“Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.”
(John Adams)
The above quote explains why John Adams sought out and entreated George Washington to assemble, train, and lead a revolutionary army of irregulars against the British Army. Adams was a key organizer of the American colonies’ revolt against the British monarchy. But perhaps his greatest achievement was his selection and promotion of the man he believed could lead and win America’s revolution. Washington was that man, esteemed for his character and universally respected as a person others would follow. He could lead a band of farmers, artisans, brokers, and local militia against a professional British army. He would not only engineer a victory against a superior force but earn the gratitude of a new nation. He also managed the Constitutional Convention that defined the government of our United States of America.
Was George Washington always the bold, inspiring leader who others would naturally follow? Well, at the beginning of the revolutionary war, Washington’s troops lost every campaign. His initial strategy was to engage an experienced British army in full-on attacks. But he lost every battle. Many of his troops were killed, wounded, or captured. His initial strategy of assault was a failure. His generals were losing confidence in him, one of whom, Benedict Arnold, even became a traitor. But Washington, like the famous Roman general Fabius who defeated Hannibal, changed the nature of the war. He began a war of “posts” where he lured the enemy into fortified positions. During transit and requisite foraging for food, the British troops would be assaulted and gradually worn down. Then, after being lured to an American fortification, they were ambushed. Whatever attack they could muster was met by a rested and intact American force. Washington had not only learned from his initial failures but secured the trusts of his soldiers as he led them to an unlikely victory. Yes, George Washington was indeed that bold, inspiring leader. But, of course, Adams and Washington were not alone amongst our founding fathers.
Thomas Jefferson is also commemorated for drafting the Declaration of Independence, which introduced the principle that “all men are created equal… with certain unalienable rights.” These words have inspired many democracies. His contributions also extended beyond this document; while serving as Ambassador to France, he critiqued Madison’s proposed Constitution and found it lacking the guarantees expressed in the British “bill of rights.” As a result of his critique, those rights became the Constitution’s first ten amendments.
And, of course, James Madison was the architect and prime advocate for the check and balance system of government he proposed at the Constitutional Convention. He also wrote twenty-seven articles for The Federalist to explain and defend the newly formed American democracy with its executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.
These men—John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were not only amongst the founders of our American democracy but also served as our first four Presidents. Each one of them made unique and critical contributions to our democracy. The only question for us—the beneficiaries of their bequest—is whether we can keep it.
That was the very question that faced Abraham Lincoln who led a divided nation through a Civil War that threatened the existence of “one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.” At Gettysburg he encouraged a war-torn nation “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain . . . that this nation, under god, shall have a new birth of freedom . . . and that government of the people . . . by the people . . . for the people . . . shall not perish from the earth.”
If you read the history of these men, you will recognize their personal idiosyncrasies and flaws. But you will also discover in each a basic decency and commitment to principles. And these became the “first principles”¹ that inspired both their individual contribution to America and to the Constitutional framework of its government. The question I raise in this blog is whether we Americans have the public virtue necessary to preserve our republic. As John Adams reminds us, the requisite public virtue cannot exist without private virtue. And therein is a personal question every American must answer for him/herself, most especially, if he/she holds public office. And that question is especially pertinent at this time and in this place. How so?
Well, currently, we have a “push/pull” relationship between the Governor of California and the President of the United States. Which of these two men have the “requisite public virtue” to resolve a stand-off between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the friends and family members of the undocumented migrants arrested by ICE. Los Angeles is currently under heavy security by local police, California’s National Guard, and U.S. Marines in response to protests at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office in Los Angeles. The initial protest involved 100-200 people who set fire to several cars before the ICE office in LA. But they did not attack or otherwise endanger the ICE office. Their issue was with the ICE’s arrests and deportation of undocumented migrants from their homes, places of work, and schools. Although these deportations may be legal, friends and family members of those taken are naturally upset. Their loved ones are being treated like criminals instead of the integral members of their Los Angeles community. Before the Governor could decide whether the Los Angeles police needed reinforcements, the President activated the California National Guard. When the Governor exclaimed that decision was premature and, in addition, was his to make. The President double downed on his decision by complimenting the National Guard with United States Marines. The questions raised by this conflict between these elected officials was who is acting ethically, and whose interests is being served. Both publicly elected officials take an oath to America’s Constitution which demands they “establish Justice . . . (and) insure domestic Tranquility.” Burning cars and a faceoff between an angry crowd and ICE officials are certainly circumstances that test the principles of these two men.
Speaking to troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina later in the day, the President promised to stop the “anarchy” in California. “We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean, and safe again,” he said. “We will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy.”
But the President’s “foreign enemy” is a characterization of an indigenous population that traces its lineage to a time before there was an American nation. Nearly every town or city in the State of California was founded and named by its Mexican inhabitants—witness San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Rafael, and so on. Many of us non-Hispanic residents have learned enough Spanish to converse with neighbors and buy food cultivated by Mexicans and sold at local open markets. The border crossing between San Diego and Mexico is by far the largest trafficked in America. We Californians do not consider our Hispanic neighbors to be foreigners or invaders. In fact, many of them are our spouses. We are now co-habitants of the land Mexicans discovered and cultivated before Americans even thought to plant a flag here.
As I was writing the previous paragraph, our Mexican/American California State Senator decided to attend a pressor for the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. What he heard from the Secretary concerned him and warranted a question. He began by identifying himself as one of California’s State Senators, then began to ask his question. But he was immediately attacked by the Secretary’s security detail, shoved out of the room, thrown to the floor, and handcuffed. I, like many Californians, was appalled and angry. He is our elected representative in the US Senate and not one of the “foreign enemy” our President falsely identified and so stupidly disparaged.
The only foreign enemy and alleged “anarchist” the President should address is what he has personally introduced into American politics and government. The chaos he is attempting to rain on California is no different than what he introduces every day from his “throne” in the White House. And while his “deal-making” with foreign countries is often embarrassingly self-serving, he is effectively trashing the integrity of America before the world. He is the enemy “within.” Unlike our State Senator, Donald Trump does not represent our democracy or its people wherein all are created equal and “pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Donald Trump wants to consolidate his power and control by any means at his disposal. He deliberately bypassed the Governor’s authority when he activated the State’s National Guard to smother a relatively small demonstration. By doing so, he accomplishes two goals. He not only gives ICE a pass to terrorize undocumented citizens. But he also laid the groundwork for his subsequent orders that the Marines will assist in subduing a non-existent uprising and “protect” ICE in their efforts to arrest and deport the undocumented living and working amongst us. Neither of these “orders” are justified or even legal. Nor do they represent what our Marines are trained to do. By these acts, he has demonstrated how he can—or will—terrorize other mixed communities and seize control over them as well. We know his intent, because he has already admitted it. In other words, if he can accomplish these objectives in California, the most populated State in the United States—and the State most likely to vote with the Democratic Party—he can have his way with the rest of America. Dictators often assume similar ways of gaining control over a populace: first, seize authoritative power beyond what is allocated to their position; second, subject their governed populace to a military only they can control. And that second step can be difficult to overcome, for it often leads to bloodshed which further justifies military control.
The above words were written yesterday, 6-13-2025, literally as Senator Alex Padilla was being man-handled by Secretary Noem’s security detail. Today, we Californians awake to a massive turnout of Los Angeles residents in a vociferous, though peaceful, protest. Although ICE and President Trump are mentioned, many protestors paraphrase what I wrote above. When you hear them speak, you hear the voice of American citizens who love this country. They are patriots whose voices resound with the same ideals as our founding fathers. Many of them are immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants, just like most Americans. The irony of President Trump’s war against undocumented immigrants is the fact that he himself is the son of immigrants—just like the rest of us. When he claims that the undocumented immigrants are murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and so on, he generalizes what is so obviously a self-serving lie. He is not the great leader who is saving America. Just look at the faces of the LA demonstrators and hear what they have to say. They speak in the language of everyday Americans. We recognize them as one of us. Donald Trump is nothing but himself. And that self, as his whole life attests, is only about self-interest. Where in his display of ego, have we witnessed private virtue? Why then should we expect any display of public virtue, as so many Los Angelenos demonstrate today. His actions reveal who he really is. And our Governor last night took the measure of the man and found him unfit for office. I think our first President would agree.
_______________________________________________
1 The inspiration for this blog is Thomas E. Ricks’ “First Principles.” In his epilogue, he quotes Cicero’s question, “what kind of country have we become?”