woodrow wilson marks out a clear dividing line from previous presidents for two reasons above all. the first was his open disdain for the constitution. professor mansfield noted some time ago wilson notable for being the first president to criticize the constitution. and that was merely of a piece with his dismissal of the founding which we thought was no longer relevant to the 20th century. his second original sin of the modern presidency was his conception the president should be someone who ought to be a leader with the capital "l," not in the ordinary sense of, say, sports team coach or even a chief executive of a company or military commander but someone of lofty transformative vision we might say today taking the american people to new and distant destinations the people themselves might not even be entirely aware they want to go. slightly more prosaic, wilson began the familiar practice increasingly debasing republican government. namely the in-person state of the union address to joint session of congress.

and he did that in large part to try assert the mastery of the presidency over congress to is implement congress it is a leading institution or center of gravity in the american politics. prior to wilson almost all presidents fulfill constitutional requirement to fulfill information on the union as the phrase in the text by sending letters to congress and publishing them in the newspaper. well, wilson created spectacle we know today which all presidents followed with one or two minor exceptions and i -- i hate -- as much as i hate to say it, mag news as rush limbaugh calls him, contributed to the degradation to the state of the union speech which did not surprise us as the only president with a show business background. there is to be said to reagan's credit, however. his state of the union speeches tend to be much shorter than his successors. reagan's addresses were 4800 words long and delivered them crisply. often getting out in 45 to 50 minutes.

by contrast clinton and bark's state of the union addresses, many of them have been as long as 7200 words, clocking in at a time to annoy even fidel castro. when we contemplate not the spectacle of the modern presidency but also the -- we also have to take into account the outsize pretensions and expectations promised by candidates and demanded by the people. it is then jaring to reflect on something harvey was bringing out the founders considered for a while giving the -- what title the chief executive was have and considered for a while calling the chief executive the governor of the united states. state governors. and -- but rejected that title in preference to president instead because they -- the memory of colonial governors abused their power fresh in their mind and president arriving from the latin to preside was thought to be more restrained office than governor.

today you wouldn't think that if you think about presidents compared to governors, right? and so today our president is expected to be a miracle worker. we owed to gene healey at the indicate owe institute of dredging up the sentiment from herman finer, political scientist in the kennedy era at the university of chicago who wrote the following. the presidency is the incarnation of the american people in a sacrament resembling that in which the wafer and the wine are seemed to be the body and blood of christ. good grief. now by contrast, this sentiment from an imminent person, quote. it is a great advantage to a president and a major source of safety to the country for him to know that he's not a great man. when a man begins to feel that he is the only one who can lead this republic he is guilty of treason to the spirit of our institutions, closed quote.

who said this idea? calvin coolidge. the ostensibly silent who was not silent added the following. it is difficult for men in high office to avoid the self delusion. they are always surrounded by worshipers and constantly and for the most part sincerely assured of their greatness. they live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exultation which sooner or later impairs their judgments. they are in -- in grave danger of becoming careless and arrogant. and finally, one more offering from not so silent cowell. a sound and wise you statesmanship that recognizes and attempts to abide by limitations will undoubtedly find itself displaced by that type of public official who promises much, talks much, legislates much, expends much, but accomplishes little. now it is worth recalling the contrast between wilson coolidge because of the one modern

episode of that -- illustrates the forgetfulness of our appreciation of washington's generation and his republicanism. it came when ronald reagan replaced thomas jefferson's portrait in the cabinet room with calvin coolidge's portrait when he became president in 1991. they were outraged at this. couldn't believe that reagan would do such a -- obviously silly thing. mark shields wrote in the post, don't try tell me that calvin coolidge could ever substitute for thomas jefferson. that's almost a national sacri lidge. it would be liberal presidents that want to have removed jefferson's picture from the cabinet room if they paid faith to their ideas. that's -- interesting trend that's seemingly lost in just

about everyone today. one might wish more presidents saw fit to emulate coolidge's accurate nickname of silent cowell for one malady of modern presidents they simply talk too much. and would benefit from embracing a certain minimalism. it is nearly forgotten today that one of the bills of impeachment against andrew johnson when you script it down essentially he was talking too much, and too partisan away, here's the -- here's the article's language itself. that said andrew johnson, president of the united states, unmindful of the high duties of his office and their dignity and propriety thereof, did make and deliver with a loud voice certain inflammatory and scandalous harangs and did their utter loud threats and menaces as well against congress as the laws of the united states. and which said utterances deck larations, they are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming of the chief magistrate of the united states. andrew johnson brought the high office of the president of the united states into contempt and

ridicule and disgrace to the great scandal of all good citizens. well, there is only one modern president that had an inkling. first president of the television age. lot of the aides thought he should take advantage of the new median. it is also -- notable that eisenhower is the only president since napoleon began in the '30s whose approval rating never dropped below 50%. they chalked it up to a war hero. i wonder if his receipt sans about not overexposing himself to the public is not part story. often when -- advisers would try to persuade him to go on tv or make some high-profile speech eisenhower would say, for example, one occasion, quote, i keep telling you fellows i don't like to do this sort of thing. i can think of nothing more boring for the american public ton have to sit in their living rooms for a whole half hour

looking at my face on their television screens. i don't think the people want to be listening to a roosevelt sounding as if he were one of the apostles or partisan yipping of a truman. another occasion he pushed back by saying what's it that needs to be said? i'm not going to go out there just to listen to my tongue clatter and then finally on one occasion when he did yield he said all right. i'm not going to talk more than 20 minutes. the author also notes eisenhower's legendary for his performance in press conferences. right? ridicule. he notes eisenhower was one of the few national leaders in the electronic age who seems to have taken in close to malicious delight in his capacity for incoherence. which we learned later was calculated and delivered

unconscious on his part. eisenhower does illustrate another problem afflicting the modern presidency and that is the noticeable atrophy of literacy in our chief executives. i think in both parties. that's led to the capitulation of the executive branch to the idea of judicial supremacy. in the letter to his brother milton eisenhower wrote the following. quote. you keep harping on the constitution. i should like to point out that the meaning of the constitution is what the supreme court says it is. consequently no powers are exercised by the federal government except for such exercise is approved by the supreme court. close quote. that wasn't the view of calvin coolidge. or the american founders or abraham lincoln or franklin roosevelt. whatever else might be said about the escapade is shown that the executive could directly contest the judiciary over constitutional interpretation. this contrasts sharply and with

george w. bush who when he was presented with the mccain/feingold finance bill said i believe this bill to be unconstitutional, violation of the principle of free speech in the first amendment, you about i will sign it anyway. that's matter for the supreme court to decide. seemingly overlooking that little thing of his oath of office protecting and defending the constitution which earlier presidents would have taken as their duty to compel them to veto the bill. so close with one example of today's news. one more example of how this ought to be got right. either yesterday or some this morning the department of transportation issued new guidelines calling on the industry to disable gps devices in cars so that it -- only operate at f the car was park order the side of the road and the transmission is in park. they are worried about auto

safety, people being distracted by gps devices even though many are voice activated. right now it is a guideline. today's guidelines are tomorrow's mandates. now any counter intuitive economist such as the people that work on the floor down from here will tell you this will probably result in a net reduction in auto safety for the simple reason most people if they can't use their bill-in gps devices will use their smart dpoens and juggle them by street steering wheel, driving down the road. coolidge would have known what to do with this idea. there is one example that i like when he veto ad bill to expand crop subsidies. he said this is a really bad idea. if we start doing this farmers will start growing more crops instead of fewer. and the problem of course that requires subsidies is if we growing more crops, put more pressure on prices and increase in demand in washington to increase subsidies further. but ended by saying, quote, the most decisive reason for it to be to this bill is it is not con constitutional.

imagine that. if we could wish for a reform of the modern presidency and some kind of restoration or even partial approximation of washington's republican sensibilities, it would start with presidents from the office who might rearrive eisenhower's rhetorical self-restraint and calvin coolidge's constitutionalism. thank you. >> thank you all very much. before we open the floor, open the event to questions from the floor i wondered if any of the four of you would like to make some additional comment in light of what you heard. >> you know, i have to speak up for journalism a little bit. you can't -- you can't put the genie back in the bottle. you can't. and -- you know, eisenhower, yes, he was a very reticent man. but he knew how to project an image and manipulate.

similarly with washington, not an eloquent man. but he used his appearance. he played to his strength which was his figure, his form. the fact he looked good on horseback. he made sure to visit every state during his presidency. so he was getting himself out there using the means that he had available. so we don't want to make, i think, a -- a cult or a requirement for reticence. sometimes it is good. but the media is out there in a -- a good president, cunning president, has to understand that and has to figure out how he can use it. what his strengths are and put them to work. >> i agree -- i don't disagree with any of that analysis. what i didn't say or maybe in light is -- i think a really

clever president would be well served to try to acquire a greater degree of self restraint because i think almost all modern presidents reached the point of diminishing returns. that's the part they don't appreciate. you are right right. could that be done? almost impossible. the demand side of the equation from the media would make it extraordinarily difficult to do that. i will say that -- this thought. i'm sort of looking out at the world now and people always ask about the colonel, the election campaign. so you can do a thought experiment about no one -- no republican seems to be very enthusiastic about mitt romney. he might try to win. and -- he -- he might oddly enough and rest of us might benefit from low expectations. conservatives and might actually put more of their energy on demanding and prompting leadership from congress rather

than thinking whenever a problem comes along have a meeting with the white house. >> anything else you would like to add? the floor is open for questions. walter burns, is there something you would like to add? could we get a microphone here, please? >> the answer is no. i was thinking of one thing, though, to some extent the question arises and has arisen from the panel is to -- differences today and then and wondering whether time and circumstances have changed the offices and changed everything. i can think of nothing that illustrates the distance between washington and today than the budget of the united states. first budget of the united states was $8 million. >> questions? please. would you wait important the

mike? wait important the microphone. thank you. >> famed t famed biography, current biographer of george washington, was writing in "the wall street journal" in the last debate, 19 debates, as the republican candidates, that washington is only quoted once. there are many more quotes from lincoln, from reagan, et cetera. i would like to hear why you think that is the case that washington is so discounted by the men who are running for the nomination of the presidency from the republican party. >> go ahead. >> well, he wasn't very pithy. he wasn't really a wordsmith. >> not even referring to him or paraphrasing him or talking about his position behind the constitution. >> yeah. >> well, you are right. washington was not a great writer. people want -- if they are

quoting they are going to quote great writers. washington was a good writer. but he's not -- definitely not a great one. and so to -- to get him to understand what he did, you have to -- you have to look at his career. you have to understand his deeds and actions. that requires a little more work than grabbing bartletts or whatever. and it requires an investment and an investment in -- of attention. i hope that, you know, occasions like this, meetings like this, bill before congress will encourage people to spend more of that attention because washington truly repays that. but there's like a little initial investment of effort that people have to make before they figure out what this guy's life was about. >> don't know that much about washington? >> people are busy. you know. look, these guys -- well, i am not saying that in a cynical spirit. i'm not seeing it is to run these people down.

i mean, the campaigning is madness and just madness. once you get to be president, that is it. once you -- lower your right hand after taking the oath, you know, you won't have a moment to think again. you are trapped in for four years or god help you, eight years. it makes people old. it makes them sick. it gives them ill health. in some ways it is a crazy system that we have constructed. better than all the others, but, you know, so, yes. so people like ron, myself, we try to get this out there so that people might absorb it and -- in the -- the time before they get to the maelstrom. you know, it is a struggle. >> ann neil. thank you all.

have you mentioned on several occasions george washington was very much in support of institutions for the diffusion of learning. the research shows that those very institutions do not today require a survey of american history or government. i know that professor mansfield school by way of example is one of the leading institutions that has no such requirement. what would george washington say today if he were to learn that, in fact, the very institutions on which he wished to rely were failing to part the education that citizens and leaders need? >> pah, he would say, i think from -- he would say it with -- with justice against my school as you call it. we very much need to return to a

different and -- different curriculum that's -- we need to demand more of our students. neo demand more students from top to bottom. it is the most prestigious of the schools. like mine. >> i wondered -- if each of the panelists could think of and to capture a person's live in a single word, what comes to mind as you think of george washington as president? >> we just get one word each? i will get it before anyone else says it.

>> i was reaching for virtue. he meant it. >> gentlemen? >> in the back, can the microphone be delivered there. >> i have something more of a comment than a question if that's all right. i recently had the privilege -- is the mike on. >> if it's not too long. >> it's brief. i had the privilege of coming to this country from canada and my comment comes slightly from that perspective. it's something of a comment of admiration for this particular event celebrating george washington's life and his

legacy. and the noble tradition that america has of celebrating their founder and i want to know from the perspective of a canadian that america is privileged to have this. not all nations have a founding or founding father. we would never have a celebration like this in canada. people would be wondering what there is to celebrate about him. it's in admire diminution of this spirit of celebration. >> there is in fact we were thinking in reading the book and the chapter begins with a remark and you should read it.

>> great men of providence, they have their unknown selves. when the revelation dies, the glory of the nation will die with it. interesting from the same man that died with it. if for a period to know he was not great. >> for raises a certain kind of difficulty since washington's teaching partly disassembling slightly his superiority and what is to be celebrated is the constitution and the union and the spirit of the people. it would perhaps have been embarrassed to think that what we were doing here is celebrating the great man rather than the republic he helped found and serve so well.

it was necessary. had we not lost something in eliminating not only washington's birthday, but lincoln's birthday and the kind of celebration and those who have fought with memorial day were in danger and losing with the celebration of these to those of us are a certain age heroic. the american leadership. is this compatible to being an american and celebrating our great men and is that in danger of leading to this kind of self congratulations that you see they warn this of in the office? >> let me be a half full guy. i have been giving a lot of talks on the founders since i started writing about them.

i am struck by the basic good will i find out there and it's often uninstructed. i remember when we were film in a washington documentary. the officer corps was grumbling on not being paid and sent home with an iou and had to bring them back to the loyaltyy and it's one of the dramatic moments of their life. the house you lived in was in the center of downtown newburg that is grim. it's a grim downtown. we were interviewing passers by and people who lived in the neighborhood. that house is where george

washington signed the declaration of independence. he never signed the declaration of independence and if he had, he wouldn't have done it in that house. he knew there was a washington section and he was pleased. i will take that and this is a series point. i hate these conservatives that we're going down the toilet and doom, doom, doom. i will work with that. he's got something there. fine. we can supply details. i do think there is a reservoir of good will out there and we center to work with it. >> yes. i think it's essential from the study of great individuals or even a kind o hero worship. i think that's essential for a scholarship. our political science today is occupied with institutions. you can't really know what an

institution can do until you see the or made a study and seen what the best representative and individual in that office did. and was. what he was like. political science should begin with the study of american history. we are going to say this. i would say that to my colleagues in political science. biography should be more important than it is in our studies and collegieate studies and scientific studies. science is about the best and it isn't only about the average or the universal or the boring. or the intermediate. it's about fine things. high things. noble things. that's great men. that's washington and that's lincoln. >> i want to add quickly, it's also harry truman.

the only period without a college sdpg said a man who sits behind this disk meaning the oval office ought to at least know his american history. you might hold up his example of a -- as opposed to the current occupant who thinks that the intercontinental railroad may have gone through the state of texas.re two comments of the current historical grasp. >> you can see a biting sentiment in favor of heroism in what the american people have done with president's day. even though he went away from calling it washington's birthday and renamed it president's day, the only two on the mattress day ads are washington and lincoln. it may be providencial that they have the february birthdays, but there is an assertion on the part of american who is have all of the presidents, but we will make discriminations among them

and no doubt that it's washington and lincoln or maybe lincoln and washington. are just not top two spots selling. >> it was an interesting and lively discussion. i should mention that steve hayward's books are being sold and so is our an tholg. happy washington a birthday. >> this minute watch american history tv o prime time with a look at the 34th president. at 8:00 p.m., frank garro the eisenhower memorial.