work with people across the aisle, as george washington. and so tonight, as i conclude this series, i don't know whether in term of lectures we saved the best for last but i know in terms of presidents we saved the best for first. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. we've got a few minutes for questions and i have been asked, very explicitly to point out that we have a microphone here from the folks at c-span. there it is. so if you are a question thrust

your hand into the air where she can see it and wait until she reaches you and then everyone can hear it. >> is this on? why are there no great unifying leaders like george washington today? >> first of all, read the farewell address. washington never believed that the united states would be without political differences or political parties, factions, whatever you want to call them. what washington's whole presidency was about, whether it was staying out of european

conflict or trying to avoid as n of these intense partisan differences, washington's whole presidency was about buying time. washington was enough of a visionary to know -- washington was a strong leader of a weak nation, and given that situation, he also had enough faith in the future of this nation, given 30, 40 years of peace, that it would develop to the point where, frankly it could defend itself against any foreign power. likewise at home, washington allowed himself to be pummeled, not only by the press, but literally to have his effigy burned in the streets of philadelphia. washington took risks for peace and for political peace at home.

it was a self-denying kind of leadership. and the irony is -- and i may have overemphasized the doubts, the fears, the concerns that washington harbored as he went into office about the consequences of this office on his reputation. the fact of the matter is, if you were washington leaving office, you might very well feel that all of those fears had been realized. so someone like that, someone who is as, in many ways, devoid of personal ambition, but also someone who is seen as a in many ways nonpolitical figure, there's only one of those. there are other leaders, obviously, who have managed in

lincoln's famous phrase, the occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion, lincoln being a great example. there are so many reasons why it is difficult for a president of either party or any ideological persuasion to transcend artificial, exaggerated, media-hyped differences, controversies. the political parties have themselves been superseded now by cable tv and the internet, which is supposed to be a great instrument for bringing us together but politically has had

largely the opposite effect. with the blessings or the curse of anonymity you can get online and dump all of the poison you want into the well and call it political discourse. it's -- it's -- the last -- i've said this before, think of last five american presidents, republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, four of those five i would argue have been, quote, polarizing figures. that tells you less about them than it does about us and about the political climate and the media climate in which we operate. i think you can make a case that we spent a disproportionate amount of time in this campaign

which already seems to have gone on forever and we still have a year to go, working around the edges, you know, today's controversy. and one is, because television, and above all, cable television, with a very notable exception here, has something called the 24/7 news cycle. john kennedy could dominate the national agenda with a press conference in the state department auditorium, and when the bay of pigs turned out disastrously, what happened? his numbers went up. up. he said with mordent wit, my god, it's like eisenhower, the worse you do, the more popular

you become. he wasn't an admirer of ike. but today can you imagine if the bay of pigs took place? there would not be a rally around the flag mentality. so i don't know. i would like to be an optimist. we have the example of washington which is always there to inspire and to provide, i think, some very concrete, tangible, contemporary, relevant examples of leadership. but it's tough. >> how was washington able to keep under wraps the political rivalry between, say, jefferson and -- >> and hamilton? >> yes. >> here is washington's genius.

and, by the way, if you want a contemporary parallel, look at dwight eisenhower, whose great hero was george washington and who was like washington, you know, the man who won world war ii didn't need a favorable story in that day's new york times to burnish his reputation. eisenhower and what became famous as the hidden hand approach to the presidency, the idea of pulling strings in behind the curtain in many ways because ike didn't need the ego gratification of a teddy roosevelt and the bully pulpit. but also that's how he preferred to operate in many ways from the shadows. and part of that was the example of washington whose great

success was to keep both hamilton and jefferson in the cabinet long after both of them wanted out. again, it's all part of buying time. and the consequence was that washington, first of all, subjected himself to some very unpleasant cabinet meetings and occasionally lost his temper. we have jefferson's account of one at which the president threw his hat on the floor. i don't know why he was wearing his hat at the cabinet meeting, but in any event -- but we know that washington sacrificed in many ways during the presidency and part of it was, in my view, part of this much larger realization that it was -- it was vital that both hamilton and

jefferson, in the immortal worlds of lyndon johnson about j. edgar hoover were kept insite the tent pissing out rather than inside the tent pissing in. and that's not a plug for the movie. >> in your first lecture you described a washington who was seeking self-aggrandizement and power and prestige and money and status. and today you basically talked about a washington who had no ego and was doing everything for the benefit of the country. that's a complete turnaround in where he was coming from. what do you attribute the significant change in his outlook and his sense of accomplishment? >> yeah. i accept the broad description. i would take issue -- i think he

had an ego, he had -- i don't think it's as drastic as you suggest. it is, i think, an evolution and i think it is the key to washington's greatness. but it's also, in many ways, what makes washington one of us. i mean, the american dream is defined in many ways but it surely part of the american dream is not only to accumulate worldly wealth, but to live a useful life and to share one's talents and to be part of the civic life of one's time. part of it also, in my opinion, and this is very american, you know, washington wanted to be rich and famous, and he got to be both, and he found they were rather less than fulfilling. so he had money and he was famous.

quite frankly, being famous had its drawbacks since for the last 25 years of his life it made it virtually impossible for him to meet a human being on anything like normal terms. washington grew. i mean, the classic example, i think, of that would be his attitudes not only about slavery but i think about race. and again, i don't want to exaggerate, you know. washington is not one of us. he's not a 21st century figure, and i know there's always his tendency to want to humanize washington in ways that often inadvertently trivialize him. but in any event i don't think are accurate.

what i tried to do when i wrote the book is to transport us credibly into his world to immerse ourselves in that and to understand up close both the very human aspects of washington and the larger than life elements of washington. and i think, you know, it is the process of evolutionary growth, it is the realization, as i said tonight there are interests greater than self-interests. washington, in many ways, outgrew the narrow culture that produced him, and that is something that i think is the essence of what we'd like to think of as the american success story. got one more?

>> as we approach the thanksgiving holiday, i know that abraham lincoln is often recognized as the first president to initiate or give a formal day of thanksgiving. but i am also aware that george washington had done the same. i was interested in your comments on that. >> that's right. of course, franklin roosevelt institutionalized the holiday moving around to make sure there were x-number of shopping days till christmas, which made sense in the economy and the 1930s. yeah, no, you're absolutely right. george washington, both during the revolution and in his first year as president formally proclaimed a day of thanksgiving within a religious context.

not everyone agreed with him. there were those -- i mean, this is -- it's interesting. you wouldn't think about this, necessarily, but this is one of those issues that helped to begin to define the original party system, differences, the notion of the government instituting any kind of religious observance. and in some ways, that's a debate that goes on to this day. but it also feeds into the larger question of washington and his faith. again, i would not for a moment pretend to be an authority on this, but i do believe that it is too easy, and i think inaccurate to simply write washington off as a deist.

as someone who had a heck annistic view of the universe. my sense, his view of faith is something that evolved like so much else about washington and in particular he went through hell during the revolution and you don't have to believe the rather sugary image in stained glass of washington on his knees at valley forge. you don't have to accept that image to nevertheless embrace the idea of washington as a believing, practicing, christian. thank you so much. [ applause ] we'll have more american

history tv on friday night, with a series of programs on the life of abraham lincoln. at 8:00 p.m. eastern a visit to ford's theater for a look at lincoln's personal effects the night of his death. and at 8:30, american artifacts looks at lincoln's assassination. at 9:00, a discussion about abraham lincoln and the freedom of the press. at 10:30, steven barry between lincoln and his in-laws the todd family. american history tv airs each weekend here on c-span3. we got started because there are a lot of conservative thinkings that work across issues. before cap there had been no single progressive thinking organization that works on economic policy, domestic policy, international security. >> ceo for the center for

american progress on the mission of the washington, d.c., based think tank. >> we often think there is an ideology between arguments made in washington with very little facts behind them. part of our job is to make the arguments and the factual argume arguments. i do think sometimes when the facts don't argue for our position, we reexamine those positions, because we unfundamentally believe the most important thing is to be right about what your views are. >> a look at the center for american progress sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q & a. there's a new website for american history tv, where you can find our schedules and preview our upcoming programs. watch featured video from our regular weekly series. history in the news and social media from facebook, youtube twitter and four square.

coming up next, presidential historian richard norton smith reflects on george washington at the age of 22, and how his parents, peers and early military experiences helped shape his personality. this lecture is the first of a three-part series taking a look at the evolution of washington's character throughout his life. this is an hour. >> thank you. that was lovely. very kind. i thought actually between gay and lou we have half of mount rushmore represented here this evening. it's a little bit intimidating, actually. i want to begin first of all by thanking all of you for making

the effort to be here. and the ladies association and in particular gay hart gaines for whom this lecture series is a tangible reminder of her long-standing commitment to mount vernon and its educational programming. to join the distinguished roster which she read off of past gaines scholars is a humbling experience. that is particularly true for one like myself who goes out of his way to remind everyone that i am a washington student, not a washington scholar. and i too want to say a special word of thanks to lou erman. the generous underwriter of the series and one of the best friends american history has ever had. [ applause ] >> as some of you may know, i spent a great deal of the professional life writing about

new york governors, including those who would presume to follow in washington's footsteps. in this case, i have to say albany's loss is america's gain. it is hard to imagine anyone equaling lou's efforts to combat the scourge of historical illiteracy, a plague well captured in a recent newspaper cartoon, depicting the response of a father and his son to an ominous newspaper headline declaring students stumble on history. you have all read that story. variations. this is such a national tragedy says the father, the newspaper at hand. yeah, replies the son. like when the japanese attacked the alamo. [ laughter ] >> of course, we historians are often accused of loving the past so much that we in effect live

in it. when you consider the alternative to be charlie sheen -- [ laughter ] -- tmz, and any of the kardashians, i'm not sure the past is so undesirable a place to live. truth be told, we study the past at least in part to avoid repeating its mistakes. historians are in the prospective business. a commodity we could use more of right about now. in the words of lou's hero abraham lincoln, the occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. that is certainly true when it comes to the state of the historical knowledge in today's classrooms and occasionally in the halls of congress as well. to visit mount vernon is to be reassured that there are in fact still places where american history is being presented in

ways both rigorous and accessible. for me personally it almost feels like a homecoming to be in this magical spot. for that and much more i thank the truly visionary leader, blessed with a staff that shares his dedication and innovative outlook. together, with gay and her sister regents, they are stewards of this national treasure, preserving its character, so that generations unborn might draw inspiration from the man whose name is synonymous with character. does character count? on the surface it seems like one of those questions that answers itself. but that hasn't quieted the debate among modern scholars, pundits and politicians alike. for example, how do you define character? on his death bed, it is said that the deposed french emperor

napoleon muttered, they wanted me to be another washington. it was a reluctant tribute from one with military man to another. albeit one whose character reflected a different attitude to power and the democratic experiment. lincoln as usual had a pithy formulation. character he said is like a tree. and reputation like its shadow. the shadow is what we think of it. the tree is the real thing. george washington it hardly needs to be say is -- said is the real thing. yet, it isn't that simple and neither is he. it's equally true that the man for who us personifies the ideal of service before self spent much of his early life pursuing what shakespeare will be called the bubble of reputation. washington craved the wealth and deference showered on military heroes by a stratified society. as his priorities changed, so

did his penchant for self-promotion. in time, the youthful surveyor would redraw single-handedly the parameters of success. and in the process he would do much to shape the character of the nation he made possible. a life long learner whose legendary self-possession was more hard won than any of the more conventional battles he fought. washington didn't merely grow up with america, as his evolving views on race and slavery illustrate, to cite but one obvious example, he outgrew it, in ways that only add to his stature and his relevance. we go on writing books about him. even as we continue debating aspects of his character. at least in part to compensate for the early myth makers who confuse biography for hero worship.

in fashioning a paragon from the forbidding face on the dollar bill, parson said the imitators did the hero no service for denying the flaws they robbed washington of his humanity. by presenting him as a finished product, they obscured the life long work in progress by which the tree and its shadow became one. parson weems has never recould beered from the story of washington throwing money across the river. anyone who knew washington knew that there was no one less likely to throw money away. as he himself liked to say, many nickels make a buckle. tell it to congress. indeed it is washington's

ongoing struggle to become the man and leader he wanted to be. and that a raw republic, a nation in name only required for its survival. it is this process of becoming which defines his character not to mention this year's gayhart gaines lecture series. it's hard to think of a topic more relevant to our politically cynical age, to a generation raised on "south park" and "saturday night live," much more accustomed to the ironic than the iconic, the suspicion comes naturally that the father of our country might just be too good to be true. by contrast at the other end of the spectrum, it is easier to revere a saint than relate to one. that holds especially true for the washington whose blood was perfection invited a savage backlash of the debunking craze of the 19120s, as in the modern iconic classes who deface his

monument. ironically there may be no better metaphor to washington's character built in the capital of his making. at first glance it appears chilly, isolated, featureless, a soaring stone finger pointed heavenward. only if you look closely will you detect variations in the towering obelisk. the bottom third or so is notably different in appearance from the rest. the result of a lengthy halt to the construction process, and the subsequent use of a different shade of stone. as such, it is a reflection in ways no doubt unintended by the builders of washington's own evolution. under this scenario the 1920s with their spit ball scholarship served to divide the idolitors from the more objective portraiture of recent years. this seems to be beyond dispute. the longer one's exposure to washington, the greater the appreciation of his character development.

think of the great multivolume works produced by freeman or flexner or the acclaimed washington for our time. these authors succeed precisely because they acknowledge washington's frailties. the starting point for his permanent campaign of self-improvement. far more than his false teeth or wartime expense accounts, it is washington's unabashed pursuit and transendence of youthful fame and adulthood fortune that make him the quintessential american success story. his first biographer david humphrey described the physical giant of prodigious strength. to the contrary, washington said he had yet to meet the man for who could hurl the rocks more than he.