AMNA NAWAZ: Well, this week, PBS News launched "In Pursuit of Happiness," a six-episode podcast series hosted by Judy Woodruff exploring the people, the culture, and the ideas that have shaped America.

In this clip from the very first episode, presidential historian Lindsay Chervinsky takes a fresh look at President George Washington and why he believed surrounding himself with competing viewpoints made him a stronger leader.

LINDSAY CHERVINSKY, Presidential Historian: Bravery was never the problem.

Early on, he made decisions.

So, for example, Fort Necessity, this was after the initial conflict with French and Native allies.

He built a fort as a defensive mechanism, and it was very poorly situated.

He took none of the knowledge from Native allies at this point in his life.

And many of his troops said that this was a poor place to build the fort, and he didn't listen.

He was too stubborn and too proud to listen to that advice.

Later on, he learned from that.

And so he both learned how to better position his forces, but also who to listen to.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And whatever lessons he learned or didn't learn in the years when he was wearing a uniform, of course, carried on to his time as president.

We have a question.

And we can't cover his entire presidency.

We're not even going to try.

But I do want to listen to one viewer who had a question about his Cabinet.

WILLIAM HEDRICK, Alamogordo, New Mexico: Hi.

I'm William Hedrick.

I'm from Alamogordo, New Mexico.

As a military commander and as the chief executive, why did he allow so much unresolved conflict within his inner core, both within the revolution and once he was president, and specifically between Hamilton and Jefferson?

LINDSAY CHERVINSKY: I love this question, because it actually was central to his leadership.

So, because Washington didn't have a lot of the training, didn't have a lot of schooling, he intentionally surrounded himself with people who had a lot more knowledge, a lot more experience than he did, but also were different from one another.

He wanted to have a lot of different perspectives, and he started this practice during the revolution, where he would call a council of war and he would pose a series of questions.

He almost never went into a meeting with his mind made up.

So you would pose these questions, and then he would allow his officers to debate, and that was by design, because he wanted them to poke holes in each other's arguments.

He wanted them to flesh out the weaknesses of the other position, because it allowed him to try and get as much information and to have as many different ideas presented to him as possible.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And he and Hamilton, of course, were close and remained close until Hamilton's... LINDSAY CHERVINSKY: They did.

But the thing is, is, when Jefferson and Hamilton were disagreeing with each other, Washington sided with Jefferson almost 50 percent of the time.

So the idea that Washington was controlled by Hamilton is total Jefferson propaganda.

And, instead, he was often trying to triangulate to find a middle ground between the two, a more moderate position.

But you -- if you look at the Cabinet records, you can almost -- it's almost as though he's counting, because one day he's with Hamilton and the next day he's with Jefferson, and then the next day he's with Hamilton, and the next day he's with Jefferson.

He was meticulous about trying to find that middle ground, and I do actually think it made him a better president.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Why did he care so much about the middle ground?

What was that all about?

LINDSAY CHERVINSKY: Well, he was trying to be a president for all Americans, and they represented two distinct poles, two distinct visions of what the country could be, but they were also among the more radical perspectives of those two positions.

And so, by finding a middle ground, I think he believed he was best serving the nation.

AMNA NAWAZ: And you can watch "In Pursuit of Happiness" on our YouTube page or listen wherever you get your podcasts.