 |
| Thomas Jefferson |
 |
| Barack Obama |
Philosophically speaking, President Thomas Jefferson and President Barack Obama could not be further apart. Jefferson was a Democrat-Republican, a nomenclature which to our modern mind might represent the best (or worst) of the political landscape, but which at the time referred to a political party that adhered to the ideals of republicanism: an agrarian society personified by the yeoman farmer; states’ rights; minimal or no taxation; and above all, limited government bureaucracy and limited government interference in the daily lives of American citizens. Its strength was in the South and West, and its champions included men (in addition to Jefferson) such as James Madison and James Monroe.
Opposed to the Republican Party was the Federalist Party comprised largely of merchants, bankers and entrepreneurs. The Federalists, by contrast, believed in a strong central government endowed with full powers to protect its citizens at home and to flex its muscles abroad. Its popularity was concentrated in the North, particularly in the five New England states, and its champions included such men as John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.
Whatever one’s political leaning might be today, few Americans would disagree that President Obama’s political philosophy is radically different from that espoused by President Jefferson.
One can argue, however, that both presidents made gross miscalculations on the need of a strong military, in particular a strong navy.
 |
| U.S. Battleship Division Nine, 1917 |
When serving as consul to France in the late 1780s and early 1790s, Jefferson made it known that he advocated a strong navy to protect American maritime interests against pirates and other seagoing miscreants (the backdrop of For Love of Country, volume II of the Cutler Family Chronicles). As vice president to John Adams, however, he flip-flopped on that issue. When he became president in 1801, he seemed to still favor a smaller navy, and yet sent five powerful naval squadrons to the Mediterranean during the war with Tripoli (the backdrop of the soon-to-be-released A Call to Arms, volume IV of the Chronicles). During his first administration the U.S. Navy expanded considerably in number of ships. But then, just as storm clouds were again gathering over the Atlantic and another war with Great Britain loomed, Jefferson reversed himself again and called for the construction of coastal gunboats to be given priority over the construction of frigates and other traditional naval vessels. To his mind, the coming war would be strictly a defensive affair, so why build more warships? How the United States would defend herself against the 1,000 ship Royal Navy with flotillas of gunboats was a question that Jefferson never seemed ready, willing or able to answer.
 |
| U.S. Navy Amphibious assault ships, 2010 |
Fast–forward two centuries. In the last of the three presidential debates, President Obama made what was to many analysts a similar gross miscalculation regarding the need for a strong naval presence. When informed by his debate opponent that the current Navy is smaller than it has been at any time since 1917, the president responded by essentially claiming that modern technology has obviated the need for a large standing navy. The United States can do very well, thank you very much, with a few aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. But is such a statement accurate?
In a New York Post article entitled “The Prez Misleads on the Military’s Needs” dated 10/24/12, Rear Adm. (ret.) Joseph Callo writes as follows:
“Our naval forces are now badly overextended. Equipment and people have been worn down –and there are serious questions about the ability of the downsized U.S. Navy to meet more than a limited number of major threats.”
Admiral Callo goes on to write, “Numbers do count, Mr. President, and at present we’re getting the numbers wrong. One ship, one plane, one person can be in only one place at a time. And no level of technological capability can make up for it if the ships, planes and people aren’t where we need them, when we need them and in sufficient numbers.” He cites the recent attack on the American consulate in Benghazi as an example of deficient naval forces in the Mediterranean unable to make a timely response that could possibly have saved the lives of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.
Putting twenty-first century technology aside, I can almost hear the echoes of Secretary of War Henry Dearborn and Navy Secretary Robert Smith delivering the same sort of message to President Jefferson in 1808.
Can you?
On a personal note, I want to state that Admiral Callow is an acquaintance of mine and I know him to be a patriot and a man of superior intellect and integrity. He is also the author of many fine books, his most recent being The Sea Was Always There.
Photo credits: Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peale in 1800, [public domain]; Official portrait of Barack Obama [public domain]; U.S. Battleship Division Nine steaming in to Rosyth, Scotland, 1918.[public domain]; Six of the U.S. Navy's seven Amphibious assault ships in formation, 2010, [public domain]
