WINNEMUCCA — I intended to write about Haiti and how fortunate we are to live in a country with such a strong infrastructure.  Then I remembered in the US our bridges fall down for no reason whatsoever, except benign neglect, so I thought it best not to be so hoity-toity on the topic.

Instead, I’m addressing a question recently posed to Sarah Palin who was asked, “Who’s your favorite Founding Father?”  To which she replied, “All of them … because they were so diverse.”  Unfortunately she continued.  Palin went on to note she admired the Founding Fathers because they found a way to come together and compromise on the issues despite their differences.

This caused howls of laughter from students of history around the country.  “Diverse?” they snorted contemptuously, “Diverse as only a group of rich, white men can be.”   

Oh, sure, they had differences.  For example, some of them believed it way okay to own black people while others believed it was not okay.  They compromised on the issue like this:  the Southern Delegation said, “You will let us continue owning our black people or we will give you opportunity to fight a Revolution all by yourselves.”  The Northern Delegation replied, “Oh. Okay.”

This method of diplomacy continued until 1861 when the Southern Delegation said, “You will let us continue owning our black people or we will leave the Union.”  To which Abraham Lincoln famously retorted, “Wanna bet?”

Although pundits have mocked Palin because she appeared not to know enough about American history to answer a simple question about the Founding Fathers, I would argue the question was anything but simple.

First, we only know a handful of the Founding Fathers.  If you look at a list of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution you will recognize very few names.  Samuel Adams and his beer don’t count. Most of the names familiar to us are so because they appear on our money.  Sadly, the economy has been such that lately it’s been all Washington and Lincoln.

What makes the Founding Father question hard for religious conservatives, like Palin, is thus:  many of our first leaders, especially the ones we’re most familiar with due to their great and daring deeds, were womanizers, drunks, and heathens.   You know, the good stuff they don’t teach in history class.

What makes the question hard for everyone in general is some of the Founding Fathers promoted the idea of “freedom” at a time when they themselves owned slaves and women had no rights and were promised none for their sacrifices during the Revolution.   

Be that as it may, Palin might have given two safe answers:  Washington and Adams.

True, Washington might be a little tricky.  During his first inaugural address he called upon Congress to establish a Bill of Rights that would ensure individual liberties (which he had been unable to get into the original Constitution). However, it would be some time before women and minorities shared in those liberties. 

On the other hand, he won the war!!  He had his ups and downs, but the Crossing of the Delaware is an action tale too bold to have been written by mere writers of fiction. 

But, Washington was a known slave owner; though, that’s not going to be anything that gets a conservative in trouble with other conservatives. I’m not sure why that is.  Liberals would have to tread pretty carefully there and acknowledge (with a sad face) Washington’s slavery exploits before moving on to praise the Crossing of the Delaware.  

John Adams is a much better choice for conservatives and the one I would recommend because he put so much spirit into championing our favorite legal documents:  The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution (he was out of the country on a diplomatic mission during the drafting of the latter, but this did not stop him from writing three really big books on the topic).   

More importantly:  he didn’t fool around on Abigail.  He was faithful to his church, wasn’t an overt drunk, and believed slavery was evil. 

As president he supported the Alien and Sedition Act, which some believed was written to prevent criticism of his administration from newspaper editorials, which were particularly brutal for everyone at that time. However, no one’s going to remember a little inconsistency like his support for both the Bill of Rights and the A&S Act. 

For my part I don’t really find Adams all that inspiring and would probably have answered Alexander Hamilton.  I’m that way, always aiming for the sand traps.

First and foremost, Hamilton was an immigrant who came to America to go to school and never left (just like the 9/11 terrorists). He kept a mistress and was himself illegitimate.  It would be just my luck that someone would know that and be critical of my choice for those reasons.

On the other hand, Hamilton was not born into wealth; he worked for it.  I’m always ready to admire a self-made man. I suppose it could be argued he was a big proponent of Second Amendment rights – depending on how you interpret things -- and was also a strict abolitionist. 

If people remember Hamilton at all, it’s as the former Secretary of the Treasury who was shot and killed in a duel by a sitting vice president.  Actually, the most they’ll probably remember is some sitting vice president shot and killed someone, but they won’t remember who and will probably confuse the matter with something Dick Cheney did.   

The public has largely forgotten Hamilton’s handiwork in framing the American economy.  While others (Jefferson) argued for an agricultural-based economy, Hamilton planted and nurtured the seeds of capitalism – for better or worse. 

See, that’s the thing about the question:  these men were complex and there were no easy answers for Palin – or for any of us.

I suppose the lesson in all of this is that politicians haven’t changed all that much.  To that end,  I leave you with the words Abigail Adams wrote to her husband while he attended the Constitutional Convention, which was held without the benefit of the feminine perspective.

“ ...remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could.”