|
In the lead-up to Presidents' Day every year, we are invariably inundated with fluff pieces about the lingering influence of our founding fathers, particularly the first president. But what I alway find lacking in these pieces is a recognition of Washington's most important quality, and one which sets him apart from any other president we've ever had or will ever have again: he didn't want the job.
Despite all the accomplishments of Washington as general in the war for independence, the act which most set him apart from earlier conquering heroes was his voluntary relinquishing of the power that could have been his for the taking. Although his influence and reputation may have allowed Washington to seize the reins of government and crown himself king, he chose to resign his commission and return to farming at Mount Vernon. It was regarding this voluntary relinquishing of power that King George III said "If he indeed does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
It is also often said that Washington was reluctant to reenter the public sphere, and had to be talked into presiding over the continental congress in drafting the Constitution, and was also reluctant to take the job of president, despite being elected unanimously by the electoral college for both of his two terms. This reluctance to accept political office seems to have ended with him, and with the very next election, the power of party politics began to dominate the electoral process.
It is hard to imagine such a situation now, when the only men who we are offered as potential presidents are those who have fought for the position. We praise the energy of the candidate that "wants it most" without understanding that "wanting it most" is seldom linked to being "most able." We rely on the parties to vet our candidates and decide for us who is most "electable" rather than most able, failing to understand that individual candidates may act in the best interests of the country, but a political party is motivated only by the interests of the party. And we rely on the media to direct our focus toward the most "viable" candidates, failing to understand that the media necessarily pander to the lowest common denominator. The very process requires that we elect politicians rather than statesmen and salesmen rather than governors.
Solutions? I don't have any, but I'm certainly open to suggstions.
|