This is an appropriate year in which to emphasize George Washington's birthday. It was 200 years ago on the past Feb. 4 that the electoral college unanimously selected him the first president of the United States, and 200 years ago on the coming April 30, he was inaugurated for the first time.

As we think of our first president, we sometimes overlook his failures. In his youth, he desperately wanted a commission in the regular British army; he never was offered one.

When he commanded the continental forces during the war for American Independence, he almost lost his army in an unwise and futile attempt to defend New York City. (The British General William Howe will never know how easily he could have captured the rebels had he moved more decisively.)

As president, he was hardly the master of his administration. It was Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton who put the new nation's chaotic finances in order. (Perhaps we should call him back.)

Some of his officers condemned him to Continental Congressmen. Thomas Jefferson resigned from his cabinet in disagreement.

Farmers in Southwestern Pennsylvania used his picture for target practice because he had signed an act that taxed the whiskey that their stills produced.

Philadelphia newspaper editor Benjamin Franklin Bache, Franklin's grandson, blamed him for all of the country's problems.

My purpose in mentioning Washington's deficiencies is to point out that he was human, not to "debunk" him. One of Washington's 20th century critics tried to undermine him to former President Calvin Coolidge.

When Coolidge had heard enough, he looked out of the White House window and observed with characteristic crispness,

"I see that the monument is still there."

So it is and with good reason. Although Washington was not a brilliant strategist, he was a determined and inspiring leader. He held his army together despite the lack of moral and material support.

As he resigned his command, he demonstrated his understanding that in this country the military must be subordinate to civilian leaders.

During his presidency, others may have influenced specific policies, but it was he who shaped the office, setting precedents that lasted for decades, scores of years, even centuries.

Indeed, delegates to the Constitutional Convention failed to define the presidency precisely, trusting Washingtonn to develop it effectively.

Almost before his body was cold in the grave, most of the criticism faded, and the accolades poured in.

Mason Locke ("Parson") Weems stressed Washington's strength by having him throw a silver dollar across the Rappahannock River and his honesty by having him confess to having chopped down the cherry tree. (Weems' account went through 80 editions.)

Later writers from John Marshall, Jared Sparks and George Bancroft in the 19th century to Douglas Southall Freeman, Marcus Cunliffe, Forest MacDonald, and others in the 20th have continued to praise "our national hero."

We, Americans, and perhaps others also, like to have heroes. At first, we needed them in order to establish our national identity.

As historian and former librarian of Congress Daniel Boorstin explained, we were a people in "quest for a national past." George Washington, both the "man and the monument" that we created, helped us with that.

While we continue to revere past worthies, we seem to be looking for moderns to add to the national galaxy.

Our challenge today is to identify true heroes, like Washington, who are worthy of our attention.