Comparing Leadership Styles: Adams vs Jefferson

The Differing Leadership Styles of Adams and Jefferson:
A Modern Comparison
Throughout the history of this nation, we have rightfully honored the Founding Fathers for their key role in the building of our country. The revolutionary steps they took to craft a new nation representative of freedom, opportunity, democracy, and equality under the law place them in the upper echelon of American historical figures, and over time they've reached mythical status— more demigods than real people. However, it is important to note that the idea of complete political unity or identical ideologies and styles among the Founding Fathers is a mistaken one. The realities of early American politics show that, despite having previously united over the common

cause of revolution, many of our notorious Founding Fathers had widely differing views on how to best govern our fledgling nation. Moreover, America’s early political figures had widely differing personalities and approaches to leadership, much like the presidential candidates of today. Perhaps no two of our Founding Fathers better serve as examples for greatly differing styles of leadership than John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the second and third President of the United States. In addition, these two differing styles of leadership are also palpable in two modern 2016 Presidential candidates: Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton.
John Adams, our second President, held myriad positions over the course of our nation’s history, including delegate to both the first and second Continental Congress, Minister to the Netherlands, Minister to Great Britain, and Vice-President under George Washington all before ascending to the Presidency in 1797. Characterized as an assertive, self-assured man, Adams was a masterful conversationalist and entertainer but had no qualms about speaking his mind or sharing how he felt. He was even characterized as "The great volcano of American political debate” (Ellis 166). Despite being vocal about his feelings and prone to powerful arguments, he was firmly independent of the political factions that developed in his time. He worried newly formed parties would divide and hurt the fragile new democracy, even going so far as to say in a letter to his daughter, “Politics and party hatred destroy the happiness of every being here” (186). However, his belief in a guiding “monarchial principle” and advocation for strong centralized government led many including Jefferson to group him with the Federalists, despite the fact that Adams repeatedly stated his intention to remain independent and to “quarrel with both parties and every individual in each before I would subjugate my understanding, or prostitute my tongue or pen to either” (168). Despite being passionate and shying away from slander or attack of his opponents, Adams’s detractors characterized him as tactless, impulsive, cranky, and controlling. Greatly concerned with his place in history and how posterity would view him, his speech and writings were often verbose and extensive. In one of his letters to Benjamin Rush in 1790, Adams revealed his fears, saying “The history of our revolution will be one continued lie from one end to the other” (167). Adam’s hallmark style of independent thinking and a candid, self-assured presentation of ideals puts him firmly outside the stereotype of current politicians, but a few have gone against the establishment vein and taken up an Adamsian style of leadership.
Though perhaps not a perfect fit, I believe the candidate closest to Adams in terms of political style would be Republican Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie. Pugnacious and straight-forward, Christie echoes many aspects of Adams’s approach to leadership, unabashedly sharing his true feelings on issues and coming across as passionate, fast-paced, direct, and self-assured. Although no viable modern candidate holds the same ideals of independence from political parties as Adams did, Christie does present himself as a moderate answer to the more polarized side of the Republican Party. He lead a historically liberal state with a democratic legislator and worked close with Democrat Cory Booker on a bi-partisan campaign to improve Newark’s failing school district. Moreover, Christie’s argumentative and brutally honest approach to sharing his political beliefs is, though perhaps less eloquently stated, a direct reflection of Adams’s approach to political leadership during his time as our second president.
In contrast to Adams, his successor Thomas Jefferson approached the presidency with a wildly different style of leadership. Having served for many years as minister of France and later Secretary of State, Jefferson was especially adept at diplomacy and politeness, a far cry from the impulsive Adams. However, his public persona of cooperation, tact, and subtlety was coupled with a well hidden and often calculating approach to the political game. He had a far-reaching vision and as very passionate about his views, and was very successful in pushing his agendas either through the press, congressional meetings, or general politicking. Remote and ambiguous to his public opponent, Jefferson rarely disagreed openly or revealed his inner feelings. He instead preferred to hone his political tenacity away from his opponents, using his spectacular private correspondence and damaging his adversaries through use of the press. For example, Jefferson often reported gossip he heard about to the press regardless of truth, and even employed scandalmonger John Callander to write The Prospect Before Us, a slanderous attack on John Adams (198). Despite this, Jefferson always denied any associations with the gossip and leaked attacks. Also, Jefferson was notorious for changing his positions on certain policy issues, being characterized by Abigail Adams as a “willow who bent with every political breeze” (190). In typical Jeffersonian fashion, however, he rarely admitted that his views had changed, but rather insisted they had always been like that. As an early proponent of grassroots Republican thinking he branded himself a man of the people and social egalitarianism, intensely wary of large government or powerful elites. Jefferson also throughout his life remained convinced of his own ideological superiority, and could persuade himself to believe he was correct no matter how credible and insurmountable the facts against him might be. Jefferson seemed almost born to be a politician, and his adept leadership style is present almost everywhere in the traditional politicians of the 20th and 21st centuries.
The 2016 White House race has been one populated mainly by “outsider" candidates, so the Jeffersonian political mold does not fit many of the candidates very well. Though Kasich, Bush, and Rubio among others are closer to the mold, I believe Hillary Clinton is the candidate that best exhibits a leadership style closest to Thomas Jefferson. Like Jefferson, Clinton has an extensive diplomatic resume, with her tenure as First Lady and subsequent term as Secretary of State. She possesses the same graciousness and tactical diplomacy as Jefferson, leading her to be respected and taken seriously across party lines and throughout the world. Clinton also exhibits resilience and a sense of deep ideological purpose much like the third President. However, Clinton also echoes Jeffersonian leadership styles in the form of a sense of closely guarded intentions and cautious calculations. Despite being immensely popular with the Democratic Party, many are chary to trust her, with a December Quinnipiac Poll showing 59 percent of Americans view Hillary Clinton as being “not honest and trustworthy” (). From Benghazi to emails, her career has not been without scandal (warranted or not) calling to mind Jefferson’s political maneuvering and sycophantic relationship with the press.
Though Adams and Jefferson had widely differing leadership styles and experienced ups and downs in their respective presidencies, both proved to be, as a whole, fondly remembered by history.

I personally believe that the honest, uninhibited style of Adams is refreshing and unlike the mold of the typical American President. His brilliant oratory skills and rejection of Political factions make his approach to leadership the one that I would prefer in the abstract. However, the reality of current American politics makes the Jeffersonian leadership style much more effective in reality. A consummate politician, Jefferson’s cooperative, polite public persona allows him to be everything to everybody and succeed at the same of politics, but his air of ambiguity and ruthless behind the scenes behavior force me to dismiss his style as my abstract personal preference. As Joseph J Ellis says, “The Adams style was to confront, shout, rant, and then to embrace. The Jefferson style was to evade, maintain pretenses, then convince himself all was well” (Ellis 170). Though the passage was meant in relation to how they maintained their friendship despite conflict, it can be read in a broader sense, and illustrates almost perfectly the overall differences in the leadership styles of these two very influential

men.