Donald Trump supporters explain the logic behind their admiration for the candidate in terms that fans of George Washington would understand. The styles of the two men could not be more different, even as the logic about how a leader ought to present himself resonates with the revolutionary American political theory that supported Washington's rise.
Voters who advocate for a Trump presidency often state two factors that guide them to their position: he is so rich that he cannot be bought by special interests, and he says what he thinks without caring about their "political correctness." The Trump campaign has promoted the first of these ideas--that Trump's wealth makes him immune to the pressures of lobbyists. Trump himself frequently mentions that he is "self-funded" and therefore independent in a way that no other candidate can be. While he could afford to bankroll his presidential campaign, he has not done so: much of what he has spent to date has come from donations, making him just as readily pressured as any other candidate relying on large donations. Despite the funding realities, the claims of his disinterest resonate with (some) voters.
To an early American historian, such claims echo the logic of "civic republicanism," a political theory central to the understanding of George Washington and his fellows at the time of the founding. According to this logic, men in public life should be "disinterested," by which they meant independent agents not beholden to anyone. The ideal was old, drawn from ancient Roman political theory, and it promoted the idea that the only men suitable for public office were wealthy landowners who could live off the income from their lands. In this political theory, being the employee of another person made one too dependent to act properly in the political realm. That logic lay behind the English policy that the only men allowed to vote owned enough land to make themselves independent, which was calculated at the time as a "40 shilling freehold." Men of business were considered ineligible as well, as their profits placed them in a web of relationships with business associates and creditors. By the logic of civic republicanism, most American voters today would be disfranchised, one way or another. We are in business or we are employees, not to mention the fact that half of us are women.
George Washington cultivated the image of the disinterested landowner, willing to lead his country without regard for his own benefit and more than willing to retire to his own lands when he was no longer needed. His fellow national leaders had to entice him away from the life of a planter at Mount Vernon, to which he had returned at the conclusion of the revolutionary war, so that he could become the nation's first president. Arguably it was the fact that he had retired from public life that made him so very suitable to serve. As a corollary to disinterestedness, no man would campaign for president or any other office. To seem to want power was to disqualify oneself from holding it.
So although the logic of Trump's appeal may sound superficially like that of Washington, in every way he violates the tenets of civic republicanism. Trump, a business man, uses not only his own money but that of other wealthy men to support his Presidential campaign. Moreover, he utterly fails the test of appearing uninterested in gaining office, as he fights his way down the road to the White House. The new George Washington he is not.