Reply
Thu 24 Aug, 2006 04:22 pm
Twenty-first Century Rome
By Gary Hart
08.24.2006
For those of us who believe history holds valuable lessons, there is instruction to be had from the experience of other great powers. In the particular case of the American Republic it is important to consider the history of other republics. Not the least of these examples is the demise of the ancient Roman Republic and its transition to the Roman Empire.
That history is well known. The civil wars of the mid-first century BC led to the acquisition of dictatorial power by Julius Caesar lasting from about 49 BC until his assassination on the Ides of March 44 BC. Further unrest if not chaos ensued until, in 27 BC, Caesar's adopted son Octavianus became the first Roman emperor as the first Augustus.
So much for the dates and names. The question is how Augustus became emperor. How did he go about finally ending a republic founded in 510 BC?
First, "he took steps to neutralize the army as a political force." Of course, in a republic that would be a good thing, because in republican Rome the armies as political forces had helped bring about the demise of the Republic. But in Augustus's case he achieved his objective by making the army his instrument. Control of the army was control of state power.
Second, he took control of the system of laws and justice. Little could happen with the magistrates and judges that did not meet his approval and conform to his policies. To control the legal system was to control the entire nation.
And, third, like his adoptive father Caesar, Augustus was "imaginative and innovative in his exploitation of religious sentiments." Augustus understood that the integration of the state with religion was the key to control of the nation's culture.
The army, the courts, and religion. The keys to the creation of the Roman Empire.
In 21st century America the current government (the presidency and Congress of one party) has taken control not only of defense and military policy, but also military operations. No other administration, including that of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War or Franklin Roosevelt in World War II, has ever done that. The unprecedented imposition of neoconservative ideology on military operations has led directly and inevitably to the debacle in Iraq.
In the last five years we have seen an effort by the current government to control the American judicial system by the appointment of ideologically selected judges. The unprecedented attempt to make the administration of justice the instrument of ideology is incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic whose flag we salute.
And, of course, the Republican party has been imaginative and innovative in its exploitation of religious sentiments. The unprecedented submission of social policy, and foreign policy in the Middle East, to religious fundamentalists violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and has weakened America in the world.
The army, the courts, and religion. The keys to the creation of the American Empire.
Well it's up to the people in the States. The difference now is that the States is borne out of an ideology and the constitution is written in ink and the internet not in stone
.
Come on people, I don't want Canada to become a protectorate...
Have you no shame BBB. It's Gary Hart ferchrissakes, one of the few known names with less credibility than John Kerry or Bill Clinton. I can't wait for whatever happens in October to be labeled his "October surprise". It could be anything from a natural disaster to my Prius's water pump breaking. Well maybe it doesn't have one, but whatever happens will fit the bill.
And what the heck do you do BBB, to be able to post a dozen times a day stuff that bores anyone but those who agree with you? I have a semi sedentary existence, but feel an olympic athelete in comparison to you.
The problem is that all too few people know history and even fewer learn from it.
Paull
Paull, are you jealous of my circumstances?
I like Gary Hart and respect what he has to say.
If you don't like his article, rather than tossing rotten eggs at him, why don't you post your points of disagreement with him?
BBB
paull wrote:Have you no shame BBB. It's Gary Hart ferchrissakes, one of the few known names with less credibility than John Kerry or Bill Clinton. I can't wait for whatever happens in October to be labeled his "October surprise". It could be anything from a natural disaster to my Prius's water pump breaking. Well maybe it doesn't have one, but whatever happens will fit the bill.
And what the heck do you do BBB, to be able to post a dozen times a day stuff that bores anyone but those who agree with you? I have a semi sedentary existence, but feel an olympic athelete in comparison to you.
Now there's an icky personal comment.
Quote:The problem is that all too few people know history and even fewer learn from it.
Don't worry, there are always movies.
I frankly don't care if Gary HArt was the author: no single person is right all the time, or wrong all the time. She said guardedly, knowing in her mind that there are people she has never heard say a correct or sensible thing.
Re: Twenty-first Century Rome; will we ever learn?
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Twenty-first Century Rome
By Gary Hart
08.24.2006
..........In 21st century America the current government (the presidency and Congress of one party) has taken control not only of defense and military policy, but also military operations. No other administration, including that of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War or Franklin Roosevelt in World War II, has ever done that. The unprecedented imposition of neoconservative ideology on military operations has led directly and inevitably to the debacle in Iraq.
In the last five years we have seen an effort by the current government to control the American judicial system by the appointment of ideologically selected judges. The unprecedented attempt to make the administration of justice the instrument of ideology is incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic whose flag we salute.............
Gary Hart telling lies.
The Democratic party has on several occasions within our lifetimes been in control of both Houses of Congress AND the Presidency at the same time.
The effort to remake the Supreme Court under these same Democratic presidents was nothing short of astonishing.
This is the same Gary Hart who, when running for president, said 'I'm not having an affair, and if you don't believe it follow me around. You'll be very bored.'
Someone did check up on him, and that bit of
Monkey Business was the end, for all practical purposes, of his presidential bid.
In both cases, he simply must believe we are too stupid to know the difference, or too shallow to care.
jealous........could be, now that I think of it. I can imagine a situation in which I could spend as much time as I like profounding to the like minded, virtually speaking, and have no inclination to venture outside. It would involve a double amputation, but it could happen. I sympathize with your disability.
As for Hart's pontifications, they cannot possibly be found to be false, given his timeframe. His angst at a president appointing idealogic allies to the court is surprising, since, well, it's the whole friggin point of winning the election. His allusion to Lincoln and Roosevelt to the informed, as we are, can only be laughed at. I am sure you would agree, if you had time to think and rest your hand from cuttttting and pastttting.
The apparent similarities between Rome and England or the United States seem endlessly fascinating, but the differences are far, far greater.
The Roman Republic had no Consitution (written, or otherwise). Republican Rome had a closer kinshio with the Godfathers of the Mob than with British or American governments. Mr Hart has joined many others who want to weave a cautionary tale from Roman history, but is even less convincing than others. The Roman Republic was already rotten and crumbling before Julius was even born. Tyrants, dictators and civil wars were not uncommon. Julius and Augustus were only the final chapters in an evolution necessary to govern an continental empire. The "freedom" of Roman citizens may actually have benefited from the new Roman laws, and they certainly benefited from being at the center of the empire. Most of what we think of as the "glories that was Rome" were the product of the Emperors, not the so-called Republic.
Likewise, it isn't correct to equate U.S. History with the final years of the Roman Republic. There is no modern Pompey or Caesar whose popularity and competition for total control of Rome were central to the end of the Roman Republic. The modern military is not the Roman Legions, and there doesn't seem to be much danger of a military coupe in either the U.S., or Britain. The Roman Senate, either before or after the fall of the Republic, had almost no similiarity to Congress, or Parliment.
Any complex set of conditions and events can be twisted into an arguement favoring, or disproving almost anything. Some on the political Right have argued that modern manners parallel Roman decadence, and that ruin is sure to follow. Bosh, pure bosh. What we learn from history isn't necessarily a herd of particulars, but rather the constant themes that run through human behavior. History teaches us that even though reason is superior to emotional attachment to any ideal, it too can fail. History teaches us that humans and human motives don't change much. History teaches us that some forms and structures lead into dead-ends and are counterproductive. History teaches us not to knuckle under to blackmail, coercion or threats. History teaches us that political and economic stability are fundamental to the sort of successful societies that humans want to live in. History teaches us that individuals can, and do rise above even the worst conditions, and that despots and tyrants all in the end are defeated. History teaches us that it is risky to take sides against one's own people.
Ash
Thanks, Asherman.
The history lesson to continue to be learned, and apprently forgotten, is that those who colonize to create empires will be doomed, sooner or later. Problem is, that the peoples of the colonized areas, and their neighbors will suffer from the after effects for a long, long time. The Middle East is a prime example.
BBB
Well, not necessarily.
Rome's European colonies never had it so good as when they were part of the Roman Empire. Their economies prospered, travel, trade and communications between distant locations was relatively easy. Roman Law made for a a relatively peaceful life for most. Even after the fall of Rome, Europe hungered and looked back on their Roman past with longing. Roman roads remained in use for almost a thousand years, and the Church provided a flywheel to feudalism by associating itself with Rome.
The Renaissance was helped along by the rediscovery of the ancients, and Roman law, learning and engineering were models for new thought independent of the Church's doctrines. Britain adopted many Roman concepts about law and political structure, and that eventually resulted in their empire.
Is India worse off, for having been member of the British Commonwealth? Was the abolition of sutee, weakening of the caste system a bad thing? If British Law and political structures were so terrible, then why is it that India has adopted so much of those into its independent state? Would India have ever built the railroads and communications networks without the Raj? Whose idea was universal education? Was India under the Moguls, a Islamic foreign power antithetical to the Hindu culture, better off? Did any Englishman ever have his birthday celebrated by being given his weight in diamonds by a subject people?
The British colonies in North America and Australia seem to have done alright, though I suppose that the aboriginal inhabitants who lost those lands might have a bone or two to pick.
The United States is not an Imperial State, so it probably shouldn't even be included here. You might point to the Philippines, Porto Rico, Hawaii, and Alaska as "colonialism", but none of those fit the colonial mold quite the same as in a real empire. The Philippines were a protectorate of the U.S., and would almost certainly have passed from being a Spanish colony to being a French, British, German, or even Japanese colony if we hadn't been there. Has the Philippines been hurt or helped on balance by its long association with the United States? Anyone here for Alaska, Hawaii, or the Southwestern United States because they were added to the nation as a result of war or purchase?
Is Iraq destined to be a colony of the United States? Less than zero possibility ... our presence there is not to gain territory, or even oil as some would claim. We are there because this nation is, and has been, under attack for many years by in international gang of Islamic militants who would make conservative Islam universal at the destruction of all infidels.
One of the reasons why one-on-one comparisons of Empirical Rome with the US are not possible is the difference in technology -- the elephant in the room that everyone overlooks at some time.
Maintaining a huge empire in Roman times was, in some ways, easier, and, in others, more difficult because of communications and transportation.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace