On Feb. 17, Americans will stay home from work in order to
celebrate
“President’s Day.” Once upon a time, in a different America, we
marked, instead, the birth of George Washington on Feb. 22. But
now, the first president, commander of an army of American farm
hands that defeated the might and power of Britain, is lumped
together with the likes of Andrew Johnson,
Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
On Feb. 17, Americans will stay home from work in order to celebrate “President’s Day.” Once upon a time, in a different America, we marked, instead, the birth of George Washington on Feb. 22. But now, the first president, commander of an army of American farm hands that defeated the might and power of Britain, is lumped together with the likes of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
Why should this bother us? As long as we get a Monday off to engage in our preferred consumptive hobby (to help the economy, of course), who cares which president’s name is on the calendar? Besides, for many Americans, there is nothing particularly special about Washington except that he was the first, and chronological supremacy is a superficial basis for patriotic reverence.
But in his own time, and for years after, Washington was the object of adulation for his feats during the Revolutionary War, not his ascendancy to the presidency. Washington’s star rose because he managed, almost single-handedly, to unite and hold together a poorly fed, ill-trained, and bickering militia long enough to defeat the army of the British Empire. He did so despite lackluster support from the Continental Congress, regional rivalries, traitorous subordinates and his own inexperience as a military commander.
In all this, it was Washington’s humble and determined character that triumphed. This character was shown when Washington personally led his men into battle, miraculously escaping death when others around him fell; when he slept alongside them in the snow during the dark winter of 1777; when he refused to quit even though his army was down to a few rounds per person; when he waived harsh punishment for citizens who initially sided with the British, thereby increasing sympathy for the colonial cause.
His masterful leadership showed in his patient dealing with ambitious lieutenants, and his willingness to change strategy, adopting hit-and-run tactics, after his forces proved superior in this manner of warfare. He rose even higher in the nation’s estimation by insisting on attributing his successes to a divine power, rather than his own.
Washington wasn’t much interested in self-aggrandizement. In fact, he took on the leadership of the Continental Army even though he thought his reputation would be ruined in what initially seemed a hopeless quest. And when victorious, his chose to return to the quiet Virginia countryside, resisting the lures of politics and power.
It seems to me that, out of all the presidents, Washington has the most to offer in these dangerous times. Faced with daunting threats to our security from tyrants and terrorists, we need leaders with the will to prevail – leaders who will not be deterred by the derision of ambitious competitors; who are confident enough to compromise on tangential issues in order to win support from allies and the public on the things that matter most; who can reach across partisan and philosophical divides to build strategic coalitions; and who are not above acknowledging their – and our – ultimate dependence on a higher power.
It gives me confidence that there is much similarity between the First “George W” and the current one. So, on Feb. 17, I will be remembering Washington not as he appears on the One Dollar bill, as a mere portrait of stoicism, but as the leader who won liberty for a besieged and divided people through commitment more to service than to self.
J. David Breemer is an attorney with Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm dedicated to limited government. Readers interested in writing a guest column should contact editor Walt Glines at [email protected] or 779-4106.
