Every four years, inquiring minds want to know: If we're living in the greatest country in the world, why must we choose between (fill in the blanks) for President?

One explanation could be lowered expectations, another could be a sort of political entropy. Yet another could be a variation on the child star syndrome--as in too much, too soon.

The fact is, we STARTED OUT with our greatest president.

George Washington, to use another entertainment analogy, was a tough act to follow.

On May 13, 1787, as soon as a quorum was obtained, Washington was unanimously chosen as the president of the Constitutional Convention, and it was the weight of his character that pushed through its ratification. He intended to retire once the convention finished its business.

However, the delegates, and then, the electors, knowing that he was the only man who could pull the factions together, and garner the necessary respect the new United States needed to have in Europe, would not let him retire. In early 1789, the unanimous vote was cast, and he was inaugurated as our first president, in New York City, on April 30, 1789.

As unbelievable as it sounds by present standards, Washington stayed out of partisan politics. In fact, his first cabinet had two members from the Federalists and two from the Republicans (eventually to become the Democrats). Alexander Hamilton was secretary of the treasury, Henry Knox was secretary of war, Thomas Jefferson was secretary of state, and Edmund Randolph was attorney general. Talk about the dream team!!

While it is not my purpose here to provide a bio on George Washington, suffice to say that even among giants, Washington outshone them all.

It was Henry ("Light-Horse Harry") Lee who wrote the resolution after Washington's death, proclaiming him as "First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen."

But, we must note, that Henry Lee was also the father of Robert E. Lee.

Here is our stark reminder that little more than 60 years after Washington's death, our country was plunged into a civil war.

If partisanship was building up during these 60 years, it, of course, reached a deathly fever pitch in the 1860's. Partisanship, the development of a career political class, and sheer lust for power, have hastened our trend ever downward with respect to quality leadership.

Does anyone believe for a moment that someone of the caliber of George Washington--perceived as a leader by all the people--could even have a chance under today's system?

The two-party system would cease to exist under consensus, and thrives only on polarization. Even if today's third party candidates are correct when they say that the Democrats and Republicans are just fat cat mirror images, feeding at the same trough, the battle lines still must be clearly drawn.

FDR didn't invent class envy, he was just able to exploit it in his day. JFK represented to many the new era, while Nixon was tied into WWII days, as Eisenhower's vice-president. Carter and Reagan were outsiders, rallying with you against the Establishment. Clinton was the boomer candidate.

And so it goes. All a candidate need do is get his 40-something percent, and hope that everybody else stays home.

Finally, the bar has been lowered, or we are more tolerant, depending on your point of view. Nelson Rockefeller lost any chance at the Republican nomination for president in 1964 because he had recently been divorced. Compare that with the record of Bill Clinton.

Could we use another George Washington? Absolutely! Will we ever get one?

Is it prudent to wish that things get so bad as to require the system to change that much?

Some sobering thoughts, a few weeks before the election.