Is there someone who could be convinced by this article, but who doesn't already agree with it?

I'm discouraged that public discourse about ideas has become so partisan that it ends up being partisan to express an opinion that touches on the most important things that are happening.

This was number one, I wish it still was. The founders railed against precisely the kind of aristocratic, authoritarian corruption this administration represents.

Sadly, economics is not yet a science, but still mostly a hodgepodge of philosophy, superstition, and politics, where the fragile beginnings of scientific inquiry and real science are regularly run over by louder, dumber voices shrieking about "free markets" (an oxymoron) and "supply side" (a bald rationalization for providing welfare to the wealthy). Millions of people know Adam Smith only by his "invisible hand" analogy, which appears only once in the entire book and in a completely different context from that which it is usually quoted---he was talking about the tendency of business to buy local because of familiarity, not making some broad claim about the self-regulation of markets.

Their is nothing new to people warping the founders thoughts and word to whatever they want. Its a common tactic of conservative politicians to paint rosey understanding of the USAs founding that are nothing more the utopian. Its not surprising considering the founders are the perfect target. They are both deeply philosophical and contradiction laddened but also distant, from people who don't reflect on the current American culture. I'd argue though we have a broad disinterest in the principles of the founding at this moment. People are upset the current administration is engaged in nothing more than grift to the maximal amount.

I applaud people continuing to point out corruption. The only thing surprising about the article is that is hasn't been flagged yet

The author appears also to misread Paul Atkins, they say:

    Start with the Declaration. Mr. Atkins’s most concrete 
    evidence is Jefferson’s well-worn copy of “The Wealth 
    of Nations.” But the Monticello source cited in his own 
    footnote reports that Jefferson acquired the book while 
    serving in France between 1784 and 1789, at least eight 
    years after he drafted the Declaration. Jefferson may 
    have encountered Smith’s ideas before 1776, but there 
    is no evidence that “The Wealth of Nations” shaped the 
    Declaration. 

    At the heart of our Founding Fathers’ revolution stood 
    an idea—one that found its fullest expression in two 
    fateful documents, crafted an ocean apart but together 
    in time in 1776: one penned in the summer heat of 
    Philadelphia, the other in the intellectual winds of 
    Edinburgh. 
    ...
    The authors never met, yet their ideas were 
    inseparable, and their contemporaneous works rested on 
    the same conviction: trust the individual, not the 
    institution.

The closest thing said in the speech that could be read as "the Declaration of Independence was inspired by The Wealth of Nations" is the next section of the speech:

    Thomas Jefferson was no stranger to Adam Smith’s 
    philosophy—he was, in fact, a student of it, evidenced 
    by the well-worn copy of The Wealth of Nations 
    contained in his library, from which he gleaned wisdom 
    that he shared freely with friends and correspondents.
    
    It is little wonder, then, that our founding documents, 
    in many respects, reflect Smith’s central themes that 
    were debated at the time: that government must not grow 
    infinitely.

It is really frustrating to me that aggressively hostile readings of things has become such a normal way of writing rebuttals in modern discourse. There is so much to criticize in how the government is run that we don't need to be wasting our time and energy rebutting things that haven't even been said.

"Freedom" is defined by who holds the microphone, but don't ignore who set up the stage.

The liberty he believes in is the one the one-way ratcheting mechanism of individual liberty, for the most powerful individuals that is.

And he'd be right in a liberal democracy because part of liberalism is a belief in an abstract equality among men where a billionaire is supposedly equal in rights to a minimum wage worker.

"When and where is this true?" you may ask. In theory is the answer.

But an analysis of the lived social conditions of the majority of the people in this country would require further categorization of its elements into class and the relationship to the means of production.

Again freedom for what class of people do you think he's talking about: the owners of our worlds infrastructue or the majority of us?