EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
George Washington and the 2012 Presidential Campaign
As the 2012 presidential election campaign kicks into high gear with a slate of mediocre candidates, it is ironic that 200 years after a population of 3 million produced a collection of Founding Fathers (including at least two polymaths; Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson) with natural leadership abilities to create a new nation has yet to produce a comparable set of politicians from 300 million citizens.
After serving as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, president of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and the fledgling country's first president (1789 - 1797), George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address to the country could not have been more prescient in warning about foreign entanglements, a too powerful military, accumulation of debt and the dangers from a partisan system dominated by political parties. Not born to wealth yet surrounded by more erudite, better educated men, Washington's address stands out as a classic American document reflective of his accumulated wisdom as a standard for his successors to emulate.
At the center of the Republican primaries is, of course, incumbent President Barack Obama whose 2008 campaign stirred great enthusiasm with slogans like "Change you can believe in" that has now created a huge credibility gap between voter expectations and his inability to put words into deeds. Once touted as a brilliant legal mind and Constitutional scholar with a privileged education, the president has undermined the First Amendment and Constitutional protections far beyond his reviled predecessor. Obama's tenure as president of the Harvard Law Review in 1990 revealed a pattern of an ambitious man, elected with conservative student support, who disappointed black and liberal students in pursuit of a cautious, status quo approach.
Supporters of the president rationalize his lack of accomplishment by citing Republican intransigence, a real challenge to be sure -- but the fact remains that the personal qualities that took Illinois Senator Obama to the most powerful position on the planet in five years have been almost totally absent during his first term. Instead of a decisive, determined leader, Obama has caved at every obstacle and took the 'compromise' route at the expense of his integrity and the well-being of the American people.
Considered to be the ultimate Republican nominee is former Massachusetts Governor, well-groomed and robotic Mitt Romney who continues to project his elite background at a time when the Republican grassroots, angry and embittered, want a fighter to take on Obama. A grey Mr. no-where man who seems unsure of who he is or where he's going, is unable to display either convincing anger or personal warmth, exudes a stiff, inauthentic quality as if there is something he is holding back, something he is not telling us but dares not utter the words.
The reality is that unless he could be crowned at the convention, Romney has always been a long shot at the nomination as long as he had to endure the endless round of fractious primaries and caucuses. You've got to love the irony, given the right's irrational animosity for Obama and its disdain for Romney, that a current Gallup poll shows Romney as the only Republican with any chance to run a competitive race. Unlike Democrats, however, Republicans have a way of settling their differences in the name of achieving their ultimate goal after Labor Day.
As the popular media excites itself over former Senator Rick Santorum's most recent impressive wins, Santorum's success can be attributed to a turnout dominated by religious extremists devoted to controversial 'fringe' issues that have turned the Republican party so far to the right as to assure Obama's re-election in November. Projecting a pious altar boy persona with sophomoric political skills and an intellect to match, Santorum's mean-spirit will continue to pump the 'assault on religious freedom' controversy with no understanding that the real assault is on the Constitutional separation of church and state.
Still hanging on is the ubiquitous Newt Gingrich, always a legend in his own mind, seems more like the incorrigible Uncle Fester who exhibits no filter for his negative thoughts. Combative and whining, Gingrich's appeals to the worse in the American electorate rarely revealing a glimpse of his alleged superior intellect. Still an outsider in some ways, Newt's tendency to bully as an adult may be attributed to being a chubby, non-athletic boy in the school yard whom classmates loved to tease.
Ron Paul remains in the race as the sole voice against Obama's military adventures around the world, questioning the constitutionality of drone attacks and otherwise reminding liberals how the Democrats have become a pro-war party. Paul's explosive political baggage as well as the 'rigged' political system that he says makes a serious third party candidacy impossible is retiring from the House of Representatives.
The prospect of an Obama vs. Romney/Santorum/Gingrich race promises to be less than informative with an emphasis on emotional 'fringe' issues meant to stimulate the right-wing of the Republican party. The American people will be the losers without an opportunity for a serious debate on many of the same issues George Washington warned about 216 years ago -- the impacts of a bloated military and a perpetual war economy, constant cuts to social programs that devastate those citizens (and children) most in need, on-going favoritism to the bankers and financial elites and an erosion of civil liberties in the name of 'terrorism.' Without a serious challenger to force the discussion, Obama will slide into home base without getting his uniform dirty.
One potential difference between Obama and the Republican candidates who are reckless in their support for another war (with the exception of Ron Paul) may be the extent of U.S. participation with an Israeli attack on Iran. Despite Joint Chief Martin Dempsey's recent warning to Netanyahu of U.S. non-participation, it remains to be seen whether the president will opt for sanity and steer clear of another potentially disastrous conflagration. Even if the U.S. remains on the sidelines, which is problematic, any Israeli attack on Iran will be viewed by the rest of the world as a U.S. responsibility given America's close ties and extensive military aid to Israel for the last 40 years.
With no George Washington on the horizon to save the country, it is more than discouraging that such a large, diverse country has yet to produce one, just one, individual worthy of Washington's mantle.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
40 Comments so far
Show AllLet us not forget that Washington was a hypocrite who owned slaves.
Obama and the republican "challengers"(sic) would make us all slaves to Wall Street.
Voting for any of these corporate owned hypocrites (the vast majority of both houses of the congress is included in this club) is to promote your own enslavement.
Wrong tense.
"Obama and the GOP" HAVE ALREADY made us all slaves of Wall Street.
Let us not forget that Washington lived and died in a society where slavery was a normal and accepted thing.
His ownership of slaves represents a moral blind spot, not hypocrisy.
Neglecting to exercise my dog, stiffing a server on the tip, being rude to my next door neighbor, shouting at my kids to relieve the day's frustrations--THESE might be "moral blind spots." Owning and oppressing human beings is another matter.
Slaveholding is not a simple moral oversight, it is a great social evil, on par with child labor and other coercive and exploitative practices. What did slavery really involve? Chains, guns, and dogs and many other forms of terror and torture. And we haven't even mentioned here the widespread sexual exploitation and the general corruption of spirit necessarily entailed by the exercise of absolute power. Jefferson famoulsy understood that slavery was a curse on the moral nature of the masters. He did not consider slaveholding a mere "moral oversight." He knew it to be an indefensible evil. Samuel Johnson asked, on the eve of the American Revolution, why do we always hear of "liberty" from the mouths of comitted slaveholders? He saw, as did many others, that the Founding Fathers were indeed hypocrites.
Americans should ask themselves what investment do they have in defending the Founders from the charge of participating in evil. Why is it important that we NOT judge these men by elementary moral standards?
This is excellent, thank you. You will find matti to be a pitch perfect tuning fork of authoritarian disassembling of reality. I find great value in your responses to matti, and to be vulgar, that is like taking dogshit and making lemonade! Matti- hope you enjoy it too.
I am always unconvinced by arguments that begin with the premise of what "the Founding Fathers" would have said or done. Such arguments imply that these men were Godheads, superior founts of wisdom and morality. The historical facts clearly say otherwise: all too often, they behaved in a self-interested and duplicitous fashion: saying one thing, but doing quite another. In other words, they were just like the flawed politicians who preside over the realm today. Using "the Founding Fathers" as unimpeachabale authorities only perpetuates the banal national mythology that the country was founded in a great moment of "reason" and since then it has been nothing but a precipitous decline
Perhaps part of the political crisis we face is that we keep looking for a "George Washington" to save us from perils. The latest version of the Great Visionary :Leader is Barack Obama, who has (predictably) proven to be a dire disappointment. The Right is forver prating on about Reagan as a modern day "Washington." Those of us who were there, remember that Reagan was one of the worst persons ever to accede to a major office.
Obama, Santorum, Gingrinch, Romney--they are all absurd, all completely without merit. They all sit comfortably in the pockets of Wall St and the Military Industrial Complex. None of them will take us anywhere we really want to go.
Perhaps the time has come to look to ourselves for our own liberation!
YES. This is valuable, thank you.
Obviously, Renee, it's Time we stopped wishing for the relief we know is essential and begin formalizing a means for locating the bravery in leadership that can save this nation from its irresponsible self-destruction. My attitudes will continue to be found at Tulcidious.blogspot.com. Obviously also, the essential solutions cannot be found in politicians as usual.
We might rightly ask what public confrontations can shift big money's fear of loss from intransigence to cooperation (turning ability and resources to enlightened, responsible purpose will make better beings of everyone adequately fortunate to play a part). Politicians as we know them fail to respect the intelligence of the people. That breeds an indifference that further breeds a selfish irresponsibility probably motivated by financial comfort and a fear of status loss.
Yet the emotional characterization of the problem persons is not as important as taking down their fear-bound work. An organized conversation constructing an enlightened platform for repair of a nation set currently to destruction by disarray is essential. My hand and voice could stand to lead a conversation of that kind. Someone else's money would have to pay the way.
Americans always prefer myths and half-truths about their founding fathers instead of facts because they are desperate for heroes but this tendacy is an enemy of the truth. According to a recent biography by Joseph Ellis George Washington was not a great military leader and in fact lost more battles than he won and not only did he have slaves but married Martha Washington because her family had enough slaves to qualify him for entry into the exclusive club of the upper ruling class.
Ms. Parsons notes that: "Unlike Democrats, however, Republicans have a way of settling their differences in the name of achieving their ultimate goal after Labor Day." Ms. Pasons seems to be implying that it is a good thing that the Democrats have apparently already agreed that Obama will be their presidential nominee at the Democratic convention in 2012. What she does not say is that this then means that none of the so-called progressives in the Democratic party will be challenging Obama for that nomination in order to draw attention to the fact that Obama is a warmonger and that he has ignored the plight of the homeless, the working class and the poor, and abandoned any pretense of fighting for universal health care for Americans in this country.
George Washington was on the side of the FEDERALISTS while Thomas Jefferson was more leaning towards progressive populism. GW might have rescued this country as far as outside matters aka foreign policies such as war and trade were concerned. But on economic policies, he was for the failed economic libertarian ones. I take it that Parsons is taking Paul to be like GW, no?
No.
Also, Washington's economic ideas (such as they were) are only connected to "libertarian" ones by the insistance of the libertarians themselves.
We're talking about a man who died before LLCs existed, remember?
Ah, didn't think about LLCs but in today's corporate world most companies are that way anyway. Perhaps George Washington wasn't that cruel enough but we'll never know for sure.
It is nonsense to argue about the founding fathers as slaveholders. Slaveholding was as morally acceptable in their day as buying a slave-made IPhone is in ours. The point of this article is the presumption that no one of the caliber of the founding fathers, in intellect or committment to the common good, exists in our day. This is a false argument. There are plenty of good and able people today - but the game has been so rigged that only the bottom-of-the-barrel corporate ass-kissing toadies dare apply. America still has its visionaries. But they have been deliberately marginalized.
It is nonsense to argue that slaveholding was "morally acceptable" in Colonial America and so that is the end of the argument about "the founding fathers as slaveholders." First, and most obviously, slavery was not morally accepted by the slaves themselves. Hence the machinery of social control that the masters invested in. The masters knew full well that they held their "chattels" by force of arms. Of course, they tried to convince others (and themselves) that they held their human property by "right." Second, there was always a vigorous anti slavery critique as advanced by Tom Paine and others. Men like Jefferson were susceptible to anti-slavery on moral and intellectual grounds, but following through on their understanding was another matter.
In short, the Founding Fathers recognized that slavery was a brutal and oppressive system. The fact that it was socially normalized, didn't mean that it was "morally" beyond question, even for the worst of masters.
Would you say that because genocide was socially normalized in Nazi Germany it was therefore "morally acceptable" to the perpetrators and that's all that needs to be said?
jrp
Very well stated.
I was very disappointed that this article from Greenwald yesterday never appeared here, unless I missed it. One of his best.
Repulsive Progressive Hypocrisy.
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/singleton/
Thanks for the link. Over 50% of Liberals support Guantanamo, drone strikes, etc!! Just revolting..
Obamney 2012!
Sorta sounds like lobotomy.
Those with a lobotomy will surely choose Obameny.
At least Parsons uses a semantic trick to make Obama the Republican and neocon he truely is. But using Washington as a foil was pretty lame. Why not dredge up TR's Osawatomie Speech as it's far more relevent, especially since Obama gave his own version of that speech there.
We call Paul Revere a hero and yet what made Revere a hero was not the fact that he rode his horse through the night to warn us, under dangerous circumstances, that the British were coming... but the fact that when he came into a town, rather than open their windows and tell him to "stop shouting and making a rukkus, can't you see we're sleeping," ...they got out of bed, grabbed their muskets and showed up in the square. The truth is that today we have many people who might provide the leadership we need... we just don't have a citizenry that is tuned in, committed to their ideals, or inspired enough by their own sensibilities to show up ready to fight for change, when it is more comfortable to watch TV on their couch. Obama and the two or three major Republican candidates all support the use of torture even though it is and has been illegal both nationally and internationally. No major candidate seems to be particularly disturbed that the President has embraced the power to jail or kill someone without due process of law. In other words they have all put us on notice that they have no intention of honoring their oath of office. And the electorate yawns. What really makes a leader, a leader, is a committed citizenry that believes in something and is ready and willing to stand up for it without being guaranteed a victory or needing some shining knight on a white horse to tell them what to do. Trotsky: "No revolution is possible, until it becomes inevitable."
Ms. Parsons, your article is disappointing in that you, like MSMs, are trying hard to exclude Ron Paul from the race. Ron Paul is still in and so he will stay, especially when the truth about rigged caucuses (Idaho, Nevada, possibly Maine) will come to light. I thought Common Dreams was different.
Moreover, Ron Paul is the only candidate that calls on the original constitution as his guide. He is a libertarian. He IS that leader in GOP that you are convoking in your article. Ref. http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/145550145X
westerner22 notes that Ron Paul "is a libertarian." That is correct which then means that Ron Paul does not give a damn about the plight of the average working American and the poor in this county since he wishes to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, environmental regulations, etc.
Not true. He wants to leave all social issues to the power of the individual states. It will be not his business as the president to decide how the states would approach the citizen's health care. There would be much less red tape. Are you satisfied with FDA or USDA. Or with the govt false and dangerous recommendation of their food pyramid.
Or with Fed raids on medical cannabis dispensaries.
No, but neither am I satisfied that some states insisted on their "right" to impose Jim Crow laws, or today choose to disenfranchise voters or offer no social safety net to the needy.
Ron Paul claims to be a constitutionalist, but our Constitution makes our federal government responsible for "the general welfare".
Just as we need both a free market and enough government regulation to prevent abuses of that freedom, similarly we need an appropriate balance between local control and consistent national rights for all citizens.
Ron Paul doesn't understand this. He lies on the extreme end of the spectrum.
Ron Paul does not believe that the states can institute Jim Crow laws. He believes that individuals can choose to restrict services to other individuals or groups. One can certainly disagree with that position, and I would agree with you that we need "...an appropriate balance between local control and consistent national rights..."
but Ron Paul understands this difference very well.
Agree that Paul is the only candidate in the race willing to discuss the Big Ticket issues of the country's military and economic policy. He has added an important dimension to the race - his voice on those issues will be missed in the House. .
Many Americans may still hope that he will be heard from the White,,, House. Elections... - it is not over until it is over.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with Jill Stein, the most likely Pres Candidate of the Green Party who will be on the ballot in Nov. and who is a "serious" candidate - quite serious, I suggest you check her out. The fact that you and too many others are dismissing or discounting her is a major reason progressives are not able to "progress" in the electoral sphere. With the public forum you and others have - to refuse to recognize, let alone highlight and promote such candidates is, IMO, downright irresponsible.
You want a real debate in the elections? Work to get her in that debate ... Instead of perpetually bemoaning the lack of leadership in the 2 corporate parties, which is, and has been, a foregone conclusion for some time now, why not cast you gaze about and start working for those who do exhibit that leadership. She is not corporate sponsored - hence she won't be on or in the MSM - she, and the rest of us, would benefit enormously if folks such as yourself, who claim progressive credentials, would start talking about real progressive candidates such as her.
http://www.jillstein.org/
Sound analysis, Ms, Parsons. And I so agree with your characterization of Newt Gingrich, the bully.
Regarding this insight:
"Obama's tenure as president of the Harvard Law Review in 1990 revealed a pattern of an ambitious man, elected with conservative student support, who disappointed black and liberal students in pursuit of a cautious, status quo approach."
It must be today's recipe for political mediocrity as it so fits Eric Holder and Eleanor Kagan, for starters.
yes, many of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders and yes, they were not perfect human beings .
nevertheless, the fact is that many were men of intellect and courage - willing to risk the British hangman - the point being that today's political class is woefully lacking comparable intelligence or political courage.
some of my sources included James Flexner's extensive work on Washington and David Stewart's The Summer of 1787 in which he informs us that if the RI and NY delegations to the Continental Convention had attended, the South Carolina motion to declare slaves a 3/5 man might have been defeated.
There is also ample evidence that the Virginia delegation in particular, Washington, Mason, Randolph, Madison, Wythe and Jefferson throughout their lives, in their personal papers, were well aware of and wrote of their 'moral ambiguity' on the slavery issue yet were never able to act upon their conscience.
What we all have in common is the struggle to live the humanity we preach.
Quite correct however I would point out that what a President says whether it be in the past the present or in the furture is NOT material.
The words of a George Washington or a Dwight Eisenhower might ring true but are without meaning if they were not acted upon.
One can cut and paste the speeches of Barack Obama just as an early supporter of Obama used to do and send to me to show me why she supported him , and they are devoid of meaning because he does not ACT upon those words.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that he admired the Natives yet actively worked to have all regions East of the Mississsippi cleansed of them.
Barack Obama claims to admire Martin Luther King as a man of peace yet orders the bombing and expansion of war and violence the world over.
The measure of a person is not what they say, it is what they do. Thomas Jefferson just like Barack Obama SAID a lot of nice things but never acted upon them. He preferred his own comfort that much more.His life of comfort would not have existed without his slaves working his land. The same is true of George Washington who was the richest man in the Colonies and was quite upset that the Crown was going to close off the West to further expansion where he had investments.
Thanks for putting flesh on the bones of my comment about Parsons using Washington as a foil.
Gw
Very nicely stated.
George Washington was FACING the hangmans noose for tax evasion, he did not choose it. Your undying hagiography is part of the problem, and part of Washingtons contribution: He methodically created his own public persona, and inculcated in those around him the belief in their own superiority; his rationale was RATIONAL- to get other people to buy into this bullshit someone had to say it and believe it first, the lie precedes the myth. The contributions that the Founding Rebels made are indeed precious to us, but only because they mouthed the words others lived by. The facts about Washington are MORE impressive than the myths- He was an incredibly able warrior and fighter, feared by all who knew of him; that is where the "Washington never told a lie" comes from- Fear- no one would cross him, even in an open lie; He was an incredibly able horseman, so capable he could ride a horse down a Farmers Field Stone Wall!!! with a hatchet/cudgel in one hand no less!; he was a man of incredible persuasion- this one should be obvious- but here are some examples: He was married to Martha while banging away at all of his (hers actually) slaves, he borrowed money from many with no obvious way to repay, he made up the myths around himself about himself and had others promote them. Perhaps you might have touched on his involvement in Shay's Rebellion in your research, or maybe his years as a mercenary for the british oligarchy, or his personal feuds which were actually about wealth and avarice, or perhaps not. We do not need to hew to myths and lies to make ourselves feel better,or worse as is the case here, about our present situation and our leadership. It would be perhaps more insightful to have a discussion of the british oligarchies functionaries and how they PRECISELY mimic our current stage of actors. These men (the original insurrectionists) had many intelligent and critical thinkers, indeed they could not have been successful without these attributes, but they should hold no place in a pantheon,and certainly hold no high ground which cannot be assailed by reason, justice, and criticism- for they all were greedy, vainglorious, and duplicitous- in fact that is why they crafted a constitution to guard against such people; they were right to be afraid of their compatriots for they knew just what they were capable of.
PS- Renee Parsons- I really value your work, please keep it up. I am particularly impressed that you are participating here in the discussion. It is of great benefit to us all how you are living your life, thank you.
Those who would romanticize the Founders and Framers are no less guilty or wrong than those who would demonize them. They - and we - are human beings with all the frailties and faults that are an inevitable part of the journey.
But what Renee Parsons says is quite true: we don't have the intellectual or moral character of leadership today that we had at our beginning as a nation. Nor do we have the citizenry with the courage and wisdom to fight for our rights and our children's future. And so we prolong this mediocrity with hardly more than a whimper and a whine.
George Washington approvingly described the new republic as an "infant empire". Took a while for that baby to grow up, but grow up it did. There is also the small matter of his participation in the genocide of Native Americans.
Jefferson wasn't even at the Constitutional Convention -- he was ambassador to France. Excepting non-property holding non-white men he was fairly democratic for the time period, but he was no Jean Varlet (who during the same time period convincingly argued that the "powers cannot be balanced by each other").
The theory that slavery was "normal", and that the "founding fathers" should be exempted from criticism on this basis, is nonsense. Then as today, many people opposed it.
The Anti-Federalists were quite astute in their predictions of where the new Constitution would lead the "American" people. They referred to an "aristockratical tyranny" lacking in "demokracy" which would produce a "universal empire". If Americans insist upon worshiping their forebears, they should perhaps read the Anti-Federalist papers. Better yet, they should study the Iroquois Confederacy.