Then we have the Idiot-in-Chief saying about that first president
George Washington's long struggle for freedom has also inspired generations of Americans to stand for freedom in their own time. Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life. And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone.Ahem, we are NOT fighting to "defend our liberty and our people and our way of life." WE are not fighting. Volunteers are stuck in a hellhole because of you. WE are not fighting, they are, because of you.
You stumbled on that "we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."
Umm..no. George Washington said that
Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other....So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.He hardly would have supported external war to change the form of government of foreign states.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
As I wrote on Schmidlap,
I stole James Thomas Flexner's ever-so-accurate description of Washington as "the indispensable man."
Was he a great general? No, not in a classical sense. He had little experience and no training in military tactics, and he won no major victories during the revolution. The legendary "crossing the Delaware" was a Christmas Eve raid on drunken Germans who didn't want to be there, and let's face it, the French won Yorktown.
However, he was the "indispensable man" because he was THE leader that held the revolution together. You will also note that Washington didn't win big battles, but he didn't lose them either. He almost by force of will kept the Continental Army together as a fighting force.
Let's compare Washington with his fellow Virginian (and step-in-law many times removed) Robert E. Lee. Lee was a much more accomplished tactician and fought and won set-piece battles. However, Lee's "wins" involved a casualty count and loss of equipment that ultimately doomed the South. Washington kept his revolution alive in the field long enough to negotiate a settlement, and Lee bled his to death.
And as president, again, he was not a master politician, but his very presence solidified the republic. We saw a tremendous amount of opposition to the new "constitution" but even the anti-federalists agreed to much because of "the indispensable man."