Vice President JD Vance recently argued that American conservatism has moved beyond Milton Friedman toward Alexander Hamilton's vision of government-directed economic development. He claims Friedman's free-market ideas were suited to the 1980s but are outdated in today's secular culture.

However, this framing misrepresents both thinkers. Friedman's case for markets was fundamentally moral, emphasizing individual liberty, voluntary exchange, and dispersed power. Hamilton's policies, including tariffs and centralized banking, were pragmatic responses to a young nation's challenges, not a timeless blueprint.

Vance's critique also conflates free markets with moral decline, suggesting they require "Christian guardrails" to function properly. Yet markets thrive on universal principles—property rights, honest dealing, enforceable contracts—that transcend any single religious tradition.

The real debate isn't between Hamilton and Friedman but between centralization and individual freedom. America's enduring argument over economic direction continues, and Vance's embrace of Hamiltonian statecraft risks undermining the very liberties that made American prosperity possible.