The Greatest of Leaders

Last week, Penraker dissected an article that Josh Marshall wrote in the New Yorker about George Washington. For some time it has been fashionable within leftist ranks to attack the character of the "white slave-holders" that founded this country (e.g. Thomas Jefferson and his alleged affairs with his slaves or John Adams's cranky brutishness, etc.). The canard that Josh pushes in his article is that the perceived virtues of Washington were all an act (although somewhat admirable):

Washington’s preoccupation with respect went beyond amour propre. Years later, when he became the country’s first President, his abiding aim was to create an America that could command respect from the great nations of the earth—that had, as he put it, a “national character.” This overlap between personhood and nationhood is a constant theme in the second half of Washington’s life, which makes him an apt focus for McCullough, who has long gravitated toward stories that show how individuals can become forces of history. But character, for the man as for the nation, turns out to be something that you make, not something that you discover; Washington, as we learn, was never more completely himself than when he was acting.

Josh analyzes Washington through his own lenses as he sets the stage:

Washington lacked Adams’s intellectual rigor and Jefferson’s curiosity, and, unlike younger members of the founding generation, such as Madison and Hamilton, he contributed no signal writings or ideas to American statecraft. Hamilton, who served under him as an aide-de-camp during the war and understood his iconic power, found him admirable but dull. He could even be a poor general, especially in 1776, when he was still learning how to command an army. Yet men held him in awe. Almost everyone who worked with him or around him or came up against him could see his power, usually from the first moment. It was his stature and gravitas, more than anything else, that held the country together through the dark months that followed the Declaration of Independence.

...As Washington quickly saw, above all else that meant keeping the Continental Army intact—safe from annihilation in the field and from hunger and disease off it. He proved uniquely suited to the task, although just what it was that set him apart is often difficult to grasp at a remove of two centuries. Sometimes we can make it out only as astronomers discern black holes, from its effects on things nearby. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, claimed that Washington had “so much martial dignity in his deportment that . . . there is not a king in Europe that would not look like a valet de chambre by his side.” Shortly after making Washington’s acquaintance, General Greene, a Rhode Islander who became one of his most trusted deputies, told a friend that Washington’s very presence spread “the spirit of conquest . . . through the whole army.” Greene hoped that “we shall be taught to copy his example and to prefer the love of liberty in this time of public danger to all the soft pleasures of domestic life and support ourselves with manly fortitude amidst all the dangers and hardships that attend a state of war.”

In part, these rapturous assessments simply expressed the excitability of men putting their lives on the line for what seemed a hopeless cause. They needed to see greatness, and so they saw it. But the accounts are too specific and too consistent for that to be the only reason. Soon after Washington’s appointment as commander-in-chief, that dour critic of men John Adams told his wife that the Virginian was destined to become “one of the most important characters in the world.” Again and again, Washington struck men of his day as an exemplar of ancient republican ideals, almost as though he had stepped from the pedestal of the ages. (emphasis mine)

I've read through Marshall's article several times and am convinced that he has a true admiration for Washington. Yet, the more I read Josh's article, the more confused I became in just what he was trying to say about him. He sets the stage and very truthfully points out that Washington, in spite of defeating a B-squad of British colonialists and not being the original source of any documents from which this country is founded, had copious amounts of admirers, whether they be his soldiers or the statesmen that would eventually form our country's first government.

After about the third read, I finally understood that Marshall simply didn't have a clue what it was about Washington that led his contemporaries to gush over him and, in the fashion of one who lacks fundamental understanding, displays the tendancy to nitpick. So, nitpick he does, and in such a 21st Century way:

Yet here is the crook in the path, something that McCullough reveals but never quite explains: it was all a put-on, an act. For us today, character is bound up with authenticity; someone with “character” doesn’t put on airs, doesn’t tailor his actions to impress others. Those weren’t the standards of Washington’s era.

Washington's problem wasn't that he was loved, it was that he was loved for all the wrong reasons according to the "virtues of today". Washington wasn't "keepin it real" and was so 18th century with his insistence upon respect, proper public appearance, and the cultivation of personal discipline. Josh tries to bring Washington back to earth in his article, and in his attempts to do so, reveals his lack of understanding of a key ability that very few people have: leadership.

Speculating as to why Josh, in particular, doesn't understand this endangers me of creating a strawman, or engaging in unsupported hyperbole, so I won't direct my criticsm beyond what I read have read in the article. Josh specifically asked the question, "what it was that set him apart," and I think it's only fair to try and answer it, since in the proceding 1,500 words past this question, the only insight Josh gives us into Washington is how, despite his deliberately stoic and cold behavior, men remained endeared to his leadership for ages. In this article, the mystery of Washington's leadership remains.

Leadership is one of those intangibles in life that if, to quote a great line in Meet Joe Black, "multiplied by infinity and taken to the depth of forever, you will still have barely a glimpse of what I'm talking about." From college essays to interview questions, most adults in their life have had to put on paper their experiences and theories as to just what exactly leadership is and when it is effective. All though it is instructive to discuss these things in a controlled environment (like we are doing here), leadership is something that is demonstrated, and not talked about.

Washington was an effective leader precisely because he didn't display his humanity and 21st century authenticity in front of those he led. He understood a few characteristics in leadership that are nonnegotiable: "the perfect is the enemy of the good," "the potential of a team or group's strength is greater than sum of its parts", and "acheiving defined objectives with real and measurable results". These axioms are much easier said than done, so how do they look in practice?

Mountaineering provides me with one of the greatest testing environments for any ideas that I have on leadership because it immediately forces you to accept that your environment owns you. Mother nature can sweep in and pelt you with snow, ice, rain or even scortch you with unbearable heat. There are objective hazards everywhere: falling rock, ice, snow, cravasses, varying levels of exposure, freezing cold rivers and wild animals. Any lapses in judgment, which are exaserbated at higher altitude, can cause the team to fail in its objectives, or ever worse, result in severe injury or death.

Now add to these elements the ultimate of all problems--people. People with varying skill levels, personalities, egos and physical stamina. All of these elements combine with the objective hazards in the mountains to create an unbelievable tension.

On a perfect trip, the group leaves the parking lot on a seventy-five degree day with packs on and, after using flawless route-finding, reaches the base of the mountain at 4:00. The camping stove fires up and dinner is hot and delicious, while everyone sings each other's praises until bedtime. After sleeping under the stars, the team awakes at 5 am and is standing on the top of the summit at 11 with no equipment failures. The team heads down the mountain, packs up and is slapping each other on the back in the parking lot after this trip to end all trips.

Unfortunately, this never happens; I facetiously set up this strawman to point out that the actually fun and challenge of mountaineering is demonstrated in how individuals, acting as a team, overcome all of these problems in reaching their goal. It takes a lot of cunning and understanding on the part of a person, or group of people, to be the glue to hold it all together.

If and when adversity strikes, a leader must not crack, as his or her team depends on it. This entails the individual going against his or her first instincts to remain calm, while properly engaging the given problem. Most times, a leader will have to console and rally their teammates in order to overcome their fears. I've yet to see an individual who has vented an "authentic" display of emotion in a tight spot win anyone over.

This is specifically at odds with Marshall's critique of Washington: an effective leader must tailor one's actions to "impress" others. It isn't something to feed personal ego, it is the discipline to avoid reverting into a fight or flight response, and stay the course. People loved Washington because they knew that all these things he did was for the benefit of those that he led. He had the depth of character to know where George Washington stopped and where his young nation began.

He was willing to bear any burdern, or pay any price to see this through. The discipline that he so thoroughly applied to himself rallied a bunch of roughnecks into believing that they could beat the British. They were far from perfect, or pretty, but they did just enough to win and Washington was chiefly responsible for it. Napoleon Bonaparte was one of the greatest military minds to have ever lived, while Washington's military skill has been questioned--but I do know this, one put his ego away and became the founder of one of the greatest countries in the world, while the other ended his brilliant, but egomaniacal life in exile.

That, Josh, is true character.

Posted by 10 fingers 6 strings at May 23, 2005 06:48 PM | TrackBack