George Washington: "The Illest Founding Father"

In class the other day we discussed George Washington's basic philosophies on government.  In short, he was an amazing man, a leader who was twice offered the chance to become the de facto "king" of the U.S., yet both times turned the offer down.  He put principle over power and foresaw the long term ramifications of having an overly-powerful executive. 

The founding fathers gave the presidency the power of decisiveness, a power congress lacked because of it's deliberative nature yet was sorely needed for crisis situations.  But Washington ultimately felt the president was still an embodiment of the people and not the means to one's personal gain.

Of course, power creep increased the stature of the presidency many times over since the FDR administration (some argue the rapid increase dates back as far as the Theodore Roosevelt era).  On one hand I doubt the founders would be happy if the saw how much power the president currently wields, especially when it comes to waging war.  Then again, I doubt they could imagine ICBMs, long-range bombers, WMD, and other nasties than can be unleashed within minutes.

Does the president (the office, not the person) have too much power?  Half of me says yes, and congress has been more than happy to give up their power over the sword since the Korean War.  But the other half of me?  Do we have time to allow congress to deliberate when conflict is launched at the push of the button?

The culmination of the lesson, though, was a form of compromise; that is, we can have a strong executive if we apply Washington's philosophy of putting principle over power.  Do what's right for the Republic, not for your own gain.  Furthermore, in his farewell speech Washington advocated avoiding a militarized foreign policy.  To paraphrase Clausewitz, war should be one of several means to achieving measurable political objectives - in modern parlance, national interests - and not tied to an individual's ambition.  But you cannot depend on force alone:  a state that continuously turns to threats and force loses diplomatic credibility, and thus it becomes harder to apply other political tools to achieve state objectives.

All of this was ruined, of course, when a studdent sent me this video after class (my post title comes from a comment on the video). 

I hate to admit it, but I've got the song stuck in my head.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, Stageleft, Pursuing Holiness, and D equals S, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments

[carly]

I suspect Washington-and all other movers/shakers/founders-would be utterly horrified, appalled, dismayed at the vast amount of power/control the Federal government (all branches) has wrested from state/local governments, communities and individuals over the years. Of all the branches of government, it seems to me that the one whose vastly increased power (even over things pertaining to war and the national defense) would particularly disturb them would be the judiciary. The notion that a bunch of lawyers--not elected by the people but appointed, often for political reasons and/or owing to patronage--have the power to rule/overrule decisions-even about the security of this country-made by the Congress/Commander in Chief would likely have Washington shaking his head in amazement--and dismay.