There’s no substitute for competence and character
Elections in America are as old as the British settlers, beginning with Jamestown’s first election of a council president in 1609, and have been a constant feature of American governance ever since. The Continental Congresses that launched America’s War for Independence were composed of elected representatives. The Articles of Confederation Congress bridged the gap between independence and the U.S. Constitution with annual elections. Even the constitutional ratification conventions within the states consisted of representatives elected directly by the people solely for that purpose.
The greatness of America’s founding generation is perhaps most clearly seen in the men they elected to public office. While every so often one or two scoundrels like Vice President Aaron Burr sneaked into positions of public trust, overall, they were statesmen of competence and character. The highest office an American colonist could achieve prior to the War for Independence was within the colony. This proximity to constituents meant that the official’s conduct was constantly monitored for signs of corruption or incompetence.
That changed when the Continental Congress became the governing body on a national scale. States would still give broad instructions to their congressional representatives, such as when New Jersey charged its delegates of 1776 to support independence. However, given Congress’ distance from states like New Hampshire and Georgia as well as rapidly changing wartime conditions, Americans were less concerned with explicit instructions than the overall competence and character of their elected officials.
George Washington’s vision for a national government required that elected officials possess such qualities. In the year before the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Washington’s nephew, Bushrod Washington, asked his uncle for his thoughts on a newly formed organization called the Patriotic Society. Formed by Bushrod and fellow Virginians, the Patriotic Society was part political watchdog, part policy think-tank, intending to establish “a very formidable check upon evil-disposed men, who, clothed with power, make interested motives, and not public good, the rule of their conduct.”
George Washington replied that while such societies might be useful at state and local levels, where elected officials could continuously gauge and respond to their constituents’ sentiments, he was “no friend to instructions, except in local matters.” For national policy, it was much wiser and more politic to choose “able and honest representatives” and then “leave them in all national questions to determine from the evidence of reason.”
The elder Washington gave several reasons for this. He doubted whether such societies “can possess all that knowledge which is necessary for them to decide on many important questions which may come before a [national] Assembly.” In 21st-century America, technology has made open-source information readily available to the public, but much of the information required to make prudent policy decisions is privileged or classified, so Washington’s assessment still stands.
Washington also doubted whether independent societies were any more disinterested than elected officials. He rhetorically asked, “May not a few members of this society (more sagacious & designing than the rest) direct the measures of it to private views of their own? May not this embarrass an honest, able Delegate who hears the voice of his Country from all quarters, and thwart public measures?”
The future president’s chief concern was for national unity, and he was leery of societies that advanced their regional and particular interests at the expense of what was best for the entire nation. Instead, there must be “a yielding of the parts to coalesce the whole.” He recognized this was only possible if the operations of the national government were confined to policy matters that were truly national in scope. He assumed most issues of governance would be handled at state and local levels where political societies could do the most good and where elected officials would be more responsive to instructions from their constituents.
The success of the elder Washington’s system of empowered representative government hinged upon one critical duty of citizenship: to choose “able and honest representatives.” It was not enough to exercise one’s right to vote. One must vote wisely.
The ratification of the U.S. Constitution solidified Washington’s vision for national representation. In a constitutional republic such as ours, before we complain about the policies and behavior of our elected officials, we must always remember that we put them there. We are responsible for our national well-being, and that responsibility finds its fullest expression on Election Day. Every time we shirk that responsibility through uninformed and negligent voting, or by failing to vote at all, we contribute to the decay of American liberty and strength.
This applies to both primary and general elections. If we are dissatisfied with the quality of our candidates, before we point the finger at “the system” we must first ask ourselves what we did to support the advancement of honest and able Americans early in the process. If the answer is “nothing,” we don’t have much room to gripe. Rather, we should assess how we were deficient in our civic duty and resolve to do better moving forward. We can’t afford to outsource that civic duty to think tanks and political action committees, even those that are doing good work. Preserving American liberty requires engaged and responsible citizenship.
For George Washington, there was no substitute for competence and character in our elected representatives, especially at the national level. We should heed his advice and settle for nothing less.
Andrew Bibb is a military strategist. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. government.
