United States and Roman Government

[ASCLEPIADES]

All that said, let's emphasize some inherent risks of the finding Roman parallels game:

 

Here come some extracts from AE Lewine "Ancient Rome in Modern Italy: Mussolini

Edited August 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[sonic]

Now, to be President of the US you have to be a multi-millionnaire with the support of one of the two political parties. Even then you spend time asking for donations!

 

High-level politics both at the end of the Roman Republic and in the US in the 21st century is way beyond the vast majority of people. They simply don't have the means to compete, instead having to choose from a limited number of options.

 

That's an easy and fallacious parallel, because it applies to most of the humans during most of History.

 

Even today, it's no easy to find any head of state not backed by an army and/or a fortune.

 

Firstly, the connection might be easy but it's not 'fallacious', as it is neither untrue or misleading. I agree that it applies to most humans during the course of history, but those countries did not adopt the political stance of 'equality and freedom for all'. I was simply noting that after the adoption of 'political inclusion' as a reaction against their exclusion from British politics, it is interesting to note that the US adopted a 'Senate' from Rome and have now gone down the same path of excluding the majority of people from the higher echelons of political power, as it is now based on wealth. The main difference between Rome and the US in this matter is that Rome never claimed to be open and equally inclusive.

 

A sign of what might be coming is that we nearly arrived at a point where it was two families (the Bushes and the Clintons) who dominated the Presidency. Although Obama has ensured that this will not happen, the question remains as to whether it is a sign of things to come, with the President coming from an ever-narrower core of rich and powerful individuals. We were asked for possible comparisons and this is one. Slowly the US - despite the hopes of the Founding Fathers - appears to be excluding the vast majority of its population from high political office.

 

BTW, the US log-cabin presidents (Andrew Jackson, James K Polk, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln and James A Garfield) were not a fable.

 

Which proves my point. The US began as an 'ideal' democracy and is slowly following the Roman pattern.

 

I would agree that the parallel is an obvious one and is easy to make, but that doesn't make it any the less true. Furthermore, at some point the parallel has to break down, as I can't see the US army following 'George W' across the Rubicon (Mississippi??) and so inaugurating the 'US Empire' on Roman terms. It is intriguing to look and guess at where the system will go from here.

 

Sonic

 

PS. I will never, ever claim that Britain has the 'Best' government in the world. One thing I feel I should point out to those who don't know is that to stand for election as a Member of Parliament all you need to do is register and pay

[caldrail]

I'm not very familiar with Roman History, but from what I recall learning in school, the same happened with the Roman government, it started as a very prosperous republic for the people, morphed into a democracy of government bureaucracy, expanded into an empire, which could only be controlled by a dictatorship, and eventually began to collapse under strain.

 

In researching, there are endless opinions and mountains of information, so I thought it might be most effective to ask such a question of those who are likely already gurus. I'm wondering if the above is generally true, the time frames that it took to happen, how the government changed, and if inflation, increasing taxes, and expansion along with the resulting loss of liberty and freedoms of the people eventually put a strain on the government to the point that it was a major contributor to the collapse. I'm most interested in a brief general time frame and any parallels that can be draw with the United States.

 

Thanks for any brief concise answers!

The comparison between ancient and modern is popular in some circumstances, not others. When looking at snapshots of social history and organisation these comparisons are very popular, because its easy. For instance, I regularly read that one roman military unit or rank is equivalent to one of ours in

the modern day. Such comparisons rely on coincidence, not in form or function, and for that reason, they are fundamentally flawed. However, human social dynamics have not changed at all. People organise themselves into communities because we're social animals, and we gain survival advantages from doing this. Now if you apply a microscope on such things you simply focus on the differences, but if you stand back back and take in a broader picture, there are similarities of cultural development. Societies are not static - they change with time and circumstance - and whilst these changes cannot be charted exactly there are certain developments that reoccur over time. The thing is, we look at ourselves as something apart from nature, which believe is wrong. We are animals (whether we like it or not) and therefore obey instinctive guidelines for behaviour honed by evolution. The organic quality of the universe manifests itself time and again in all manner of ways, and the trick is not to compare two isolated cultures but to compare them all and if you consider the generic progress and decline - the similarities emerge. Its as if cultures have a birth, growth, maturity, and death, with their 'lives' altered by the events surrounding them. This view isn't popular with some people, especially those with detailed knowledge of a particular culture or two, but social behaviour is part of humanity - its encoded by genetics, instinct, and educational inheritance- thus we ultimately tend to do the same things over and over. Specifically then, you will find some huge differences between the US and Rome. Generically, you will see underlying it are the same behavioural developments that are part of mankind.

[sonic]

I'm not very familiar with Roman History, but from what I recall learning in school, the same happened with the Roman government, it started as a very prosperous republic for the people, morphed into a democracy of government bureaucracy, expanded into an empire, which could only be controlled by a dictatorship, and eventually began to collapse under strain.

 

In researching, there are endless opinions and mountains of information, so I thought it might be most effective to ask such a question of those who are likely already gurus. I'm wondering if the above is generally true, the time frames that it took to happen, how the government changed, and if inflation, increasing taxes, and expansion along with the resulting loss of liberty and freedoms of the people eventually put a strain on the government to the point that it was a major contributor to the collapse. I'm most interested in a brief general time frame and any parallels that can be draw with the United States.

 

Thanks for any brief concise answers!

The comparison between ancient and modern is popular in some circumstances, not others. When looking at snapshots of social history and organisation these comparisons are very popular, because its easy. For instance, I regularly read that one roman military unit or rank is equivalent to one of ours in

the modern day. Such comparisons rely on coincidence, not in form or function, and for that reason, they are fundamentally flawed. However, human social dynamics have not changed at all. People organise themselves into communities because we're social animals, and we gain survival advantages from doing this. Now if you apply a microscope on such things you simply focus on the differences, but if you stand back back and take in a broader picture, there are similarities of cultural development. Societies are not static - they change with time and circumstance - and whilst these changes cannot be charted exactly there are certain developments that reoccur over time. The thing is, we look at ourselves as something apart from nature, which believe is wrong. We are animals (whether we like it or not) and therefore obey instinctive guidelines for behaviour honed by evolution. The organic quality of the universe manifests itself time and again in all manner of ways, and the trick is not to compare two isolated cultures but to compare them all and if you consider the generic progress and decline - the similarities emerge. Its as if cultures have a birth, growth, maturity, and death, with their 'lives' altered by the events surrounding them. This view isn't popular with some people, especially those with detailed knowledge of a particular culture or two, but social behaviour is part of humanity - its encoded by genetics, instinct, and educational inheritance- thus we ultimately tend to do the same things over and over. Specifically then, you will find some huge differences between the US and Rome. Generically, you will see underlying it are the same behavioural developments that are part of mankind.

 

Caldrail, I Agree!! Damn you and your eloquence!! The differences between the US and Rome are vast. But some of the similarities are intriguing and makes me wonder whether the US will follow roughly the same pattern of development as Rome or whether they will diverge - and if so, in what way.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Firstly, the connection might be easy but it's not 'fallacious', as it is neither untrue or misleading. I agree that it applies to most humans during the course of history, but those countries did not adopt the political stance of 'equality and freedom for all'.

Salve, S.

You presented it as a parallel between US and the Roman Repubic.; that is misleading, if we agree that it is a characteristic of all humans; therefore, it doesn't made any more similar both Republics than the mere fact of being human.

 

Even if not with exactly the same words, most if not all countries include equality and freedom among their stated goals. Can you name any exception?

[ASCLEPIADES]

I'm not very familiar with Roman History, but from what I recall learning in school, the same happened with the Roman government, it started as a very prosperous republic for the people, morphed into a democracy of government bureaucracy, expanded into an empire, which could only be controlled by a dictatorship, and eventually began to collapse under strain.

 

In researching, there are endless opinions and mountains of information, so I thought it might be most effective to ask such a question of those who are likely already gurus. I'm wondering if the above is generally true, the time frames that it took to happen, how the government changed, and if inflation, increasing taxes, and expansion along with the resulting loss of liberty and freedoms of the people eventually put a strain on the government to the point that it was a major contributor to the collapse. I'm most interested in a brief general time frame and any parallels that can be draw with the United States.

 

Thanks for any brief concise answers!

The comparison between ancient and modern is popular in some circumstances, not others. When looking at snapshots of social history and organisation these comparisons are very popular, because its easy. For instance, I regularly read that one roman military unit or rank is equivalent to one of ours in

the modern day. Such comparisons rely on coincidence, not in form or function, and for that reason, they are fundamentally flawed. However, human social dynamics have not changed at all. People organise themselves into communities because we're social animals, and we gain survival advantages from doing this. Now if you apply a microscope on such things you simply focus on the differences, but if you stand back back and take in a broader picture, there are similarities of cultural development. Societies are not static - they change with time and circumstance - and whilst these changes cannot be charted exactly there are certain developments that reoccur over time. The thing is, we look at ourselves as something apart from nature, which believe is wrong. We are animals (whether we like it or not) and therefore obey instinctive guidelines for behaviour honed by evolution. The organic quality of the universe manifests itself time and again in all manner of ways, and the trick is not to compare two isolated cultures but to compare them all and if you consider the generic progress and decline - the similarities emerge. Its as if cultures have a birth, growth, maturity, and death, with their 'lives' altered by the events surrounding them. This view isn't popular with some people, especially those with detailed knowledge of a particular culture or two, but social behaviour is part of humanity - its encoded by genetics, instinct, and educational inheritance- thus we ultimately tend to do the same things over and over. Specifically then, you will find some huge differences between the US and Rome. Generically, you will see underlying it are the same behavioural developments that are part of mankind.

 

Caldrail, I Agree!! Damn you and your eloquence!!

We agree.

[sonic]

Firstly, the connection might be easy but it's not 'fallacious', as it is neither untrue or misleading. I agree that it applies to most humans during the course of history, but those countries did not adopt the political stance of 'equality and freedom for all'.

Salve, S.

You presented it as a parallel between US and the Roman Repubic.; that is misleading, if we agree that it is a characteristic of all humans; therefore, it doesn't made any more similar both Republics than the mere fact of being human.

I do take your point: if all societies go through the same process, there is no parallel between the US and Rome. I understand completely your point of view! How else could we both agree with Caldrail?

 

However, for the sake of argument, I would suggest that there is a parallel if the US purposely adopted adapted Roman political systems - as is suggested by their implementation of a 'Senate'. Although the rise and dominance of the rich and powerful is a characteristic of most - actually, I can't think of an exception off-hand! - political systems, I would suggest that it is interesting to note that the US adopted a system of government that seems to have since followed the traditional route. Furthermore, if any country was to avoid this my bets would have been on the US. They had a completely clean canvas on which to paint their constitution, with the ability to pick and choose from what they thought would be politically useful without having to convince a population embedded within an existing political structure. (The population of the US at that time was not really included within the political structure of the UK.) They could also have seen the downfalls inherent and so made it clear that these were to be avoided.

 

For whatever reason, they appear - on the surface at least - to have modelled some of their institutions on Rome. As the most successful Imperial system of which they had knowledge, I am not surprised that Rome was tempting as a model. However, I would be interested to learn from an 'expert' whether there were any provisions in the original Constitution to ensure that the political system was never dominated by powerful individuals! I would suspect not: after all, they were a group of men united behind an ideal who believed in what they were doing and who probably also believed that future generations would adhere to the principles of the Constitution. As corroboration, I believe that after Roosevelt there was an amendment to ensure that no succeeding President would be able to take office for more than three successive terms of office, as nobody had believed that to be possible beforehand. However, that did not take into account 'dynasties' such as the Clintons and the Bushes.

 

In fact, you're statement earlier about the 'common' Presidents such as Lincoln actually help to prove the parallel, since the Romans too pointed to the 'common' leaders who left their ploughs to help the Republic in times of trouble before returning to their farms.

 

Even if not with exactly the same words, most if not all countries include equality and freedom among their stated goals. Can you name any exception?

 

Not offhand, but I can name a couple who included those phrases without ever really intending to adhere to them!

[ASCLEPIADES]

However, for the sake of argument, I would suggest that there is a parallel if the US purposely adopted adapted Roman political systems - as is suggested by their implementation of a 'Senate'. Although the rise and dominance of the rich and powerful is a characteristic of most - actually, I can't think of an exception off-hand! - political systems, I would suggest that it is interesting to note that the US adopted a system of government that seems to have since followed the traditional route. Furthermore, if any country was to avoid this my bets would have been on the US. They had a completely clean canvas on which to paint their constitution, with the ability to pick and choose from what they thought would be politically useful without having to convince a population embedded within an existing political structure. (The population of the US at that time was not really included within the political structure of the UK.) They could also have seen the downfalls inherent and so made it clear that these were to be avoided.

 

For whatever reason, they appear - on the surface at least - to have modelled some of their institutions on Rome. As the most successful Imperial system of which they had knowledge, I am not surprised that Rome was tempting as a model.

What you mean should be better called "influence" than "parallel".

As any other human institution, both Republics were the resultant of the evolution from their respective antecedents.

For the Roman Republic, that would mean at least the Etruscan, Latin and Hellenic cities, maybe even Carthage.

Rome has been (how can it not?) a huge influence in virtually all the European-derived political systems, from Tsarism to Communism, from Zionism to Protestantism.

Not surprisingly, each of their leaders tend to find once and again "parallels" with their admired (and with their hated) Roman characters (obviously not the same people for all of them).

 

Words like "Consul", "Senate", "Pontifex, "Dictator", "Aedil", "Tribune" have been used myriad of times by quite different political systems, most often than not ignoring the original versions.

 

Must we remark the many notorious differences between the American and Roman republican systems?

 

US has a three power strict division; the Roman Senate concentrated all of them .

US presidents enjoy sole executive power; they are not consules in any meaningful way.

The US legislative congress is bi-cameral, the Roman Senate wasn't.

Vote is king in the US system; there's no real cursus honorum requirement.

There's nothing in the US system analogous to such typical Roman magistrates like the Plebeian Tribunes, the Censors or even the Dictators.

Church and State are completely dissociated in the US but hardly in the Roman system.

Most US canvassing practices would have been considered ambitus on ancient Rome.

 

All these are fundamental distinctions; and we can go on indefinitely.

[ASCLEPIADES]

However, I would be interested to learn from an 'expert' whether there were any provisions in the original Constitution to ensure that the political system was never dominated by powerful individuals! I would suspect not: after all, they were a group of men united behind an ideal who believed in what they were doing and who probably also believed that future generations would adhere to the principles of the Constitution.

There are of course plenty of legal provisions, both past and ongoing; that's one of the main reasons it hasn't happened yet. I don't think you require an "expert" level to check it out.

 

As corroboration, I believe that after Roosevelt there was an amendment to ensure that no succeeding President would be able to take office for more than three successive terms of office, as nobody had believed that to be possible beforehand. However, that did not take into account 'dynasties' such as the Clintons and the Bushes.

You're talking about the XXII Amendment of the United States Constitution (ratified on February 27, 1951) , which limits the president to serve two terms, ie. eight years (potentially up to ten; ie, having succeeded to the presidency of his predecessor with two years remaining in that term).

 

Even if FDR has been the only president who had ever served more than eight years (he was elected for four terms, from which he served little more than twelve years), such possibility has been previously discussed regarding many other US presidents, like US Grant, the other Roosevelt and even George Washington himself.

 

I think the term "Dynasties" as you use it is mostly a metaphor.

Anyway, such "Dynasties" must include the Adams, beginning with no less than the second president.

In fact, if you check it carefully, most US presidents have been family-related with other presidents one way or the other

[ASCLEPIADES]

In fact, you're statement earlier about the 'common' Presidents such as Lincoln actually help to prove the parallel, since the Romans too pointed to the 'common' leaders who left their ploughs to help the Republic in times of trouble before returning to their farms.

Civic virtues have been praised in almost any stable political system I'm aware of.

Another universal parallel?

 

Even if not with exactly the same words, most if not all countries include equality and freedom among their stated goals. Can you name any exception?

 

Not offhand, but I can name a couple who included those phrases without ever really intending to adhere to them!

Countries are integrated by people. You can find idealist, pragmatic and cynical people everywhere.

[Northern Neil]

makes me wonder whether the US will follow roughly the same pattern of development as Rome or whether they will diverge - and if so, in what way.

I believe the US will not follow the same social or political trajectory as Rome. In the third and fourth centuries, the decline of cities led to a commensurate decline in the middle classes. What emerged in the Dominate was a sort of precurser to feudalism, in which there were a few haves, many have nots and very few people in between. The Roman Imperial system accordingly grew more monachistic and religion once more dominated the everyday lives of ordinary people.

 

In modern industrialised societies monarchy and religion inevitably get either thrust into the political background, or dispensed with altogether. This is largely on account of a middle class which collectively has political power linked to wealth. Unless there is some kind of worldwide recession followed by massive economic collapse and population reduction, I do not see the US cities declining, trade diminishing and a monarchical government replacing the Senate or Congress.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Northern Neil

[caldrail]

The US was bsed on classical principles (greek too, not just roman) because the educated men who sat down to write the constitution were knowledgable about such things and saw it as a superior system to the monarchies of europe. It is a parallel that the US threw off the kings and adopted a republic. The further parallels wll arise as a result of similar events. The american geographical isolation however distorts the comparisn for obvious reasons.

 

The submergence of religion in modern industrial societies is not so clear cut. Christianity has failed to adapt to the changes in society and has increasingly been seen as irrelevant (I will spare you my own views on it, most of you have already heard them) but then isn't the american south strongly christian still? The increasing influence of islam has been offset somewhat by the militantcy that surrounds it, but it remains a growing influence nonetheless. Further, the significance of religion depends on the general mood and state of society, plus the availability of charismatic individuals able to preach their message. Without the disciples, christianity would have disappeared before it started. With the right person exploiting the media, there could just as easily be another religious awakening in the future, another harsh and moralistic phase such as that we saw in Cromwells time. Human society goes through these cycles. It accepts a certain enviroment then gets gradually bored or indifferent to it, until a point is reached where another such phase begins again.

[Julia C]

I was simply noting that after the adoption of 'political inclusion' as a reaction against their exclusion from British politics, it is interesting to note that the US adopted a 'Senate' from Rome and have now gone down the same path of excluding the majority of people from the higher echelons of political power, as it is now based on wealth.

 

Since when was the common man ever accepted to the highest echelons of power? From the start, political power was only granted to wealthy and highborn white property owners. The Americans were far more restrictive about the franchise than even the Romans were.

 

Observe:

 

"The mass of men are neither wise nor good, and virtue, like the other resources of a country, can only be drawn to a point and exerted by strong circumstances ably managed, or a strong government ably administered." -John Jay

 

"The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government... Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good?" - Alexander Hamilton

 

Note, too, that the US Senate was once called the "Millionaire's Club" at the turn of the 19th century, and is fairly recent that US politicians have been dependant on corporate fundraising because they simply do not possess the funds themselves.

 

The Bush family may be part of the old Yankee aristocracy, but it is the last of a dying breed; witness the fate of Senator Chafee of Rhode Island in 2006, or the defeat of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. to Kennedy in 1952. The American Northeastern Establishment is akin to the more conscientious sort of idealized Roman patrician--the kind that monopolizes power to itself and its progeny, but adds a strong sense of public duty and responsibility to it.

 

Do note that this is hardly unique to America and Rome, and that these are shared features with most other polities in western history.

[ASCLEPIADES]

[quote name='Julia C

[Antiochus III]

This makes me wonder: why the hell does this site have John McCain ads? Come on, another white emperor, one who will just continue the legacy of a few rich snobs who only care about their own wealth, and the wealth of the people that bribe them? Can't we learn from the Romans, that having a bunch of rich people ruling an empire can only make the rich richer and the poor poorer? And what of freedom? Yes, we Americans are the free-est in the world to pay taxes and watch our freedoms meet their demise.

 

Antiochus III