Tag Archives: politics

George Washington Died a Worried Man

How many times have we held a quarter in our hand and seen his profile? There he is: calm, strong and confident. 

Every February, teachers would tell us the story of how young George went to his father and confessed he could not tell a lie – he was the one who had chopped down the cherry tree.  We were encouraged to follow his example of honesty.

History books often include the painting of him standing in the middle of a rowboat full of soldiers crossing the icy Delaware River on a winter’s night.  They won a daring victory which became a turning point in the Revolutionary War.  We were encouraged to be inspired by his courageous leadership.

After winning the war, he was elected our first president, then reelected, then peacefully stepped down.  He was honored as “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.” We were taught to revere his life and example.

But nobody told us he died a worried man.

After the 2016 election, the historian Thomas Hicks wrote First Principles: What American Founders Learned from the Greeks and Romans and How That Shaped Our Country.  He wanted to know what values guided and inspired our first four Presidents: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. 

I learned Washington was not as well educated as the other three – they could read Greek and Latin and speak French; he spoke only English. They had spent extensive time in Europe, he never left America. They read books on philosophy and political theory while he preferred books on farming. 

He believed you can always learn from your mistakes, which served him well as a military commander.  He believed in the importance of personal and civic virtue, which he saw embodied in the great leaders of Classical Rome.  He sought to be honest in all his dealings and respected the opinions of those who didn’t agree with him, refusing to be dragged into political factions.  Personal integrity and selfless service to his country were of utmost importance. 

These ideals served him well in his 45 years of leadership.  But after he left office, he saw the rise of political parties which seemed to disregard all he stood for.

A month before he died, he wrote, “I have for some time past viewed the political concerns of the United States with an anxious and painful eye. They appear to me to be moving by hasty strides to some awful crisis…”[i] 

“He would die a worried man. On Thursday December 12th, 1799 and the following day, Friday the 13th, he did farm oversight work on horseback, even though the weather was an atrocious mix of rain snow and sleet. That evening he was hoarse. Between two and three in the morning of Saturday December 14th, he woke Martha to tell her he felt ill and that his throat was painfully sore. Doctors came and during the course of the day bled him four times, which probably sped him toward his demise that evening. His secretary Tobias Lear reported to President Adams that Washington went out like a Roman: ‘His last scene corresponded with the whole tenor of his life — not a groan nor a complaint escaped him in extreme distress — with perfect resignation and in full possession of his reason he closed his well spent life.’”[ii]

Hicks’ book gave me a new respect for the complexities of George Washington. It also cast a light on one of his closest followers, James Madison. 

Madison had a different view of humanity than his mentor. He did not believe you can count on political leaders being virtuous.  (“…it’s not saying that humans are wicked and have no virtue, just that virtue alone is not sufficient.”[iii])  People will be motivated by self-interest and gravitate to others who share their interests, forming factions and parties to advance their aims. We need a system of government with checks and balances that assumes and sets boundaries on such behavior.  Madison became the primary architect of our Constitution.

The book was published in 2020, and in the closing chapter Hicks asks: “What would the founders say about the America of today? Is our nation what it was supposed to be, or what they hoped it would be?  He answers, “The picture is mixed.”[iv]  That was in 2020. I’m guessing he’d give the same answer this year.

George Washington has been called the “Father or Our Country.”  Many fathers and mothers come to their last days looking back and wondering what they could have done differently.  They are often deeply concerned about how life will go for the people and institutions they have loved and served.  They worry.  But they’ve done their best. What happens after them depends on the action of those who follow.

Washington Crossing the Delaware, Emanuel Leutze, 1851

Postscript: In light of recent debates regarding the history of American slavery, I found this worth noting: “In his will Washington tried to free as many of the enslaved people on his plantation as legally possible. Some were the property of Martha and her heirs. Others were married to those owned by Martha. He was the only founder involved in human bondage who tried to emancipate so many enslaved people.”[v]

[i] Hicks, pg. 243

[ii] Hicks, pg. 243

[iii] Hicks, pg. 207

[iv] Hicks, pg. 285

[v] Hicks, pg. 243

Simplicity and Complexity

            During a time when a major conflict was occurring in the Middle East, I invited my friend Rabbi Arthur to speak to my congregation on “The Israeli Perspective.” The week before we’d heard a Palestinian advocate and wanted to hear the other side.

            Arthur stood in front of the 35 or so people in the meeting room.  Before he answered any of our questions, he introduced us to five Israelis he knew personally.  He went to the right side of the room, stood in one spot, and “introduced” us to his first friend.  He told us where this person had been born, some formative experiences that had shaped them, when they had come to settle in Israel, and some details of their daily life.  He then took several steps sideways and, planting himself in a second spot, introduced us to another friend in the same way.  He then moved to the middle of the room and told of a third friend.  He did it a fourth time, and then a fifth.  He stepped forward and said he was ready for the first question.  Someone raised their hand and asked. 

            “Well,” he said as he walked over to the second spot he’d stood in, “This friend of mine would say…” and proceed to answer the question as that friend would.

            “But my other friend…” he said as he walked to the fourth position, “Would say this…” and offered that friend’s perspective.  Then he stepped into the fifth spot and said, “And my good friend here sees it a bit differently from the other two. She would tell you this …”

            The questions and answers continued for the rest of the hour.  He continued answering every question by moving to two or three of the different places in the room where his friends “stood” as he shared each one’s opinion.

            When he finished the hour-long presentation, two things were clear: 1) there was no one “Israeli’ position on a particular political issue, but at least five; 2) the position each of his friends took grew out of their personal experiences.

            When we go to vote and there are only two candidates, we must pick one. Or if we are voting on a proposition with only “Yes” or “No” options, we must make a choice.  That either/or thinking is common in our current culture, and we may be tempted to listen to someone and quickly judge them as “right” or “wrong.”  But when we take the time to get to know people and discover why they feel the way they do, we might find out there are more nuances of complexity than we imagine.  We are also reminded that peoples’ positions and opinions come out of their specific life experiences.

            I knew an education professor who was an articulate advocate for women’s rights.  She was often asked to be on a panel where she’d be paired with someone who held a different position.  But after several such occasions, she would decline the invitation to speak if the panel was only going to have two perspectives — she insisted at least three be represented.

            When I was in Seattle, I took an excellent organizational leadership class.  The teacher encouraged us to always be ready to broaden our perspective on possible solutions to a problem.  Our habit, he said, was to say, “Let’s get a group together and find a solution.”  But he encouraged us to frame it differently: “Let’s get a group together and come up with at least three possible solutions, and then choose one.”

            I think of the great spiritual teachers.  They offer abiding truths that can apply to everyone. But then there are times when an individual approaches them with a specific question or concern. The teacher pauses and gets a sense of who this individual is and what they’ve faced in their life, and then says something very specific  You can see this in the Gospel stories – Jesus will offer one person direct physical healing, another assurance of forgiveness, another a challenge to examine their priorities more carefully, and another a parable that leaves them pondering issues far beyond what they had expected.

            Life is full of complexity, and we often don’t have the time, energy, or patience to consider multiple viewpoints.  But in situations where we do take the trouble to do so, we may not only get a better understanding of the situation but also gain an appreciation for other people and respect for how they came to see the world they do. 

Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, “For the simplicity that lies this side of complexity, I would not give a fig, but for the simplicity that lies on the other side of complexity, I would give my life.”

            Rabbi Arthur was not simply a passive observer without his own opinions.  On the contrary, in his life he has never ceased being an advocate and activist for what he believes. So, on the day he spoke to us when people would ask him, “Well — what is your opinion?” he wouldn’t hesitate. He would position himself somewhere along the spectrum and tell us.  But we got the point: one can have strong and clear opinions and, at the same time, show genuine respect for those who might see things differently.

Photo: “Five Paths” (Cinco Caminos) by Richard Long, 2004, Es Baluard Museu d’Art Contemporani de Palma, depósito colección Serveis Ferroviaris de Mallorca