What I Saw at the Trump Rally

People trying to make it to the Trump rally.

Today I tried to attend a Donald Trump rally in Austin.    I almost made it in.  There were about ten people in front of me before the fire marshal made them close the doors.   However, even without actually making inside, it was quite an experience.   Here are few impressions and a lot of photos.   

If Donald Trump  ran the country like he planned this rally, we are all in trouble.   The rally was held at the Travis County Expo Center in Northeast Travis County.   The nearby area was a combination of gentrification mixed with minority neighborhoods.  The parking filled up hours before the rally started.   However, cars were snarled in traffic waiting to get into a parking lot where they would be turned away.   People had to park on the side of a narrow rural road for miles on either side.    There was a long procession of people walking toward the rally in the hot Texas sun, Trump supporters and protesters walking side by side.   The only tense moment was when a Hispanic kid in a sports car kept revving his end and burning rubber while stuck in traffic.   He seemed like he was trying to annoy the people around him.   If he had let go of the brake, it would have been a mess.

The Joker

Whos in Bed With Donald Trump?

This is Austin so people were keeping it weird.   There was a guy There was a guy dressed in a joker costume with a sign that said "Keep America Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.    There was a pickup truck with a naked Donald Trump in the back with a sign saying "Who's in Bed with Donald Trump?"

 When I made it into the Expo grounds, I was struck by the fact that the guys selling Trump merchandise were largely African American.   I think it was good for the Trump fans to see hard working African American men.   However, they shouldn't be so sure that these guys actually support Trump.   Being the hard-working  go-getters that they are, they were probably ready to hawk merchandise for whoever was the next person to come along regardless of ideology.

 Now I'd like to talk about the Trump supporters.    As I stood in line, there was the occasional macho shout of Hillary for Prison or Build That Wall.    However, it was a diverse bunch of white people.   There was a group of teenage boys near me, one of whom was wearing a Reagan-Bush '84 tshirt that was probably older than he was.   Then there was this couple:   a cute girl wearing shorts with an InfoWars tshirt and her boyfriend with  a cowboy hat and a Hillary for Prison tshirt.    The Trump supporters were by and large very well behaved and polite.   However, as I finally made it to the front of the line, there was an announcement that the fire marshal had shut down the line and that no one more would be allowed in.   I heard comments of "the fire marshal must be a Democrat" (which he probably was) and "but I had a ticket."    Apparently the Trump campaign gave out way more tickets than they had space.  Again, this is not a sign of good planning and it resulted in a lot of annoyed people.   I wasn't that annoyed.  I was just hot.   

 

Along they way, there were plenty of pro-Trump bumper stickers and one pro-Trump protester.   In addition to the regular campaign bumper stickers, I noticed signs for InfoWars and the NRA.   Here are two that stood out.   

 Then there were the protesters.   Inside the grounds, there were only two lonely groups.   One held up an amateurish sign saying "Trump Go Home" and another one stood stoic near the entrance to the Expo Center with a sign detailing Trump's many marital indiscretions.    

Then there were the nice protesters.   I especially like the woman who held a sign saying "love, Respect, Tolerance, Kindness" and the woman with the "Love Trumps Hate" tshirt.

 

   

I would be remiss if I did not point out the other protesters.   Here are some photos of the hundred or so people opposing the Trump rally.

 

As I made the long journey back to my car, I heard a lot of Trump supporters honking at the protesters to drown them out.   However,one car slowed beside me and said "Sir, please don't vote for Trump."   I assured them I would not  and the guy said, "then you're off the hook."

 

    

Dissecting Donald Trump's Acceptance Speech

I listened to part of Donald Trump's acceptance speech last night on the way home from the airport. It was scary and bizarre. Here are some excerpts and my reactions. You can read the speech in its entirety here.

Midnight in America

Ronald Reagan had morning in America.   For Donald Trump, it's midnight.   He begins his speech by setting up a crisis.

Our Convention occurs at a moment of crisis for our nation. The attacks on our police, and the terrorism in our cities, threaten our very way of life. Any politician who does not grasp this danger is not fit to lead our country. Americans watching this address tonight have seen the recent images of violence in our streets and the chaos in our communities.

Many have witnessed this violence personally, some have even been its victims.

I have a message for all of you: the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20th, 2017, safety will be restored.

This is straight out of the demagogue's playbook. Invoke a crisis and promise easy solutions. While the challenges we face are daunting, they pale in comparison to the Civil War, Hitler and the Mutually Assured Destruction of the Cold War. Those were real existential threats. While even one shooting of a police officer is too many, there have been fewer police officers killed in the line of duty under Obama than under any of his recent predecessors. Further, what we have been seeing in the way of both domestic and foreign-inspired terrorism in this country consists of lone wolf attacks. These are difficult to detect and prevent. So when Trump promises that safety will be restored on 1-20-17, he is not telling the truth.

Demonize Your Opponent

Then he uses divisive us vs. them rhetoric to demonize his opponent.

Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place.

They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does.

She is their puppet, and they pull the strings.

That is why Hillary Clinton's message is that things will never change.

Hillary is the puppet of big business? What a bizarre statement. In the primaries, Trump boasted about his ability to buy politicians. Trump has a record of cheating people in business deals. If he is part of the same corrupt system, how is he the one to change it? On top of that, Hillary's platform is all about change. It's just not about going back to the 1950s.

Trump then amplifies the charge.

And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence - I know that corruption has reached a level like never before.

When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was "extremely careless" and "negligent," in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes.

In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting away with it - especially when others, who have done far less, have paid so dearly.

When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the time for action has come.

Trump starts with what is true, which is that Hillary used a private email server and then just fabricates a lie that she deleted her emails to cover up the "egregious" crimes she was committing. What are these egregious crimes? Apparently it is that her charitable foundation, which earns an A from charity watchdogs, took money from foreign governments. This is a great example of the big lie. And no one is a bigger liar than Trump.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Then he went back to be afraid, be very afraid.

America was shocked to its core when our police officers in Dallas were so brutally executed.

Immediately after Dallas, we have seen continued threats and violence against our law enforcement officials.

Law officers have been shot or killed in recent days in Georgia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Kansas, Michigan and Tennessee.

On Sunday, more police were gunned down in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Three were killed, and three were badly injured.
 

An attack on law enforcement is an attack on all Americans.

I have a message to every last person threatening the peace on our streets and the safety of our police: when I take the oath of office next year, I will restore law and order to our country.

I will work with, and appoint, the best and brightest prosecutors and law enforcement officials to get the job done.

In this race for the White House, I am the Law And Order candidate.

Once again, invoke a crisis and offer an easy solution.  This is a very real crisis and it calls for serious solutions.    However, what good does it do to appoint the best and brightest prosecutors and law enforcement officials when the people who commit these crimes are inevitably killed in the attacks? The only solution is prevention but Trump doesn't seem to recognize this. Additionally, most crime is investigated and punished at the local level. Is Trump proposing to federalize the nation's police forces?  

On top of this, when Trump says "I am the Law and Order candidate," he is echoing Richard Nixon in 1968. At that time, I am the Law and Order candidate meant I will put down the black people. Trump may not have the historical memory to recognize this but the parallel is striking.

The Big Pivot

Then Trump pivots:

This Administration has failed America's inner cities. It's failed them on education. It's failed them on jobs. It's failed them on crime. It's failed them in every way and on every level.

When I am President, I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally.

Every action I take, I will ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson who have the same right to live out their dreams as any other child in America?

This is inspiring rhetoric but it is completely the opposite of the divide and conquer message that he has been setting out. Which of these is the real message?

In one of the stranger portions of the speech, he speaks out for the LGBTQ community but only when they are threatened by ISIS.

Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted our LGBTQ community.

As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.

This is an attempt to pivot toward inclusiveness but it is very narrow. His party's platform is against marriage equality, but he wants to protect the LGBTQ community from foreign terrorists. What about domestic terrorists? Will he support hate crimes legislation? His party opposes it.

The False Narrative

Going back to Hillary he brings up a false narrative:

We must abandon the failed policy of nation-building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror. This includes working with our greatest ally in the region, the State of Israel.

Nation-building and regime change was the policy of the Bush administration not Hillary Clinton. The regime change in Iraq occurred during the Bush administration. The biggest criticism of President Obama's policies in Syria is that he didn't do enough to back the Syrian rebels. This was the opposite of regime change. We did not set out to change the government of Egypt. That was an organic movement where the people of Egypt rose up against a corrupt dictator. He has a point about Libya. We intervened, although the President was criticized for "leading from behind," that is, letting our allies take the lead. As President Obama has admitted, failing to plan for what would happen next in Libya was his biggest regret. Trump takes situations which are nuanced or which are the opposite of what he is saying and puts them into a black and white narrative.

After this, Trump seems to take credit for changing the focus of NATO. Here is what he said:

Recently I have said that NATO was obsolete, because it did not properly cover terror, and also, that many of the member countries were not paying their fair share. As usual, the United States has been picking up the cost.

Shortly thereafter, it was announced that NATO will be setting up a new program in order to combat terrorism -- a true step in the right direction.

This is kind of a non sequitur. He makes his criticism of NATO and then points out that right after he said it, NATO did something right.   Is he claiming that he caused it?   He sure gives that impression.

Immigrant Bashing

After this Trump returns to the immigrant bashing that has been a consistent theme of his campaign.

Lastly, we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.

My opponent has called for a radical 550 percent increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama. She proposes this despite the fact that there's no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from.

I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people. Anyone who endorses violence, hatred or oppression is not welcome in our country and never will be.

Decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment for our citizens, especially for African-American and Latino workers.

We are going to have an immigration system that works, but one that works for the American people.

On Monday, we heard from three parents whose children were killed by illegal immigrants_Mary Ann Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw.

They are just three brave representatives of many thousands who have suffered so gravely.

Of all my travels in this country, nothing has affected me more deeply than the time I have spent with the mothers and fathers who have lost their children to violence spilling across our border.

These families have no special interests to represent them.

There are no demonstrators to protest on their behalf.

My opponent will never meet with them, or share in their pain.
 

Instead, my opponent wants Sanctuary Cities.

But where was the sanctuary for Kate Steinle?

Where was the Sanctuary for the children of Mary Ann, Sabine and Jamiel?

Where was the Sanctuary for all the other Americans who have been so brutally murdered, and who have suffered so horribly?

These wounded American families have been alone.

But they are alone no longer.

Tonight, this candidate and the whole nation stand in their corner to support them, to send them our love, and to pledge in their honor that we will save countless more families from suffering the same awful fate.

We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities.
 

I have been honored to receive the endorsement of America's Border Patrol Agents, and will work directly with them to protect the integrity of our lawful immigration system.

By ending catch-and-release on the border, we will end the cycle of human smuggling and violence. Illegal border crossings will go down. Peace will be restored.

By enforcing the rules for the millions who overstay their visas, our laws will finally receive the respect they deserve.

Tonight, I want every American whose demands for immigration security have been denied - and every politician who has denied them - to listen very closely to the words am about to say.

On January 20th of 2017, the day I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced.

We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone. But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens.

My plan is the exact opposite of the radical and dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton.

Americans want relief from uncontrolled immigration. Communities want relief. Yet Hillary Clinton is proposing mass amnesty, mass immigration, and mass lawlessness.

Her plan will overwhelm your schools and hospitals, further reduce your jobs and wages, and make it harder for recent immigrants to escape from poverty and join the middle class.

There is so much to respond to in this passage. Trump talks about "massive" flows of Syrian refugees. We have taken in about 1,200. Increasing that by 550% means going up to 9,000. That is a drop in the bucket compared to what our European allies have taken in. On top of that, there are close to 0 terrorist attacks by recent refugees. While Trump claims to be a Christian, he has no compassion for the foreigner in our midst.

Then he paints this picture that immigrants are violent. Actually, immigrants are more law abiding than native born citizens for the simple reason that they don't want to stand out.    And when he says that there is no one speaking out for the families of people killed by illegal immigrants, he is just wrong.  

Trump can't help but mention his stupid border wall. It's not going to happen. It would bankrupt the country and involve a massive confiscation of private property. Give it up Trump.

And what is this about Hillary calling for sanctuary cities? It's the big lie.

Then Trump makes this ridiculous statement that by ending catch and release, "peace will be restored." Last time I looked we weren't at war with immigrants. I grew up in El Paso, Texas. It is right across the border from Juarez, one of the most violent cities in Mexico. And yet El Paso is one of the safest cities in the U.S. If Trump was correct, El Paso would be awash in blood.

Magical Thinking On Taxes and Regulation

After this, Trump turned to economic policy. Like a typical Republican, he wants to cut taxes in the magical belief that this will bring economic prosperity. Let's listen to what he said.

While Hillary Clinton plans a massive tax increase, I have proposed the largest tax reduction of any candidate who has run for president this year - Democrat or Republican.

Middle-income Americans and businesses will experience profound relief, and taxes will be greatly simplified for everyone.

America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world. Reducing taxes will cause new companies and new jobs to come roaring back into our country.

Then we are going to deal with the issue of regulation, one of the greatest job-killers of them all. Excessive regulation is costing our country as much as 2 trillion dollars a year, and we will end it.

The Republican playbook consistently calls for tax cuts. It might have made sense in the Reagan administration when the top tax rate was 80%. However, it should be obvious that the Bush tax cuts combined with the war in Iraq turned the Clinton surplus into a massive deficit.   On top of that, the Bush tax cuts did not lead to prosperity.  They to the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression.  Finally, the claim that we are one of the highest-taxed nations in the world is just absurd.

And about regulations. No one likes government regulations. However, we do like to breathe clean air and drink water that is free from lead contamination (does anyone remember Flint, Michigan). We prefer to fly on planes that don't crash and drive on roads that don't crumble. Regulations may be expensive but they just might save your life.

Making the World Safe from Government

A little while later, Trump doubles down on his plan to protect Americans from evil government with a string of non sequiturs. He said:

My opponent would rather protect bureaucrats than serve American children.

Really? When did she say that?

We will repeal and replace disastrous Obamacare. You will be able to choose your own doctor again.

And we will fix TSA at the airports!

I thought he wanted more security. What does he think TSA does?

We're going to work with all of our students who are drowning in debt to take the pressure off these young people just starting out their adult lives.

That's great. I think that was part of Bernie Sanders' platform.

We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we are protecting, at a massive cost to us, will be asked to pay their fair share.

We will take care of our great Veterans like they have never been taken care of before. My just-released Ten Point Plan has received tremendous veteran support. We will guarantee those who serve this country will be able to visit the doctor or hospital of their choice. My opponent dismissed the VA scandal - one more sign of how out of touch she really is.

The VA Scandal is bad. However, how are you going to fix it without spending more money? Is Trump willing to do that? Of course not.

My opponent wants to essentially abolish the 2nd amendment. I, on the other hand, received the early and strong endorsement of the National Rifle Association and will protect the right of all Americans to keep their families safe.

No Hillary does not want to abolish the Second Amendment. However, she will stand up to the fanatics in the NRA who oppose regulations supported by 90% of Americans, including their own members.

At this moment, I would like to thank the evangelical and religious community in general who have been so good to me and so supportive.

You have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits.

An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and protect free speech for all Americans.

I am glad to see that Donald Trump has gotten religion. After cheating on two of his wives and marrying a woman who likes posing with very few clothes on and operating casinos, it is good to see that he wants to be a role model for the evangelical community.

I am pretty much of an absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment. However, there is nothing that says that churches have to be tax exempt. If you want to take the goodies from the government that come with being tax exempt, you have to accept the restrictions. Religious people can still fully participate in politics. You will notice that there is no shortage of Christian pastors involved in politics. However, as a Christian I don't think that politics has a place in the pulpit. Pastors should preach the gospel, not the government.

I Am the Leader

And then the big finish.

My pledge reads: "I'M WITH YOU - THE AMERICAN PEOPLE."

I am your voice.

So to every parent who dreams for their child, and every child who dreams for their future, I say these words to you tonight:

I'm with you, I will fight for you, and I will win for you.

To all Americans tonight, in all of our cities and in all of our towns, I make this promise:
 

We Will Make America Strong Again.

We Will Make America Proud Again.

We Will Make America Safe Again.

And We Will Make America Great Again.

God Bless You And Good Night.

Final Thoughts

By now it should be clear. Donald Trump is not my voice. He is with the American people all right. It's just that his vision of the American people excludes a lot of us. If anyone fails to support him, he will respond with blinding ferocity and venomous insults.    Just witness his treatment of Ted Cruz.

By now it should be clear that Donald Trump has not convinced me. However, will my rant convince anyone else? Probably not. We are so divided, just as we were in 1960, 1968, 2000 and 2008. President Obama did not create this divide with his so-called divisive rhetoric.  We have been divided into warring camps, each convinced that they alone speak for the American people for generations. However, there is no one person who speaks for the American public because we do not have a common vision for America. When we are most divided, a strong man will appear who will claim to speak for the American people. However, when the people are divided, the leader will speak for part of the people and against the rest. While Trump makes overtones of inclusiveness, his overall message is that if you are not for me, you are not a good American. If you are not for me, I will crush you.

Is Hillary much better? She's certainly not perfect. I could go on and on about her faults. She's certainly not my first choice. She may make this country worse off. However, I do not think she will destroy it. In this election of diminished expectations that may be enough.

Why Can't We Get Back to Government the Way the Founding Fathers Intended It? Because They Were a Fractious Bunch Who Disagreed About Nearly Everything.

We have good reason to revere our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.   Moving from the divine right of kings to the consent of the governed was a major step in the history of freedom.    However, the Founding Fathers did not have a single vision of what government under the Constitution would look like.   They fought with each other about what the Constitution should look like and later what it meant.    Nowhere is this conflict more clear than in looking at Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton was an orphan, a bastard and an immigrant who came to this country with nothing.   He was a New Yorker who rose to high station through education and hard work.  Hamilton was George Washington's right hand man during the Revolution.   During the debates over the Constitution, he favored a strong national government which would have all the power at the expense of the states.   He also favored a president for life.    He didn't get the Constitution he wanted.  However, he led the effort to ratify the Constitution by writing most of the Federalist Papers along with his ally at the time, James Madison.   As Treasury Secretary under President Washington, he championed the creation of the First Bank of the United States.   He also argued for neutrality between England and France.    He lived in a era where men settled matters of honor with duels, but his personal honor did not prevent him from sleeping with another man's wife and then paying hush money to her husband.    He died in a duel at the hands of Aaron Burr.

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was a lawyer, a philosopher and a Virginia planter.   He was the main author of the Declaration of Independence which contains these words:   

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.   That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

While Jefferson referred to unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, he was not a religious man.   In fact, he coined the term "wall of separation" which has become shorthand for the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.   Jefferson believed that the federal government should be limited to the powers specifically enumerated although this did not keep him from doubling the size of the country with the Louisiana Purchase.  He was Secretary of State under George Washington and was the third President of the United States.   In Washington's cabinet, he favored siding with France in its conflict with England.     He was a slave owner who fathered children with one of his slaves.

James Madison

James Madison was also a Virginia plantation owner who owned slaves.   He was the primary author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.    Along with Hamilton, he helped write the Federalist Papers.   Madison was Jefferson's Secretary of State and then served as the fourth President.    Over his life, he shifted from being a proponent of a strong national government to favoring state's rights.    In the Federalist No. 44, he proposed the implied powers theory that was later championed by Hamilton.

No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized.

 In other words, the national government had the power to do anything necessary to achieve its purposes.    However, in reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts, he proposed that states could nullify actions of the national government.    As President, he sought a declaration of war against England.  However, because the Democratic-Republicans under Jefferson and Madison had reduced reduced the army, closing the Bank of the United States and limited taxation, Madison did not have a strong army or the financial means to pay for one.   The British invaded Washington and burned the White House and the Capitol.   Many state militias refused to fight and a bill for a draft was defeated in Congress.   The war ended after Napolean was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo and the English lost interest in fighting the United States.    After opposing extension of the charter of the first Bank of the United States and vetoing a bill providing for a second national bank, he eventually approved the Second Bank of the United States based on the difficulties involved in funding the War of 1812.

Lessons From Three Founding Fathers

What can we learn about today's struggles from these Founding Fathers?

1.  Enumerated Powers vs. Implied Powers

One of the rallying cries of the Tea Party is that the national government should be limited to those powers expressly set out in the Constitution.  This is one reason why many Republicans want to abolish many government agencies.   This was consistent with Jefferson's view of the Constitution until he had the chance to do something which was not enumerated, that is, the Louisiana Purchase. 
Hamilton was a strong proponent of the view that the national government could do anything that was not forbidden and he was initially supported by Madison, who later changed his mind and supported the Jeffersonian view.

2.   Strong National Government vs. Strong States

Hamilton wanted a strong national government.   If he had had his way, the states would have been stripped of almost all power.   Jefferson and Madison not only favored state's rights, but believed that the states had the right to nullify federal legislation.   It took a civil war and the civil rights struggle to establish that states did not have the right to disregard laws enacted by the national government.   However, there are still some politicians who still make this argument.

3.   National Bank/National Debt

There is a long tradition in this country of distrusting banks and expressing suspicion of a national bank.    The first and second Bank of the United States were both allowed to lapse.   We did not have a permanent national bank in this country under the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.    The Fed remains a target of conspiracy theorists today.   

One benefit of having a national bank was the ability to borrow money.   Madison learned that not having the ability to borrow on the credit of the national government was a real problem when he could not fund the War of 1812.

4.   Military and Foreign Policy

This is an area where the Founding Fathers were very contradictory.   Hamilton favored a standing army but opposed getting involved in foreign wars.   Jefferson and Madison opposed a standing army but wanted to go to war against England and in support of France.   This proved to be a disaster in the War of 1812.    Jefferson and Madison had somewhat more success with the First and Second Barbary Wars.   

    

5.   Religion

None of these three Founding Fathers were particularly religious.    According to one biographer, Hamilton was "a conventional liberal with theistic inclinations who was an irregular churchgoer at best."   However, he could embrace Christianity when it served his political purposes, such as in opposing Jefferson.    Jefferson and Madison, on the other hand, worked mightily to ensure that the United States did not have a national religion.   While there were other Founding Fathers who were very religious, the lack of religion among these founders demonstrates that religiosity was not unanimous.   

6.   Summing It Up

Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison demonstrate just how much the Founding Fathers disagreed about and how much they fought with each other.   In a very real sense, they were making up America as they went along.   In a very real sense, we still are.