George Washington: Realistic Visionary
President Barack Obama is clearly fascinated with President Abraham Lincoln and his leadership during perhaps the greatest crisis in American history. The President has stressed that he has done a great deal of reading about the man who, like himself, rose from a humble background to become a Senator from Illinois prior to his election as president, an achievement many thought impossible to achieve. Praising Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals, which chronicles how Lincoln chose many of his political adversaries for positions in his Cabinet, President Obama has done the same. Like Lincoln, Obama chose to arrive by train for his inauguration, following the 16th President’s route from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. He even took the oath of office on the same Bible upon which Abraham Lincoln placed his hand as he became President in 1861.While a careful study of Abraham Lincoln is certainly merited, I would suggest that President Obama could also gain much valuable insight from a study of the man Lincoln always recognized as our finest leader and greatest President, George Washington. While he might seem remote to the current generation, President Washington was every bit as much of a visionary as our current President. Indeed, if it had not been for George Washington’s vision and remarkable leadership abilities, there would have been no Union for Abraham Lincoln to save. But he was more than simply a visionary. He was what I refer to in the title of my book, a “realistic visionary.”
Over and over again, almost like an evangelical preacher, Washington, who was a very astute judge of human nature, argued that men and nations are driven by interests, and any form of government that failed to take into account the true character of human nature would be unsuccessful. “The motives which predominate most in human affairs [are] self-love and self-interest. . . . We must make the best of mankind as they are, since we cannot have them as we wish.” This realism allowed him to avoid taking decisive action on controversial issues like slavery and judicial reform because they would undercut his central goal, which was to strengthen and preserve the union, a union he knew was extremely fragile and could easily be sundered.
This “rock ribbed realism” served him well in dealing with crises in foreign affairs as well. The aftermath of the French Revolution ultimately posed threats to the American union every bit as great, if not greater, than the threat our security posed by fundamentalist Islamic terrorism in our own day. Great Britain, in her struggle against France, clearly violated America’s neutral rights, and a growing faction in Congress wanted to impose strict economic sanctions on her in order to force her to treat America with respect. President Washington feared such actions might lead to war and took the precedent-setting measure of sending John Jay as his special envoy to Great Britain to negotiate a settlement, thus taking the issue temporarily out of Congress’ hands and establishing the President as the central figure in shaping foreign policy.
John Jay did obtain a treaty, but it was disappointing to Washington as it won few concessions. To the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, it was a blatant sell out of American interests by an Anglophile - a toadying to Great Britain and a betrayal of France. It put America back in virtually a colonial position and all but negated our independence. Nevertheless, after much thought, the President decided to sign the treaty. While the story is quite complicated, the basic reason was simple. Despite its shortcomings, the treaty avoided war with Great Britain, would help our trade, and would give the young nation time to grow and mature. War, on the other hand, would undermine Washington’s vision for a glorious American future and snuff out what he so eloquently called “the sacred fire of liberty.” Washington was convinced that a time of peace was absolutely crucial to America's survival as an independent nation. “For sure I am, if this country is preserved in tranquility twenty years longer, it may bid defiance, in a just cause, to any power whatever, such, in that time, will be its population, wealth, and resources.”
His actions caused wide spread criticism, and no leader was more desirous of public approval and sensitive to criticism than George Washington. Despite the pain it caused him, however, Washington was willing, in the manner of the high minded Roman of classical times, to trade on his personal reputation and the deep admiration most Americans had for him in order to promote what he firmly was convinced was the greater good of the country. In his words, “While I feel the most lively gratitude for the many instances of approbation from my country; I can no otherwise deserve it, than by obeying the dictates of my conscience.”
In retrospect, most scholars see that Washington’s course was the correct one. That is almost always the case in studying George Washington. In retrospect, we see he had it right. One of the reasons that it is hard for us to appreciate the depth of Washington’s intellect is that what he said seems, in historical hindsight, obvious. But to identify, while deep in the trenches of conflict, what the future would consider obvious, is a towering intellectual achievement.
Despite the fact that he lived in a time very different than our own, careful study of this remarkable “realistic visionary” who, more than any other individual, caused the American nation to be, will be an enriching experience, whether one be the leader of our great country or simply an ordinary citizen. George Washington still deserves to be “first in the hearts of his countrymen.”
This article was first published in the Fredericksburg Free Lance Star.