Liberals Are Ashamed Of ‘Hamilton.’ The Right Should Claim It

Last week, the producers of Hamilton announced they were pulling their upcoming run at the Kennedy Center in protest of the Trump administration’s recent changes to the Kennedy Center’s structure and funding. It’s just the latest in a long line of virtue-signaling spectacles from the creative team behind Broadway’s biggest hit of the last decade. From the famous lecture delivered to then-Vice President-elect Mike Pence in 2016 to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s frequent political pronouncements, the show’s creators seem determined to position themselves as standard-bearers of leftist resistance.

There’s just one glaring problem: Hamilton itself is one of the most profoundly conservative works of art produced in the 21st century.

This is precisely what makes the cast and producers so insufferable — they recognize, on some level, that their show clashes with their worldview. Their public posturing compensates for an uncomfortable truth: They’ve created and continue to perform a work that celebrates values they actively despise. While Miranda and his team posture on social media, every night audiences enjoy a show that reveres the American founding, the founders themselves, and the greatness of America that Trump champions.

There are a couple of leftist throwaway lines — “immigrants, we get the job done” and a mention of including women in the sequel that always get loud cheers from leftist audiences — but they’re just that: throwaways. Meanwhile, the entire story reinforces traditional marriage, faith, patriotism, and the exceptional achievements of our flawed but extraordinary founders. The ratio of conservative to leftist content is overwhelmingly tilted toward the former.

Yet, many conservatives remain reluctant to embrace Hamilton. Distracted by the creators’ political antics and the race-swapped casting, they’ve dismissed it sight unseen — assuming it must be yet another “woke” revision of American history. In doing so, they’ve deprived themselves of a work that affirms our most cherished values.

The Kennedy Center cancellation offers a timely opportunity to examine this disconnect and make the case that Hamilton is fundamentally a conservative work. Let’s explore how this acclaimed musical celebrates traditional values, individual greatness, and American exceptionalism — all while telling a story that conservatives should not only appreciate but embrace as their own.

Addressing Conservative Objections

The most common objection among conservatives is the race-swapping of historically white Founding Fathers. I get it — we’re all tired of Hollywood’s endless race-swapping of established characters, which often feels like a cheap attempt to score leftist points while disrespecting source material. The instinct to dismiss Hamilton on these grounds is understandable.

But Hamilton is different: Miranda’s race-swapping isn’t an act of disrespect or historical revision but a profound statement about American identity. Rather than separating Americans by racial and ethnic origin, Hamilton suggests that the founders and their legacy belong to all Americans, regardless of background.

Frederick Douglass, that great American patriot who was born a slave, understood this truth, writing in 1852: “Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men, too, great enough to give frame to a great age.” Hamilton’s casting embodies Douglass’s insight, rejecting the tendency to view the founders as irredeemably tainted by their historical era and instead invites all Americans to see themselves as heirs to the founders’ vision

This isn’t “representation” in the shallow, leftist sense; it’s a repudiation of the very concept of hyphenated Americanism that emphasizes place of origin over our shared American identity. The casting of Hamilton stands in direct opposition to identity politics, which encourages minorities to look with disdain upon the founders as merely “dead white men” irrelevant to their experience. Instead, Hamilton says: This is OUR story, our shared American inheritance.

Another common conservative dismissal focuses on the musical’s hip-hop elements. “It’s just rap,” some critics say, as if the musical form itself makes the content suspect. This objection misunderstands both the musical (which features a wide variety of styles) and how these forms serve the story.

Hamilton’s hip-hop isn’t the explicit variety that many conservatives rightfully critique (though there are a couple of unnecessary expletives). It’s more akin to what an enthusiastic history teacher might create to engage students — accessible wordplay meant to illuminate rather than alienate.

Miranda’s use of hip-hop for Hamilton’s character brilliantly captures the restless, ambitious, word-driven nature of the young man from the Caribbean. The density of lyrics and verbal dexterity embody the intellectual energy that made Hamilton exceptional.

Washington, by contrast, is given more measured, commanding musical styles reflecting his steadiness. King George sings British pop. The Schuyler sisters perform in styles reminiscent of 90s R & B. Each character’s music reflects his essence, serving the story being told.

The Conservative Heart of Hamilton

At its core, Hamilton rejects the leftist academic orthodoxy of our universities. Where liberal historians reduce history to abstract forces, systems, and power structures, Hamilton embraces the view that exceptional individuals shape the course of nations. The musical portrays the American founding not as an inevitable process driven by economic forces or class interests, but as the product of specific choices made by extraordinary individuals. Hamilton’s brilliance, Washington’s leadership, Jefferson’s intellectual prowess — all treated with genuine reverence, not cynical dismissal.

The musical doesn’t shy away from portraying the founders as flawed men, but it never suggests their flaws invalidate their achievements. Instead, it presents a nuanced view of American history that acknowledges imperfection while still celebrating the exceptionalism of our founding. This stands in stark contrast to the leftist tendency to view America’s birth primarily through the lens of its failings.

But Hamilton’s conservatism runs deeper than its portrayal of history and national identity. The musical offers a powerful meditation on the consequences of moral failure and the wounds caused by broken families.

The story presents Hamilton and Burr as men shaped by the absence of fathers. Their parallel quests for validation drive both their achievements and their fatal flaws. Hamilton’s relentless ambition and Burr’s consuming envy stem from the same root — a yearning for the approval and guidance they never received. Their story culminates in a duel that costs Hamilton his life, a tragedy that the musical presents not as an inevitable product of political differences, but as the result of unchecked ambition and pride. It’s a morality tale worthy of the ancient Greeks.

The musical’s traditional moral framework shines through with particular clarity in its unflinching portrayal of Hamilton’s infidelity. “Say No to This” chronicles Hamilton’s affair with Maria Reynolds in a way that condemns rather than excuses his actions. As the title itself suggests, the song depicts Hamilton’s struggle to resist temptation and his ultimate moral failure. The audience witnesses his internal conflict — “Lord, show me how to say no to this” — followed by his surrender to desire. The song portrays him not as a romantic hero following his heart, but as a man betraying his most sacred commitments.

“Burn,” Eliza’s response to learning of her husband’s betrayal, is among the most devastating songs in the show. As she burns the letters that connected them, singing “I’m erasing myself from the narrative,” the audience witnesses the profound pain caused by Hamilton’s betrayal. There’s no hint of the modern leftist tendency to celebrate “following one’s heart” regardless of vows made or people hurt. Instead, marriage is treated as sacred, and its violation brings suffering that reverberates through the entire family.

The crowning achievement of Hamilton’s moral vision comes in “It’s Quiet Uptown.” After the death of their son Philip, Hamilton experiences a spiritual awakening that culminates in one of the most explicitly Christian moments in musical theater since Les Misérables.

As Hamilton walks the streets of New York grieving his son’s death, he undergoes a profound transformation. For the first time, his relentless ambition is stilled. Hamilton sings: “I take the children to church on Sunday, a sign of the cross at the door, and I pray — that never used to happen before.” This represents a turning to faith in his suffering — a theme rarely treated with such reverence in contemporary entertainment.

The song’s emotional climax comes when Eliza takes Hamilton’s hand, a gesture of forgiveness described as “unimaginable” and “a grace too powerful to name.” This is unmistakably Christian language, portraying forgiveness not as something Hamilton earns, but as divine grace freely given despite his failings. In our culture, which often celebrates revenge, “It’s Quiet Uptown” stands as a powerful counternarrative showing the miraculous possibility of redemption through repentance and grace.

Hamilton concludes with perhaps its most profound conservative statement. After Hamilton’s death, it is Eliza — the very woman he betrayed — who preserves his legacy and, by extension, the story of our founding. The musical’s final number, “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story,” shows Eliza dedicating the next fifty years of her life to securing Hamilton’s place in history.

This conclusion reflects a deeply conservative understanding of how culture and values are transmitted across generations. Eliza doesn’t simply forgive Hamilton; she becomes the guardian of his legacy and the values he fought for. She establishes the first private orphanage in New York City, raises funds for the Washington Monument, and collects Hamilton’s writings. Her work embodies the conservative principle that preservation of tradition and history is a sacred duty.

What could be more conservative than this vision? The woman who was personally wounded by Hamilton’s failings nevertheless recognizes the value of his contributions and ensures they aren’t forgotten. She puts aside personal grievance for the sake of the larger good, which is the preservation of America’s founding story. In doing so, she demonstrates the kind of selfless commitment to tradition and legacy that lies at the very heart of conservative thought.

Reclaiming Hamilton

You may be asking, “If Miranda is so liberal, how did his masterpiece turn out so conservative?” The answer is simple: Hamilton was one of the last major works of art created in the “before times,” when America still maintained a modicum of shared values. Though it premiered near the end of Obama’s presidency, it was conceived and written during a brief window when it seemed like America might finally move beyond racial grievances — an opportunity Obama ultimately squandered. Miranda created Hamilton before the full emergence of woke ideology that now demands complete condemnation of the founders.

Ironically, Miranda has since had to do public penance for glorifying the very men he portrayed sympathetically. Leftist critics have even accused him of “whitewashing” the founders by not making their flaws the central focus of the story. Such is the price of creating art that treats American history with genuine respect in our current climate.

Lin-Manuel Miranda may rail against conservative politics, but his greatest creation tells a different story. Hamilton is a deeply traditional work. It champions American greatness, moral responsibility, and the power of faith and family. Despite himself, he created a work that celebrates rather than diminishes America’s founding, that treats our political ancestors with genuine respect rather than fashionable contempt. The left may claim it, but conservatives should own it.

So the next time Hamilton’s creators pull another political stunt, remember: They’re the ones out of step with their own creation. The musical they’ve given us is one that conservatives should celebrate — a cultural landmark that, despite its creators’ intentions, affirms rather than undermines the values that made America great.

For those conservatives still skeptical, consider that nothing irritates leftists more than when we enjoy their cultural products “for the wrong reasons.” Just as the left seethes when conservatives appreciate Starship Troopers not as a satire but as a celebration of military virtue and civic duty, imagine their discomfort when enthusiastic MAGA voters fill theaters to applaud a show that, underneath its hip-hop exterior, champions the exceptional American founders and traditional values they so often disparage.

Wouldn’t it be deliciously ironic to embrace the very work of art they have to perform every single night, while they struggle to reconcile its inherent conservatism with their leftist posturing? The finest revenge against those who lecture from the stage might be our enthusiastic applause for a musical that, despite everything, got America right.

Josh Daws is the host of The Great Awokening Podcast, where he is dedicated to helping Christians navigate the complex and rapidly changing cultural landscape through his biblically based cultural analysis.