I recently published a graphic novel biography of George Washington, the culmination of several years’ worth of reading, writing, and editing. I’m very happy with the result, and while Washington was far from perfect, learning more about his life has, in contrast to any number of recently reevaluated historical figures, made me respect him more, not less.
Becoming more knowledgeable about the behavior of our first president has a steep cost, however—it makes the flaws of our current leaders seem more egregious by comparison. As a thought experiment, I wondered: What if George Washington were transported in time from the days of his own presidency to today?
George Washington (henceforth referred to as “GW”) would surely be amazed with advances in technology, including travel through air and space, the ball-point pen, and of particular interest for him, the much improved state of dental care. He would probably spend some time catching up on history, but when he was done with all that, he’d have a few things to say about the way we run our country, and some choice words (“Dolt!” and “Poltroon!” among others) for certain members of our government.
This being a man who copied out the 110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation by hand as a boy, he’d be quick to point out Rule 7 (“Put not off your cloths in the presence of others, nor go out of your chamber half dressed”) after learning about our recent, short-lived experiment of relaxing the Congressional dress code. I guess we can thank John Fetterman’s hooded sweatshirts and gym shorts for reminding us why it’s necessary.
After a few weeks getting acclimated, I suspect GW might also have a few additional rules pertaining to modern life, such as: “Let not the screen dominate one’s attention in the presence of others; show not images and videos on one’s phone to others, for they are scarcely interested.”
To Robert Menendez and George Santos, GW might repeat a line from his Farewell Address of 1796: “I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy.”
GW established precedents for how a commander-in-chief should act, and saw nepotism as something to be avoided. In 1789, he said he would “discharge the duties of the office with that impartiality and zeal for the public good, which ought never to suffer connections of blood or friendship to intermingle,” and he backed up those words with his actions.
When his nephew Bushrod asked to be U.S. attorney for Virginia, GW rejected the request because he considered Bushrod less qualified than other candidates.
In contrast, GW would likely frown upon the once and possible future President Trump appointing his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to be a senior adviser despite Kushner’s lack of political experience, and at Gov. Phil Murphy using his power to support his wife Tammy Murphy’s candidacy for New Jersey senator—again, despite the latter’s absence of qualifying merit.
GW, who kept his soldiers in the fight during the Revolutionary War by mandating inoculations in 1777, would probably be confused by Americans’ resistance to vaccination for Covid-19 and its variants, and even more bewildered by governors and senators who have sought to eliminate vaccine mandates for the military, claiming without proof that such requirements would “pose a national security risk.”
Guessing at GW’s stance on modern foreign relations is tricky; his farewell address supported a policy of neutrality. but Washington was also a stickler for honorable fighting in combat. It’s hard to believe he’d stand for civilians being kidnapped and killed in Israel, or countenance atrocities in Ukraine without feeling compelled to aid that fight for freedom, much as the United States benefited from the help of its own patron—the stronger, wealthier France—during our own war for independence.
On immigration, one of the knottiest issues of our time, I believe GW would challenge President Biden for a stronger federal response to the current immigrant surge, rather than the “every state for itself” mentality that seems to persist. (GW believed in a strong central government.) GW might also observe that Congress has the ability to compromise and agree to practical guidelines on immigration, but seems to prefer using it as a political football. (This would, of course, be after someone had explained to GW about football).
Most modern studies agree that although immigration can prove difficult in the short term for regions that experience surges, over time it’s a net benefit to the economy. But GW’s vision goes beyond economics; in a 1783 letter, he wrote:
“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights & previleges, if by decency & propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”
And in 1788:
“I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.”
Certainly, GW would be distressed to see the current extremes of partisan politics. In his 1796 Farewell Address, he warned of the despotism that can arise from political parties, saying that “The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
Politicians would bear the brunt of GW’s ire, but he’d have some criticisms for average citizens, too. In that same farewell address, GW said that “In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.”
In other words, a healthy democracy requires that voters fulfill a civic responsibility to be skeptical, look beyond television news bubbles and their crude, fomenting-outrage-as-entertainment style, and be open to hearing all sides of an argument, not just the ones they already support.
In 1782, when it was suggested that for the country’s benefit, GW should become king, he forcefully rejected the idea. The next year, he surrendered his military commission to Congress, shocking observers around the world—notably King George III of England himself, who said, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”
In a presidential election year, it’s worth remembering that one candidate, Donald Trump, has been indicted for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, Trump’s two main competitors for the Republican nomination, have both said that as president, they will pardon Trump if he’s convicted of that crime. I suspect that GW would be more than a bit disappointed in this turn of events, which flies in the face of his graceful surrender of power, his emphasis on the republic instead of the individual, and his value for the rule of law.
Even if we could be sure of GW’s take on modern events, he’d be the first to point out that one man should not dictate to a country, president or not. As the political rhetoric heats up, GW might instead remind us all to simply remember the final rule of Civility & Decent Behavior: “Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.”
Peter Dabbene’s website is peterdabbene.com. His graphic novel biography “George Washington: The Father of a Nation” is now available through Amazon.com for $20 (print) or $10 (ebook).
,
