not surprisingly, Hamilton has a following among conservatives. It appeals to their central conceit: We can replace the population, but the national character and form of government will remain essentially unchanged. It also lets conservatives fall into their familiar pattern of celebrating the symbolic dispossession of whites as some kind of ideological triumph for American principles.

Please follow and like us: