Thomas Jefferson Vs Modern Politics

I’m reading Jon Meacham’s new book, the Art of Power. It is an historical biography of Thomas Jefferson. It is a slow read but a careful one.

The striking note delivered over and over in its pages is the theme of gridlock and disagreement within political decision making bodies. That same theme was present throughout the recent movie, Lincoln, as well.

Today’s political process is arduous, serpentine, illogical (well maybe!) and bitter. It is demeaning at times and intentionally uncivil. And although we would wish it away, the same was present in the 1780’s and ‘90’s as our founding fathers struggled to put in place a form of national governance that would stand the test of time. For the most part that has happened.

In those days language was different. It took forms that designated classes one from the other. Formal speech, both written and spoken, were decidedly more formal for the educated and wealthy. More slang and idiom formed daily language of most everyone else. The common language was less careful than the formal one in use. The latter was proper, spaced and timed with care so thoughts were more carefully formed for absorption. Flowery and stiff written language was often hard to read and tested patience.

But through it all Jefferson struggled to articulate what the new American government needed to pay attention to. It was not automatic. It was an experiment. He dreaded monarchy and the Revolutionary War was over and won. Yet many well placed leaders and patricians hankered after a taste of royalty. They felt certain that Britain would help the colonies prosper if our form of government patterned itself after Britain’s; at least a little. Others desired a loose confederation of states in which the states retained their own governmental authority and power. There was the crux of the discussion – loose confederation of states or strong central monarchy?

Jefferson felt there was a third form of government to be explored. A strong central government run as a democracy for the benefit of all citizens and for their several states. The tension between the states and the central government was to provide the synergy to keep the republic’s governance focused, purposeful and functional without becoming dictatorial.

Leadership models then were back biting conspiracies, gossip mongering and outright lying. Sound similar to today? It should. Human nature was pretty much the same then as it is now. The only thing we share today is some misguided sense that our forefathers were astute gentlemen who thought with clarity and logic. After all the form of government constructed in our constitution has lasted over two centuries.

The reality is, however, the founding fathers were as upset, confused and stressed over options as we are today. Each decision was hard fought and won. Compromise was a constant factor in most decisions. We just think it was neat and tidy. It is the romance of our understanding of history.

Today leadership is needed. In fact it is demanded by many. Problem is no one truly knows what that involves.  Old models of leadership would include stating clearly the objective we should be working toward, identifying the resources to do that task, and then marshaling the activities and policies to make the task happen and the objective achieved.

Today and in years long ago, the arguments have been about defining the objective. Arguments also attended the estimation of resources needed. And finally who was to do what to accomplish the goal was fought down and dirty nearly every time.

During Ronald Reagan’s presidency he defined the issues. He encouraged citizens to understand those issues and their solutions. When he felt public opinion was on his side, he then asked the citizens to contact their elected representatives in the House and Senate urging their support of the president’s position. And they did. And Congress complied eventually with many of Reagan’s agenda items.

Obama has worked patiently with Congress – both divisions – to make his objectives known and his proposed legislation. Now he is enlisting We The People to press forward if they agree with the president’s positions. Congress will soon hear from the people accordingly.

There are those who feel Obama has not led. I don’t agree. He has asked the Congress to do its job. They have not. Stunningly, and historically, they have not done their job! And Obama has laid the foundation for the people to take charge once again. They don’t just vote every two years for congressional candidates, and every four years for president. They also have the option to become pesty constituents demanding their elected reps to do the job they were elected to do.

We shall see if this form of leadership works. The framers of the constitution had this in mind. Reagan understood it that way as well. And I think Barack Obama does too. Now we will learn if the People get it, as well!

January 28, 2013