I am reading Jefferson and Hamilton by John Ferling, and in the preface, Ferling notes that modern republicans have favored the fiscally responsible Hamilton, while democrats favored the individual liberty rhetoric of Jefferson. Most interestingly, Hamilton was a federalist (strong government), but Jefferson was a democrat-republican that wanted to stay away from anything resembling centralized powers.
When did Hamiltonian strong federal government and fiscal responsibility become Reaganomic strong states and fiscal responsibility? From a modern point of view, it seems weird that Reagan and Bush would praise a man who wanted a strong federal government. Likewise, it is weird that Clinton would praise a man who envisioned a confederacy.
There are lots of dry scholarly articles out there if you want to look, but here's an easy-to-read piece from Eric Rauchway, who I find to be a very respectable guy without the airiness of some of the other writers.
To summarize, the shift really started in the 1896 election, when the Democrats fused with the Populists and William Jennings Bryan and his Free Silver platform won the Democratic nomination, going against the pro-business Bourbon Democrat tradition that Grover Cleveland, the incumbent, had pursued. The party lost in a landslide to William McKinley, but it started an era, spanning until at least the mid-20s, in which the party lines blurred. When the Democrats, led by Woodrow Wilson, finally regained a Congressional majority in 1913, they passed several key pieces of legislation based on Bryan's ideals, including the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax. Congressional Republicans first started taking the small government stance in the 20s, and by 1936, FDR had been elected to his second term as a Democrat and the Republicans were voting against the New Deal.
I'd be really interested to read this preface. I feel like this has less to do with party alignment and more to do with how these issues have changed over time. Example, a strong central bank was preferred by merchants and business.
As an aside, and maybe Ferling will prove me wrong, I'm almost never a fan of these type of comparisons. Investment banking/the financial sector wasn't a thing until the Civil War in America, Keynes didn't publish until 1936, and neoliberalism developed decades after that. So much has change I don't see how anyone can make a claim that "x" group or "x" party would have identified with "x" historical figure without it being very careful throughout and planned.