provides the ground for selling the question of when the modern presidency can be said to have begun. now often when you consider when does the modern presidency begin, attempt to recur to henry adams' famous quip from george washington to ulysses grant single-handedly disproved the theory of evolution. but this isn't really right. although you can mark out the evolution of the office and things -- you know, shadings that -- brought to the office by jefferson and jackson, of course, lincoln, and especially theodore roosevelt, i think that

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 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 ds 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 start fwroeg more crops lit put more pressure on prices and increase in demand in washington to increase subsidies further. you see, the economic literacy of coolidge. 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 p 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. >> steve? >> 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 strapped to a to being a an 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. who 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 students from top to bottom in education today, and i say it especially at the highest or is it really only the most prestigious of the schools? like mine. >> please. >> i wondered -- i wonder if each of the panelists could think of and to capture a person's life in a single word, what comes to mind as you think of george washington as president? >> do we just get one word each? i will get gravitas before anyone else says it. >> i was reaching to grab virtue.

>> i'll give you four. he really meant it. >> i'm sorry? >> he really meant it. >> gentlemen? >> in the back, can the microphone be delivered there? >> brendan, "the new atlantis." i have something more of a comment than a question if that's all right. i recently had the privilege -- is the mike on? >> it's all right if it's not too long. >> it's quite brief. i just 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 just generally for the noble

tradition that america has of celebrating their founder and i just 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. canada, we would never have a celebration of john a. mcdonald like this in canada. we would be wondering what there would be to celebrate about him. i just kind of wondered to make a comment in effect in admiration of this spirit of celebration. >> well, there is -- i mean, there is, in fact, we were thinking in reading steve's book and the chapter on calvin coolidge begins with a remark on great men and you should read

it. >> great men of providence, they have their unknown selves. when the reference of this 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 it seems to me dissembling slightly his superiority, that is what is to be celebrated is the constitution, the union, and the spirit of the people, and would perhaps have been embarrassed to think that what we're doing here is celebrating the great man rather than the republic that he helped found and serve so well. and yet it seems to me necessary -- at least i would put it as a question to the panelists, have we not lost

something in eliminating not only washington's birthday but lincoln's birthday and the kind of celebration of the great individuals? we celebrate the veterans who have given their lives or who have simply fought with veterans day, memorial day. we're in danger in a way of losing the celebration of these to those of us of a certain age, heroic exemplars of american leadership. is it compatible with being an american to celebrate our great men, and is that in danger of leading to this kind of self-congratulation that steve hayward sort of warns us of in the office? >> well, let me be a half full guy because i've been giving a lot of talks on the founders since i started writing about them, and i am struck -- i am struck by the

sort of basic goodwill that i find out there and it's often uninstructed. i remember when we were filming a washington documentary for pbs, we went to newburgh, new york, which was his last headquarters during the revolution and that's where he faced down the officer corps that was really grumbling on the point of mutiny about not being paid and they were going to be sent home with an iou, and he really had to bring them back to their loyalty and it's one of the dramatic moments of his life and the house that he lived in is now a little park and in it's in the center of downtown newburg, it is awful, it's one of the upstate new york cities, it's grim. it's a grim, grim downtown. we were getting voks pot. we were interview iing passersby and people who lived in the neighborhood, and one man said, yes, yes, that house. that's where george washington signed the declaration of independence. now, you know, he never signed

the declaration of independence, and if he had, he wouldn't have done it in that house, but this guy knew there was a washington connection and he was pleased with it. and so i thought, i'll take that. no, but this is a serious point. i mean i hate these conservatives, oh, we're going down the toilet, isn't it awful, you know, doom, doom, doom. i hate that. i'll work with that because he's got something there. so, fine. so we can supply details. but i do think -- but i do think there is a reservoir of goodwill out there and we have to work with it. >> harvey? >> yes. i think it's essential to -- from the study of great individuals or even a kind of hero worship, i think that's essential for a scholarship, our political science today is occupied with institutions. but you can't really an institution can do until you see the -- or plead a study and

seen what the best representative, the best individual in that institution, in that office did and was and what he was like. so political science should begin from the study of american history. i'm going to say this to ann neil, and i would say that also to my colleagues and political science. biography should be much more important than it is in our studies, in our collegiate studies, in our scientific studies because science is about the best. 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 >> it's also -- can i add quickly -- it's also harry truman, perhaps. he's the only president without a four-year college degree, largely self-taught in a lot of

ways but said that a man who sits behind this desk, meaning the oval office desk, ought to at least know his american history. you might hold up his example as a -- i can't help it -- as opposed to say the current occupant who thinks that the intercontinental railroad may have possibly gone through the historically republican state of texas to use two comments of the current occupant's historical grasp. diana? >> yeah. i nt in favor of heroism in what the american people have done with presidents' day. went away from calling it washington's birthday and renamed it' da lne only two faces that appear you know, it may be providential but they both have these february birthdays, but it does seem to me an assertion there on the part ofamicans, that, yeah, we've got all of these presidents, but we're going to make some discriminations about

them and it's no doubt that it's washington and lincoln or lincoln and washington. they share top to spots. >> those franklin pierce mattresses are just not selling. >> and you can work with that, too, can you? thank you very much. i want to thank our panel for a very interesting, lively discussion. i should mention that steve hayward's book is being sold in the lobby. so is our anthology, what so proudly we hail. thank you for coming. happy george washington's birthday. [ applause ] this monday watch american history tv in prime time on c-span 3 with a look at the 34th president, dwight david eisenhower. at 8:00 p.m. architect frank gehry on his design for the memorial and following that is susan