I have always had great respect for George Washington, but in the cannon of political doctrine his Farewell Address should be considered equal to the doctrine of the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament and the prophecy in the book of Revelation in the New Testament. Washington himself boils down the topics of his address as follows:
In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, . . . I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; (emphasis added)
This was Washington’s final effort to publicly influence the future direction of his beloved country before he could finally retire as he had privately wanted to do for years. He starts by reminding the nation – then and now – of the nature of its birth:
I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. (emphasis added)
Notice that he does not recommend or propose that we should establish similar constitutions for others, but that we should preserve our own constitution so that others would desire to adopt such a constitution for themselves.
it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
. . . You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
Washington’s first concern was the danger of internal parties:
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western;
Today we can add to that list non-geographical discriminations for parties – urban and rural, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, Caucasian and minority.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. (emphasis added)
Of pretended patriotism, the desire to subvert or undermine the basic law of the land embodied in the Constitution, Washington declares:
This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. (emphasis added)
This means that the idea of special privileges must be abandoned whether for politicians who fail to pay their taxes, or for citizens making a political statement. We should also recognize that any change made not by “an explicit and authentic act of the whole people” undermines the legitimacy of all our government actions – that’s why we are to use the legislature to make changes rather than the judiciary. The judicial branch is intended to enforce consistency, not to make exceptions and policy decisions.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. (emphasis added)
There is a counter-agent to this propensity for the consolidation of power:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them . . .
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Washington also takes the time to elaborate the most sound fiscal policy that we could have (something we have not seen in decades):
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate.
On the issue of foreign intrigue Washington would certainly be berating both our political parties today:
nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.
He notes that the nation which holds a habitual hatred for another nation is a slave to that hatred and the nation which holds a habitual favoritism for another nation becomes a servant to that favoritism. I note that the same caution applies to individuals – that their thinking and liberty can be compromised by holding inveterate antipathies toward one party or too passionate an attachment to another.
These then are the ideals we should be striving for – respect for other nations (most generally in the form of netrality and a minimum of entagling alliances), respect for our own government and laws by working within the framework of the Constitution when changes are necessary, and by building our society upon a foundation of morality (a morality which can be found in virtually all religious organizations).
I LOVE Washington’s farewell address. I feel like I could read it over and over again and learn something new from it each time. There’s just so much good advice.
I completely agree. If we could ever get all our elected officials to actually read the Constitution I think I’d start pushing for them to familiarize themselves with Washington’s farewell address.
Washington’s take on party is interesting, given the fact that our two-party system was essentially in place by the close of his second term, with the Federalists on one side (Washington, Hamilton, Adams) and the anti-Federalists (Jefferson, Madison) on the other. He almost seems to be arguing against Madison’s recognition (during the Constitutional debates) that factions will exist no matter what, and that it is prudent to have a system that deals with that fact.
At the time Washington composed this address, it was New Englanders that were agitating for secession; not the South. I doubt he had any idea that his words about preserving the Union would be so harshly ignored by people from his own state a few decades later. I also doubt that he understood just how difficult it would be to eradicate slavery. He felt trapped in the culture that promoted it and had hoped that the constitutional slave importation provisions would eventually kill off the practice.
Washington’s words about permanent foreign alliances or animosities have only been partially heeded. There have been great successes and great failures of this since his day. But in a world where rogue states can threaten even nations on the other side of the earth, I wonder what Washington would say about dealing with belligerents like North Korea and Iran.
I wonder if the growing party movement was why Washington was so wary of it – he was seeing its effects in the young nation already. Also, I agree that it would be interesting to hear Washington’s thinking on alliances in the modern world where distance is not much of a deterrent to any nation or group that feels animosity towards us.