A Fresh Look at John Adams

History could be rather dull, if you have learned it in school in China as I did, because it was simply a long litany of facts, dates and names. It only becomes fascinating when we see it repeating, or when we discover a new interpretation of historical events that defies the conventional wisdom. And that is how I feel about the HBO movie which claimed several Golden Globe awards “John Adams”, with superb acting from Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney as John and Abigail Adams.

Those of us who are not very well-versed in American history still know about John Adams, but surely his name stands behind his contemporaries such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. From what I learned previously in school, I had an impression that the American Revolution was spearheaded by a group of lofty-minded intellectuals, and everything went perfectly according to plan. That version was neither interesting nor educational.

With this HBO movie, I do not profess to know the veracity of all the details, but I find it very fascinating and believable – and more importantly, much more enlightening than the previous version I learned.

John Adams was a short and stocky man, without the regal gravitas of George Washington, the worldly persona of Benjamin Franklin, or the sophisticated charm of Thomas Jefferson. Without height and charisma to aid him, his rise to fame was purely based on his intellect, hard work and integrity. When he argued passionately for standing up to the regime of England against the wimpy representatives from southern states, he did not get support from others who even shared his opinion, including Franklin and Jefferson. It turned out that Franklin and Jefferson were more politicians than idealists, whereas John Adams was more idealist than politician. In private, they told John Adams how they supported his position, but that they did not want to make enemies. They only came to his side when the tide turned more in that direction and it was politically savvy and safe to do so.

When Adams went to France to enlist the help of the French, he wanted to go straight to see the king, whereas Benjamin Franklin told him that it’s more important to first live like the French, and then to try to talk. That includes taking up the French habits, including having a mistress. Of course, the puritan in Adams made it impossible for him to do that, and he really WAS passionate about the cause. So he tried to push, and sure enough, the French were not keen about serious conversations, and found him too serious. He found no audience for his cause, and his earnestness was not reciprocated. With Benjamin Franklin portraying him as a loose cannon in letters back home, he was effectively demoted and sent off to Holland. He got sick, and was terribly homesick, but still tried heroically to get the Dutch to lent money to the independence movement, without success until after the British surrendered.

Later on, when he became the president, with Jefferson as his VP, he tried to pursue what he believed the right agenda for the country, which means having neither Andrew Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson in his camp. He resisted going to war with France (thereby alienating Andrew Hamilton), because he was right in saying that the young United States could not afford to get into an unnecessary war. But he also resisted Jefferson’s push on the other side to become too close to France and Jefferson’s belief in having a very weak federal government (thereby alienating Thomas Jefferson). His whole life was dedicated to the ideals of independence, democracy and justice, whereas other politicians were much more practical and human – they too, fought for those ideals, but they thought of personal positioning a lot more.

His son, John Quincy Adams, become a president as well. Heavily influenced by his father (or one could say a carbon copy of his father), John Quincy Adams was too saintly to stay in the president’s office for more than one term. He was so pure that instead of inspiring others, he enlisted fewer friends, because most people were not that pure. A devout Christian, he was the only president that put his hand on a book of laws when he was sworn into office, as opposed to a Bible, to demonstrate his commitment to the separation of church and state. Knowing how certain policies would be unpopular, he chose to implement them anyways, instead of worrying about his re-election. As a matter of principle, he did not assemble a cabinet of his own, but rather kept most of the cabinet members from the previous administration to demonstrate that he would rely on merit as opposed to personal loyalty for his political appointments. As a result, all presidents after him decided to assemble their own cabinets, for obvious reasons. Even after John Quincy Adams lost the re-election, he chose to be a congressman and served in the House of Representatives until his death during a house debate, because he said that “there is no greater honor than serving your country”.

Rep. John Quincy Adams, 1848

This movie did not turn John Adams into a hero. He was passionate, earnest and honest, but he could often be emotional, impetuous and obtuse. While he chose to do the right thing for the country at huge political costs to himself, he was bitter about it, as opposed to philosophical or graceful about it.

There are perhaps two major lessons to learn from this movie, or this rendition of the history. One is that each revolution or bold endeavor requires idealists, but rarely could idealists emerge as the winners, even if the revolution turns out to be a success. Two is that in order to accomplish anything that involves human beings, one has to not only accept the numerous flaws of other human beings, but also adopt a fair number of them himself.

In a way, these two lessons are probably tied to each other. An idealist would not do things that are obviously wrong to accomplish an interim goal or to stay alive so that he could accomplish something bigger in the future, but a pragmatist would. A pragmatist still needs idealists in the mix to push certain things forward, although he himself would never want to be an idealist or serve as a martyr. What is theoretically good and right often cannot be done because human beings go by feelings and emotions rather than theory most of the time.

History does repeat itself. The Chinese communist revolution, which happened centuries later, had its own share of idealists and pragmatists, with the idealists paving the way for the pragmatists to claim victory.


So what is the relevance of these lessons to us? – It would seem that idealists should wake up and become pragmatists. But I think we as human beings should not be so harsh with ourselves. After all, when we force ourselves to change in a certain direction that does not fit our temperament, we might lose what makes us special or good to start with. We are what we are. If we are naturally pragmatists, we should find some visionary idealists to work together to accomplish something great. If we are by nature idealists, we should bear in mind that we will be at best John Adams as opposed to Thomas Jeffersons or George Washingtons, and at worst “lunatic losers”, and we ought not to be bitter about it, because what we are determines the role we will play.