I know what you're going to say. Washington has won some small victories at Cowpens and Trenton, but he’s lost the big ones to the King of England. There will be no revolution. That’s not a partisan conclusion, just math. The King has a hundred ships for every one in the American navy. The King has ten soldiers for each private in our small army. His generals have experience and wisdom our leaders can’t begin to match. The King has won.
Yes, Washington’s goals are ambitious, but are they pragmatic? Can we hope to achieve his gigantic goals in one huge change? Americans understand that that’s not how change occurs. Great Britain takes small manageable prudent steps. In some aspects of life Britain may seem to lag behind us—they have yet to make slavery an institution, instead abandoning the Africans among them to their individual fates--but in most areas Britain’s slow prudent changes have consistently outdone our impatient attempts to leap forward.
There’s no place in politics here or elsewhere for the unrealistic aspirations represented by George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and others. We already have the vote for our white male gentry—do we really want to risk losing that much democracy by continuing this doomed revolt against an anointed King?
(With thanks to Tom Tomorrow)
No comments:
Post a Comment