Excerpt from Chapter 1, pp. 8-9, on Adams’s importance for democracy:

• Finally, the combination of his argument that America needed to control the power of the “aristocrats” (an argument that is inherently democratic but which many Jeffersonian-Republicans misconstrued as advocating aristocracy), and his association with Hamilton and the Federalist Party, strained as that relationship was, fueled attacks on Adams as some sort of crypto-monarchist. The fight, un¬fortunately for Adams, was not evenly matched. Despite all of his diplomatic skills, which he used effectively for the American cause while in Europe, he was no match for Republican propagandists, especially when Federalists were also sniping at him from within his “own” party.35

Criticisms of Adams as a monarchist and as an advocate of aristocratic titles are examples of what I noted previously: his ideas have been deliberately misconstrued and grossly misunderstood.

Excerpt from Chapter 6, pp. 152-153, on Smith’s nuanced view of roles for the government in the economy:

In fact, Smith advocated a more activist government than many Americans would think. He argued that a wide range of government regulation was sometimes necessary. Specifically, what did Smith advocate in Wealth of Nations?

1. While he was a staunch defender of free trade, even this was not an absolute principle; Smith did call for restraints on foreign imports in certain cases. Specifically, humane concern for one’s fellow man might “require that the freedom of trade should be restored only by slow gradations, and with a good deal of reserve and circumspection”; such action would be appropriate when many people had been employed in a domestic industry protected by duties and other prohibitions against foreign competition.

2. In an extensive discussion of government’s responsibility for education, Smith analyzed the impact of repetitive types of work. He thought that a man who worked all his life in a job requiring repetitive operations might develop great skill in his trade while becoming “as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become.” He became incapable of judgment in political issues and unable to defend his country if there were a war. This situation, so incompatible with civic virtue, was “the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.”71 One solution: the government could impose education requirements and reward distinction in education.72

3. While arguing for competition among banks, he also argued for various types of banking regulation.73

4. In addition to what we would today call patent and copyright protection for intellectual properties, he believed in governmental financial incentives, premiums, for artisans and manufacturers in order to encourage dexterity and creativity. He wrote that the public could impose education requirements.74

5. Government could use taxation policy to enforce socially useful behavior. He thought that compelling frugality through sumptuary laws (taxes on “luxuries” like tobacco, liquor, tea, sugar, chocolate) might increase the ability of poorer people to raise their families by making it less likely that they would waste resources needed for their families.75 Paternalistic? This certainly is not laissez-faire.