We Should Have Listened, Part I: Washington's Prophetic Voice

Toogood Reports ^ | February 26, 2003 | Paul E. Scates

[Stand Watch Listen]

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. — Samuel Adams

George Washington was, above all else, a man of virtue and principle. He lived his life, led the colonial army and led the nation by those principles, which he freely and often proclaimed were the principles of G-d. Perhaps that's why, though once commonly known as 'the Father of his country,' he is in our G-dless age relegated to 'no better; no worse' status with Pierce, FDR, Ford and even Clinton, just another 'old white man' vaguely remembered on President's Day. Such is the fallen state of our nation, wherein political correctness dictates not only the banishment of G-d, but also that there be no distinctions based on ability or character, lest the self-esteem of those who don't measure up suffer some offense.

For those who subscribe to this nonsense, I have bad news: the truth will win out.

Even (especially?) in this rare land where dedication and hard work can overcome the inherent advantages of another's wealth or family name, or the disadvantages of poverty or social class, some people stand out as different…yes, even as better…than the rest of us. Washington, by his personal virtue and morality, his self-deprecating honesty and commitment to Constitutional principles, was the prototype of the perfect citizen for a democratic republic. He was and is deserving of our honor, even our affection (and yes, of his own holiday, as opposed to the false leveling of President's Day).

He could have been an American king, but chose instead the path that contemporary George Mason prescribed: 'Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens.' Though his near-unanimous re-election was assured, he refused a third term as president, opting for '…the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government.' Name one Senator or Congressman today who would decline such power and prestige.

That's just one of the many differences between George Washington (and the other Founding Fathers) and today's political parasites, who operate from political expediency and smug conceit rather than principle and integrity. His prescient farewell address, however, gives the lie to their arrogant assumptions, not only clearly describing today's politicians but their methods and tactics as well. How is it possible that in September of 1796 Washington could so accurately describe politicians and their wiles 200 years hence? I'll leave it to the self-anointed who plague us today to answer that question, to explain his clearly prophetic warnings.

It is to the American people that Washington spoke these words, words that recall a time when men put country before self, and principle before personal gain. Here, uttered 205 years ago by a man we could call the First American, are words we have failed to heed, to our detriment and shame.

Reason for his address — But a solicitude for your welfare…urge me…to offer to your solemn contemplation and to recommend to your frequent review some sentiments…all important to the permanency of your felicity [happiness] as a people…[as] the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel.

Humility — I have, with good intentions, contributed…the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable.

[Being] not unconscious…of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience…has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself.

If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered…the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts and the guaranty of the plans…

(Tell me, please, if you know of any legislator or public official in the land today who holds to such sentiments, or who would utter them…except in unctuous deceit and false humility on the campaign trail.)

Unity — From different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth [i.e., that unity is 'a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence'], as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed…

You should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness…watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety, discountenancing whatever may suggest…that it can in any event be abandoned...

The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. …The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

(Today we are divided by race, ethnicity, class, sex, sexual preference, party, political opinion, occupational or business self-interest and numerous other issues. 'Balkanized' is too kind a word for what we have allowed race-baiters, feminists, Marxists and other disenchanted socialists to do to the unity upon which this nation was formed. Is it any wonder that less than half of us vote?)

Political Party — All combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract , or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities…serve to organize faction, to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party …and…to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction… (As the Democrats are now doing in the Senate over Estrada and others?)

However [factions] …may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely…to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government , destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. (A clearer description of 'liberals' and the Democratic Party has never been written. By refusing to accept the result of the 2000 presidential election, and laying claim to a superior knowledge, understanding and compassion for the people, the Democratic Party has become exactly what Washington warned us about.)

Let me…warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally… The alternate domination of one faction over another…is itself a frightful despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction…turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. (Where, in either major party, are those who value the nation over political gain, or the people's will over their own? Who can just plain Americans turn to for their representation, when all in power serve their Party first?)

The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party…serve always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another…opens the door to foreign influence and corruption (China got our nuclear secrets through Clinton's party; Saudi Arabia wields exorbitant power over both parties, etc.)

(The Democrats no longer accept the verdict of democratic elections, deeming the interests of their special constituents more important than the will or welfare of the entire nation. The GOP, seemingly the only other choice to combat the socialism and collectivist policies of the Demos, instead earn 'The Stupid Party' appellation daily by their cowering before Daschle's threats of filibuster, and adoption of big-government 'solutions' that even the Democrats wouldn't propose. The 'spirit of party' reigns because we've abandoned the spirit of liberty, and rejected our responsibilities as free citizens. Into that vacuum rushed the 'cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men…to usurp for themselves the reins of government.')

In Part II of this essay, we'll learn Washington's views on religion, the Constitution, the European Union and the UN. Knowing well the dangers of European involvement and 'entangling alliances,' and man's tendency towards 'a general dissolution of principles,' he didn't have to experience our modern folly to understand how it would develop, or its resulting impact.

[xrp]

Name one Senator or Congressman today who would decline such power and prestige.

Zell Miller of Georgia.

[Core_Conservative]

Is there some reason why the author refuses to use the term properly - I do believe that God has an "o" in it - not a dash. Give the proper respect where respect is due! Thanks

[xrp]

I believe some people substitute a - for the o because they believe that by fully putting His name in writing is either blasphemous or something similar to that. Its no biggie...let people post how they will. You get the message, right? :)

[xrp]

He used to have his own holiday until his birthday was combined with that tyrant Abraham Lincoln for "President's Day".

[Luna]

G-d is the Jewish spelling of God. I found this little tid bit of information on the internet.


Why Do Some Jews Spell God, "G-d?"

by
William Arnold III
WmArnold@apostolic.net

---

Question:

Can you please tell me why the Jews can not say GOD?? They spell it without the "o."

Response:

Some Jews spell God as G-d. This has its origin in the third commandment, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain" (Exo. 20:7). Many Jews later became so cautious not to break this commandment that they quit pronouncing the name of God altogether, for fear that they might say it in vain. This is why we are not sure exactly what the vowels were for the divine name of God in the Old Testament (YHWH), known today as the tetragrammaton. "Yahweh" is the closest approximation we have (See, Is "Jehovah" the Name of God?). When a Jew would come across this name when reading the Old Testament, instead of saying God's name, he would say "Adonai," which means "Lord" or "Master." They would also use other words in place of the name of God, or even the title, "God." Notice that Matthew usually substitutes the phrase "kingdom of heaven" where the other gospels have "kingdom of God." We are told that before a Massoretic scribe would even write the name of God, he would first wash himself and then he would use a new pen. This is all done out of respect for the name of God and for fear of breaking the third commandment. What you see today with this hesitation even to write the title "God" is simply an outgrowth of this Jewish piety.

Let me add that this is nowhere commanded in scripture. We see faithful men of God calling upon him and using his name throughout the Bible. We can and should use God's name properly. However, we should also take a lesson from these Jews not use God's name without respect, or "in vain" as the scripture says. Taking God's name in vain includes a whole lot more than saying it in connection with curse words. Whenever we say "God" or "Lord" or "Christ" it should be with respect and devotion. We should never use God as a substitute for "Wow!" or simply say his name as an expression of anger or frustration.

[Core_Conservative]

Thanks for the reply - I learned something new today.

What a great thing - does that mean I can go home now? LOL

[jjm2111]

Good article. The GOP, IMHO, is not much better than the Dems.

[xrp]

Only big difference is that one taxes and spends while the other borrows and spends. Both will do whatever it takes to get elected or re-elected and they loooooooove burning the taxpayer dollars to do so.

[jjm2111]

Like how the LP of Massachussetts put forth a ballot initiative to take away the state income tax and the GOP opposed it.

Or like how NJ gov (Dem) McGreevey uses the state helicopter for personal business and goes on vacation and charges the trip to the state government (incl. $16,000 in cell phone charges) and then when the media finds out, the state Democratic party picks up the tab. Can you imagine your little Granny dem donor and your $25 is going toward the governors booze bill?

Washington must be rolling over in his grave.

[Publius]

Washington's Farewell Address was not a speech, but a letter, i.e. it was never delivered verbally before a crowd.

Washington wrote an outline and handed it to Alexander Hamilton, who actually wrote the bulk of the farewell letter. Washington then took Hamilton's draft and edited it before releasing it.

[Ohioan]

bump