Gordon L.Weil
One president changed everything.
Among the wealthiest people in the country, he had come to
the presidency after having achieved a national reputation and gained broad
name recognition. He owned profitable economic
entities and even said he did not want to keep his presidential salary.
He was elected with a clear majority of both the popular vote
and the electoral vote. He was his own
political party. He was so popular that
many supporters asked him to serve a third term as president. He was widely honored, and many public places
carried his name.
He believed in a strong presidency. His Supreme Court appointees would back his
views on the powers of the presidency. He
respected the powers of the Congress, but he sought to draw clear lines between
the executive and legislative branches, defining the checks and balances between
the two.
He understood that his presidency gave him the opportunity
to overhaul the federal government from what he regarded as institutional
weakness that had left it unable to deal with issues of the day. He believed he had been given a special responsibility
for this task, setting the government on
a new course.
He asserted his exclusive right to control foreign policy
and there would be no doubt about his full authority as commander in chief. He also sought to ensure that the states
would not prevent the federal government from carrying out what he saw as its
broad responsibilities. He issued
executive orders and vetoes.
Though not an elegant writer, he used the media to convey
his views widely. He wanted to communicate
directly with the people without being filtered by others.
Though some might see this as a description of Donald Trump,
it applies to another president. His name was George Washington.
The description above might fit Trump, but there’s one big
difference. Washington’s approach to
governing was centered on his commitment to creating and leading institutions
that served public needs and hopes.
Trump’s agenda is purely personal, and his approach reflects his will to
impose his own beliefs and values on the country.
This week the U.S. celebrates his birthday. The holiday remains officially “Washington’s
Birthday,” though commerce has turned it into Presidents Day. Each year on the occasion, I write about the
person whom I consider to be the greatest American president.
Washington’s most comprehensive statement on the federal
government came in his Farewell
Address, issued when he announced he would not seek a third term. In effect, his statement was his political
will to his country. Viewed today, some
of it is outdated, while public policy must now address some situations that he
did not contemplate.
Much of the Address is devoted to an attack on the emerging
political parties. While he invited
debate and wanted to learn from it, he argued that political parties would
exist for their own purposes, sacrificing the national interest. In modern terms, he opposed both parties and
partisanship.
On parties, he wrote: “They are likely, in the course of
time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and
unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to
usurp for themselves the reins of Government….”
On partisanship, he noted: “It serves always to distract the
Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the
Community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity
of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection.”
Though he favored a strong president, he insisted on the
separation of powers. He warned those
entrusted with governing “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.”
Not only did he discuss the federal government, but he confronted
a practical political issue. He declared,
“there must be Revenue—that to have Revenue there must be taxes—that no taxes
can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient & unpleasant.” In his view, government must gain public acceptance
of taxes to meet public needs, not merely cut them.
Often seen as only a two-dimensional historic figure, he was
a man of great political skill and foresight.
King George III, his adversary, was reported to have said that he could
be “the
greatest man in the world” for declining a third term.
His Address showed his foresight and was directed to other
citizens, people he regarded as his equals.
He would soon return to their ranks.
He wrote that he had tried to avoid making mistakes, but he was modestly
aware of “the inferiority of my qualifications.” This self-awareness is missed today.
