Ep 1. THE DIPLOMAT: THOMAS JEFFERSON

If you could reach back across two and a half centuries, grab one of the men who built this country by the collar and then physically drag him forward into the middle of modern America, sit him down in front of cable news, hand him a phone, let him scroll for 90 seconds, who would you pick? Keep in mind this is not a free dinner party. You want this guest to look around him and tell us the truth. This is a series about three founders that I would resurrect and have them do that if I could. Episode one of three of the founders we need now. The diplomat Thomas Jefferson. Let's start with the riddle. Which founding father would be the most horrified by modern American foreign policy? Most people would say Thomas Jefferson. After all, Jefferson distrusted standing armies and any concentrated power at home. He's probably the most internationally minded founder of his generation as well. He spent much of the revolutionary era in Paris, moved comfortably among European salons and statesmen. He believed deeply in diplomacy. If you were looking for a founding father, most likely to think every problem could be solved with another conversation. People think that Jefferson would be high on the list. But Jefferson is also the founder who concluded that some problems cannot be negotiated away. He's the founder who sent the United States Navy across the Atlantic and put American marines on a foreign shore to fight the Barbary pirates. Jefferson knew the hard way that paying hostile powers to leave Americans alone was a lot more dangerous than confronting them. So how did the founder with the most restraint become the founder who launched America's first sustained overseas military campaign? The answer matters because we're having Jefferson's exact fight today. Jefferson's foreign policy experience is not a footnote in American history. It serves as the single most useful foreign policy lesson the founding generation has to teach us right now. When Iran takes hostages and demands concessions, when the Houthis attack commercial shipping in the Red Sea, when China threatens Taiwan, when Putin tests the West's resolve, or when Nicolas Maduro weaponizes migration to harm Americans, the names have changed, the globe has shrunk, technology has evolved three times over, but the foreign policy debate, it's the same. Do we keep paying predators not to hurt us or do we make them stop? That's not a question about piracy. That's the central question at the heart of American foreign policy. Nobody understood it better than Thomas Jefferson, the man who distrusted federal power and standing armies, ended up building one because as Jefferson lived and learned, peace is not maintained by good intentions or diplomacy or a committee. Jefferson saw something we seem to have forgotten, a free people who cannot defend themselves do not remain free for particularly long. So let's be honest about who Thomas Jefferson actually was because the myth of Jefferson typically gets in the way. Jefferson was not a military man, he never served as a battlefield commander. He wasn't like George Washington or Alexander Hamilton looking for a duel. Jefferson was a writer, he was a philosopher, a farmer, a diplomat, above all else, he was a skeptic of centralized power. Of all the founders, Jefferson was arguably one of the most suspicious of federal power, nationalized finance, and centralized force. His whole vision of America was agrarian, independent yeoman farmers beholden to no one, living in an empire of liberty, as he called it. He distrusted the cities, he thought that manufacturing corrupted people, he thought big finance, Hamilton's entire project of national debt and a national bank, was a slow poison that would turn free citizens into dependents. On economics, frankly, Jefferson was looking backward while the 19th century moved forward. Economics aside, Jefferson's instincts reflect his deep commitments to liberty. Jefferson, along with all the other founding fathers, was focused on a particular question, who gets power? What happens when the wrong person eventually grabs hold of it? On foreign policy, Jefferson's instincts were bolstered by a career as a diplomat. From 1785 to 1789, Jefferson served as America's minister to France, succeeding Benjamin Franklin in Paris as America's chief representative in Europe, negotiating treaties, working the court of Versailles, and charming powers of the era. Keep in mind, the United States had exactly one major ally in Europe, France. The man we trusted to represent our young republic was Thomas Jefferson, not because he was a warrior, but because he was a negotiator, which is important. Jefferson did not arrive at the use of military force because diplomacy never occurred to him. He arrived at military force when diplomacy inevitably failed. In fact, he spent years trying to solve America's problems with the Barbary pirates peacefully. As minister, both Jefferson and John Adams pursued treaties with the North African Barbary states through diplomacy. Some agreements were reached, like with Morocco. Others went nowhere, like with Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers. Jefferson sat across from a representative from Tripoli at one point and asked him point blank, by what right do you seize our ships and enslave our men? The answer he received was illuminating. The envoy explained that their actions were justified by their laws and customs, that nations unwilling to defend themselves were perfectly legitimate targets. Sound familiar? Jefferson wrote of the Barbary attacks in 1786, quote, the ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their prophet, and it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found. Every Muslim man who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise. Muscleman is another name for Muslim. Think about that. America's enemies, even back in the early 1800s, believed that weakness created opportunity. That is one of the oldest realities in international politics. Jefferson engaged with the Barbary states, hoping to reassure, mediate or even in the most dovish scenario, clear up some sort of misunderstanding. And sure, there are some conflicts that can be caused by miscommunication. But there are a lot of conflicts caused by the simple fact that one side thinks it can get away with something. Jefferson realized the Barbary rulers fell into category number two. He didn't start a war. He arrived at war. Why? Well, because diplomacy without leverage is not diplomacy. It's just begging. Here's the part modern Americans often forget. The United States at this time was not a global superpower, not even close. The America that faced down the Barbary pirates had no 11 carrier Navy or a string of bases around the globe where a fledgling republic, barely a decade old, deep in debt from our own revolution with a tiny, half dismantled fleet and a central government so weak we could barely collect taxes. So when Jefferson decided to fight rather than pay tribute, understand the audacity it took to make that decision. There was no arrogance of power whatsoever, just the courage of principle. Jefferson was worried about runaway military might. He was worried about executive power. He was worried about foreign entanglements. He was worried about cost. In fact, Jefferson entered office opposed to the expense of maintaining a Navy at all. But when Americans were being seized and ransomed by foreign powers, the most restraint minded founding father reached a conclusion that would define his presidency. There's a difference between going abroad, looking for demons to slay and refusing to tolerate aggression. Jefferson had no interest in the first, but absolutely understood the necessity of the second. Now you might hear Barbary pirates and imagine Captain Jack Sparrow or something, but the Barbary pirates were not the Disney movie. They were a state sponsored protection racket for centuries. The rulers of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli and other North African ports had developed their remarkably simple business model. You pay us tribute, an annual fee, and we agree not to rob and kidnap you. Therefore, if you don't pay, you should expect to be robbed and kidnapped. You know, like if there was a Muslim state today that said that unless we paid them a fee, they would hold hostage the entire global oil supply. Well, back then it was less piracy and more like extortion with a flag, and it worked because it was cheaper to pay than to fight. Nation after nation paid tribute to the But when America won our independence in 1783, we didn't just win our freedom, we lost our bodyguard. For 150 years at that point, American colonial shipping had operated under the protection of the British Royal Navy, the most powerful Navy on planet Earth. The moment independence arrived, that shield went away. We were free, but we were also exposed. American merchant ships sailed into the Mediterranean and discovered they had no one to protect them. So what did America do? Well, we paid. George Washington paid. John Adams paid. By 1797, the United States was paying roughly 20 percent of our entire federal budget in tribute and ransom to the Barbary States. One in five dollars to pirates to leave us alone. Because what gets rewarded gets repeated. Obviously, these bribes never brought reliable peace. The moment one demand was met, the next one arrived, demanding larger and larger sums. The tribute wasn't the problem. It was directly funding and exacerbating it. It turns out that when you give Islamists an inch, they take a mile. Every concession is met by a new demand. That's true today. It was true then. I've been talking about Bull and Branch like all the time. You know it. In Florida, it is the summer. At a certain point, even beloved blankets need a seasonal adjustment. Bedding matters a ton. It really, really does. It'll wreck your sleep if it's bad. Bull and Branch is the best, by far. A lot of people think that poor sleep means you need a new mattress. Sometimes that's the case. Bull and Branch does the bedding, though. The bedding is easier, and the bedding sometimes makes the biggest difference. Bull and Branch's summer bedding options are breathable, lightweight, designed to keep you cool all night long, 100% organic cotton, woven specifically for airflow, not just softness. Spend a third of your life in bed. This is not the place you should cut corners. I mean, Bull and Branch's product, by the way, is so good that I just got a bathrobe from them. I try to get everything I can from Bull and Branch because it's just that good. I promise. The fastest, simplest way to upgrade your sleep is upgrading your bedding. Most people start with the Signature Sheet Set, and then they quickly add the Comforter or Waffle Blanket for the perfect combo. Love the Waffle Blanket. It's great. Sleep cooler this year with Bull and Branch during their annual summer event. For a limited time, get 20% off sitewide at bullandbranch.com slash Ben with Code Ben. That's Bull and Branch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D, branch.com slash Ben. Code Ben to take 20% off. Bullandbranch.com slash Ben. Code Ben. Exclusions apply. When Jefferson took office, the ruler of Tripoli looked at the new president and demanded a fresh payment of $225,000, about $6 million today. That was on top of the annual tribute payment that was due already. It's important to understand that many serious people convinced themselves that paying was the right choice. They told themselves it was the pragmatic, responsible, measured thing to do. But this tribute argument never dies. It has just changed clothes. They argued fighting was risky. Escalation was dangerous. Accommodation was cheaper. Military action could make things worse. Proponents of the continued bribes argued that war with the pirates would make America less free. A peacetime standing navy could turn around and tyrannize Americans. Pay the pirates. America would stay a republic of free farmers. Build a naval fleet. You risk becoming the empire that you overthrow. Jefferson would later explain the The choice was never really between liberty and a navy. The choice was a navy or a permanent subscription service to tyrants abroad. There would be no end to the demand, and the demands would only increase. That's the whole thing right there. Bribes are never paid only once. Every payment creates a larger market for more aggression. Now, you can see the pattern. Pallets of cash flown to a hostage-taking regime. Sanctions relief that frees up billions of dollars. And the billions go right back into the hands of proxy terror groups who launch the next attack and look for the next bribe. Stability payments that end up funding militias. And missiles that kill Americans years later. It's the same structure. The Barbary tribute system with wire transfers instead of gold. And it was the diplomat internationalist founder without any military experience who finally did the math and said enough of this. As Thomas Jefferson ran for president, he made the humiliation of paying off pirates a campaign issue. He hammered the point that the United States was subject to the spoilations of foreign cruisers, their ships preying on ours, and that American dollars were being gifted to petty tyrants. The rallying cry at the time was millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute. And it sounds like a Republican campaign slogan. In May 1801, just a few weeks into Jefferson's administration, the ruler of Tripoli decided to test him. After Jefferson refused a tribute payment, the Pasha had the American flag outside of the U.S. consulate chopped down. Before a single shot was fired, the message was clear. Pay us or we will hurt you. Jefferson sent the fleet to the Mediterranean the next day. Despite his own lifelong opposition to the expense of a navy, Jefferson dispatched a squadron to blockade Tripoli. Ironically, the navy he sends had been gutted and half dismantled by previous administrations. Under Jefferson, the navy grew and delivered. First blood came in August 1801, when an American schooner called the USS Enterprise encountered a Tripolitan Corsair off the coast of Malta and took the enemy ship apart without losing a single American sailor. Zero casualties. That's usually what happens when a serious power shows up to a fight after the other side assumes it can win for free. Over the next several years, the war produced some of the most extraordinary episodes in early American military history. Stephen Decatur, a name every American should know, sailed into a Tripoli harbor at night under enemy guns to burn a captured frigate so pirates couldn't use her. Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon and his Marines marched hundreds of miles across the North African desert to capture the city of Dern. That's the reason to this day the marine hymn sings about the shores of Tripoli. That's what it's talking about. The reluctant founder didn't just win the war. Jefferson built the institutions that protected this country for the next two centuries. Before Jefferson, American foreign policy was about management. The problem was never solved. It was administered as a line item. It was a forever war. This is exactly the disease of our modern foreign policy establishment today. That is, until President Trump changed the game. Containment, process, talks, frameworks, de-escalation. Those are all safe for the manager because they get to claim they didn't start a war. And meanwhile, every year they hesitate. The threat they're managing gets stronger and stronger. Jefferson refused to just manage the problem. He decided to end the problem. His deeper insight that the credible threat of force in the long run is cheaper and more humane than perpetual tribute. People still don't understand that one. Less blood and treasure are spent ending a threat decisively than feeding it forever. Now, there are real complications to the story. Jefferson was always worried about foreign entanglements and military might capable of throwing off the Constitution's balance of power. U.S.'s conflict with the Barbary pirates was not this simple. So if we're going to resurrect Thomas Jefferson to solve our foreign policy problems today, let's hit every objection the Democrats would surely lob his way. First, the question of executive power. Jefferson spent most of his life warning Americans about concentrated power. Then he became president and sent American warships into combat without a formal declaration of war from Congress. The constitutional question here has been the same throughout American history, whether you're talking about Reagan strikes in Libya or Clinton's campaign in Kosovo or Obama strikes in Libya or Trump strikes on Iran. How much authority does the president possess to defend American interests abroad? Jefferson stood right in the middle of this debate, looking right now at the possibility of a nuclear Iran threatening America's interests, staring down the barrel of a terrorist threat that spans the region. Pretty sure I know what Jefferson's answer might be. Another point of nuance here is the fact that wars don't end in the way they used to in antiquity. Endless war or quagmires loom large in the American political consciousness today. But the concept of a forever war was not on Jefferson's radar. Then, in the case of the Barbary pirates, a second expedition was required many years later in 1815. Does that mean that Jefferson's intervention in 1801 was meaningless? Democrats today might criticize Jefferson for failing to achieve total victory. And in truth, deterrence rarely produces permanent solutions. China, Russia, Iran, not just going to disappear if we deter them. But what is the price of deterrence? And on the flip side, what is the price of teaching every future pirate, dictator or terrorist that bribery works? American resolve is itself a form of capital. Deterrence is the most valuable thing a nation owns. Our sovereignty depends on it. With deterrence, there are 100 wars that don't happen because our enemies do the math and they decide correctly not to provoke us. Without deterrence, America only ends up emboldening our enemies further. Jefferson didn't want war. He didn't love war, but he understood the cost of American inaction. And unlike most politicians today, he operated within the world as it actually existed, not the one he wished existed. The debate Americans keep having assumes only two opinions in our foreign policy. Police the world totally and utterly, fighting anyone and everyone and remaking all other countries into democracies or to retreat from the world, defund our military and defer to international law and hope that no one fills the gap. Jefferson rejected those choices in the same way that President Trump typically has. Not every problem is ours to solve, but some problems find us and we have to fight them. The Barbary states did not attack Americans because we were too involved in the Mediterranean in 1801. They attacked because America was vulnerable, because that's what predators do. They prey on weakness. It was true in 1801 in Tripoli. It is true today at our southern border in Europe, the South China Sea and, yes, the Strait of Hormuz. So why bring back Thomas Jefferson? Because Jefferson lived the lesson Americans need to learn today. Strength and restraint are not opposites. In fact, they require one another. The yeoman farmer built an entire navy so he could protect his farm. Imagine Thomas Jefferson now handed the briefing book on foreign policy that entertains the possibility of paying the pasha instead of facing him. Jefferson would be incredulous. In 1801, Jefferson made his stand when America was weak. Today, America is the most powerful nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth. And we still have leaders who want us to reach for that checkbook. Jefferson acted boldly from weakness. Today, America is hesitant to act from a position of overwhelming strength. What would Jefferson say? Jefferson would build the fleet not because he loved war, but because he loved America and knew what it meant for America to win.