Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation

I'm not quite finished with this book. I have about 15 pages to go. But the guy coming to clean my windows just cancelled and I probably have an hour until Kaitlin wakes up from her nap to now "waste" blogging, so I thought I'd write about my elation about having finished this book! According to my book journal I began reading this one March 2. Yes, I've been reading this book for over two months! It was a real labor of love, let me tell you. I'm really determined to learn more about our country's history. I'm ust not so sure this was the book to start out with. Though it was interesting, it was really slow going for me!

Ok, so where did this desire to learn about US history come from? OK, I'll admit it. The movie National Treasure! I know, I know. It's totally fake, but the history, all of the historical places, and the feelings of reverence inspired by seeing the places where the creation of our country took place really facinated me.

It's been too long since I began the book to do much of a review, so here is what I learned about myself and my perceptions about the men who founded the United States. When I began to read I had this image in my mind of infallable men gathered around a table to sign the Declaration of Independence. I wanted to believe that they were perfect men who could succeed at the magnificent republican experiment that had never been attempted on such a large scale in the history of mankind. What I learned is that they were flawed, erring people, just as we are. They were uncertain about what they were doing. They didn't always know the implications of the movements they were making. Essentially they were making things up as they went along. Unlike us, they did not have any precedents to determine what they should do. They were like infants, continually experiencing their firsts.

Another thing I found was that as they worked out issues such as what role the president should take in government, what place political parties and partisanship should take in determining national policy, and how strong the legislative and judicial branches should be, I was able to form stronger opinions about these issues myself. I don't want to talk politics (though it is something that I think about a lot), but I do think it's important to know about these things, think about them and come up with informed decisions. Knowing the origins of the debates and their many twists and turns throughout the years can help us be better citizens of our country. After all, the same debates that occurred back then are still the debates that rage today and tend to tear our country apart. What is the role of the president--how strong should he be? How strong should the congress be? How should the United States conduct it's foreign affairs? Every president and our government since George Washington has had to deal with these issues that we continue to deal with. I don't know why but this connection to the great and not so great men of our past helps me feel comforted. They did not live in an Utopia and neither do we. But somehow it all works out.


****Edited to Add****
In response to my friend Nicole's response to my post (since she was a political science major and her husband is in the military--so I believe her when she says they talk about politics a lot)

Nic wrote:

Politics are a big thing in this house. Alan and I talk about them alot, but with his job, he can't voice some of his comments in public.
I noticed you are listening to the new Dixie Chick album...that is political right now in its own way!
I don't know if it is good or bad thing to realize our founding fathers were like us. The idealistic version of them fuels a lot of young kids to do better. But on the other hand, knowing they were like us, makes me feel better.

My response:

I think that knowing the Founding Fathers is a good thing because: the idea of their infallibility can cause us to be overly critical or indulgent of our modern leaders, depending on where you stand in the political spectrum, and it forces us to see that they disagreed--A LOT--and that political disagreements can lead to important problem solving dialogue. One thing I found interesting is that both Washington and Adams believed that the president shouldn't make decisions about policy according to the ideas of any one party--he should transcend partisan bickering and make decisions based on what was truly good for the nation as a whole. Both tried very hard to live by this philosophy, and consequently both were accused of being more like monarchs than presidents. In theory I like this philosophy, although there are myriad of reasons why this could be extremely problematic, not the least of which is that with too much power men (and by that I mean mankind in general) tend to think only of keeping that power. This is what makes Washington and Adams, in my opinion, such excellent men. They had the power, they believed it was their duty to serve their country and then they relinquished their power, willingly, when the time came. Anyway, back to the subject at hand. By the time Jefferson came into office, he was so embroiled in his Republican Party's political ideals, actually he and James Madison shaped many of those ideals, that he could do nothing that wasn't in accord with them. Joseph J. Ellis, the author, says that no president since Adams has been able to seperate himself from his party's ideals. Wouldn't it be nice if such a president could exist today and not become something like a king, or, even worse, a dictator? With this next presidential election I've already promised myself that I will not simply vote according the political party I generally agree with. I will take my time to familliarize myself with the candidates, and vote for the best person for the job. I want a person of strong character, intelligence, and the desire to seerve the national interest over his own. There was a quote that I really liked about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. It is, "If Jefferson seemed predestined to tell people what they wanted to hear, Adams now acknowledged that his own destiny was just the opposite: to tell them what they need to know." I don't want rosy pictures painted for me. I just want to know what I need to know!

Whew! I guess I did want to talk politics after all.