George Washington -- how it all began

For many months, I have wanted to briefly cite my love and admiration for George Washington.  I have written about John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and other luminaries in our struggle to be free, but last night I was prompted again to say something here about Washington.

We were sitting around a bonfire, as is our custom here at the Ranch during the summer evenings, eating homemade grape ice cream (I've given you the recipe in a comment below, you won't be disappointed) and sampling Grandma's desserts (many varieties of cookies, brownies and other delectables).  One of my precocious granddaughters after listening to me talk about the founders in glowing terms, asked, "Grandpa, did you know George Washington?"  I told you I was growing older. . .

I replied, trying to repress my laughter, "No, I didn't really KNOW him personally, but I've read a lot about him and the other founders."  Some things have to be explained, you see, when the questioner is four years old.  It's that perception of time thing they don't understand.  At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.  I'm not really that old.

I was reminded in her question last night about a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Dr. Walter Jones in 1814.  Jefferson was our nation's third President, serving from 1801 to 1809.  Jefferson captured the essence of the first President, George Washington, in this word picture:

“[H]is was the singular destiny and merit, of leading the armies of his country successfully through an arduous war, for the establishment of its independence; of conducting its councils through the birth of a government, new in its forms and principles, until it had settled down into a quiet and orderly train; and of scrupulously obeying the laws through the whole of his career, civil and military, of which the history of the world furnishes no other example.”

George Washington was the commander of the Continental Army in the American Revolutionary War from 1775 to 1783.  He did not want the command when it was first offered.  His record of military achievement prior to the Revolutionary War was that he had lost more battles than he had won.  In the early stages of the War he made several tactical errors.  His mastery of military strategy was lacking.  His troops were, like himself, first farmers.  The term "summer soldiers" was coined to describe those who left the battlefront to return to their farms in the fall to harvest their crops.  They were by all descriptions a rag-tag undisciplined lot.  However, no one doubted his valor and courage, nor his moral integrity.  He was a leader people could believe in.  Soldiers loved him.  They would to a man fight and die for him.  He accepted the post under some measure of duress from his peers. 

He could have used his position as the General to his own advantage, but he never did.  There were suggestions that he assert himself over the civilian authorities and take forcible control of the government and the army as the king, but to those who suggested the idea to him, Washington issued a stern rebuke.

Perhaps my favorite story about George Washington happened in the final year of the Revolutionary War.  Washington was dealing with severe shortages in the number of troops, clothing, food and pay for those troops.  He had served under a dysfunctional and largely ineffective civilian Congress for more than eight years. In the last year of the war the troops were near the breaking point. They hadn't been paid in a almost a year and there was little hope remaining the situation would be cured.  There was a pernicious pamphlet circulating among his soldiers calling for them to storm Congress and force them to pay the delinquent wages.

Washington called a meeting to discuss the problem. He told the troops he knew what they were going through and he urged them to wait on Congress. Most were not the least bit convinced.  He began to read a letter to them from a member of Congress.  He took out his glasses so he could read it and his hand trembled visibly.  In simple words, apologizing to them, he said, "I am sorry Gentlemen, I have grown old in your service, and now it appears I have also gone blind."  There wasn't a dry eye in the room and the disaster was averted. That's leadership.  He had suffered side by side with his men, and everyone knew it.  If you only read one book about George Washington, read the one cited here:  The Real George Washington.

He was exemplary as the Commander in Chief of the army, then later when he served as an elected representative from Virginia to the Continental Congress after the War.  He consistently deferred to their civilian control and authority, establishing an important pattern to observe for later generations and following the rule of law established under the Articles of Confederation until the Constitutional Convention created a new rule of law.  He was ever the subservient advocate of "the people."

In 1783, when the War for Independence had ended, he resigned his commission as General, longing to return to his beloved Mount Vernon.  Retirement was his sole ambition in life at that point.  By so doing, he proved King George III was underestimating the character of this other George.  The popular thinking at the time was that Washington, unable to resist the lure of wielding power would simply not be able to walk away quietly, and King George III predicted as much.  When the king was told of rumors that Washington was returning to his farm, he responded, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Well, there are those who erected an obelisk to his name in Washington D.C., then named the city after him who would have agreed with that assessment.  The majesty of George Washington was the purity of his heart and character.

Washington was called back from retirement, however, denying him his wish for a quiet life on the farm as he presided over the Philadelphia Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787.  When the provisions of the Constitution had been ratified by first nine, then eventually all the thirteen original colony states, Washington was elected as the first President of the United States of America.  He was unanimously elected by the first Electoral College, something that has never been repeated since in American history.

Washington eschewed any party label, and urged against the practice, fearing a fracturing of the people in the fledgling republic.  He served two terms as America’s first President from April 30, 1789 to March 4, 1797. Then Washington decided it was important for him to step down.  He had no lust for the power that might have so easily been conferred upon him by the people.  He wanted to set an example before the world, not just for the people of America, so a peaceful transition of power was possible.  He believed it was an absolute necessity before he died, again keeping in mind the precedent he wanted to set forevermore.

His concern was if he died in office and the vice-president ascended to the presidency, it would resemble too much an "heir" ascending to the throne after the death of a king.  He was ever the careful strategist then.

Washington’s farewell address, of course, was once again a precedent maker.  It would become the most quoted political speech ever given.  In it he warned of the importance of virtue among the electorate, and he issued a crystal clear warning against partisanship, sectionalism, and involvement in foreign wars.  It was forever afterward sought for wisdom in these matters, but history since has proven difficult to abide by his precepts. 

There was enormous admiration for this self-disciplined leader, perhaps again the highest praise coming from his former adversary, King George III.  He said Washington’s retirement from the presidency along with his earlier resignation as General and Commander in Chief, “placed him in a light the most distinguished of any man living,” and that his relinquishing power made him “the greatest character of the age.”

It is such a stark contrast to what we witness today, isn't it?  Think of the hundreds of millions of dollars amassed and spent for years in the runup to a presidential election in our modern era by eager candidates grappling for the very power Washington eschewed and deferred to other successors willingly without as much as a whimper of protest. 

George Washington died in 1799.  Henry Lee, delivering his funeral eulogy, declared Washington “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”  Historians consistently rank him as one of the greatest Presidents of United States of America.

It was his moral clarity and purity, once again, that exemplifies his greatness in my mind.

Farewell from Reagan

Ronald Reagan bade farewell from the Oval Office on January 11, 1989.  It was the 34th time he had addressed the nation.

I'm not one for looking back with wistful wishes of "the good old days."  I'm always leaning into the wind looking ahead, but what Reagan had to say on that occasion for the most part was also a prophetic warning to be heeded, rather than a misty-eyed recounting of his past eight years of glory as President.

He was ever the "common sense" purveyor.  Everything he said was sensible and easily understood.  In part on that night he said:

"Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. The economy bloomed like a plant that had been cut back and could now grow quicker and stronger. Our economic program brought about the longest peacetime expansion in our history: real family income up, the poverty rate down, entrepreneurship booming, and an explosion in research and new technology. We're exporting more than ever because American industry became more competitive. And at the same time, we summoned the national will to knock down protectionist walls abroad instead of erecting them at home.

"Common sense also told us that to preserve the peace, we'd have to become strong again after years of weakness and confusion. So, we rebuilt our defenses, and this New Year we toasted the new peacefulness around the globe. Not only have the superpowers actually begun to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons -- and hope for even more progress is bright -- but the regional conflicts that rack the globe are also beginning to cease. The Persian Gulf is no longer a war zone. The Soviets are leaving Afghanistan. The Vietnamese are preparing to pull out of Cambodia, and an American-mediated accord will soon send 50,000 Cuban troops home from Angola.

"The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we're a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it'll end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world. . . "

I pause to reflect that common sense in recent years in Washington D. C. has been anything but common.  Reagan continued:

"Nothing is less free than pure communism -- and yet we have, the past few years, forged a satisfying new closeness with the Soviet Union. I've been asked if this isn't a gamble, and my answer is no because we're basing our actions not on words but deeds. The detente of this 1970's was based not on actions but promises. They'd promise to treat their own people and the people of the world better. But the gulag was still the gulag, and the state was still expansionist, and they still waged proxy wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Well, this time, so far, it's different. President Gorbachev has brought about some internal democratic reforms and begun the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He has also freed prisoners whose names I've given him every time we've met. . ."

"Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in Presidential farewells, and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past 8 years: the resurgence of national pride that I called, 'The New Patriotism.' This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much, and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

"An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties.

"But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs production [protection].

"So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important -- why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, 4 years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who had fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, 'we will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.'  Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of that -- of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual.

"And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

"And that's about all I have to say tonight, except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the 'shining city upon a hill.' The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free. I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

"And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home."

What are the mistakes we have made since Reagan's departure?  They are many and varied, but the one that screams more loudly than any other is the deficit spending and the debt we have amassed as a nation in the last few short months.  Obama has managed to spend more money in eighteen months than FDR did in twelve years of the New Deal.  He spent borrowed Chinese money future unborn generations of Americans will be burdened to repay unless our productivity as a nation overtakes our spending. 

An old wisened businessman once taught me, "Borrowing money is like wetting the bed; it keeps you warm for awhile but eventually you have to get up and change the sheets."

It is impossbile to spend the money of generations yet unborn to salvage an entitlement-drenched society.  The automatic commitments to the big three entitlements, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will soon outpace our revenues as a nation. 

That was never the vision of the founders, nor those who inherited the Oval Office and the Houses of Congress in subsequent generations. 

We have not been pulled back from the brink, as the current occupant of the White House would have us believe.  From a debt perspective we are over the falls in a barrel falling at the speed of gravity.  As long as debt and deficit spending continue unabated and human dignity is sacrificed on the altar of a bloated federal government daily eroding the American dream Ronald Reagan restored in the 80s, we are at risk. 

It's time to retrench, bite the bullet and do what we must do to restore her greatness once again.

The first step is to stop spending money we don't have.  When a Democrat says "investment" it has nothing to do with investment in the traditional meaning of that word.

Instead, it means TAXATION.  Beware their misuse and abuse of the English language.

A quick look back to discern the path forward. . .

There comes a time when it just feels right to take a quick backward glance and remember what the future might look like. 

I stumbled over this YouTube video of Ronald Reagan spliced and edited in against today's leading liberal voices.  The contrast is certainly stunning.

Don't underestimate the power and the intelligence associated with simplicity and a shoot-from-the-hip brand of honesty that characterized Reagan and other great leaders of our time.  Yes, even Reagan was tagged with the Iran-Contra scandal during his administration, certainly tarnishing his truth-telling reputation, but despite it he had what every President yearns for -- the almost universal love and respect of his countrymen.

Reagan for me was a pillar of strength and boldness.  When his advisors strongly urged him not to name the Evil Empire and associate it with the Soviet Communists, he said the words anyway.  When they urged caution as he stood at the Berlin Wall and challenged Gorbachev, "Tear down this wall," they cringed.

When asked about it later, Reagan simply explained, "I wanted to do some things differently, like speaking the truth about [the Soviets] for a change, rather than hiding reality behind the niceties of diplomacy."  Reflecting back on that speech he thought it was one of the most important things he had ever done in his life.  He followed his instincts.  He answered the urgings of his heart and soul.  He had a profound belief grounded in the faith he had in liberty and freedom.  He wanted to support "those fighting for freedom and against communism wherever we found them."

Before he gave what later came to be known as the "Evil Empire Speech," Reagan went to England and delivered perhaps the most energy-charged speech reaffirming the quest for freedom we have ever heard.  When he concluded the chamber erupted in sustained applause and a standing ovation for several minutes.  As he stood before a joint session of Parliament, he said these immortal words still ringing in my ears down through the years.  The words should supercharge our thinking today:

"During the dark days of the Second World War, when this island was incandescent with courage, Winston Churchill exclaimed about Britain's adversaries, 'What kind of a people do they think we are?'  Well, Britain's adversaries found out what extraordinary people the British are.

"But all the democracies (of that time) paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to underestimate us.  We dare not make that mistake again.

"So let us ask ourselves, 'What kind of people do we think we are?' And let us answer, 'Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well.' " 

The world was Reagan's constituency.  Some thought he would surely incite World War III with his passionate rhetoric.  However, combining forces with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and enlisting the moral support and suasion of Pope John Paul II, they ended the cold war together without a shot ever being fired.  Like George W. Bush years later of whom it was said he was "misunderestimated," Reagan had the rare quality that so endeared him to everyone -- common sense truths spoken from the heart.  Like the ancient Apostle Paul, Ronald Reagan knew and believed the truth could set everyone free.  (John 8:32).

His audience for the "Evil Empire Speech" was the annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals on March 8, 1983.  It was an instant classic, though it was panned and ridiculed throughout liberal quarters worldwide.  The Communists hated it, the liberals criticized it, and most Americans loved it for its courage and forthright declarations of what we all hold dearest.  He quoted C. S. Lewis:

"It was C. S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable Screwtape Letters, wrote:  'The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint.  It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps.  In those we see its final result.  But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. . .'

"Some would have us accept [the Soviets] at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses.  But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simpleminded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.  It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

"So I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority.  You know, I've always believed that old Screwtape reserved his best efforts for those of you in the church.  So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride -- the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.

"I ask you to resist the attempts of those who would have you withhold your support for our efforts, this administration's efforts, to keep America strong and free while we negotiate real and verifiable reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals and one day, with God's help, their total elimination.

"While America's military strength is important, let me add here that I've always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might.  The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith."

Reagan, ah sweet, sweet Reagan.  His words are like pure water to the thirsting soul today.  He mastered simple words with clear meanings.  He was totally honest in his expressions of what was in his heart.  He was trustworthy, as the Soviets eventually learned over time during his administration.  Soviet General Secretary, Mikhail Gorbachev, became one of his greatest admirers, and had a front row seat at his funeral services, seated beside Margaret Thatcher.  What a remarkable journey those three leaders took together, aided by the moral compass of the Pope.  It was a golden age for freedom's gains.

Now, we are threatened yet again, but not by foreign powers this time.  Instead, our nation is threatened by the swift advance, not of armies upon our lands and cities, but by the enemy from within.  The speed with which it has happened, this invasion of our wealth as a nation and the ensuing diminished freedoms we have sacrificed individually to our shameful national debt, has been largely self-inflicted.  Osama bin Laden could not have done it better.  We are faced now with tough choices.

Anatoly Shcharansky was a Russian dissident incarcerated in Permanent Labor Camp 35 in the Ural Mountains when Ronald Reagan became President.  Shcharansky had a bad habit in Soviet Russia.  Like his counterpart, Andrei Sakharov, they simply couldn't stop telling the truth.  Reagan, when he began his series of bold speeches against the evils of totalitarianism and Communism inspired and gave hope to the prisoners of the Soviet regime.  They found their hope in Reagan, hope to survive, to live to fight another day for not only their lives, but for the freedom of their homeland.

Ronald Reagan loved the truth.  He thought truth was the only sure foundation upon which a society could be built.  Truth, he believed, would endure forever.  Lies would die.  For too long he thought lies had been told in the political world, and he saw them as a cancer that could only be eradicated in the naked light of the sunshine of truth.  For Reagan, the world was a very black and white proposition.  Forget nuances, he would have none of it. 

Peggy Noonan said, "He wanted to put words into the air that were honest and have them take the place of other words that were not."  Such a simple idea.  She used to write his speeches.  She knows whereof she speaks.

Shcharansky later changed his name to Natan Sharansky and moved to Israel.  He spoke of his time in the Soviet gulag prison:  "We would overhear guards, we would overhear radio attacks on Reagan, we would hear that Reagan was attacked in Pravda. . .  I think the most important step in the cold war and the defeat of the Soviet empire was his words and his actions at the beginning of his presidency."

Later after his release, urged and pressured upon the Soviets by the Reagan administration, Sharansky was invited to the White House to meet President Reagan.  "President Reagan understood the nature of a totalitarian regime.  He believed freedom is something that belongs to all the people, and if you encourage it and support it you can win.  He had very healthy instincts about it.  He was a fresh change after Nixon's attempts at detente and Carter, who talked well but couldn't link practical policy to his talk.  When it came to action there was nothing -- and then came Reagan, and Star Wars -- Star Wars was a way of talking to the Soviet Union!  And he linked the fate of dissidents to the policy of the United States of America."

Reagan simply refused to lie for expediency.  Nine months after Reagan left the White House for the last time, the Berlin Wall crashed almost overnight.  But it is wrong to say it "fell."  It was pushed.

You can fast forward thirty years to today now.  Substitute and update our foreign enemies as you will -- they certainly do exist -- but be forewarned.  Our domestic enemies are just as real today.  I have said before, and I say it again, the political pendulum swings to and fro, this way and that, left and right.  It will swing again this November.  In the aftermath of this flirtacious dance we have been doing for the last eighteen months with escalating entitlement programs and mounting unsustainable debt, do not lose faith in America's ability to surmount its challenges and right itself again.

All that's needed is a little truth telling and a handful of transformative and courageous leaders who will act on that truth.

Political Discourse

Much has been made in recent years of the rancor and bitterness between the two political parties in America. 

George W. Bush promised to reach across the aisle and unite the parties as he had done in Texas while he was governor.  It was much more difficult than he imagined, though some unity was achieved as a result of the country uniting in dramatic fashion for a season following 9/11.  How sad that the precipitating event was the only thing that seemed to drive us together into common ground.  Absent war, attacks from foreign powers on our soil, and a complete economic meltdown, can it ever be achieved again?

Barack Obama also pledged to do the same when he went to Washington in 2009.  Instead of unity, Obama has cast aside every single attempt at uniting and healing the political divide.  He has shoved a political agenda down the throats of unwilling and seemingly unwitting Americans at every turn for eighteen months of total legislative domination.  Neither succeeded in uniting anything except the bitter forces of opposition against themselves.

In point of fact, the political discourse from its founding has always been filled with vitriol and accusations, whether with or without merit.

Don't be too alarmed when people say they wish there weren't so much hatred.  We are polarized as a country, and there is little doubt about it.  Just imagine what the discourse must have been over the slavery issues before, during and after the Civil War. 

Abraham Lincoln, icon that he is today, was villified and publicly attacked again and again during his presidency.  It was merciless and unrelenting.  It seemed he could do nothing right back then.  Today he sits enshrined forevermore in a monument in Washington D.C. befitting the enormity of his transformative powers to bridge the political divide.  It was no small feat. 

Will we ever see it again?  We came close in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.  Now we are bitterly divided again.  The miracle was short-lived to be sure.

All of this has reminded me of the conditions I've read about in the election of 1800, when John Adams, the sitting President was opposed by his Vice President, Thomas Jefferson.  The spirit of party that Jefferson had warned against had taken root and was entrenched in the runup to that election battle.  It was different in those days because the discourse was waged primarily by proxies, and rarely by the candidates themselves.

In Federalist pamphlets and newspapers, Jefferson was decried as a hopeless visionary, a weakling, an intriguer intoxicated with French philosophy, more a Frenchman than an American, and therefore a bad man.  He was accused of favoring states' rights over the Union, charged with infidelity to the Constitution, called a spendthrift and libertine.  In truth, he kept careful notes of his expenditures, but always throughout his life spent more than he brought in, eventually at death owing $100,000 more than the value of his assets. 

In contrast, at death the ever-frugal Adams and his wife Abigail had amassed an estate valued at $100,000.  No one ever faulted Adams as a spendthrift.  Instead, he was seen as a penny-pinching miser and skinflint.

One New York newspaper assured its readers that a Jefferson election would mean civil war.  It was said "the refuse of Europe" would flood the country and threaten the life of "all who love order, peace, virtue, and religion."  Does that sound remotely familiar in today's headlines?

Most amplified of all the charges against Jefferson were the assertions that he was an atheist.  Not only was Jefferson a godless man, the assertions went, he mocked the Christian faith.  The rumors in New England were so absurd that people were hiding family Bibles until the election was over, fearing they would be summarily rounded up and burned if he were elected.  Even Martha Washington was persuaded all this was true, when she told a visiting clergyman she thought Jefferson "one of the most detestable of mankind."

Stories were spread about Jefferson's personal immorality.  The whisper campaign included lumping Jefferson with all southern slave masters who were known to cohabit with their slave women.

Conversely, John Adams didn't fare much better in the campaigning of personal destruction, indicating these smears we witness today are not a modern invention.  Adams was excoriated as a monarchist, more British than American, and therefore a bad man just like Jefferson.  Remember, these were the two diligent and valiant servants of freedom's cause who were dispatched as diplomats to Europe at the same time as Benjamin Franklin.  Neither received much gratitude at the time for their prodigious efforts.

Adams was routinely ridiculed in public as old, addled and toothless.  Truth was that by the time he died at age 91, Adams really had lost nearly all his teeth, but the image was useful to his critics who called him a pacifist.

Timothy Pickering spread the rumor that to secure his reelection Adams had struck a corrupt bargain with the Republicans.  Another story affirmed the bargain had been struck with Jefferson himself.  The kernel of the story was that Adams would throw the election Jefferson's way and then serve as the Vice President.

Adams was also accused of consorting with four mistresses in London.  Nothing could have been further from the truth.  When the "news" reached Adams that he had ordered General Pinckney to London to procure the services of the four pretty mistresses, two for Pinckney and two for himself, Adams was amused.  "I do declare upon my honor," he wrote to William Tudor, "if this is true General Pinckney has kept them all for himself and cheated me out of my two."

That wasn't the worst of it.  Many charges against Adams included that he was insane.  It went on and on -- if Jefferson was a Jacobin, a shameless southern libertine, and a "howling" atheist, Adams was a Tory, a vain Yankee scold, and, if truth be known, "quite mad."

It's almost hysterical looking back through the lens of history.  By the Republicans Adams was accused as a warmonger, and berated by the High Federalists as fainthearted in the face of the French.

Jefferson had so distanced himself from Adams as the Vice President that he could be held accountable for nothing in the Adams administration that disappointed, displeased, or infuriated anyone.  Adams got blamed for everything as a result -- new taxes, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the standing army, and a host of other "menaces," or so said Philadelphia's leading newspaper, the Aurora.

The unfair contrasts didn't end there.  Jefferson, the Virginia aristocrat and slave master who lived in a style fit for a prince, as removed from his fellow citizens and their lives as it was possible to be, was hailed as the apostle of liberty, the "Man of the People."  Adams, the former farmer's son who despised slavery and practiced the kind of personal economy and plain living commonly upheld as the American way, was scorned as an aristocrat who, if he could, would enslave the common people just like King George III had done.  Amazing!

It was an old story for Adams in that 1800 election.  He had suffered abuse before from the Jefferson Republicans, but more painful to him personally were the highly personal attacks from the Hamilton Federalists.  Alexander Hamilton threw his political weight into the contest in open opposition to Adams.

In the flurry of scathing criticism, innuendo, slander and falsehoods, with war with the French looming as Adams and his peace commission to France were hard at work to avert another war, there was one gleaming tribute to Adams in the Washington Federalist that more closely typified his life's work:

"Bred in the old school of politics, his principles are founded on the experience of ages, and bid defiance to French flippancies and modern crudities. . . Always great, and though sometimes alone, all weak and personal motives were forgotten in public energy and the security of the sacred liberties of his country. . .  Deeply versed in legal lore, profoundly skilled in political science; joined to the advantage of forty years' unceasing engagement in the turbulent and triumphant scenes, both at home and in Europe, which have marked our history; learned in the language and arts of diplomacy; more conversant with the views, jealousies, resources, and intrigues of Great Britain, France and Holland than any other American; alike aloof to flattery and vulgar ambition, as above all undue control [he has as]. . . his sole object. . . the present freedom and independence of his country and its future glory.  On this solid basis he has attempted to raise a monument of his honest fame."

On Saturday, November 22, 1800, Congress convened for the first time in a joint session in the unfinished Capitol building, and John Adams delivered what he surely knew would be his last speech as President.  He said in part,

"It would be unbecoming the representatives of this nation to assemble for the first time in this solemn temple without looking up to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, and imploring his blessing.
"May this territory be the residence of virtue and happiness!  In this city may that piety and virtue, that wisdom and magnanimity, that constancy and self-government, which adorned the great character whose name it bears, be forever held in veneration!  Here, and throughout our country, may simple manners, pure morals, and true religion flourish forever!"

Despite the bitter political divide of his day, despite the withering criticism and rancor, bitterness and vitriol directed at him personally, John Adams found a way to rise above it all and to speak those conciliatory words before a joint session of a bitterly divided Congress.  What we need today are more noble patriots like John Adams. 

The ensuing years would see Jefferson and Adams reunited in abundant correspondence on a host of history-preserving topics, a happy consequence of noble statesmen rising above the political divide that had separated them earlier.

Adams was sixty-five when he stepped down after that 1800 election, Jefferson a comparatively youthful fifty-seven years old when he assumed the presidency. 

Fate would unite them again in death.  Both died on the same day, July 4th, 1826, true patriots each, a fitting end to a lifetime of devotion to honor, country and freedom.  Their legacy is ours if we will claim it for our own.  Like all politicians, neither was perfect, both had flaws, but neither retreated in their duty.

I know this will come off as idealistic and overly optimistic, but it won't sound unlike the conciliatory note sounded by John Adams in his farewell speech.  If men in public life endowed with the public trust could rise above political differences and bitter discourse then, surely they can do it again in our day.

Let us pray for that happy result without another 9/11.

Left Wing

Remember when I said Obama had lost middle America?  Here's another link saying the same thing.  Classic!

I used to think no one in the White House was doing the irreparable political calculations on how devastating it would be to govern from the far left. 

Now I think they just don't care.  These are the smartest people in the world.