Reddit reviews Political ideology today: Second edition (Politics Today)

>The First Bank of the United States did not just act as a Bank for the government, it gave subsidized loans to Americans and nationalized state-run banks.

Firstly, the sentence "it...nationalized state-run banks" does not make any sense. If a bank is state-run then it is already nationalised. You're basically saying the First Bank nationalised nationalised banks. Secondly, and more importantly, the fact that the First Bank did not nationalise banks nor did Hamilton want to nationalise banks. I challenge you to present a shred of evidence for either.

>Businessmen supported Hamilton and his plans, over slave owners in the south who favored Jefferson.

So what? What's the conclusion to be drawn from this premise? Businessmen supported Hamilton and his plans over slave-owners in the South who supported Jefferson, therefore Hamilton must have been left-wing? That's a non sequitur of an argument. If it's not a non-sequitur, then we can conclude that whichever candidate, even today, has the support of business is the left-wing candidate. By that logic - your logic, most right-wing candidates today are actually left-wing. The support Hamilton and Jefferson had from businessmen and slave-groups respectively had nothing to do with where they were on the political spectrum. Those groups supported Hamilton or Jefferson because it was in their interest to do so. Hamilton's ideology was one which begat policies which benefited businessmen. Jefferson ideology was one which begat policies which benefited slave-owners. Think of it like this: Andrew Yang. Richard Spencer and many alt-righters have been expressing support for Andrew Yang. By your logic, Andrew Yang is therefore a right-winger.

>Support for states rights, slavery and against subsidies, government investments into the economy is to the right of the economic plans of Alexander Hamilton.

Those things are not even related. It makes no sense to say support for slavery is to the right of Hamilton's economic plans, anymore than it makes sense to say support for a Mexican-US border wall is to the right of Bernie Sanders' economic plans. The two things are not comparable. It's apples to oranges. A person can support slavery whilst supporting Hamilton's economic plans. A person can oppose slavery whilst opposing Hamilton's economic plans. Indeed, the man who killed Hamilton, Aaron Burr, was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party, which Jefferson was leader of. The Democratic-Republican Party opposed the centralising policies of Hamilton's Federalist Party. However, guess what? Burr was also a staunch abolitionist who sought, unsuccessfully, to abolish slavery immediately following the American Revolutionary War. So, if you're correct and "[s]upport for states rights, slavery and against subsidies, government investments into the economy is to the right of the economic plans of Alexander Hamilton", how do you - i.e. you specifically - describe Aaron Burr who actively, not passively, opposed slavery but supported a party which opposed the centralising policies of Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party? Is he a conservative? Is he a right-winger?

It's becoming clear to me that your understanding of political ideology is so basic, so simplistic, that you actually think, unironically, that support for big government makes you left-wing and support for small government makes you right-wing. Well, I have news for you. There are leftists out there who support small government. Anarcho-communists and left-libertarians (like Chomsky and Greenwald), for example.

>The Democratic Party was the Democratic-Republican Party. In fact, the Democratic-Republican Party was almost never referred to that during that time, it was referred to as the Democratic Party.

That's not a fact at all. In fact, it's not even true. During the time that the Democratic-Republican Party existed - i.e. prior to its splintering in 1824, it was usually referred to as the Republican Party. Source.

>The ideological coalition of Jefferson’s Democratic/Democratic-Republican Party was the same as under Andrew Jackson and under reconstruction.

Again, not true. The Democratic-Republican Party splintered in 1824 (two years before Jefferson's death) and dissolved in 1825. The faction loyal to Andrew Jackson coalesced into the Jacksonian movement (which would soon acquire the name Democratic Party). The faction led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay formed the National Republican Party. And some other groups went on to form the Anti-Masonic Party. The National Republicans, Anti-Masons, and other opponents of Andrew Jackson later formed themselves into the Whig Party. Source. It is therefore simply incorrect to assert that the ideological coalition of Jefferson’s Democratic/Democratic-Republican Party was the same as under Andrew Jackson and under reconstruction, when in fact that ideological coalition splintered into different parties due to the ideological schisms within the coalition. Therefore, whilst the Democratic Party that existed during construction may have been substantially identical in ideology to the one borne out of the Jacksonian movement during the 1820s, it can in no way be said to be identical to the ideological coalition that was Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. (This point is so simple to understand, and yet, I am almost certain you still won't understand it).

You seriously need to do more research and adopt a more nuanced view of these historical facts and political ideology, Kyle. I would recommend this book, "Political Ideology Today" by Ian Adams.