Hang on! Before you start thinking I poured curdled milk in your coffee or put icy hot in your skivvies, give me a chance here. Sometimes I have a thought about something, but more often than not, that's all it becomes. There isn't enough there, there, so I drop it and move on. Sometimes I come across something I am reading and I begin to think, "Wait a minute, that reminds me of so and so." That's what happened here.
Several years ago, I read Joseph Ellis's His Excellency, a book about President George Washington. I read it while I was deployed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in 2011-2012. Honestly, I didn't like the book. I felt Ellis had an axe to grind with Washington, or was one of those, "George Washington was not the guy most history books revere." Yes, there were some salient points made, historical notes, facts that are indisputable, but overall, I just felt like he wanted to take a dig at Washington. I felt the same way in his book American Sphinx about Jefferson. I'm thinking, what a turd this guy is. He is deliberatly trying to tarnish our Forefathers. Fast forward to early September 2024. I was loooking over my book collection thinking of books I could take over to Goodwill. I came across His Excellency, one of three books I have on Washington. I pulled it out and gave it another shot. I had forgotten so much of what I read 12ish years ago, so it would be good to see if this was something I was going to hang on to or hand over.
I decided to give Ellis another chance. I mean, he is a historian. He does have a pretty solid reputation. And I thought, let's see how smart I am to decipher, interpret, or analyze a point of view I disagree with or have problems with. Yes, I do think about that when I am reading.
I am not finished with the rereading of the book yet, but what I can remember from initally reading it, and reading some reviews, here is a quote from a guy named Joe, who read it back in 2010. I feel he accurately captured a lot of what I felt when I first read the book. "My impression of the author is that he is inherently deceitful, ambitious and godless cannot understand how someone can be ambitious but still serve others, and looks for examples to justify his own insecurities."
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not here to directly compare the two. Each man is distinctly different than the other. What I am going to compare is style, purpose, vision, self-belief, and providential manifestation.
I want to call attention to one particular statement made by Ellis that caught my attention and made me consider Trump. Before I provide the quote, a little context. At this point in the book, Ellis is talking about Washington assembling a team around him to help fight the Revolution. In all, Washington had 28 generals serve under him during the duration of the Revolutionary War (RW), but in the beginning there were four who stuck out: Charles Lee, Horation Gates, Nathaniel Greene, and Henry Knox. Ellis emphasizes that Lee and Gates had a lot more experience than Washington. Ellis says that Greene and Knox were less experienced and drawn to the military for their "zeal for American Independence." The main difference in these men was that Lee and Gates tried to "influence" Washington's movements and plans; whereas, Greene and Knox were more willing to trust Washington's vision, direction, and purpose for the war. Ellis submits that Washington was jealous of Lee and Gates' military experience and did not have the royal pedigree of the two. Ponder what you will of that. Anyway, so we have a split, Lee and Gates versus Greene and Knox. I think about Trump's first term and his second term. In his first term, because he lacked the political experience, he deferred to people he thought he could trust. Hence Pence as his pick and many Washington insiders for many important cabinet positions. By the end, Trump realized these people didn't have his vision. They had a systemic, swamp-esque entity to protect. Obviously ,Trump's second term looks glaringly different than the first. Back to Washington and Ellis' quote.
Now that I have teased you with a little context of generals, vision, and purpose, let's make some sense of what I am proposing. On page 82, Ellis says this, "Washington's insistence on personal loyalty was rooted in his insecurity (in Lee's and Gates' superior credentials)." If you want to call it an insecurity, so be it. I would say it was an indifference to and mistrust of the establishment. There was a predictability to Lee and Gates. The British would know that, expose it, and ultimately prevail. Perhaps Washington had more keen insight than Ellis wants to recognize here. Ellis then says, "But the more compelling explanation is that he understood instinctively how power worked, and that his own quasi-monarchical status was indespensible to galvanize an extremely perilous cause." Ah-hah! That's it! Right? Nope. I would disagree with Ellis on the notion that "how power worked" were not the right words. Again, I go back to my previous statement. I think Washington had a keen insight into the old way of thinking and he needed a fresh, bold, and audacious process to win the war. He had a vision for success and didn't want his ideas sullied by "old ways". I will agree to this, the use of the word quasi-monarchical is almost spot on. Ellis later says in the same paragraph, "...Washington's king-like status contradicted the potent antimonarchical ethos in revolutionary ideology." Here, Ellis is correct. Washington did not want to be seen as a king-like figure. There is ample historical information that certifies that position. No, what Washington probably recognized was that he needed to express a style and manifestation of someone of royal nature and authority, while balancing the idea that he was just one of the guys whose soldiers would run through a brick wall for him. See where I'm going with this? In a sense, we can view Trump's presidency as quasi-monarchical in that he needs to project the idea of ultimate authority in an effort to enact his vision, which many believe in. It doesn't make him a dictator or authoritarian. It makes him determined and focused on the vision he feels America needs. You are either on board or you risk the chance of being on the wrong side of history. Washington had a vision and process. Was it risky? Hell yeah! The future of America was at stake. Is Trump's vision and process risky? Maybe not as much, because we have the precedence for it. Our Forefathers gave us the template.
Of course, this is but a snippet of information and distinction Ellis draws from his research of Washington, so it may be unfair of me to speculate such a direct correlation and connection, but here is my subjective view. Oftentimes, reading becomes an exercise in observation and sometimes application. Based on those descriptions, I want to compare Washington and Trump in this way.
I go back to my original talking points. Imagine this comparison as a metaphorical analogy of circumstances, style, purpose, vision, self-belief, and manifestation. Both men led or is leading a Revolution (of sorts). Washington's was a physical war that had many tentacles of politics, social order, and America's future course. Trump's Revolution is more social, but we could include national security, the future of politics, and of course, our future. direction. Where are we going?
Two, when it comes to style, the comparison ends there. Washington was known to be reserved, a quiet confident leader; whereas Trump is more obtuse, in your face, and (at times) crude. Where the comparison can be viewed is their style of leadership. Washington and Trump emphasize trust and loyalty above anything else. You might argue, don't all leaders want that? Not necessarily. A lot of times leadership is based on this for that. Consider why the Democrat party is in such disarray right now. There is no loyalty to a particular person. It's too an ideology. It can also be argued that dictators value loyalty and trust above everything else, but that is more so based on "If you don't ,I'll kill you." So, it's a feigned loyalty. If Washington was going to put his trust in Greene and Knox, two men who did not have the credentials as Lee and Gates, he was taking a huge risk, but because Greene and Knox believed in and admired Washington's bravado and ideas, they were willing to run the gauntlet for him. Loyalty and trust are born out of vision, and both Trump and Washington have a lot of that.
Three, purpose. Washington's purpose was to win independence for America. To separate it from the oppression and over regulation of England. Trump's purpose, in many respects, is not that much different, but his separation is from the Swamp (uniparty mentality), an oppressive, over regulated, corrupt industry complex.
Next, vision. Washington had an idea of what America could be post-war. His vision of westward expansion, individual rights, freedom, property, etc. and not that much different thatn the vision of Trump. He wants to restore people's rights. He doesn't want big government interference or some bureucratic body telling people what to do. He wants to unleash the power, energy, an inovatoin of America. Although one issue that Trump has to deal with that differs from Washington is immigration. That was not an important issue for Washington; however, the idea of sovereignty was. America's sovereignty has been under attack for decades and Trump wants to end that and make more sense of our immigration system. It is safe to say that Washington and Trump believed in America First.
Self-belief. I don't need to delve into that very much. Both men had/have a true sense of self-belief. Washington believed in what he wanted to do, how he wanted to do it, and who he wanted to do it with. Trump's recent cabinet choices clearly outline those same sentiments.
Divine providence. Ellis repeatedly "inferred" (my interpretation), that Washington rarely used the word God, but would often use providence. I would think both are mutually agreed upon, as meaning the same thing. Is it different if we say my parent or my dad/mom? No. It's understood either way. Besides, there are plenty of references in George Washington: In His Own Words where he refers many times to God. There are several accounts where Washington's life seemed to be spared during the Revolution, whether it was horses being shot underneath him or his overcoat showing bullet holes. It could be said thatnTrump's life was spared in Butler, PA and in Florida. It's hard not to dispute either assertion that providence played a role.
In closing, I would submit that Washington and Trump are similar in many ways. Both men were/are tremendous leaders whose vision was/is to make America free and great. To not cower to authority. To not be dictated to. Their management styles were similar in how they valued loyalty and trust above everything else. They were/are willing to take risks to achieve the end result. In some ways, our Forefathers entrusted Washington to "save" America from the British monarchy and oppressive rule. I believe Trump has been entrusted by the American peope to once again "save" America from the ravages of a warped ideology, corruption, and the practice of quid pro quo. It was said that Washington was the right man for the right time. I would say the same for Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment