.png)
“Virtue is not a word I’d apply to this situation.”
This line, sung by Daveed Diggs’s Thomas Jefferson in the hit broadway show Hamilton, is memorable for a variety of reasons. Not only is the wordplay with the preceding line humorous and Diggs’s delivery captivating, but the line is also infinitely quotable. I've found myself referencing that line a lot. I quote it to my girlfriend (the reason I watched Hamilton in the first place and a downright fanatic) whenever one of us does something laughable, and it’s especially appropriate every time someone brings up Jerry Falwell, Jr. When discussing humorous or trivial matters like these, that line can be quite funny. Recently, however, I’ve been disturbed by how often I’ve been able to quote that line in regards to serious political events.
I want to make clear that I’m not claiming our politics has always been virtuous. Factional politics, self-interest, and ambition have been features of our political system since the Founding. In fact, they’re purposefully baked into the system. As Publius notes in Federalist 10, “The causes of faction cannot be removed, and relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.” Our system seeks to control the effects of faction, not eliminate them. What I am claiming, and what disturbs me, is that there is no longer the expectation for any political actor to exercise virtue. This was not always the case.
Publius made clear that virtuous individuals were expected, even required, for the continuation of a well-functioning republic. He was right when he observed that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” Nor will those even statesmen “be able to adjust clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good.” But, there are some, “a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country.” Those leaders, guided by “patriotism and love of justice” are expected to sacrifice their own partial interests for the sake of the country. These statesmen to whom Publius refers are the members of the Senate, but I would argue that the expectation extends to all branches of the government. There must be those willing to sacrifice personal or partisan gain for the sake of the nation; otherwise, the republic falters.
King George III, after hearing that George Washington would resign his commission as general of the Continental Army and return to Mount Vernon, is quoted as saying, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” It’s easy to understand why the king thought this. Acting against one’s own interest, intentionally giving up power for the sake of the public good, is a rare human action. It requires a staggering amount of humility, patriotism, and love for others. It requires virtue. Washington provided Americans with an example of political, or republican, virtue. I have a hard time believing that example would be found in an American political leader today.
What’s worse is that it seems Americans no longer want virtuous leaders. Those who do act against their own interest for the sake of the public good are ridiculed as losers, at best, and traitors, at worse. Americans today want winners, leaders who fight to the top without concern for the things they break along the way. Virtue requires a willingness to lose. It requires doing the right thing when there’s sacrifice involved. It requires skepticism of power and a serious dose of humility. Sadly, those aren’t requirements many people ask of their leaders anymore.
It’s hard to pinpoint exactly when virtue left the sphere of American politics, but I think it’s clear that virtue is not the word anyone would apply to our situation. And for that, I am deeply concerned.
Will Randolph, of Franklin, Ky., is a member of the McConnell Scholar Class of 2022. He studies political science and Spanish at the University of Louisville.