George Washington: Restraint in Communication
Rethinking “Communication Styles” Part Three
The Transfer of Power: A Quiet Beginning
In 1796, after serving two terms as president of the newly formed United States, George Washington did something unexpected and unrequired.
He stepped away from power.
Not only that, but he did also it without delivering a grand speech.
Also, he didn’t choreograph a dramatic exit, and didn’t try to shape how history would feel about his departure.
Instead, he published a letter: what we now call the Farewell Address.
No spectacle.
No symbolic flourish.
No final performance.
No attempt to control how it would be received.
Just words… and then a literal absence.
From the standpoint of formative communication, this may be one of the least performative and most disciplined acts of public communication in modern political history.
Why the Farewell Address is so Significant
Much of Washington's earlier leadership as a military leader and politician involved being present with his soldiers and his constituents. Yet his Farewell Address is the opposite posture.
Here, his communication was no longer about rallying, persuading, or stabilizing a volatile moment. It was about releasing control.
When one reads his Farewell Address, they will find an almost-prophetic George Washington warning the nation about:
• factionalism,
• the dangers of political parties,
• the seduction of foreign entanglements,
• and the slow erosion of civic virtue.
However, the most impactful takeaway isn’t the warning itself; it’s that Washington refused to remain in power to enforce it.
Exploring communication as a true discipline, instead of viewing it as a “style” to wear whenever it suits the mood, highlights some real differences. Mature, disciplined communication is truth spoken without an agenda, counsel offered without coercion or control, and responsibility exercised without attachment to the outcome.
Communication when Ego is No Longer the Dominant Force
In Part One of this series, we explored communication as restraint under moral pressure through Abraham Lincoln.
In Part Two, we explored discernment of how to communicate in public and power through Ronald Reagan.
George Washington's Farewell Address reveals something different:
Communication after the Objective has been Achieved.
There is no "style" here to analyze.
No audience to charm.
No power to protect.
Only fidelity to truth, and then the willingness to walk away.
That isn’t rhetorical skill.
That’s restraint.
That’s formation.
It’s a discipline most modern communicators never practice; which would be saying what needs to be said and then leaving the recipients to ruminate over what was shared by the communicator.
Most communication advice assumes that “to be effective” you must continue engagement with your audience and learn how to persuade others, manage reactions, shape perception, stay engaged and refine messaging.
Washington models a rarer discipline:
Say what must be said, then release it.
A Personal Confession
The above concept of releasing communication after it is shared, hits home for me in many ways.
As a recovering “conscientious communicator” myself, I used to think good communication meant staying involved, no matter the cost. It was the idea of cultivating an internal state of relentless pursuit of communicating with others, no matter the personal cost of energy, focus and sometimes, dignity.
That “conscientious communication” could take the form of following up with others quickly, along with attempting to smooth over tension that needed to marinate, keeping conversations emotionally regulated to prevent explosive results, making sure everyone felt included and asking more questions so nothing sat unresolved.
That kind of behavior might have taken the form of sending a text message and not allowing the message to “sit” with the recipient for a while.
Other times, it was participating in a group conversation and then priding myself on being the (self-appointed, yet unannounced) emotional regulator by controlling and sometimes attempting to manipulate something that should have just flowed more naturally. Often, we hear of “matching energies,” and I think I was a culprit of that behavior like others who thought it made sense to do so when they first learned of the concept.
I think it’s because I learned and attempted to adopt various modern tidbits of advice, like:
“Make sure everyone feels included,” and “there’s nothing wrong with asking questions.”
However, in recent years, I have learned through lived experience that sometimes, it is better to just “let things rest/sit/marinate” for a while, even if the conversation or its aftermath seems awkward and uncomfortable. Silences and lulls, misunderstandings by the sender or the receiver and all the other “messiness” that involves face-to-face or electronic communication between people are not inherently bad things.
Putting that another way, there is no need to assign meaning to them, if you are grounded and aligned in formative communication.
Sometimes in silence, people discover the most truth.
Sometimes being misunderstood is the bridge that gets us to the next place of understanding.
Sometimes you just need to let people have their own energy, but you maintain yours in the storm.
Those ideas could be seen as heresy by modern communicators because they violate several instincts:
• the desire to be understood,
• the urge to defend,
• the need to monitor reception,
• the temptation to clarify endlessly.
To the superficial learner, formation appears here as detachment, but there’s much more to it than that.
When Communication Outgrows Performance
Washington's Farewell Address highlights some traits that only emerge late in formation that happens through lived experience and crises:
First, the Truth doesn’t need Reinforcement.
Washington does not repeat, campaign, or follow up. He trusts the truth to stand on its own.
Second, Counsel without Control.
Washington speaks as a guardian or custodian, not a ruler. The nation is free to ignore him, and he seemed to accept that cost.
Third, Presence without Permanence.
By leaving without a lot of fanfare, Washington ensured the words were not confused with the man. This is the opposite of performative leadership. It could be called communicative humility.
What Does this Mean for You?
The reason I’ve highlighted U.S. Presidents from history in this series is that while they occupied one of the most powerful offices of their era, many of their challenges still relate to people in more ordinary circumstances, like you and me.
Our ability to adopt Washington’s example of speaking the truth and then allowing others to choose how to respond can show up in the form of:
• being a parent who speaks facts to their adult child and then be okay with the child’s decision,
• a leader who sets a boundary and refuses to micromanage compliance,
• a professional who names a problem and declines to politicize it,
• and a friend who tells the truth and does not demand agreement.
These are moments when communication ceases to be a tool for control and becomes an act of integrity.
The Deeper Thread Across the Three Presidents
Seen together, Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan form a progression:
• Lincoln was restraint when emotion is justified.
• Reagan was stewardship when speech carries public consequence.
• Washington was release when authority is no longer needed.
Different moments.
Different eras.
Different demands.
And yet, the same discipline.
Formative communication matures as the communicator becomes less attached to outcome and more committed to sharing the truth.
The most advanced form of communication is not persuasive brilliance.
It is about speaking the truth without leverage.
Washington's Farewell Address reminds us that when formation is complete, words no longer need to dominate, manage, or perform.
They can simply be spoken — and trusted.
That is not a style.
That is maturity.
That is restraint.
© 2026 Cameron M. Clark - All rights reserved.
All essays and materials on this site are original works by Cameron Clark. You are welcome to share links and quote brief excerpts with attribution. Reproduction, republication, or commercial use of this material without written permission is not permitted.