4 ms·

George Washington is a national hero, but I feel like arguably his greatest feat hasn't remained popular: Willfully giving up power. Regardless of who happens

George Washington is a national hero, but I feel like arguably his greatest feat hasn't remained popular: Willfully giving up power. Regardless of who happens to be sitting in the Oval, and if they're using their executive authority for "good" or "evil," one could very easily make the argument that congress has given up too much power to unilateral action by the executive (and or too little actionable oversight). Going back to George Washington, the absolute hardest thing anyone can do is give up power. That's why I hope to one day see someone in the WH who is patriotic enough to call for their own political party for help in stripping their own office of unilateral powers. Hand wringing when the "other side" is swinging the executive stick wildly isn't enough. You have to give up power, not just for you, but for who happens comes next. You also have to give up power early in your own term so it impacts you, and you cannot be accused of trying to sabotage. The US shouldn't be a turn-key despot. PS - I don't really expect to see this in my lifetime, but boy would it be a sight to see.

deeg 6y ago
> George Washington is a national hero, but I feel like arguably his greatest feat hasn't remained popular: Willfully giving up power. In popular history you're probably right; GW is largely known as being the first president. Historians are aware of his place in history, though, and even some of his contemporaries. Supposedly George III said this when Washington resigned from the army: "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." [0] I'm leery of "American Exceptionalism" but those early leaders did something pretty remarkable: an armed revolution deposed a government and replaced it with a more peaceful one. That is very rare in history. [0] - https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdstatehouse/html/gwresignation.html https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdstatehouse/html/gwresignation...
- nogabebop23 6y ago
  You can fault the man for many reasons but James K Polk didn't run for a second term because he had a pretty narrow mandate and felt he accomplished it in his first. America's first agile president!
  - jjk166 6y ago
    It's worth noting that Polk was extremely exhausted by his time as president and died 3 months after leaving office.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  In "western civilisation", the prototype comes from 458 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus#First_dictatorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus#F...
- tomjakubowski 6y ago
  Is that even true? The early days of the United States were fraught with military (or militia) action and small rebellions. Less than four score and seven years after the declaration of independence, half the state governments went to war with the other half. I am not sure the issue fought during the revolutionary war was the "peacefulness" of the British government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War
  - deeg 6y ago
    "Peaceful" might not be the best adjective (although I think it's appropriate). For most colonists the new government was better for them than the old one but "better" is much harder to quantify. Washington is arguably the most important figure in making that transition.
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
The purpose of democracy is to ensure no single person enjoys too much power permanently, essentially differing from authoritarianism. But tell that to the political leaders of several democratic countries and see who'll tell "I've been in power for too long, let me resign". Even if they die, nepotism is ripe that their family members are guaranteed to fill-in the space. At least in US, presidents go after 2 terms, even though two party system sucks under several aspects. There are prominent democratic countries in the world where opposition party has never won as ruling party has ensured it by biased policies.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  Multiple things can be true at once. The US can have limited term executive, and could have given too much unilateral power from congress to the executive. A two-term/8 year King is still a King. The way the US was structured was specifically to spread power amongst a lot of people with competing interests, and congressional legislation in the last hundred years has undermined that ideal. PS - Plus a lot of people forget that the whole "two term" thing was only a TRADITION until 1951. That's what I mean by "turn-key despot," traditions are fine until someone occupies the office who doesn't care about traditions, then you need a legal backstop. Giving up power before it is a problem is incredibly patriotic because it is an insurance against the worst future.
  - Fjolsvith 6y ago
    > traditions are fine until someone occupies the office who doesn't care about traditions, then you need a legal backstop. Maybe its just me, but I haven't seen anything during the current "kingdom" that was at all illegal. That's what's so powerful about it, what makes it unstoppable. Before, kings didn't really know how to wield power.
ngngngng 6y ago
The trick with George Washington is he was the only president in the history of the United States that didn't want to run the country. Virtually everyone wanted him to lead after the war, and he obliged. This is perhaps a sort of tyranny implied in competitive democracy. That in order to be elected takes an immense amount of work and resources, and why would someone go through the hell of running a campaign if they didn't yearn for power?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >The trick with George Washington is he was the only president in the history of the United States that didn't want to run the country. Johnson didn't seem to be a big fan of inheriting JFKs boondoggles both foreign and domestic. FDR didn't want to run in '44 but felt that not screwing with a winning combination was his duty to the nation and the nation mostly agreed. Polk called it quits after 4yr because he did everything he was elected to do.
jml7c5 6y ago
>Going back to George Washington, the absolute hardest thing anyone can do is give up power. Perhaps true in general, but George Washington's case was a bit different. He was exhausted by the presidency, and had been continually frustrated by how poorly his beloved Mount Vernon had been managed in his absence. Giving up power was a blessing for him.
- opo 6y ago
  >...Perhaps true in general, but George Washington's case was a bit different. He was exhausted by the presidency, ... When people refer to Washington giving up power, they are generally referring to him resigning from the army after the revolutionary war was complete. There certainly wasn't a lot of precedent for that.
hiccuphippo 6y ago
> his greatest feat hasn't remained popular: Willfully giving up power. Hopefully, Hamilton made it popular: https://youtu.be/CPgDZBADR3Y https://youtu.be/CPgDZBADR3Y

deeg 6y ago

> George Washington is a national hero, but I feel like arguably his greatest feat hasn't remained popular: Willfully giving up power. In popular history you're probably right; GW is largely known as being the first president. Historians are aware of his place in history, though, and even some of his contemporaries. Supposedly George III said this when Washington resigned from the army: "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." [0] I'm leery of "American Exceptionalism" but those early leaders did something pretty remarkable: an armed revolution deposed a government and replaced it with a more peaceful one. That is very rare in history. [0] - https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdstatehouse/html/gwresignation.html https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdstatehouse/html/gwresignation...

nogabebop23 6y ago
You can fault the man for many reasons but James K Polk didn't run for a second term because he had a pretty narrow mandate and felt he accomplished it in his first. America's first agile president!
- jjk166 6y ago
  It's worth noting that Polk was extremely exhausted by his time as president and died 3 months after leaving office.
082349872349872 6y ago
In "western civilisation", the prototype comes from 458 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus#First_dictatorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus#F...
tomjakubowski 6y ago
Is that even true? The early days of the United States were fraught with military (or militia) action and small rebellions. Less than four score and seven years after the declaration of independence, half the state governments went to war with the other half. I am not sure the issue fought during the revolutionary war was the "peacefulness" of the British government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War
- deeg 6y ago
  "Peaceful" might not be the best adjective (although I think it's appropriate). For most colonists the new government was better for them than the old one but "better" is much harder to quantify. Washington is arguably the most important figure in making that transition.

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

The purpose of democracy is to ensure no single person enjoys too much power permanently, essentially differing from authoritarianism. But tell that to the political leaders of several democratic countries and see who'll tell "I've been in power for too long, let me resign". Even if they die, nepotism is ripe that their family members are guaranteed to fill-in the space. At least in US, presidents go after 2 terms, even though two party system sucks under several aspects. There are prominent democratic countries in the world where opposition party has never won as ruling party has ensured it by biased policies.

Someone1234 6y ago
Multiple things can be true at once. The US can have limited term executive, and could have given too much unilateral power from congress to the executive. A two-term/8 year King is still a King. The way the US was structured was specifically to spread power amongst a lot of people with competing interests, and congressional legislation in the last hundred years has undermined that ideal. PS - Plus a lot of people forget that the whole "two term" thing was only a TRADITION until 1951. That's what I mean by "turn-key despot," traditions are fine until someone occupies the office who doesn't care about traditions, then you need a legal backstop. Giving up power before it is a problem is incredibly patriotic because it is an insurance against the worst future.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  > traditions are fine until someone occupies the office who doesn't care about traditions, then you need a legal backstop. Maybe its just me, but I haven't seen anything during the current "kingdom" that was at all illegal. That's what's so powerful about it, what makes it unstoppable. Before, kings didn't really know how to wield power.

ngngngng 6y ago

The trick with George Washington is he was the only president in the history of the United States that didn't want to run the country. Virtually everyone wanted him to lead after the war, and he obliged. This is perhaps a sort of tyranny implied in competitive democracy. That in order to be elected takes an immense amount of work and resources, and why would someone go through the hell of running a campaign if they didn't yearn for power?

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>The trick with George Washington is he was the only president in the history of the United States that didn't want to run the country. Johnson didn't seem to be a big fan of inheriting JFKs boondoggles both foreign and domestic. FDR didn't want to run in '44 but felt that not screwing with a winning combination was his duty to the nation and the nation mostly agreed. Polk called it quits after 4yr because he did everything he was elected to do.

jml7c5 6y ago

>Going back to George Washington, the absolute hardest thing anyone can do is give up power. Perhaps true in general, but George Washington's case was a bit different. He was exhausted by the presidency, and had been continually frustrated by how poorly his beloved Mount Vernon had been managed in his absence. Giving up power was a blessing for him.

opo 6y ago
>...Perhaps true in general, but George Washington's case was a bit different. He was exhausted by the presidency, ... When people refer to Washington giving up power, they are generally referring to him resigning from the army after the revolutionary war was complete. There certainly wasn't a lot of precedent for that.

hiccuphippo 6y ago

> his greatest feat hasn't remained popular: Willfully giving up power. Hopefully, Hamilton made it popular: https://youtu.be/CPgDZBADR3Y https://youtu.be/CPgDZBADR3Y