Claremont Independent

The Claremont Independent’s Kevin Vance recently sat down with Ryan J. Barilleaux, professor and chair of the political science department at Miami University in Ohio.  Barilleaux’s Salvatori Center-sponsored lecture, “War, Peace, and George Washington’s Presidency,” was delivered February 18 in honor of George Washington .

Vance: What were Washington’s greatest virtues?

Barilleaux: His character displayed several virtues that stood out in history.  Prudence is an important one.  Prudence is traditionally defined as sound judgment in practical affairs.  I think another quality that characterizes Washington is a quality that you see in some others who we admire as well.  That is the quality of resoluteness; some people might call it perseverance.  After he had decided to commit himself to the cause of independence, when he takes on command of the continental army, it was a job that he never walked away from. 

Vance: Why do you think it is important to study great men in history?

Barilleaux: Tocqueville tells us that democracies tend to downplay the significance of great individuals and to attribute far more importance to movements and trends in history.  And while not dismissing that – certainly movements make a difference – the reason I think we study great individuals because in the end it’s not movements and trends that really govern us, it’s individuals who govern us.  And humans benefit from models – even people on the left talk about role models.  That’s kind of a clichéd term, but having a model can be a very effective thing, because it gives you a practical, concrete example of what the characteristic is. 

Vance: So is that more of a historicist perspective that movements and trends are the preeminent force?

Barilleaux: I think the reason Tocqueville says this about democracies is because they are based on the notion of the mass.  Democratic society wants to attribute change and developments in history to big things.  In a democracy, the rule is with the majority.  A majority is sort of a faceless crowd, and a movement is sort of a faceless crowd.  The difficulty with movements is, of course, that movements are rarely successful unless they have successful leadership.  In the end, I think that one of the reasons why we study individuals is because the real achievements are done by individuals – sometimes groups of individuals – but nevertheless you have to have successful individuals. 

Vance: What do you think Washington’s reaction would have been to Abraham Lincoln’s exercise of executive prerogative during the Civil War?

Barilleaux: Washington was a man who understood the importance of stability.  So, to use one example from Washington’s time and apply it to Lincoln’s: There are those who argue that Washington overreacted in the Whiskey Rebellion.  However, I think his response was prudent because in 1790, the Constitution had only been in effect for a few years.  If he did not demonstrate that the government of the Constitution could defend itself, then it was doomed to the same fate as the Articles of Confederation.  I think Washington, if he had looked at what was going on at the time of Lincoln, would have said, “Well, what is Lincoln faced with?  The complete sundering of the union, and if we don’t stop that, everything that we worked to achieve is going to be destroyed.”  I think he generally would have approved of Lincoln’s use of executive power because the president’s role as commander in chief is about providing national security and defending the constitutional system. 

Vance: How should Americans honor Washington?

Barilleaux: I would like to see Washington restored to a position of prominence in our education curriculum.  When I was growing up, Washington was a very large figure.  He was a model; he was one of the heroes who was presented to us.  Nowadays, American schoolchildren don’t learn very much about Washington.  I have nothing against them learning about Dr. King, but they probably learn far more about Dr. King than they learn about George Washington.  They learn far more about mass movements.   

Vance: How should we celebrate his birthday?

Barilleaux: I think that we could take Presidents’ Day a little bit more seriously.  When you look at Presidents’ Day nowadays, people just think of it as a shopping day more than anything else.  Does that mean people shouldn’t go shopping on Presidents’ Day?  No, but I’d like to see some more celebrations like the ones we have on the Fourth of July.  One of the things we might do is that instead of just calling it this generic Presidents’ Day, we could go back to referring to it by its correct name: Washington’s Birthday.  In calling it Presidents’ Day, it takes away the point of it.  What ends up happening is that I see all this trivia on who was the shortest, who was the tallest, and who was the fattest.  I understand why President Bush is abroad right now.  It would have been kind of interesting if President Bush had said, “I’m going to wait to go to Africa until after Presidents’ Day.  We’re going to have a ceremony to mark the birthday of George Washington.”  If you set an example like that, then that would be valuable.   • Kevin Vance is a senior at Claremont McKenna and Editor Emeritus of The Claremont Independent.

Article Tools