Time: Tue Jul 22 07:48:13 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA07806 for [address in tool bar]; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 07:38:33 -0700 (MST) by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA18215; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 07:33:10 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 07:32:41 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Alan Keyes: Washington's Birthday Address (fwd) <snip> > >Washington's Birthday Address >Ambassador Alan Keyes >Ventura, California >February 22, 1997 > > >Thank you very much. > >I appreciate all of you for coming today, and >commemorating George Washington's Birthday - a day >that, sadly speaking, is in and of itself, I >guess, no longer commemorated in the United >States. Isn't that sad? I think one of the >things I would like to do, if I ever got the >chance, would be to see whether we couldn't >separate these holidays again; I don't like what >we're doing right now. Because we now refer to >the day we celebrate, on whatever day happens to >be somewhat vaguely close to the 22nd, we call it >"Presidents Day." And, of course, some folks in >the media are taking advantage of that in order to >create the impression that we are just kind of >generally celebrating presidents. Now I don't >know about you, but we've had a lot of presidents, >and some of them are worth celebrating and some of >them aren't even worth remembering. So I'm not >entirely sure why you would want a day set aside >dealing with all of them, except that it is in >line with the kind of 'happy face' approach to >everything that we're adopting these days: "I'm >OK. You're OK. They're all OK. Let's be OK. >It's Presidents Day!" > >But I liked it better the old way, because we kind >of singled out - or, in a certain sense, WE >didn't; I think, in a way, the sort of inevitable >judgment of our common opinion and heart singled >out - only a select few, indeed, only two, of the >presidents we have had, for the signal honor of >remembering their birthdays. Now, there is in >fact only one of those - the one whose birthday we >celebrate today - for whom that esteem was >universal. Since we do understand, don't we, that >Abraham Lincoln had the great task of leading this >country during a civil war, and great as he was, >his greatness did leave a bad taste in the mouths >of some folks who were on the receiving end of his >statesmanship. > >Nonetheless, I think he deserved that place, and >of course Washington was unreservedly accorded a >special place of preeminence. And what is >remarkable is that, contrary to the common belief >that we have, that you kind of have to wait until >after somebody is dead before you can really >decide whether they were good guys or bad guys, >and while they're alive there's going to be a >great dispute over that, in Washington's time >there was no dispute whatsoever over this. And >universally he was regarded as the preeminent man >of his day. > >And that was not only true of Americans; it was >even true of, say, folks in Europe, who otherwise >had a rather low opinion of America, a great many >of them, but who regarded Washington's >statesmanship - despite the fact that at that >time, remember, we were not a great country with >far flung interests that everybody regarded as the >preeminent nation on the face of the earth, no; we >were just a backwater bunch of former British >colonies that were regarded as kind of living on >the fringes of the civilized earth, and maybe >imbibing too much of that lack of civilization. >It had been written of America that even the dogs >forgot how to bark in the New World. So when >folks in the sophisticated, kingly courts of >Europe were willing, at the highest levels, to >accord to George Washington a status equal to that >of the greatest men they were aware of in the >history of the world, you have got to know that it >was an unreserved tribute. > >But you've also got to ask yourself how that could >have come about? How the leader of a rebellion >in a relatively obscure group of colonies in the >uncivilized New World would have reached such a >peak of esteem in the minds of those who had every >reason to preen themselves upon their superiority >to that world and to his historic circumstances: >every reason to believe that their great and >shining nations, their monarchs, their regal >courts would be remembered when his achievements, >such as they were, were forgotten. > >Well in part, of course, this was a respect >accorded to the potential of the New World. But >in larger part, it was a respect accorded to the >truth that virtue is virtue, whether it acts upon >the grand stage of the entire earth, or the >smaller stage of but one portion of the earth. >And of course, those who were aware of the >tradition of western civilization knew that, >because they had read Thucydides. And characters >whom they greatly admired from that history were >characters who had walked upon the relatively >paltry stage of the 'polis'es of ancient Greece, >in wars that wouldn't hold a candle, in terms of >the numbers involved, to some of the wars that >occurred in Europe in later days, in latter days. >So they were according a recognition not just to >Washington the man, but also, I believe, to that >universal principle of nobility, of true virtue, >which even those who were unable to emulate it and >practice it, still esteemed. > >He was regarded, above all, as someone who had >resisted a temptation that, I think, most of them >realized they would not be able to resist. For in >that day and age, of course - it was a kingly >time. Monarchies dominated, in one form or >another, most of the earth. And many of them had >roots that had gone back for long periods, and >those who had a claim to a throne were but a small >handful of all of humankind. And George >Washington had moved onto the scene, and had ended >up, through his virtues and through Providence, in >a position where he could have been such a king. >They had read in their history books of the >hypocritical resolve of Julius Caesar: when the >crown was offered him before the masses of Rome, >he spurned it three times, while of course >engrossing to himself all of the power that it >represented. They understood the hypocrisy of it, >but they also understood the virtue that Caesar >feigned. And they knew that there might be no >greater test of character on this earth, than to >be offered the seat of power, and to turn aside >from that absolute power in order to serve instead >the better destiny of your people. This they knew >to be the character of George Washington. He was >such a man. > >And I think that we sometimes neglect to remember >this great man because we have a tendency to >accept the small-minded standards that some who >fancy themselves our historians wish to impose >upon our history. And George Washington after >all, as some of the historians these days point >out . . . the Revolutionary War was not, by any >standards we would recognize, a very big or >impressive war. There have been those who have >written tracts demeaning his generalship, >especially since we have been through times now >where generals who might have commanded minor >brigades in the course of our great global >conflicts might actually have had responsibility >for more men and material than George Washington >did during the entire course of the Revolutionary >War. > >It does not seem that he acted upon a grand scale, >that he could be weighed in the balance with >Caesar and Napoleon in his feats of generalship. >So why should we give him any respect, simply on >account of the fact that he led the forces of the >revolution during the Revolutionary War? > >Well you see, that kind of a judgment, made in >hindsight, on the basis of these paltry, material >measures, fails to take account of the real >challenge of the Revolutionary War, which was not >a material, but a moral challenge. And if you >have read some of the folks who have written tomes >about what war is about, including people like >Clausewitz, one of the things that comes through - >and that I think is an insight that actually lies >at the heart of some of the greater generals - is >that war isn't really a clash of material things; >it is a clash of wills. And the victors are >determined not necessarily by who has the most in >the way of material force, but by who manages to >maintain that cohesion of will for the longest >time, in the face of the inevitable confusion and >vicissitudes of war. It is, in other words, a >test of whether you shall cling fast to that >vision with which you embarked upon the conflict, >to that sense of passion with which most people >spring to arms in defense of their homes or in >pursuit of some ambition, or whether in the face >of the withering reality of war you lose that >resolve and surrender to the enemy. > >During the course of the Revolutionary War - to >tell you the quite honest truth, if you've ever >read the history, you come away with a decidedly >ambiguous impression of the character of most >Americans at the time. And as a matter of fact, >they were honest about this with themselves. You >did not necessarily see the best during the course >of those years of the Revolutionary War. If you >spent any time whatsoever reviewing the debates in >the Continental Congress, and so forth; if you >looked at some of the shady dealings that went on >- you know, we think corruption was invented in >our day; I beg to differ. People were >profiteering, and taking advantage, and gouging, >and doing whatever they could to reap an >advantage. Others were seeking places of position >and power. All kinds of petty deceits and >betrayals went on. > >And in the midst of it, those who had begun the >war with a great commitment to its ideals began to >flag in their commitment. Partly because war did >mean damage and death, and partly because it had >revealed to them the true character of their >compatriots, and they were disgusted. It was not >clear to them that any people that could muster up >such a venal bunch actually deserved liberty. > >And in the midst of that, of course, the resolve >to send men, and send material, and so forth and >so on, that had been there in some of the >colonies, it flagged. And those who were working >on the will of the patriots, to say that the >revolution was never justified, and they had >wrongly broken their ties with England for the >sake of a licentious rebelliousness, appealing not >only to their patriotism but to their religious >feeling to undermine their sense that the >revolution was justified - this went on >continually in the colonies. And as it was >pursued, all of the effects of that wavering >resolve were seen in the fate and fortunes of the >Continental Army: its lack of supplies, of >uniforms, of support. > >And, you see, we have a tendency in the midst of >the consequences of the American Revolution, the >great republic that was erected in the wake of >that revolution, the enormous power that has been >amassed, the economic strength, the great >edifices, the monuments, the awe in which we are >held by all the world, we see Washington in the >context of this greatness and we assume that >somehow that greatness sustained him. > >But it was not there. He lived in the midst, >rather, in those years of a rag-tag bunch of >individuals, no better than they ought to be, many >of whom had to be admonished every day that they >should cease to curse, and cease to swear, and >cease to gamble, and cease to prevaricate. It >was, if you lived in the midst of it, I bet, not a >very inspiring spectacle, especially not terribly >inspiring to a mind that was well aware of the >true outer refinements of aristocratic life. And >that knew, in the midst of the squalor of that >camp, the contrast between the force he led and >the well-healed forces he opposed. There was very >little material reinforcement for Washington's >will in the realities of his command. > >And yet while others were wavering, while others >were experiencing moral revulsion and disgust in >the midst of these confusions and vicissitudes, he >held firm. And I believe that it was that >experience of Washington during the course of the >years of the war that indelibly marked upon the >minds of his fellow countrymen a sense that he was >an individual not quite like them. Because each >of them probably knew that, at some moment, at >some point, in some way, in the course of all of >that, they had flagged in their commitment. They >had weakened in their resolve. They had been >prepared to surrender what he was never prepared >to surrender. And that it was precisely by >looking again upon his solid example of >persistence that they renewed their strength. > >And where did he get this resolve? Well, it's >easy in some ways to point to the externals. I >would be tempted, of course, immediately to say, >"Well, he got his resolve from his faith in God." >But we use those words so easily, that I think we >ought rather to look at what prepared in his life >for his ultimate triumph in the test of that >faith. For at one level, faith is a moment. But >at another level, faith is a habit of life. At >one level faith is a gesture, but at another >level, faith is a tiny accumulation of gestures in >which, in the daily moments of life, you have put >aside this thought, and put aside that impulse, >and put aside that want, and put aside that need >and that desire, in order to be firm and >persevering in your resolve to live up to the >standards imposed by your allegiance to virtue, to >truth, and to God. It was that accumulation of >daily practice that I believe in the end resulted >in this unshakable fortress of moral rectitude >that Washington became. Informed, of course, by a >heart that seemed above all to wish to live up to >the noble potential that God had planted in him, >and that in fact He plants in each and every one >of us. > >That's the other remarkable thing about George >Washington. And I am now about to say something >which you shouldn't take amiss; it's not intended >as disparagement of any kind. But in many ways, >you know, George Washington was quite an ordinary >guy. Especially when you put him up against some >of his compatriots. In terms of the depth of his >ability to analyze and penetrate and understand >the intricacies of the challenge of statesmanship, >I don't think he was at all the equal of a Madison >in judgment. I don't think he was at all the >equal of a Jefferson in expression. I don't think >he was at all the equal of a Hamilton in >shrewdness and prudence. In some ways, he lived >amongst men who were his superiors in ability, in >talent, in the external endowments of intellect >and grace. He was, in some ways, a man who lacked >the refinements of some of his Southern >colleagues, and he was in some ways a man who >lacked the outward sense of virtuous expression of >an Adams, his New England compatriot. > >And he was not free of that defect which seems to >characterize the noblest minds; he was not free of >ambition. I mean, you do have to know that, >though he wasn't always someone who would put >himself in bold way, when they were debating the >question of whether they should or should not go >to war over these issues in the final stages, the >fact that George Washington showed up at the >deliberations every day in his military uniform >was perhaps a way of putting himself forward for >the position. I think also that gesture bespeaks >the fact that underneath all of the training and >all of the self-discipline, there was undoubtedly >a sense of humor. But in that gesture we >understand then, that though he might not have >been in some areas the equal of his illustrious >compatriots, he was in one respect altogether >superior to them. And each and every one of them, >I think, in the end, acknowledged this, quite >willingly. > >It's an acknowledgment that in some ways we have a >hard time understanding, because we are so distant >from the willing frame of mind through which >individuals submit to the allure of monarchy. We >have pretty much forgotten what it's like to live >happily under a king because you are able in that >context to derive to yourself some portion of the >honor, of the luster, of the nobility represented >by his kingly presence. And that was something >the externals of which characterized the courts of >Europe, but the truth of which lies in the frank, >the free esteem which individuals of noble mind >will give to those who represent before them a >nobler achievement of virtue: the easy surrender >of oneself to that which you admire. > >It was that easy surrender to his virtues which >characterized the relationship between Washington >and many of his compatriots. And it is why it was >easily assumed that if he wanted to he could be >king. Because there were many of his compatriots >who felt he was that far above them in virtue, >that if he had said "this is the way to go," they >would have said "fine," and they would have helped >him to the throne. And we would be living in a >very different America, I suppose. It's not >entirely clear what its fate would have been. > >Knowing all of this, and knowing the fact that >sometimes when you are one such individual in the >midst of others who might have greater claims to >certain kinds of honor than you do: that can >result in all kinds of petty traits. It can >result in envy and resentment, and the desire to >tear down rather than to respect their abilities. >I would have to say, without mentioning any names, >that my experience of life thus far in American >public life -- we have a lot of people who are >like that. They can't stand having around them >anybody who has superior abilities to them. And >so they generally surround themselves with a >constellation of mediocrity because they can't >stand the presence of truly superior people. This >is not conducive to good results, but it makes >them feel better. > >Washington was not such a man. He seemed to live >quite comfortably with the superior virtues of his >compatriots, and to respect them, and to accord >them their place. Because he understood that this >generosity, this greatness of heart, was also an >element of virtue. And he practiced it as he >practiced the smaller elements of daily virtue. >And that practice too prepared him for his role, >since the respect which he freely accorded to >their merits, they freely returned to his great >character. And that mutual respect and >understanding became both the foundation of their >relationship with him, but also, through that >relationship forged, it became the basis of their >relationship, their commitment, to the cause. > >I speak about this with some knowledge, because I >had to spend time during the preparation of my >dissertation studying the relationship between >George Washington and another American of great >ability, though of somewhat lesser character, >Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was widely regarded, >at least in terms of his native intelligence and >abilities, as probably the ablest of the founding >generation. He was a young prodigy. He was in >substance what, unhappily, Bill Clinton has been >in form: a young man who, long before his time, >achieved the preeminence of consorting with the >greatest men of his day, and acting on the largest >scene of events. > >He was, in many respects, Washington's right hand >during the Revolutionary War and later, during his >first administration. The relationship between >these two men was very instructive. It >culminated, during the Revolutionary War, in a >very strange circumstance in which, as Hamilton >recounts it, he had been summoned to attend >General Washington, and he got waylaid in a >conversation. And he was coming up the stairs in >their headquarters, and Washington was at the head >of the stairs, and apparently had waxed a little >bit impatient waiting for his aide-de-camp. And, >according to Hamilton's account, Washington looks >at him and says "You dishonor me sir," meaning to >say, "You didn't come when I called you; who do >you think I am?" And Hamilton looked at him and >he said, "Well, since you think so, sir, we >part." This was a way of saying, "Well, I didn't >mean to dishonor you, but in thinking that I would >dishonor you, you dishonor me. So I guess we've >come to a parting of the ways." > >It is in some ways a contentious moment, but it >shows you that George Washington was not a man >surrounded by those who simply and in some >sycophantic way submitted to his will. He was >not, thankfully, like many of the politicians of >our day, who love to have staff people around them >who lick their boots, wipe their hands, jump when >they call, and otherwise do what they tell them, >but never have a thought that openly contradicts >their master. He did not want such men around >him. And Hamilton was not such a man. And when >he thought that he had been slighted -- and he was >very sensitive to slights, you know, because he >came from a rather questionable background -- he >just took umbrage. Now, his way of taking umbrage >was to demand that he be put into the hottest part >of the battle, the thickest part of the fight; >which actually happened, and he was able to take >part on the front lines in the latter battle of >the Revolutionary War. > >But I recount the episode more because it >illustrated a truth about Washington than anything >else. And that truth is that a man of character >does not wish to be surrounded by those who are in >some sense his natural inferiors. He wishes to be >surrounded by those who are in many respects his >acknowledged superiors, save in the one respect of >that virtue which he supplies to their will. > >And we, today, have almost no appreciation of that >contribution. I say this because when you look at >the measures that are applied during the course of >our varied elections, and people talk about "Well, >how do you choose between one candidate and >another?" our natural tendency is to use the >laundry list approach. I had someone call my >radio program the other day, and it seemed to me >that the comment that he made was along these >lines, that we are looking for someone to stand up >in front of us and "tell us what you're gonna do." > >Well, if you want to be honest about it, George >Washington wouldn't have met that test very well. >He was not a very talkative guy. Even in his >writing, he is kind of sparing in his letters of a >lot of verbiage and stuff. He didn't spend a lot >of time "telling people what he was gonna do" and >folks didn't respect him because of the laundry >list of things to do that he presented: "Well, >here's what we gotta' do in order to save the >Republic. Step Number One . . . and we need this >budget, we need that appropriation . . . " No. >Of course, that happened, but that wasn't his >virtue. > >His virtue was simply that, when it came time to >do it, once he said that he would do it, it would >get done. That was his virtue. He wasn't going >to tell you much, but when he finally did tell you >something, you could rely upon it. He wasn't >going to commit to much. But when he finally did >say "I will be there and do thus and such, and I >will not stop until it is done," you could rely >upon it. > >That, and all the things that I have described >thus far, can be summarized in that word which has >been bandied about much in our lives and politics >in the last little while, but the meaning of which >is so strange, I think, to many of the people who >have talked about it; and that word, of course, is >"character." This was the only claim he had to >preeminence, but it was all that was needed. But >of course, by that character was meant the >accumulated results of these years of quiet >self-discipline, when no one watched and no one >saw but God; character confirmed in the midst of >all the vicissitudes of war and confusion of the >revolutionary period; character, finally, >absolutely demonstrated when instead of taking >advantage of the confusion of the >post-revolutionary years, he rather retired to the >quiet peace of Mr. Vernon and waited for the >call. Character. > >Now, that latter point is illustrated by a story >in his career. Because you know, we sometimes >forget (that) the Revolutionary War ended in a >kind of confusion in America, in which a lot of >armed people spent several years in a state of >intense discontent because promises that were made >to them were not kept. It is often very dangerous >to society to have unhappy armed people running >around. And it would have been very dangerous to >America. And in fact there is an account in the >latterly stages of the war, when all of these >things were coming to a head, a kind of mutiny was >going through the Continental Army, and in fact a >gathering was taking place involving officers and >men who felt that they were aggrieved. And they >were plotting to overthrow the authority of the >Continental Congress. > >Washington got wind of this, and he was summoned >to try to speak to them and do something about >it. Now, to tell you the truth, he could very >well have given a "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" >speech at that time: talking about what >wonderfully honorable men the representatives in >the Continental Congress were, even while they >were pilfering the supplies of the Continental >Army, and distributing the resources intended for >their pay to their minions, and so forth and so >on. And, being as how he was privy to many of the >things that had gone on, he could have given them >quite an aggravating laundry list, that would have >had them frothing at the mouth to march on the >seat of government and take their lives. And >being as how they were armed enough to defeat the >British Army, they would have been armed enough to >defeat the unarmed Congress. > >But that's not what he did. Instead, what he did >was to go to this meeting. And the moment he >walked into the room, what had been tumult and >rising passion was quieted, by the mere fact of >his presence. And then it is said that he walked >to the podium, and paused, and he had the little >thing he had prepared to read, and he put it >down. And before he began to speak, he looked out >at them, and he reached into his pocket and said, >"Excuse me for a moment, while I put on my >spectacles; for you see, I have grown blind as >well as gray in the service of my country." And >with those words, all thought of mutiny >evaporated. Not because he had in some way roused >them with his noble speech, but because in that >simple gesture, he had reminded them that all that >they had done, all that they had suffered, had not >been for the sake of pay, but for the sake of >liberty. And this too was his character. And it >exemplifies the true significance of his virtue. > >By contrast, I'd like you to think for a moment on >a scene that might similarly occur in our day. >I'd like you to imagine, oh, say, Bill Clinton >walking to the podium. And I would like you to >imagine what he might say on such an occasion. >(laughs, and has some difficulty regaining >composure) It's hard to do without laughing, isn't >it? (laughs again) But you could imagine the >line. If my wife is correct, then it would >probably go something like this. He'd probably >ask people to pause and not judge him too harshly, >because his handlers had dyed his hair brown as >well as gray in pursuit of the presidency (nearly >dissolves in giggles). > >But that fact actually illustrates for us what >character has come to mean in our day. Because >the business of dressing yourself up for elections >-- and my wife insists to me that in the run up to >the election they dyed his hair grayer and grayer; >it was virtually all gray during the election; and >now, if you watch carefully, it is turning darker >again. I'm not sure she's right about this, but I >looked. It seems to me she's got a point. But >what does that remind you of -- dying hair and >putting on make-up, and so forth and so on? It >reminds you, of course, of the theater. > >And in many ways, haven't our politics become >theater? They are like a stage play put on for >our entertainment. And that culture of >entertainment, that idea of entertainment, has now >become the basis on which we make our judgments >about those who are presented to us for office. > >In that regard, though, I'd ask you to think about >the difference between "character" as it applies >to George Washington and "character" as it applies >to Bill Clinton. George Washington had character; >Bill Clinton plays a character. And if you think >back on the history of our great Academy Award: >you can get an Academy Award for playing Moses in >"The Ten Commandments," but you can also get an >Academy Award for playing Hannibal Lector in >"Silence of the Lambs." And that means that the >award is not given you because you are a good >character; it's not even given you because you >play a good character; it's given you because you >play any character, including a bad character, >well. > >And it has gotten to the point now where it >applies to everything. I noticed during the >course of the State of the Union Address - the >part of it that I was able to see in little screen >there when the O.J. Simpson thing wasn't on - I >noticed when they presented the State of the Union >Address that afterwards the commentators and >others didn't really talk that much about the >substance of Bill Clinton. The first thing they >want to rate is, "Well, how was his performance? >Should we give him an Academy Award for that >one?" And of course, this is entirely >appropriate. Since like an actor reading his >lines, Bill Clinton will pretty much say anything >he has to say, and there need not be any >correspondence between the substance of what he >says and the substance of what he intends to do or >be. > >That lack of correspondence between what you say >and what you are, between what you do and what you >promise, that doesn't seem, in our minds, to >interfere with his character. He plays it well. >He carries it off. He lies, but "he lies so good" >that we are led to applaud the performance, and to >act as if in accolade of that performance we >should extend to him once again the credit that is >due to his office. > >The sad thing is, though, that what this means is >that some of our presidents spend what others of >our presidents amass: the credit needed to >sustain our institutions. George Washington put >the biggest deposit of all in that bank. In the >way that he handled himself, in the way that he >conducted himself, he created a reserve of respect >that, in fact, helped to carry our young >institutions through early years when they very >well might have crumbled, had it not been for the >respect he had earned, and for the habits that he >had exemplified. > >Including, by the way, a salutary restraint in the >occupation of power. We don't think about it >anymore, because we reached a time when virtue no >longer met the test. But one of the most >important things that Washington did, in his >example and without anything else needed, was that >he passed a term limits bill for the presidency. >Isn't that remarkable? He didn't have to propose >it to Congress; he didn't have to sign it into >law. But he had such a character, such a >reputation, that once he had given the example of >staying thus far and no farther, of sitting in the >seat of power which he could have had until he >drew his dying breath, but for a limited term - >every President who came afterwards knew that they >would suffer in that comparison, and dared not >apply to serve longer than he had. Isn't that >remarkable? It lasted down through the decades, >and no one dared to challenge it until we come to >our modern times, which are strangers to decency >and shame. > >That's character. A character which does not >merely serve itself, but which sets aside a >reserve which can be drawn down by a people in >order to sustain the credit and the safety of >their institutions of freedom. > >But then again you have others; and in our time we >can see that. We've even seen a recent example of >this. In Reagan's day the Presidency, which had >started his term in low esteem, was actually built >up again in the esteem of our people, until you >looked at the polls and when people asked whether >they thought the Presidency was better regarded >today than yesterday, sixty, seventy, eighty >percent of them eventually would say "Oh yeah. We >look at it better; people think better of the >Presidency." And that's what happened, from the >time Reagan started to the time Reagan ended. Mr. >Clinton has had one term and a bit now, and when >they take the polls, eighty percent of the people >respond that "Oh, no, today people surely think >less of the Presidency than they did before." > >Why? Because some build it up and some tear it >down. Some make a deposit of their character into >the bank which sustains the credibility of our >institutions, and others withdraw and withdraw and >withdraw, until finally we are engaged in a form >of deficit spending far more devastating than the >spending they do with our dollars. > >We live in a time when most of what I have been >talking about in the course of these few minutes >is maybe considered irrelevant. We have been >through the first election in our history - or is >it the second? It's the second, I think. - when >folks were able to declare it irrelevant and >actually win the day. But that notion - that >character doesn't count, that character doesn't >matter - was not only strange to Washington's >mind; it was entirely alien to the thinking of >those who put together our Republic, and who saw >in what they were doing an effort to sustain human >rights and human dignity. > >We ought to know this, and we would if we even >thought about it for a second. Because after all, >societies have to have order, don't they? Do you >want to live in a violent, anarchical society, >where people do whatever they feel like to you and >your property? Somebody comes along and decides >they want your car, and they walk into the house >and shoot you to take it; nobody gainsays them? >Somebody walks by and sees your lovely daughter, >and takes her in the back and rapes her; and you >can't gainsay them? Because that is >licentiousness: passion unbridled, unrestrained >by anything except the force, the strength of arms >or will, which backs it up. Do you want to live >in such a society? Nobody would. There must be >order. There must be control. When human beings >get out of control, they create sheer hell on >earth, and no one wants to live there. > >Knowing that there must be control, we have a >choice. Will it come from without or will it grow >from within? If we are to claim our freedom, if >we are to claim the right for ourselves to decide >and make choices, and if that claim is not to >result in that very hell on earth, then we must >have control from within. Surrender that control, >and as the consequences of that indiscipline grow >upon our society, we must impose more and more and >more external constraints, until freedom has >evaporated and the sphere of our choices is >narrowly limited by the chains we fasten upon >ourselves in order to make our streets safe and >our schools decent. We sacrifice freedom to >order, and in doing so we destroy the very >principle of justice on which the nation rests, >which principle requires that we respect the >freedom of human beings, not destroy it for their >safety. > >We have come to that time, when this sacrifice is >being made every day. I noticed it last week: a >commission comes out with a report on how we're >going to "fight terrorism in the air" and so forth >and so on. We're gonna now have profiles of >travelers, which will be kept on account. And if >you happen to fit that profile you will be moved >against, and this and that will happen to your >luggage, and etc. Do you really want to live in a >society like that? > >The crust of slavery grows up all around us, the >barricades around our public places which >symbolize the chains which must be fastened on our >will, so that we can live together in spite of our >licentiousness. > >This was not intended. We are not to live this >way. The Founders of our country intended rather >a nobler destiny for us. But they knew, as >Washington knew, that the price to be paid for >true liberty cannot be measured just in terms of >the taxes we give, but must be measured by the >extent to which we are willing to tax our will in >order to control our passionate impulses. If we >have not within us that self-control, then we will >have to surrender to external controls. > >But what's going to be the foundation for that >self-control? Can we do it on our own? I think >sometimes we present an image - and people like to >pretend that there's this vision of people who are >going to somehow lift themselves up by their own >moral bootstraps, and through the strength of >their indomitable virtue and will impose upon >their unruly passions the reign of virtue. I >think we would do better to study the example of >the father of our country, of the man whom even >those superior in ability acknowledged to be their >superior in character. Was that the source of his >virtue? Truth to tell, it was not. > >I think the first source of his virtue was >something we entirely forget, something humble, >something unpretentious. It's called "habit." >You know, you just get into the habit of not doing >things you ought not to do, and after a while you >find that you don't want to do 'em any more, >because it just doesn't occur to you. That's not >very glamorous. It's not something you can take >terribly much pride in. But it happens to be a >pretty solid foundation for good behavior. > >These days we have been convinced by trendy >educationists that encouraging such habits in our >young will stifle their creativity. And so in the >name of their creativity, we let them kind of >destroy the place, tear it up, tear it down, >explore all the possibilities of their little >beings. I've got to tell you, the possibilities >of their little beings include some things that we >don't want to explore. And as those beings grow >in strength, their creativity can become a form of >self-destruction. And that means that for the >sake of their better nature, we might want to put >warning signs up along the pathways to their worse >nature, and even lock and bar the door to certain >of their impulses, so that the habits that result >will be habits safe for them, and safe for the >society, and safe for freedom. > >George Washington had a virtue which we don't much >identify with character, but which we should. For >you know, submitting to the reign of habit in the >little things of life requires a kind of >humility. It requires a willingness to abase >oneself every day, rather than to glory in the >sense that "I get to do what I feel like doing," >and to like that sense of freshness and >uninhibited indulgence that comes along with >that. Washington had that kind of daily >humility. He disciplined his prideful desire to >dominate the moments of his life, and surrendered >those moments to the empire of a higher principle. > >And then we come to the final truth, the one that >so many want to retreat from, but which we are now >prepared to consider. What was that higher >principle? Was it simply ambition? Was it simply >a desire to cut a good figure before his >contemporaries? I think finally, if all of that >had been true, then when the true test of ambition >came, he would have succumbed to the temptation. >When came the moment when he could have stood - >not just before his fellow countrymen, but before >the world - preeminent, and he chose instead to >stand in simple homespun and take the oath of >office to a presidency not much like a kingship, >and to return when it was over a relatively humble >estate, in order to die not amidst the trappings >of power, but rather amidst the quiet blessings of >his country -- that tells us that that was not his >higher principle. > >Hamilton called ambition "the ruling passion of >the noblest minds." But Hamilton wasn't always >right. In point of fact, it may very well be that >the ruling passion of the noblest minds is not the >passion for office, or the passion for power, or >the passion for greatness. It is rather the >humble passion for the approval of Almighty God. >To hear His word of blessing. To fancy that in >some part of His eye, we enjoy that favor >invisible which nonetheless is more beautiful, >more noble, more great, than any human greatness. >I believe that this was the ruling passion of >George Washington's mind. I also believe that he >understood that this passion was ultimately that >which had to animate the soul, the spirit, the >ambition, of a free people if they wished to >sustain their freedom. > >It is, to tell the truth, a thing that can touch >even the humblest life with nobility, because just >as it requires that you humble yourself, however >great, before the greater principle of God's Will, >so it leads to the conclusion that no matter how >humble your station, if you deserve the blessings >of Almighty God, then you are, in that, the equal >of the noblest, the greatest, the most powerful on >the earth. And indeed, far their superior if they >deserve not the same. > >We today, I think, neglect this to our great >detriment. Because we hold before our young >ambitions for jobs and for money and all of these >things; we set the world up in such a way that the >ultimate paragons of achievement must be, I don't >know, Donald Trump or Bill Gates. But do you know >something? Let's be honest about it. The vast, >the overwhelming majority, 99.99% of us, will not >end up being Bill Gates and Donald Trump, or >coming anywhere close. > >We will reach a point in our lives, we have >reached a point in our lives, we must reach a >point in our lives, where we look around and >realize that, in material terms, this is it. And >who knows how far we can? The modest house, the >modest car, the modest job. No house, no job, no >car at all. At some point in every normal human >life there will come that moment when we realize >that we shall not "have it all." That Helen >Gurley Brown lied to us. And that in point of >fact, all of these material baubles are beyond our >reach, and really always were. > >We were led around by those carrots to do this, >and to do that, and in the interstices of our >little desires, we were given a chance to indulge >our little passions, and led to believe that this >was happiness. And then there comes a moment when >we awaken to the truth, and find that we do not >have it all; we have not had much of any of that. >And in any case, what we tasted of it lasted for >an instant, and was gone, and left us hungry still >for something true. > >Is this really the idea? Or rather is there a >better idea of happiness? One that understands >that however much or little you may achieve in the >eyes of the world, if you discern and cling fast >to His principle of truth, if you discern and love >always to seek and to serve a will, that Will, >which has created your essence, which has mastered >the world, which has created the whole, then >within each and every one of us, however we may >seem, there is a bridge. And it aint to the 21st >century. It is rather that gateway, that bridge, >that portal, which connects us to the Principle of >all things, to our Creator God. > >Now, I happen to believe that standing right >there, laid down as that bridge over troubled >waters, is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We walk >upon His broken Heart, in order to enter into the >glory of God's favor. But that sense, that the >greatest power touches our lives, that the >greatest beauty is also within us, and that the >ideal of our achievement is not to be measured in >our cars, and our houses, and our bank accounts, >but rather in that happiness which comes from the >simple virtue of humble obedience to God's will; a >simple virtue which requires no revolutions, no >battlefields, no wars, no glorious courts of >statesmanship, but that can be within our reach in >every home, in the love that one spouse bears to >another, in the sacrifices that a parent makes for >the sake of their child, in the respect accorded >by the child to parents not perfect but, >nonetheless, their gift from God: in these humble >ways we can achieve the greatest virtue; we can >sit with George Washington and spurn the crown of >pride, because we look for that laurel which can >be given by no human hand, but which is there in >the mouth of God: "Well done, my true and >faithful servant." > >Because, you see, character in the end is >sometimes presented under the forbidding guise of >self-denial; but I think that's not true. It's >all right to seek reward. No, the challenge is to >understand which is the right reward. It is all >right to seek for happiness and joy. The >challenge is to understand the difference between >the golden apples that turn to dust when we bite >into them, and those which bear the succulent >truth of God's Almighty Will. > >George Washington, I believe, understood that >without a passion for that happiness, we cannot >remain a free people. But with that passion >informing our desires, disciplining our will, >flavoring our taste for life, we can in fact enjoy >and pass along the blessings of liberty. This is >the lesson of his life. It is a lesson for our >time. Let's hope we learn it, before it is too >late. > >God bless you. > > > > > > > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail