It would be naive to think that on the surface, the United States model is entirely original and without precedent. From the architecture of the Government buildings, to the idolising of it’s founders, the influence of the Roman Republic can be seen throughout American politics. From it’s conception in the late 18th Century, America has retained much of it’s Roman influence. John Adams modelled his own style of writing on the great Roman Orator Cicero, often quoting him. Adams viewed Cicero’s political decline, as a mirror image of his own. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton – Romulus and Remus’ American counterparts – wrote a collection of 85 essays promoting the new U.S Constitution, they signed it using the allonym, “Publius” after Publius Valerius Publicola, the joint first Consul of the newly found Roman Republic, in 509bc. The Plebian Council of Rome acted as an dubiously elected House of Representatives, the Tribune could propose legislation and call the Senate, a Speaker of the House, if you will. The Roman Senate, acted almost as a supremely powerful Senate, filled with members of rich families (The US Senate, in 2003, was found to have 40 millionaires). The business class of the day, the Equites, grew ever more rich and politically influential as the territories and provinces increased (similar to the advancement of Oil opportunities with the “liberation” of Iraq). Whilst the Tribunes did indeed work in favour of the public (Tiberius Gracchus for example), the shadowy Equites influenced policy from behind the curtains.
Split powers, term limits, the veto, and the Senate itself are all aspects borrowed from America’s imperial predecessor. Of course there are substantial differences between the two (party politics isn’t particularly Roman, the two consuls of the Senate was not adopted in America), which is more down to the problems facing the founders in 1776, their need to create something different, something that broke away from previous English rule, but did not emulate to the core, the failings of previous Republican systems, such as the Republic of Rome. The Roman system was, after all, original and so had many, many flaws. Ultimately, the Roman Republican, the principle of the SPQR on which it stood, crumbled into Empire, because the Republican system of checks and balances just could not cope with such a widespread Empire.
The importance and the Patriotism of belonging to a particular National identity, the largely insular attitudes, their belief in the Republic, their military might, and their insistence that their way is superior and so should be spread across the World, their international cultural influence; all are derived from Rome, and passed on to it’s successor, a contemporary Renaissance, if you will, the United States of America.
There is one less obvious claim America has to be the new Rome.
Stoic Philosopher Panaetius left Athens and headed for Rome, with his new powerful friend; Roman Consul Scipio around 138BC. Earlier Stoics and Romans had decided long ago, that true Virtue came from knowledge, and so only the wisest of men could be considered virtuous in the eyes of the Gods. Panaetius introduced a new idea into the Roman every day life. He would offer help and teachings to those people who requested a life of virtue, he would provide the knowledge needed, he would be the way. And so suddenly, the idea that anyone could potentially become a supremely virtuous human being, in the eyes of the Gods, gave Politicians who sought advice from the teachings of Panaetius, a divine purpose for their serving in Rome. They would insist that the God’s had empowered them, which ultimately gave them much control over the public. This, directly influenced the notion a century later, that Caesar had a divine calling to “save” the Republic. Cicero drew heavily on the teachings of Panaetius. Suddenly individual “virtue” in the eyes of the population, became more important than the protection of the Republic.
In 2005, George Bush claimed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the disastrous wars in which thousands upon thousands of innocents have died, was a “calling from God“. He is quoted as saying “I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.” A grotesque manipulation of the emotions of Christendom in it’s entirety. Those soldiers, those innocent Iraqi’s appear to have died for a reason none of us are aware of. Perhaps a lavish extension of Western Oil investment opportunities, perhaps the need to revert Iraq back to trading Oil in U.S Dollars. Certainly not a “war on terror“, certainly not a vengeful attack for the horror of 9/11. They died, because Bush thinks he’s ordained by God? The idea that the most powerful man on the Planet, turned the Republican White House into a Theocratic mess, by claiming he felt he had a calling from the mythical God of the Christian faith to destroy a Nation, is no different to Julius Caesar embarking on a mission from the Gods of Antiquity, to “save the Republic“.
Ex-White House Press Secretary, under Lyndon Johnson, Bill Moyer said:
“What is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America’s great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on.“
Suddenly, politicians of a particular persuasion, simply because they consider themselves Christians, have decided that morality comes directly from their apparent virtuous Godly knowledge, and that the rest of us just aren’t privy to their misguided “wisdom“. They try to discredit the faith of opponent politicians, purely for their own political ends. They embarrass themselves and then say “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God“, which translates to “I forgave myself, and that’s all that matters“. Republican Congressman Trent Franks, whilst trying to justify torture, starts with a quite depressingly inaccurate claim that “America’s distinguishing hallmark, its bedrock foundation, is that we hold to the self-evident truth that all men are created by God”.
Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice Scalia, is quoted as saying “..Government…derives its moral authority from God.“.
The Anti-Abortion lobby use phrases like “We will not stop until this nation once again honors God—or we die trying“, Theocracy by any means necessary? Why do you need to include an unprovable God in your argument?
The concept that as a politician, you are doing the work of God, or that your playing a part ordained by God, is an incredibly powerful concept. The race for the Minnesota Senate seat between Republican candidate Norm Coleman and Democrat candidate Al Franken, took a turn to the Religious Right, when Coleman stated “God wants me to serve“, as if to suggest a vote for Franken, would be a vote against God.
Gary Mcleod, running for House of Representative seat against Jim Clyburn, in South Carolina’s Sixth Congressional District, writes on his home page “Socialism is immoral because it requires the violation of God-given property rights“. A horribly manipulation of Biblical principles to support Political gain.
Rumsfeld would send memo’s around, regarding the ongoing war in Iraq, filled with Biblical Quotes.
It is an incredibly manipulative environment, to bring Religion into the political landscape. It shouldn’t happen. One disgruntled blogger writing on the Huffington Post site, suggests that the Republicans just cut out their religious dogmatic nonsense, and run God for President.
The use of Religious propaganda and manipulation was utter nonsense during the height of the Roman Empire, it similarly possesses the same utter nonsensical “qualities” during the height of the American empire. The influence of the fallen Rome, is far more widespread than may seem on the surface.
June 4, 2009 at 10:22 am
And what inspires you, if it is not God? It seems your agenda is to prove the US is wrong, and you seem to hate us in the extreme. You provide no positive answers or solution for the common good that would repel the common evil. In the absense of God and faith in a higher being, your gift for words is empty. It is my prayer that you turn your gift and intelligence to make a difference and not just to uplift yourself.
June 4, 2009 at 11:36 am
I don’t hate America at all. I’m not keen on Republicans, and i’m certainly not keen on Christians.
God doesn’t inspire me, the power of the Church, based on myths and legends, inspires me.
June 4, 2009 at 2:34 pm
You’re making the mistake of not separating two distinct ways in which religion affects politics.
The line you’re drawing between Panaetian (if you will) Roman Senators and things like ‘I am driven on a mission from God…’ coming from American politicians is an interesting one. The parallels between the US and the Roman Republic are not always happy ones. Although I think you may be stretching to say Bush or any other Republican actually believes (s)he is ordained by God.
The other side is this idea that somehow religion can have nothing to do with politics. Believe me, I wince every time a politician says something like ‘God wants me elected.’ But I have no problem with Scalia’s comment and no problem with the abortion lobby’s statement. Religion has a place in democratic policy as long as religious people are voting. If you’re saying that policy should not be written based on religious beliefs, you’re flat wrong. Representatives are elected for who they are and what they believe – including their religious beliefs. I’m sure we agree when it comes to the place of the church itself as an institution inside of government, but there’s nothing wrong with religious PEOPLE in government.
June 4, 2009 at 8:34 pm
It was not religion that was the fall of roam. It was the socialist programs similar to what is going on in Europe and the US today. Watch this video.
June 4, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Sorry Rome not Roam.
June 4, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Seriously, do you blame Socialism for everything?
And no, Rome fell because it tried to rule over far too widespread an Empire, with very weak government.
June 4, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Weak government. You obviously didn’t watch the video. The expansion of the “Empire” as you call it was after Rome was no longer a republic. It was a dictatorship under the Caesars and yes it was the citizens got lazy and expected the government to do what they should and could do for themselves.
June 5, 2009 at 12:20 am
[...] 4, 2009 · No Comments My Socialist leaning blogging counterpart in the UK is trying to make parallels between our form of … In many ways he is correct. But he is drawing the wrong conclusions from history. Rome was a strong [...]
July 2, 2009 at 6:39 pm
You got it righter than you know, dude. Check this out
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106115324
I’m reading the book discussed there, “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power”, by Jeff Sharlet, and it’s chilling.
Hint: Remember the Divine Right of Kings?
July 2, 2009 at 6:43 pm
OMG, I see Ayn Rand’s mug up there.
Is even SHE being rehabilitated by The Right these day? Read her novels. You’ll laugh yourself silly, I just spoke of The Divine Right of Kings. Old Ayn believed in the Divine Right of Rich Businessmen.
July 2, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Actually she believed in free enterprise. If you looked at her interviews you would know that. As she points out it was not rich businessmen she favored just free enterprise. As she pointed out some businessmen did get laws passed that stifled competition. That also goes against free enterprise. Free enterprise only works without government interference. Protectionist laws can’t be passed, that is just as detrimental since it eliminates the compilation which is the ultimate level playing field. I laugh myself silly that you put your faith in an editor for harpers and rolling stones. Hardly legitimate journalism.
July 13, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Actually, I know Ayn Rand’s ideas in some detail because I read her novels many years ago when they were relatively new, and I even studied up on her a bit.
Those ideas appeal above all to kids. Kids feel that they are immortal and also feel full of energy and untapped power. So why wouldn’t they expect to someday join Ayn’s Masters of the Universe? “Give me totally free enterprise!” they cry. I am so strong and smart, and able to work so hard and so long, that surely one day I will be among its winners!”
And then most of them grow up and take on the burden of supporting a family, and have a few disappointments and maybe even an economic catastrophe or two, and they learn that after all they are vulnerable creatures like most other people.
Then they no longer want to live in an economic world “red in tooth and claw”.
No one, other than the “all-powerful” Young, wants to live in a world with no “safety net” such as social democratic parties labor to bring us, except: 1) people who are already Sitting Pretty with plenty of inherited wealth, 2) members of the relatively small group of people not born with wealth but who do manage to rise to it during their lifetimes, and 3) unthoughtful people who have been so relentlessly propagandized by the business class and its political representative that they no longer can question the received verities of capitalist social organization.
July 13, 2009 at 11:41 pm
nightman1,
You couldn’t be more wrong, The socialist programs are what destroyed Rome! They collapse under the shear weight of the cost programs.
July 14, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I have learnt that Marshall will blame Socialism for everything.
He’ll ignore the terror that the “free” market ideologues have wreaked on the World, on its resources and on it’s people, but Socialism, he’ll blame for everything.
Diana’s death – he’ll blame Socialism some how.
The holocaust – Bound to have something to do with tax funded healthcare.
The end of the World – Those fucking Chinese kids wanting better working conditions, and the damn hippies who want to help them, they’re the ones who are going to be to blame!
July 14, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Can you show any socialist state that has lasted over 200 years? They are a dismal failure. The free market is what made the United States strong. It is excessive taxation,socialist programs and over regulation that made us uncompetitive in the world market. It was true with the Roman Republic and it is true now, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
July 15, 2009 at 1:10 am
Socialism didn’t work, no, you’re right.
Free Markets only work because we don’t have a fucking choice. It’s “either be this way, make money for us, or we’ll call you lazy, and you’ll be an outcast, worthless, pointless, a waste of oxygen”. Yeah, great system.
July 15, 2009 at 3:07 am
futiledemocracy
Well if you expect me to pay for you then you are exactly what you said!
July 15, 2009 at 9:16 am
Funnily enough, my life doesn’t revolve around money. It isn’t about who i’m paying for, who i’m helping, how much I have, how many houses I can buy (whilst others suffer on the streets). There is far more to me, than my bank account.
Unfortunately, there are forces at work (you) who would rather we were all defined by our jobs, and how much we earn, rather than who we are on a deeper level.
July 15, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Funny, Futile, very funny. You obviously did not watch the Friedman video. Somehow you liberals think that stealing through taxation and creating socialist programs is virtuous. If you liberals were truly virtuous you would freely donate to charity. That is what charities are for, but as always you liberals only seem to be generous with other peoples money!
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
– Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
– Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
– Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
– Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
– In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
July 15, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Well, that proves it. Pissing on the poor and exploiting every third World nation possible, is wondrous afterall.
What was I thinking.
I’m off to employ a Chinese kid for 20p a day.
I may even invade a Nation on the pretext of a complete lie. Spend billions on it. End the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocents. But then only complain when my $250,000 a year is threatened a little (selfishness is what makes America amazing, isn’t it?), because the free market financial system fucked up big time. (Probably the fault of Socialism as well, right?)
July 15, 2009 at 4:20 pm
You really have to lay off the Kool-aid, You act like the government is some sort of benevolent philanthropist. No government has been either. The strongest and wealthiness have always been those that embraced freedom and a free market the third world countries are exactly that because they do not embrace those principles. War? WTF name one country that we invaded based on a complete lie? If you are referring to Iraq then your statement is a falsehood. Yes there could be serious debates as to why we should not have gone in but it was hardly based on a lie. Every intelligence agency in the world thought he had weapons of mass destruction, UN councel resolutions were made on that belief, the entire fiasco could have been avoided if Saddam had simply let the inspectors in and there were not hundreds of thousands killed. If you are referring to Vietnam that was started by a very liberal democrat, but then you knew that didn’t you!
November 19, 2009 at 4:30 am
Ah, what fun to come back and read this! I love the knowledge of ancient Rome displayed in the blog post. And I’m struck by how dramatically the world has recently had it demonstrated that totally free enterprise leads inevitably to bubbles and then Depressions.
That’s because, kids, humans are prone to hubris–overweening pride. No amount of anything is ever more than any of us think we deserve. Give us access to unlimited power and we’ll take all that power and grab for more. Give us the chance to pursue our greed full-bore, untrammeled by regulations, and we’ll make up ever-new ways to get ever-more money ’til we bring the whole money house down.
Thinking people have known this about human nature forever. “Pride goeth before a fall,” says the Bible. The ancient Greeks, hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, knew this about us in detail, and created the term hubris to describe our inability to stop at any self-imposed limit, ever — and some of them then created brilliant plays around this theme.
The American Founding Fathers knew this about political man, and created a complex system of checks and balances to hobble insatiable urges for power. Unfortunately, they didn’t know it about economic man, primarily because industrial capitalism, with its potential for profits beyond the dreams of Croesus hadn’t arrived yet.
That’s why we now need SOMEWHAT UN-FREE markets–that is, a decent degree of regulation on Capitalism to curb economic hubris. But for some reason the old “checks and balances” thing, so obviously needed re political power, is not accepted in the economic realm by Friedman, Rand, and their ilk.
I ..er…lay this blindness at the feet of idolatry. The hubris of intellectuals tends to take the form of creating then swallowing and even eventually deifying systems of ideas–until those systems become ideologies, and thought thereupon ends. Marxist-Leninism was one example of that. Totally free markets is another. No more obvious fanatic for a religico-idealogy than Ayn Rand has ever been seen in the modern world outside Russia.
A quieter and ultimately more harmful acolyte was Milton Friedman.
The next really important one was former American Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan–who has said that he was heavily influenced by Ayn Rand, and since the bubble burst has admitted that he had been wrong in running the Federal Reserve on the basis that financial markets would, if left TOTALLY FREE, police themselves.
Let us see if after this last debacle anyone manages to reign in hubristic greed. Given the unlimitied supply of money the hubristically greedy have with which to bribe Congresspersons, I wouldn’t count on it.
November 19, 2009 at 4:37 am
Oh yes, for my take on the fall of the Roman Empire, based on a good deal of careful reading of some pretty convincing experts on the subject, and then some further thinking about same,see this post:
http://nightman1.wordpress.com/?s=Roman