Washington and His Decent Politics by Suzanne Hadley on Feb 18, 2008 at 4:59 PM

Speaking of George Washington, National Review senior editor and presidential historian Richard Brookhiser takes a look at political campaigning of yore. Because of his stellar reputation, it seems Washington had little to do in convincing voters he was right for the job besides offer them "refreshments":

Washington ran for the House of Burgesses in 1758 while still serving as a colonel in the militia. He could not be at the polling place on Election Day, but he delegated a friend, Lt. Charles Smith, to tend bar in his absence. We know from their correspondence what the Washington campaign served: 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, two gallons of cider (probably hard), for a total of 160 gallons of booze. There were 397 voters.

Refreshments aside, Washington exhibited a knack for self-control and artful politics that ultimately led to his success. Brookhiser gives this example:

Elections are one of the public faces of politics — putting yourself and your convictions (if you have any) out there. But it can be equally important to hold back. How many candidates shoot themselves in the foot by shooting off their mouths (Verb sap, Senator McCain)? Washington possessed in an eminent degree what John Adams called “the gift of silence.”

We have an account of a dinner party he hosted in August 1789 during his first presidential term, thanks to one of the guests, Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania, who wrote it up in his diary. Maclay thought it was “the most solemn dinner I ever ate at.” Washington “with great formality drank the health of every individual by name round the table. Everybody imitated him.” Then came “dead silence.”

The ladies left the table, as was customary, and Maclay expected the gentlemen to get down to business. “The same stillness prevailed.” A few jokes were told; Washington drummed on the table with his fork. Maclay was baffled, but Washington knew what he was doing, or better, what he wasn’t doing. He had been in office for four months; the Constitution had been ratified just a year ago, and the government was brand new. Everyone was bursting to know whom he would appoint, and what he would do. Let them wait. If it was not necessary for him to speak, it was necessary for him not to.

Motte says: "Reading about Washington made me wonder if any of the current presidential candidates have the character to forsake personal aggrandizement for the sake of our nation." That is yet to be seen. However, Washington showed that decent politics are possible. Brookhiser concludes:

There was a lot more politics in Washington’s life, much of it intricate, some of it sordid. It should encourage us to know that the ways and means of politics, however clownish and grubby, have also served great men and great ends. It’s possible to do what you have to do, and do the right thing.

HT: World Mag Blog

Comments

[1. Ben had the following to say on Feb 18 at 7:46 PM:]

1

In the presence of such dynamic personalities as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Alexander Hamilton, it's easy to overlook why George Washington deserves his title as the father of our country. Thank you for your posts today about this incredible, inspiring man.

If only we had candidate like George Washington running for president today! (Ron Paul is as close as it gets, but not nearly close enough!).