I've been reading a lot about Washington lately. Just finished an excellent biography "His Excellency". I'm now reading 1776 by David McCullough. Both books make the same point about Washington.
In effect, he already thought the people were corrupted to that point. His experiences during the war, with the troops, with the Congress, with the states, convinced him that you could not rely on the goodness of people or on public spirit. That is why he was such a proponent of a strong, central government.
I agree that a spirit of resistance is important and useful, even without a bigger gameplan. Just not revolution. By definition, revolution implies you have some clue what you want to institute once you topple the old way.
And I don’t want to discourage thinking about fundamental change to the Constitution. It has obviously failed to keep us safe in freedom, Obama and Kagan and Frank and Pelosi are all lessons in that, and examples of what a corrupted populace brings forth as leaders. I think the founders did the best they could but most seemed to understand that a moral populace was the guarantor of the freedom and liberty of the people and once that went despotism was likely to arise. I’ll check out McCullough’s 1776 from the library for sure . . . I did not know that Washington hoped that a strong central government would protect liberty against the people (but it makes sense). I hope someone can figure out or identify a Constitutional fix that will help extend that period of liberty longer before despotism arises, because I don’t think we’ve done much better than Republican Rome . . . about 200 years . . . which isn’t much improvement for 2,200 years of history or thereabouts. Maybe nothing really changes : )