George Washington, of course, has to make the list. No surprise. No matter how hard we, as Americans, try to separate the myth from the man, we still wind up in awe.Forget the cherry tree for a minute; it probably didn’t happen. The first record of the story doesn’t appear until a decade or so after Washigton died. Forget Washington’s performance as a general in the War for Independence; military historians will tell you that he was great at strategy, but mediocre at best in terms of tactics. Among the founders, he probably contributed the least to our historical documents; he didn’t have the political mind of a Madison or a Jefferson.
Washington’s strength is this: He was a statesman. What made him a statesman? He was less concerned for his own personal gain and power than he was for the health and well-being of the republic. Among the evidence:
- Washington’s well-documented refusal of overtures to set himself up as king.
- Washington had to be talked into running for President.
- Washington’s letter to Congress in July of 1778, in which he declares, “I have no other view than to promote the public good, and am unambitious of honors not founded in the approbation of my Country. “
- Washington’s refusal to run for a third term.
- When he wasn’t in elected office or fighting a war, Washington was at home, working in private enterprise. He served fewer years in office than the average congressman does today.
For me, Washington’s Farewell Address contains some of the most potent and pragmatic advice that a president could follow. Some of the highlights:
- Washington makes no bones about his love for his country, and his belief that America is that city on a hill, and that “in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.”
- Washington was also unapolagetically a patriot, and recommended the same to all citizens: “Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.”
- Washington also warned of the dangers of political parties and special interests: “Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”
- Washington knew the dangers of overreaching federal power: “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.”
- Washington recognized the importance of morality in a republic, knowing that it could only succeed if citizens were able to maintain some sort of moral stability: “It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”
- Washington warned about the dangers of entangling alliances: “In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. “
I could continue, I suppose, but I think you get the idea. Now, critics would suggest that Washington’s advice only works for smaller republics, or that it is unrealistic in a global economy, that political parties are unavoidable and beneficial, or that modernization requires a more far-reaching central government than Washington would have recommended. I’ll leave those discussions to the political experts. For me, who may be a bit naive, I think Washington’s positions just seem to make plain sense.
