George Washington's Farewell Address

by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Webster

On September 17,1796, George Washington announced that he would leave the presidency. His famous farewell address encapsulates a view of the Union, the Constitution, and good citizenship that is an important part of American political thought today.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Classics, American History, American, Essays

40 pages, Hardcover

First published July 17, 1913

About the author

George Washington was an American military leader, statesman, and Founding Father who served as the first President of the United States. He is often referred to as the "Father of His Country" for the central role he played in the founding and early development of the nation.
Born into a family of Virginia planters, Washington grew up on the family's estates and received limited formal education. As a young man, he became a land surveyor, which provided him valuable knowledge of the American frontier. He began his military career in the Virginia militia during the French and Indian War, gaining experience that would later serve him during the American Revolution.
In 1775, with tensions between the American colonies and Great Britain reaching a breaking point, Washington was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army by the Second Continental Congress. Leading a force that was often underfunded, poorly equipped, and inexperienced, Washington faced a series of challenges. Despite suffering early defeats, he demonstrated resilience and strategic skill, securing important victories at Trenton and Princeton. His leadership at the Siege of Yorktown led to the surrender of British forces and ultimately secured American independence.
Following the Revolutionary War, Washington voluntarily resigned his commission and returned to private life at Mount Vernon, a move that reinforced the principle of civilian control of the military. However, the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation soon became evident, and Washington returned to public service as the presiding officer at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. His steady leadership helped facilitate the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution.
Unanimously elected as the first President, Washington took office in 1789 and served two terms. During his presidency, he set many important precedents that would shape the role of the executive branch, including the creation of a Cabinet and the peaceful transfer of power. His leadership style emphasized unity and national identity at a time when political divisions threatened the stability of the new republic.
Washington's foreign policy was characterized by neutrality, particularly during the conflicts arising from the French Revolution. He promoted peaceful relations with foreign powers, most notably through the Jay Treaty with Great Britain. Domestically, he dealt with challenges such as the Whiskey Rebellion, asserting the authority of the federal government to maintain order.
Although a wealthy plantation owner who held enslaved people throughout his life, Washington's views on slavery evolved over time. In his will, he made arrangements to free the individuals he directly owned, setting a precedent among the Founding Fathers and reflecting his personal conflict over the institution.
After completing two terms, Washington declined to seek a third, emphasizing the importance of term limits and setting a lasting example. In his Farewell Address, he warned against the dangers of political factions and entanglements in foreign affairs, advice that influenced American political thought for generations.
George Washington's legacy endures in American culture, politics, and national identity. His name and image have been commemorated in countless ways, from the capital city of Washington, D.C., to monuments, currency, and public institutions. Admired for his leadership, character, and devotion to republican ideals, Washington remains one of the most respected figures in United States history.

Reviews

[John Yelverton · Rating 5 out of 5]

The greatest speech from the greatest President.

[Jason Pierce · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read in The Constitution of the United States of America and Selected Writings of the Founding Fathers.

Five stars for content, but I had some problems with it so it's getting three instead. Today is the 220th anniversary of this being published in newspapers across the country (though my book has September 17th, 1796 above the address), so I decided to read it to smarten myself up a bit.

This was mostly written by Madison in 1792 (at the end of Washington's first term when he was considering retirement) with additions from Washington and Hamilton in 1796, and they will insist on using 100 words when 10 would do just as well, and the words aren't even great. This made reading it a chore, and the word "snoozefest" kept invading my thoughts as I trudged through it. I'm not the smartest man out there, and my reading comprehension leaves a little to be desired, but I'll try to sum it up here as I saw it:

I'm not doing this for another four years.
Play nice.
Y'all got something good going here with this new government, don't fuck it up.
Factions are bad, so watch out for the bad guys, and don't be the bad guys.
Honesty is the best policy in public and private life.
Peace out.

This is actually quite relevant today, and if Washington was sincere with this address, then there is no doubt in my mind that he is rolling over in his grave, clawing to get out so he can turn around and deck somebody. Or everybody. Everything he warns against is stuff we're dealing with this very day and have been dealing with since he entered the "mansions of rest." What's more is that this is read in the senate every year since 1896 (and on and off between 1862 and 1896) with great fanfare on Washington's birthday, and I wonder if anyone hears a damn word of it. "We've read your address, and will now ignore it as we always have. Happy fucking birthday, you old coot."



One thing that struck me was a word in the first sentence. "The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive..." blah blah blah. It's the word "citizen." Of course all of our leaders are citizens, but how many consider themselves such? I'm willing to bet the majority feel they're more than a citizen. They aren't equals with the rank and file down here; they're rather elitist. At least that's how they act. Hell, GW probably felt he was above the masses as well, but how often does one think of a citizen being president? This isn't really making a lot of sense right now, but I swear it did before I started typing this paragraph. Oh well. I think I'll leave it here anyway.

As great as the whole message is, I'm still sticking with three stars because I can. I know I really ought to let the historical significance be the primary focus and that I shouldn't judge this by the quality of its prose, but I'm going to let that be a factor anyway because I'm tired. And cranky. And it was just really weighty, though it didn't have to be. Plus, I read this out of the Barnes and Noble founding fathers' collection which is fancy with gold paint on the edge of the pages. This flecks off when you mess with those pages, gets all over everything, and now I look like a Solid Gold dancer's uncle.



I often feel like taking a shower after reading political writings from today's leaders, but I never thought I'd have to due to one of the founding fathers. Goddam glitter.

I think everyone should read this, or at least a summary of it.

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Parting wisdom from one of history’s greatest statesmen. I wish I could take the time to give this the review it deserves, but these are some of his key points:

Advocates strong, united government
“Moderate the fury of party spirit”
Pay off debt during times of peace
Necessity of checks and balances
Religion and morality are necessary for government

A couple of key passages--

“Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian.”

“Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports….Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”

There was some complex sentence structure, perhaps in part due to the antiquity. ( I actually counted one sentence that contained 171 words.) It required a higher than average amount of concentration for me to fully appreciate reading this.

Personal note—My daughter came in while I was reading this, and we had an incredible discussion. I was not aware that she had read this address last year. She shared some insights into how this address has shaped her political philosophy. Kudos to HS curriculum that includes a study of this landmark address.

Highly recommend reading this.

[Gavin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good advice from the Father of our country. And that advice is so easy to follow if one just keeps it in mind when passions are inflamed. A good time for a re-read.

..."This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."

Wiser words could not be needed today.

[Alyssa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Make America Eloquent Again.

[BAM doesn’t answer to her real name · Rating 4 out of 5]

Does anyone know? Was this written by Hamilton ? It sounds like it, but my copy says nothing.

[Vincent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every U.S. citizen should read this. G. Washington’s advice and warnings are relevant to this day.

[Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Fascinating Exploration of the Role of Government in American History

In overviews of American history, Washington's farewell address is characterized by admonitions against political parties and for an isolationist model of international relations. The address itself is actually more nuanced than that. Where he discourages "the fury of party spirit," he also specifically warns against "characterizing the parties by Geographical discriminations," as doing so invites individuals to sow division and undermine liberty and democracy. Instead, Washington advocates for loyalty to country above all else. He even goes so far as to say that alliances among the parts of the nation cannot uphold liberty the way alliance to the whole of the nation and the individual's participation in upholding the laws and the government do. In Washington's philosophy, democratic government is not static, but a continual agreement among citizens with a common interest. As to isolationism, he similarly encourages interaction and trade with other nations, but discourages making alliances with or enemies out of other nations, as these politics will only serve to undermine the delicate balance of government at home. His farewell address espouses carefulness in governance and loyalty to the US government above loyalty to any other divisions within the nation. Rather than a hard-and-fast set of rules like we often hear about, it is a philosophical treatise on the nature of government. I couldn't help but think, as he wrote about the alliances between parts vs. alliance to the union as a whole, about the debates about states' rights arguments leading up to and through the civil war, the debates about states' rights we still have about abortion, drug policy, and other hot button issues, that Washington's philosophy is still up for debate. As he made clear, democracy is an ongoing agreement, and as a nation we still debate that agreement over 200 years later.

[Ethan Duell · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.”

America has unfortunately proved right every one of Washington’s prescient points in his farewell address: Running up the national debt to the detriment of future generations, favoriting some nations (Israel, Ukraine), while hating others (China, Russia), getting entangled in Europe’s drama (WWI, WWII, and probably WWIII here soon), creating a passionate factional party system to divide the nation, and the list goes on.

Just as he warned, If Washington were around today he would be “suspected and odious” to most Americans, especially those who would like to think themselves patriotic.

I hope ol’ George enjoyed his retirement and I am glad he isn’t around to see America today.

[Garrett Cash · Rating 5 out of 5]

What if you could ask George Washington what he learned from his forty-five years of service to the United States, and what he would want people to learn and remember based on the wisdom he obtained? This eloquent address is the answer. It is as sobering, insightful, prescient, and wise as you would hope for from the first and greatest President.

[🐞 · Rating 1 out of 5]

this book sucks. he used too many words for my liking. anyways, will not read again. no flavor.

some good points though. so one star.

[Delanie Dooms]

Washington's main point is that the Union of the United States--politically, economically, and culturally--ought not to be broken. This thing, this collection of the community into a Whole, is what is most important to the liberties that the United States can offer as long as it remains a republic. Throughout the speech, he pays attention to these key areas of unity, making clear that things like the national morals (which he links indissolubly with a common religion, believing morals to be ultimately derived from religion), and the national identity itself (the idea of being an American, rather than a Republican, a Democrat, a Floridian, etc., etc.) are all-important to induce in the popular mind. That the popular mind must also be "enlightened" (educated) is important beyond measure, for, with the proper context (for this purpose, the supposed American cultural context, but it extends further), that enlightened mind will be able to furnish itself with good government and liberty.

Economically, he is happy to note that all the sections of the United States, existing under equal laws, benefit with trade one from the other on equal terms; that, if this were not the case, not only would squabbles of economy be brought to the fore, but that foreign nations--and treaties with said nations--could result in wars between the states, if not unified. This is classic Federalist talk. The point is that the federal government, by virtue of governing the whole--of governing the individual, not the state--is able to heal the factiousness between existing states by forming them into one country, subject to the same laws, and unified. (As a note, because of this unity, he reckons that the military need not be large, for now the individual countries are merely states in the Union, not subject to war with one another, unless faction arises.)

With all this in mind, Washington makes clear that what he is talking about is an "experiment". The society which he helped build, and which he claims the people built, is nothing more than air if it fails. Hence, he must talk of things to be warned against.

He cautions against disunity of any sort. Party politics is his main aim. That politics, especially state politics, could undermine the unity he establishes quickly. Loyalty not to America, but to Florida, or Arkansas, or Minnesota, etc., etc., whilst disparaging other states allows for faction to grow. He notes that revenge and party-patriotism are common–but that, in addition, such political parties, through their inquietude, tend toward a desire, ultimately, among the people, for security and repose–repose and security that is placed in an absolutely powerful individual, who will use it to seek power and take it. What he seems to mean is that parties are naturally dissident–that, in essence, parties allow for jealousies unneeded, insurrections uncalled for, interference by foreign countries by conniving with the party interest–and, in this sense, tend toward distending the unity of country until the body pops.

He goes far into aiming at factiousness, too. Although, "the basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government" one must be aware that said government, the laws under it, etc., are not to be broken unless duly changed. Indeed, the fatal tendency to subvert laws must be avoided, or the forces of faction--seeds of such dissent--will be formed; that, essentially, the minor or majority in favor of themselves and not the common weal, of party and not the common weal, are thrown at the gov’t if such were to happen in this country. The levers of power, needless to say, would be in danger, and the end result could very well be the destruction of the system previously known.

Indeed, to remove factiousness, the delegation of power is itself essential. Speaking as a general principles, the different political elements of the United States gov’t ought to be diffident one to the other, not to encroach one on the other, and even should act as if the others want this to happen–all this allowing a trend toward the checks and balances of gov’t being preserved, preserved as they are essential toward the ability for liberties to exist when power, by nature of itself as power, can be wielded horribly.

Finally, Washington suggests that foreign nations must be loved equally, neither shall there be hatred or infatuation; that, in the first case, conflicts of a passionate nature, illogical, even bloodthirsty (on either side) may become evident, and in the second that the benefits conferred upon the favored nation will be but jealousy-inducing in those less fortunate and the “need” for giving such good things to the favored nation is questionable of itself. In addition, it allows for individuals to subvert the nation-state itself, because, ultimately, they can hide behind love of the favored nation in exclusion of the interests of the nation in which one lives. This all being predicated upon that idea that different nations do not have a common interest, so-called, as they are not under the same gov’t. His opinion, as the whole of the work suggests, presupposes the existence of the nation state--indeed, is wrapped in such ideas. I personally feel his arguments above about the cynical nature of American trade (if it works as he wishes it to work) suggest the system is self-fulfilling. It is realist in the worst sense, because his cautious assumption that all other countries are as cautious as himself, or at least are doing the things which his caution suggests they must do, if followed to their natural conclusion, means that all countries working with any country must also follow along those same cautious lines for fear of dire consequences. A real favor, to him, from another nation, is merely illusory; those nations do not have a real common interest. Hence, all nations must feel the same way as he does, and the separation is impossible to close unless by one big government, but, it seems, the underlying import of his argument is that such a thing doesn't exist or cannot exist.

Modern American society is far from the one envisioned by Washington. His ideas about common unity, his deprecation of party politics, his insistence on a small military, neutrality in foreign affairs (economic and political), the fundamental importance of religious feeling, and even (in some parts of the country) the essential need for an "enlightened" voter base are all lacking.

In modern American society, the importance of a single, unified country has lost meaning. His insistence that, culturally speaking, the identity category of American should be predominant (as opposed to the categories of Republican, Californian, Democrat, etc., etc.) is lost. The importance he places on religious feeling--the common religion of the United States, a basis for the moral feeling which he thinks cannot be disserved from religion--are degrading as time continues.

It is certainly not the "The greatest speech from the greatest President", but it is interesting. I enjoyed reading it, think his ideas on faction are probably just--at least, his ideas on party politics.

One thing of particular note about this speech, and which is sometimes lost in the conversation nowadays, is the importance that was placed by the Founding Fathers on the ability to amend the Constitution. In short, Washington thought this: "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

Why this is important now is not so much because we should venerate the framers of the Constitution--and, of course, we should not: these were people, like ourselves, subject to their own social conditions, fallible, etc., etc.--but because some people do valorize the Founding Fathers. These people go so far as to admit into their reasoning an almost sacredness to these people, suggesting to us that America's laws are laws forever, that change is merely a perversion, whereas--even if Washington's thoughts are expressed with sacred language--the whole idea is that we must follow the laws and change them if we think fit, not that they are commandments to be followed without question.

[Paul Haspel · Rating 5 out of 5]

George Washington, an innovator and originator in so many ways, established many traditions of the American presidency, an office that he was the first to occupy under the modern American constitutional system. One of the presidential traditions that he established – one followed by every subsequent president except for Franklin D. Roosevelt, and now codified into law – was that of serving two terms in office, and no more. Another tradition – one followed by some presidents, but by no means all – was that of giving a farewell address. As his term of office neared its end in 1796, President Washington felt obliged to share with the American people his impressions of the progress of republican democracy in the United States of America; and his Farewell Address reveals a great deal – about George Washington as human being and statesman, and about the U.S.A., both then and now.

Washington expresses a concern about national unity, writing that the North and the South, the East and the West, “must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments”. Washington knew from presiding over the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia twelve years earlier that the whole great constitutional experiment had very nearly fallen apart because of disagreements between Northern and Southern delegates over the issue of slavery. He also knew that there had been attempts to detach the Western frontier states from the Eastern coastal states and ally them with Spain, or with some other foreign power; Aaron Burr would face a treason trial over just such a conspiracy, years after Washington’s death. Hence the urgency with which Washington insists that “every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union”.

Washington is also worried, very worried, about what he calls “the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.” It is understandable that he held such worries. He began his first term with a true Dream Team of a cabinet – John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, James Madison, Edmund Randolph. But he saw that cabinet descend into faction, as disagreements over economic and foreign policy prompted a breach between Hamilton and his nascent Federalist Party on the one hand, and Jefferson and his newly forming Democratic-Republican Party on the other. Washington saw the spirit of “faction” – a term that many of the Founders used to refer to the formation of rival political parties with differing interests – as something that “leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism”, as “the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”

Eloquently put, and appropriately grim in tone for Washington’s purposes; but how truly applicable is this scenario of a United States Caesar constructing an imperial despotism on American soil? Washington may not have seen it, but he had his own share of the “spirit of party,” siding with Hamilton against Jefferson in the cabinet disputes of his first administration; he seems to have seen Federalist policies as most truly in the national interest, and he parted from Jefferson on distinctly unfriendly terms. In the same way, both Democratic and Republican presidents of modern times have tended to see their own policies as the truly “American” policies that are most clearly in the national interest, and have felt betrayed when others, whether from within or outside their party, have opposed them. Perhaps political parties, for all their imperfections, provide in a democracy the best way for competing interests to make sure that their voices will be heard. But anyone who tried to make that suggestion to President Washington, in that time, might have seen a flash of Washington’s famous temper.

Washington’s third and final main area of emphasis relates to the foreign relations of the United States. In one of the address’s most famous passages, he calls upon the American people to “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.” In this admonition, no doubt Washington had in mind the party rivalries of his time, with Hamilton’s Federalists wishing for a British alliance and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans hoping just as avidly for an alliance with France. Washington, despite his sympathy for the Federalists, seems to feel that either of these alternatives would be equally injurious to the national interest: “Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.”

What would Washington, with his declaration that “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world”, think about NATO? Or how would he feel about the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance, in which Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, and the United States of America all share confidential information? Impossible to say, but interesting to wonder.

Its specifics of policy aside, the Farewell Address is interesting as a look into the mind of George Washington. His literary style, even within the context of the sometimes stilted norms of 18th-century English, is heavy and sometimes awkward. One will not find in Washington’s writing any of the playfulness with which Benjamin Franklin wrote; one will search in vain for the literary elegance with which Thomas Jefferson composed long periodic sentences in which the reader somehow never gets lost; one does not even see here much of the cut-to-the-chase directness so characteristic of Alexander Hamilton’s contributions to The Federalist Papers.

Washington’s style is often ponderous, but it undeniably reflects the man’s sincerity. And the humility with which the man who would not be king writes in his conclusion that “I am…too sensible of my own defects not to think it probable that I have committed many errors”, and expresses “the hope that my country will never cease to view [those errors] with indulgence”, is compelling.

From among subsequent presidential farewell addresses, Dwight D. Eisenhower’s address is remembered for his prescient warnings of a “military-industrial complex,” a system in which war might become profitable and beneficial for military leaders and defense contractors alike. And Ronald Reagan’s address is recalled for its invocation of America as a “city on a hill” – though Reagan erred in identifying the term’s originator, John Winthrop, as a Pilgrim when Winthrop was actually a Puritan. But there is no Farewell Address like that of George Washington. In that, as in so many things, he set a precedent in a moving and memorable way.

[DougInNC · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is politics made poetic, a short treatise written with beauty of word and carefulness of thought, from unprecedented experience and virgin love of country. Lyrical are these words, expansive yet poetic all the same. The actions suggested or implored beseech one country, under God, to realize the ambitions and potential inherent in an infant nation. How amazed would be Geo Washington, though saddened so greatly by the Civil War and politics of late, to see what has been wrought and endured.

Four favorite quotes:
"... it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; ..."

"... the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

"A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

"The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; ..."

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

A difficult read. I would love to see this translated into modern english.

This is, perhaps, the most important speech ever given by a President of The United States of America. It seems bold, but only because it reveals how far we have strayed from the path, even the vision, that George Washington had for this country.

In a time when partisan politics threaten to tear us apart, this address can remind us of the wisdom that we were offered in old times, but didn't accept. Yet, we still could, if we are willing.

Yes, Washington's words are rooted in common sense, but also in the wisdom of a President who was well aware of the divergent paths that lead to totalitarianism. He saw the future and outlined for us a clear path to enduring prosperity, if we would take it.

In my mind, this address stands side-by-side with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

[Gwen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Struck by how spot on Washington's concerns were for potential pitfalls that can undermine democracy. One that stands out as particularly relevant today is how corrosive the human tendency to place party or splintered geographic interests ahead of the union. "In the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people" and destroy the "very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion".

While drawing Congressional districts gets little attention from most voters, uncompetitive and unresponsive Congressional boundaries drawn in the name of "parties winning" an election as opposed to the desire to serve have contributed mightily to the disease rotting away a responsive government.

This address should be mandatory reading.

[Carolyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Washington humbly gave parting advice to Americans. He advised that virtue and morality are necessary to a freedom. He warned against those who would undermine the Constitution and recommended avoiding political parties and permanent alliances with any foreign nation. Unity was key. Did he for see the Civil War? Maybe. For sure he saw a lot of rivalries and discord in his time. He was a classy man of character who demonstrated great leadership. He truly wanted what was best for his country and sacrificed for it selflessly. I vote for him the greatest president our country has ever had!

[Alison · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a humble man. He deeply cares for the people and states his worries for the future of the country. He is very against political parties because they tend to divide the nation and not allow us to work together for the greater cause. He foresaw many things that could go wrong with our country; some of which have already occured.

[Zinger · Rating 5 out of 5]

The advice Washington gives is timeless. Each citizen should study and understand what he said. Every politician should reread this right before they take their sacred oath to defend the U.S. Constitution so they would get a glimpse of what they ought to be doing. In fact, every politician shouldn't go to work each day until they have read it each morning.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Washington was a president that had just about everything right. Since this was not written mainly by him but these were his ideas nonetheless this is a great work. Anyone interested in American politics and/or Foreign Policy should read this. It hits at the heart of what America was built on and how far we have strayed.

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoughtful advice from the first president of this great experiment to the future. He expressed the importance of being United, the perils of party, the concerns of being too cozy with foreign states and the need for educated and enlightened citizens. A good reminder of the hope our founders had for this country.

[Galicius · Rating 4 out of 5]

Washington’s “Farewell Address” advocates strong, united government, moderating “fury of party spirit”, paying off debt during times of peace, necessity of checks and balances, and teaches that religion and morality are necessary for government.

[Rachael]

Some very powerful lines that show Washington as completely dedicated to the service of the country he helped to create, rather than asking the country to serve him. We need more leaders like our Founding Fathers.

[Susanne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Probably beautifully written at the time, but rather stiff and formal today. Still, some very interesting advice on how to live in a republic which is still pertinent.

[Marilyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beautiful. His parting hopes for a solid republic: no foreign alliances, and no divisive political parties. His principles, voice, and warning is still current today.

[BookDrunkard is on storygraph as bookdrunkard78 · Rating 4 out of 5]

With this being an election year, I'm drawn more than usual to history and events that shaped our nation. Having read this, I'm interested to read other farewell addresses.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9_9_...

[Andrew Ziegler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow.

[James Harbaugh · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was once a required reading for many civic classes and for reasons that should be very apparent with regional, economic, and ideological fissures on spectrum's. The verbiage is a little antiquated which makes it flowery but hard to resonate with much of the population as language evolves (or devolves from your perspective but it changes with the generations nonetheless as noted in Gustav LeBon's "The Crowd"). Despite warning about the dangers of forming political parties and regionalism the rest of the founders quickly formed them after the abdication of the could have been king... and then there was the Industrial Revolution (dissolution of an egalitarian, rural, agrarian republic), the Civil War (regionalism with human vs. states vs. federal rights), the Cold War (ideology), and now greater online globalism (Cyber)... So things have changed by orders of magnitudes with complexity but the solid advice in the address has some neurological underpinnings that world similar to groups of polarized-spectrum traits. The "Left-Right '' obfuscates the sub components like a music mix border but rather than letting each individual set the level of each... there are all pulled in one of two directions which and at max with no nuance and all in two groups so the only way to blend or be different is in the apathetic center (which would be different for each, 25% on the bass, 47% on the treble, and that's all I know about that besides front, back and of course left and right but studio mixers have all kinds of dials and sliders). So with that I think some definitions and factoids could help with a software update for Washington's spectrum unity without it breaking at the center but also allow for a mixture of bimodal basket settings.

First up... party names are pretty charged and even their political underpinning so definitions first:

Conservative - Just looking at the word, it means to conserve... conservation is often associated with protecting wildlife of nature (a tangent)... but in a programming sense this is more about conserving the policies and traditions of the past. It's a great function as you wouldn't want to throw away all of society and start over from scratch. This is the best part of history, because if it's retained (or conserved) and put into the right context, you don't have to repeat a mistake and those can be extremely costly at tribal, imperial, national, or whatever the group's level is. The downside is that environments and contexts change, technologies and circumstances change... and not updating certain features of society can lead to disaster as well (as a whole as Amish or indigenous tribes can still exist without so long as the larger structure doesn't collapse).

Liberal - As a complementary function and not necessarily adversarial, more liberal politics can look at problems and come up with new or past but forgotten policy applications. The two difficult things with conservatism is knowing what is vital and doesn't need changed (Bret Weinstein often uses Chesterton's Fence which is a heuristic not to change something if you don't know what it does) and being open enough to acknowledge what is not work and why it needs to be changed. Granted, openness falls under liberal and people have the capacity for both but are on a spectrum. Yet while Liberal functions have to come to an agreement on those facets as well, the hardest thing is finding the best known policy. If something is unknown and trial and error... chances are there will be lots of errors before success is found... and then that will be conserved and the search phases of vitality and in need of repair is updated with room in the middle and a reason for both operations.

Gut Reaction and uncertainty (Openness)

These polarities come up often as they have overlapping correlations in brain structures and chemistry (though everyone has a little of each their are various shades of higher dominance). The first one comes from Scott Weem's "HA!" (pretty sure)... the general features are the Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC, the front inner area under the prefrontal cortex and connecting to the corpus callosum which links the hemispheres) and the amygdala (the areas in front of the hippocampus). The amygdala is simpler and while it gets blamed for everything bad in the brain... one of its features is storing threats in a less episodic memory system than the hippocampus. Conservatives tend to have larger amygdala and that would be consistent with the definition as you'd want to store things that are harmful and avoid them or things that closely resemble them or change in general if things are going well. On the other hand liberals tend to have larger ACC's which deals with conflict resolution (pain being one form with a prediction-observation-error model) which is great when it comes to dealing with uncertainty and trying to navigate that space... These also tend to have gender clusters as women (or female minds) show the same characteristics with higher pain or conflict (like a toddler's temper tantrums) and male tend to be more emotional in conflict (YOU WANT TO GO BRO! or run in a fight or flight sense). The structure size tends correlate with that but gender is mental with a high correlation to physical sex and far more components. These vary with the person and their experiences as traumas can enlarge the amygdala as in the case of PTSD (The Since of Sin or The Hacking of the American mind or both)... I'm not aware pain tolerances vary on emotional states as well (The Neuroscience of Pain, Emotions, and Stress) so there's a lot of interplay and ablitiy to change with exposure to certain experiences but there are high correlations with good grounds for causation.

Disgust Levels (Others and Free Riders)

In Kathleen McAuliffe "This is Your Brain on Parasites" she covers a variety of fascinating experiments that can quickly, but perhaps temperately, slide a person farther to the conservative side based on disgust (a threat). I won't cover them in detail as it's an excellent book chalked full of factoids but it is worth noting how it applies to policy. Migration is one and she displays how it is more likely xenophobia than racism with some interesting statistical tests. Here reasoning is a more primitive ingroup/outgroup response as outsider could be carrying disease (parasites) as was the case for most then and a theme of her book but in tribal times the other might kill, rob, rape, or enslave you... so alienating them as "unknown" or "different" could trigger the amygdala... (in a game theoretic the gender specialty would make sense aside from disease as you're probably more like to die as a man only survive with fast reflexes where as women were often captives... so pain at first and then change would be useful). Same sex relations were more sensitive to disgust but sex in general was one of the examples I found most interesting. I won't give the numbers but female college students were given surveys on sexually related surveys and with some receiving a prime and the others as a control. The "prime" hand sanitizer dispenser or kleenex which subliminally relates to disease... (thus STDs but without mentioning them and extended association). The primed group tended to disclose more conservative questionnaires. So with that as the amygdala side there is also the disgust with pain or social pain... Jack Lewis's "The Science of Sin" has more data on the other regions involved in envy but the link up with the ACC. Social pain or shame, guilt, envy, and jealousy are largely hardwired in for group dynamics for fairness (though it can manifest in terrible ways as a blunt instrument)... "did you and your kids get a fair share of the hunt? Why does so and so get so much when they do so little? You should get that... whisper and gossip to your friends and let them know to give them the cold shoulder or maybe kick them out of the group." Kind of an inner monologue of a demon but it would have proved useful especially in tough times to make sure they endured a famine or other hardships. For the sake of the group shaming and guilt would have been a little more useful as an extension of Timothy Leary's 4th social circuit as a mooch, a thief, a hoarder, or someone else acting selfishly could endanger the group as a whole. The flip side of that would be validation to approve of desired actions and mold the group culture based on the pain and pleasure in shame and validation. That's more from RAW's Prometheus Rising and the dopamine factor is next but just as a modern example using old features. Both sides blend these features based on the past so the "trailer park queen" in the US or "illegal" immigrants getting some kind of aid triggers one side as it's displayed as unfair for breaking the rules (even if the immigration laws seem perpetually broken on purpose at the legislative purpose but that's my opinion) and taking from the group (though this ventures to propaganda and cherry picking from complex situations). On the other side it's more about the wealthy and tax policy... are they sharing enough for the contribution they put in (once again a highly complex matter and cherry picked cases can easily be found). This goes into a related but perhaps slightly separate polarity of Altruism ranging from concerns of one's self to family and scaling to humanity in general which is next.

Dopamine Levels
Lieberman and Long's "The Molecule of More" also has a great chapter on Politics and features that are present. It should be noted that the ACC is tied into the mesocortical limbic system heavily influencing the "prediction" part. I'll going in a different order and make four square grid with openness to experience (a big five trait) as a polarity on the x axis and dopamine levels as a polarity on the y axis. Using this the the authors have four fields: Progressive (liberal and high dopamine), Hippie (liberal low dopamine), Redneck (conservative, low dopamine), and Evangelical (conservative, high dopamine). If you've watched "Park's and Rec," Leslie Knopf would be the Progressive, Samuel Eliot guest appearance would be the hippy, Ron Swanson would be the Redneck, and Marcia Langman as the Evangelical. Dopamine levels in this respect influence a Top-down (these are the rules so follow them) or Bottom-up (this is my house/car/job/environment/planet etc to don't tell me what to do) and the imposing a diamond the grid would give the traditional authoritarian, libertarian, conservative, liberal field rather than doing the transform to see the mixtures. As an example with altruism, progressive tend to dominate charity giving in the US to NGOs... but rednecks are more likely to give at church or give help to direct family, friends, neighbors, and affiliate groups. Lower dopamine groups tend to be higher in the "here & nows" (oxytocin and vasopressin for longer lasting marriages and families on average) as the authors call them and less driven by the forever there's and then's of dopamine desire... their bonds are often tighter within their groups... but the higher dopamine groups are more concerned with multiple loose ties of how the group is doing as whole and not just it's parts with a forward looking view. Once again they could and should complement each other nicely if things are functioning properly though not without some... discussion. Looking at geography it makes sense on an economies of scale level and functionality level to see more high dopamine individuals in urban areas and lower dopamine individuals in the rural areas (which would have been more pronounced in the low industrial south pre civil war). There is way more shared space and potential for positive and negative externality in a city with things like expensive infrastructure, noise pollution, shared rules to interact with more people than you could ever know, and other systems that affect everyone in the area and have many overlapping layers of authority. Compare that with the sticks... you can rev your engine as loud as you like, walk outside in your boxers or nothing if it's just you, or pee on a tree (not good in groups like an Army or music festival as high amounts are toxic) all because there may not be another living soul for miles... it's all on you or your family and maybe friends but there's little day to day interface with authority and others... small towns are more in between as everyone seems to know everyone and you can't get away with anything without it spreading like wildfire (my childhood pre social media). This foursquare business is certainly an oversimplification as there are more polarities and switches like the DRD4 gene which has different levels of dopamine receptors for novelty (something seen across the globe as illustrate but in morose in different groups) which could segment off into a portion of curiosity for more refined, numerous, components of Psychometric mapping with genetic (along with the more epigenetic potions) and memetic (experience and education) features. The main point is that this spectrum exists for a reason, has built in variable parts unique to everyone, and are malleable to some extent.

Historical Issues

In "Complexification" by John L. Casti, uses the rural population and centralization as a landscape with two dependent axises’ and a fold in the dependent 3rd in an example of catastrophe theory. He uses older examples with chieftains but I'll throw some examples below. One side to side is charismatic authority, on the front back is marginalization of the rural, and as a vertical product at each mix is the degree of centralization. On the back of the field is a steady incline with low marginalization and high charisma for more centralization... but after reaching a peak in moving by charisma the centrality still wants to grow and he takes more food from the rural areas when production can't be increased... they centrality increase a little higher as it come forward with the marginalization... but eventually the charisma is lost with nepotism or some other feature and the centralization slowly decreases and then falls off a cliff on the front side not encountered on the back side of the field (a reason graphics are better for integrating greater complexities as he does on page 75 with this and many other examples). Modern examples of rural marginalization could be seen in Vietnam during the war in the South... The US had the cities but it couldn't win the countryside and the bombing only increased resolution (they had tunnels three levels deep and living in them for months... there was nothing to take away from them other than their way of life and the old theory of bombing them into submission like Germany was a psychological mishmash as they had modern lives and exceptions of what surrender would entail). The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is another as the urban areas were extremely modern with woman and men resembling many western customs which wasn't held in high regard by the much more conservative rural areas... the Soviets trying to convert the populous to atheism with the rest of their ideology was too much and the abstract cliff came with the mujahideen eventual pushed out the Soviets (with US financing... Osama falling under that umbrella and the Soviets providing infrastructure investment... all great examples of trying to change things without understanding why they are there). Though not to the same degree, the US showed some pretty bad cracks during COVID as the rural area (once again covering most of the country but containing a minority of the population) had some pretty heavy handed (but well intentioned) top down rules that went over in the better in the urban areas but not so well in the aforementioned rural areas. This is my concern: representation and messaging has the possibility of seeing Washington's warning manifest. Psywarfare is one issue that can aid in increasing this tension and knowledge and internet tools can make it much more effective... but there is a sword and a shield.

Contextuality in the Political "Landscape"

Geography is obviously a key factor in the nurture side of political shaping in terms of density. I know people do not like the Electoral College and it does need an update but not without remembering why it's there. The founders built in a bicameral legislature with one based on population citizenry for individuals by necessarily favoring big states while one was based on two representatives for each state to give smaller states a voice. That has morphed now and the "fly over states'’ benefit from the senate and sort of serve as a proxy for rural america despite each state having plenty of rural land but many have large cities. The presidential elections follow this application of electors and if they didn't... the rural states would have about as little say in the presidential election as a republican in California (Post Reagan). The system's not great but it has a reason for functioning that has relevance even if it was not intended for industrialized mega cities making populous states instead of just geographically large ones... the principle is similar. The major reason for the country's break away was a lack of representation and pushing them away because they have a different mindset (a mix of features suited to the context) than the urban areas with more media and political assets is a path to marginalization. Traveling to various cities and then their provinces there are many rednecks globally even if that's not the actual color but there's also tradition and culture to consider even if the context is similar. If you can explain why something should be done and don't just say do it... things usually tend work out better as the demographic cares about their close network usually regardless of the type of people in it so long as they know them (the identity vs outgroup mistake though propaganda can make the two one in the same especially if that identity threatens the ingroup in a manufactured cherry picked way). Culture varies from state to state and city to city and it's the same for the hinterlands so overgeneralizing on the memetic side isn't as useful... that said since most people differ with the polar variables it would be nice to see sub parties within the major parties as different shades to avoid group think of the leader and whip and allow for coalition building that promotes nuance and voters can identify with... The Foursquare could be one style to nest them inside and allow more degrees of freedom on the spectrum to have blocks bridging from the far ends to the center so the whole thing doesn't fall in (an arch holding against tension)

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

While hard to digest at times this was quite an informative piece. I definitely believe there are problems with parties which need to be addressed if not abolished all together. What Washington says about them has come to pass in a way; parties today are completely out of hand you would assume there would be debate on some issues, however, there are things that should never be ignored. Devos becoming head of the education department was clearly only because of the party system. Since when did Congress become so weary of using the checks and balances that it puts party over the good of the country? It should be used to keep our government just that... balanced, and working towards a stronger government. Here is my favorite passage from the entire address which I believe sums up a lot of government today in a flawed way:

"I have already intimated to you the danger of
parties in the state, with particular reference to the
founding of them on geographical discriminations.
Let me now take a more comprehensive view and
warn you in the most solemn manner against the
baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our
nature, having its root in the strongest passions of
the human mind. It exists under different shapes in
all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or
repressed; but in those of the popular form it is
seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst
enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over an-
other, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to
party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is
itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length
to a more formal and permanent despotism. The
disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more
able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this
kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely
out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs
of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the in-
terest and the duty of a wise people to discourage
and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils
and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates
the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against
another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the
government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

Washington would be shocked to see what our current adminstration is doing. When you play party politics when other countries are likely involved "see chaffetz not investigating Flynn etc" the party system is tearing our country apart and I hope in the near future is destroyed to the point of no one in any of the branches of government being labeled as Democrat or Republican but as just representatives of the United States of America.