Rome & The Republic

The study of history has largely been abandoned in the American education system, particularly any study of ancient history but there are many lessons to be learned by simply examining the mistakes of the past. The parallels between ancient Rome and modern America should give pause to our political leaders today. Rome was a Republic that lasted for 482 years. It had an elected body—the Senate led by two Consuls. This was a very successful government until overthrown by Caesar in his drive for total power, but Rome itself lasted for over a thousand years and during that period experienced many problems and situations America faces today.

Rome was expansionist in that it conquered and incorporated territories into the Empire. But Rome was careful to preserve the cultures and leadership of those territories. Kings were left in place but most importantly Rome was careful not to tamper with the local customs and religions, that is until they ran up against the monotheistic Jews and Christians. This religious tolerance was not again experienced until the founding of America who incorporated religious tolerance into the Constitution. The Romans tolerated the Christians at first but the Christians simply would not accept the polytheistic views of the Romans. Eventually the Christians prevailed and the Roman Empire became Christian. Today America tolerates all religions including Atheism and Islam. However, just as the early Christians refused to accept the religious tolerance of the Roman Government so does Islam refuse to accept any religion except Islam. The Muslim community pleads for peace and understanding just as the early Christians did, but it should be noted that the Christians did not Christianize Rome through violence but through creeping influence and conversion until Rome was Christian. How will Islam impact America and America’s religious tolerance?

Rome accepted other people and cultures and the city itself was overflowing with people from all parts of the Empire. The Goths, Gauls, Visigoths, Britons, and others were not trying to overthrow Rome, they wanted to be part of the Roman Empire. They wanted to share the wealth and standard of living that characterized Rome. But in the simplest view, Rome simply could not accept this influx of people and cultures. Today America is under assault from thousands of people crossing our borders not to conquer us but to share the wealth and enjoy the stability of the government. This was a problem the Romans could not resolve for many reasons. They were preoccupied with foreign affairs, various wars, corruption in the government, failure in communications, unemployment, and a weakening economy. All of these issues exist in America today and it doesn’t appear that our government is any closer to solving them than the Romans but perhaps it might be worthwhile examining what the Romans did and try to not do those things.

Initially the Roman Senate was elected by the citizens of Rome and it represented their interests but gradually the Roman Senate became a self-serving group filled with corruption. Posts were bought and sold with the understanding that the person filling the post would enrich himself through corruption. The American Senate isn’t quite that bad – yet, but does the American Congress represent the people who vote them into office or do they represent the special interests and wealthy contributors who pay for their elections? The Romans never resolved this problem and whether America can is yet to be seen.

At one time Rome had over a million men in the Army spread across the Empire. This military presence was very expensive to maintain and it required a huge tax base just to maintain it. Nevertheless this huge Army was simply not enough to protect the borders or to maintain the integrity of the Empire. Today American has a huge military spread around the globe protecting America’s and in most cases international interests. This is being done with American money with only token amounts from other countries in the form of soldiers and money. Can America continue to support NATO? Can America continue to pretend the UN has any relevance and authority? Can America continue to play world policeman? The Romans couldn’t can America?

The lessons are there – is any one listening?

Rome - America - Capitalism

This lengthy essay is in response to a comment posted by Susanna.

Susanna:
Thank you for your comments regarding Ancient Rome. Yes it is true that Roman society was sharply divided between the wealthy and everyone else but the society did function. The Gracchi’s did attempt to land reform but as you may know it failed. Nevertheless land was constantly being allocated to former members of the military and the majority of Roman Society lived better than they did after the Romans were eclipsed by those who desired their wealth without actually earning it. The result was grinding poverty and marginal living for virtually all of society. So eliminating slavery and redistributing land and wealth didn’t actually improve things.

While in college my history class addressed the issue of land reform as a means of wealth redistribution. The idea was that most of the land and wealth was in the hands of a few so various “Presidente`s” elected to take the land from the wealthy land owners and give it to the peons. This was done several times and it failed every time. Within a very few years the wealthy land owners once again owned the land and the peons were back working it. The root cause was not greed or even predatory practices – the fundamental issues were that not everyone is a good farmer so some simply failed to work the land properly and had to sell it in order to eat. Others could farm the land but could not make enough to feed their families because they didn’t have enough land. Eventually these farmers also sold their land and within a few years the land was back in the hands of the wealthy, the government collapsed, and a new Presidente` was in place.

Now you note that 90% of the wealth of America is in the hands of 10% and you say this as if this was wrong. In my work I travel extensively and I have noted that virtually everyone owns a car, has housing, eats regularly, has a TV, and most have one or more computers. I would say that everyone I meet on a daily basis is not “rich” nor are they in that rarefied 10% so your statistic is really meaningless. I also have in my circle of friends 3 people who do in fact reside in that 10% and probably in the 5% range. One man escaped from the communists and came to the US with no money whatsoever. He worked as a carpenter, saved his money, bought land, and today owns homes all over the world, contributes heavily to the Republican Party and commented recently that the very words used by President Obama were the exact words the communists used when they seized his family’s farm and livestock. Another man sold tools out of the trunk of his car. He gradually built his business and recently sold it for $57M and retired. One my oldest friends left the Navy and worked as door to door salesman. He borrowed money to buy one share of the business he worked for. Twenty years later he bought the last share of that business and today he owns it and is worth millions. All three of these men contribute heavily to charity and employ hundreds of others. So opportunity exists for those who choose to work. Those who choose not to work have no right to the wealth of others.

Since you are student of Roman History you might check Emperor Severus. As I recall he tried the Obama approach of taxing the wealthy in order to raise revenues. Paradoxically the higher he raised the taxes on the rich the lower his revenues dropped. You cannot take from the wealthy and give to the unproductive without reducing the total revenues and lowering the standard of living. This was made very obvious with the various communist regimes in the 20th Century.

I do agree that there is a growing underclass in America but I disagree with your implied root cause. You state that this underclass is the result of a lack of education, housing, and healthcare. Public schools are available throughout the country. The schools are routinely destroyed by the children of the underclass whom they are serving. These children do not attend, do not do the work, assault the teachers, and destroy the property. Rather than take responsibility for the poor education their children are receiving they blame the government, the wealthy, the whites, anyone but themselves. So the education is there if they choose to take advantage of it and many do. I am not responsible for the bad decisions of the underclass regarding their education. The government has routinely built public housing for the underclass who have just as routinely destroyed it. The government has torn these projects down and built new ones with the same result. The government then offered programs so the homeless could buy houses with no money down. This allowed hundreds of people to buy homes they couldn’t afford which forced them into bankruptcy and the ill advised government program to spend trillions of dollars keeping companies out of bankruptcy after the government forced them into this ridiculous program to start with.

This brings us to the question of healthcare which you apparently think is some sort of right of the underclass. The actuality is that every hospital in the country is required to provide service to the indigent without charge. The cost of this service is borne by those who have (and pay for) health insurance. So the reality is that there is no one in this country who must go without healthcare and that includes millions of illegal aliens who are slowly bankrupting the welfare system.

Some how you have concluded that the social welfare programs initiated by Roosevelt and expanded by every President since, have not worked because of greed. Precisely whose greed you don’t mention, but I suspect you attribute the woes of society to those who actually work for a living and those businesses that strive to make a profit while employing others. Making a profit is not greed and taking money from those who earn it and give it to those who do not, is communism in its purest form. I think this philosophy has failed repeatedly. I

In the late 1990’s shortly after the fall of the Communist Regime (USSR), I was part of a university program dealing with Russian professionals. The objective was to give them insight into businesses being run for profit. This was an astonishing experience for all parties but those that visited my home never grasped the size of my home and the quality of my life as the result of how hard I worked. They were accustomed to not working and drinking constantly. Prior to this program I was on a tour in Denmark of manufacturing facilities. The other American and I were appalled at the gross inefficiencies and commented that we could increase production and decrease costs by at least 50%. The tour guide stated that the objective of the socialist government was employment not profit or efficiency.

Now you think that people who work hard are doing it solely so they can have more money than their neighbor. I have no idea where you got that idea from – perhaps it is your personal motivation – I don’t know but I do know most of the people I know work because they like to work. I know I do what I do for fun and the fact that I make a lot of money doing it is a by product not the driving motive. In fact I would turn this around and say that those people who you view as the underclass are there due to their own decisions. They are the ones who didn’t like school. They are the ones who don’t have a trade because work requires you arrive on time, follow directions, don’t take drugs, and don’t drink. These simple rules are too stringent for most of those whom you see as the underclass. They are the ones who make these decisions that prevent them from enjoying the fruits of their labor. Instead they whine and appeal to politicians to give them something from the government. Of course most politicians seem to forget that the government doesn’t make money it extorts it from those who do work to give it to those who don’t. The current economic collapse is a direct result of these government run attempts to satisfy the demands from this underclass who are there because of their own bad decision making.

Do I despise and distrust the elected representatives? I certainly do although not as much as I distrust the Judiciary. Beginning with FDR the congress and the judiciary have step by step and inch by inch distorted the Constitution and Declaration of Independence into something totally unrecognizable. Apparently you think this battle over healthcare reform is the main issue – it is not. The Congress and the liberal community based on the West and East Coasts have so lost touch with the temper of the country that they really don’t understand this ground swell of anger or how to cope with it. They keep tying it to healthcare which has little to do with it. The anger begins with affirmative action which has led to quotas and reverse discrimination. It starts with the idea that prayers cannot be said in public, that we are not a Christian Nation, that atheists can dictate how we live and worship, that politicians are distorting the Constitution to restrict guns, that the courts give more rights to criminals than they do to citizens. That the President can by pass congress and appoint czars to run the businesses which he is illegally seizing. The great majority of the population is tired of being ignored and having the very fabric of the country eroded by thoughtless self-seeking politicians and judges with their own agendas.
Now to return to Rome for a moment, the reality is that the Roman Empire encompassed the entire Mediterranean Basin. The vast majority of people in the empire lived happy productive lives. The bread and circuses really was a City of Rome issue and not an issue in the Empire per se. In fact an argument could be made that a lot of loafers and idlers gravitated to Rome for the simple reason they could get handouts from the government. This welfare system was unique to Rome. It didn’t work there and it isn’t working here either because it still rewards idlers and loafers. Corruption for the most part is a government institution and enjoyed by those politicians who need to be turned out of office. Just look at the current administration – it is filled with jail birds, tax evaders, and officials totally out of touch with the people.

I urge you to read:
“The Law” by Frederick Bastiat
“ The Worldly Philosophers” by Heilbronner

Royce

Imperial America Part II

Previously we concluded that America does not meet the criteria for an Imperial Power in the classical sense because it does not have a policy of territorial expansion, domination, or power, yet America is widely viewed by others as Imperialistic. Many liberals and non-Americans reject this classic definition of Imperialism because America doesn’t fit the definition therefore; they have elected to redefine Imperialism. The basis for this new definition for Imperialism is to ensure America can be described as Imperialistic because it includes “influence” and on this basis American can indeed be accused of Imperialism. But even with this expanded definition, America may not actually be Imperialistic because this would require America to have a formal and announced policy to influence or change other countries and cultures. But the question becomes, if others choose of their own accord to emulate America, does that represent Imperialism?

Within this new framework the New Imperialism includes economic, political, and cultural influence. Certainly America is an economic superpower not only through our vast expenditures worldwide, which range in the trillions of dollars and touch almost every country, but through our consumption as well. If the American market were to collapse, the entire world would drop into global depression and whole countries would be ruined economically. This actually happened in 1929 when the American Stock Market crashed it brought the whole world to its knees and that was before America became the economic powerhouse it is today.

There is no doubt but that the American economy represents a major part of the world economy if not the actual foundation of it. But the reality is that it is our purchasing power that makes us such a formidable economic force, not some policy of economic domination. Our purchasing power is a direct result of our productivity and capitalist system. It is capitalism that is shunned by much of the world because it permits a great disparity in wealth, and this brings us to the concept of Imperialism via political domination. This charge is leveled at the US primarily by the various dictators and Marxists around the world, because the very word “democracy” is a threat to their power.

America is frequently accused of attempting to impose democracy – American style democracy – on the rest of the world, but this is really not the situation. America’s policy has always been one of self-determination by the people being governed. Now having a policy and being able to enforce it are two separate things entirely, hence the USSR was able to subjugate Russia and most of Eastern Europe through intimidation. This is also true in Cuba, Venezuela, and various countries around the globe. The US has chosen not to intervene because these governments at least appear to be self-detemined. However, when it is possible the US has consistently acted in the interest of the people being governed and when military force is used, that military is withdrawn as soon as practical. But that just means that the US is not Imperialistic in the classical sense, yet American politics influences much of the world.

The concept of equal rights for women or equal rights for all was initiated by America and voluntarily adopted by various other countries. The same is true for the concept of sexual harassment, hate crimes, environmental protection, and many more. These political changes have been freely adopted by other countries – primarily in the west. It was the US that pioneered the concept of human rights and human rights violations which are widely recognized today. However, these were changes that the US adopted internally and never inflicted on other governments. These concepts were freely adopted by other governments reflecting America’s drive for equal treatment for all. So America’s political views are widespread but spread through influence not through any policy that inflicts these on others. But America’s influence isn’t restricted to the political arena but it extends culturally as well and perhaps this is the one area that causes the most criticism around the world.

America exports our culture through movies, television, language, the internet, and business. There is a long list of American companies whose names and logo’s appear around the world; companies such as Coca Cola, McDonalds, Burger King, IBM, Disney, Microsoft, and many others. These are businesses which are expected to make a profit and represent investment and employment in the countries where they exist. Yet, many regard these businesses as a form of American Imperialism, when in fact they are an example of American entrepreneurship and capitalism. If these businesses didn’t have customers they would go out of business, so the critics of these American companies do not represent the feelings of the majority of the citizens. This is particularly true in France where English words are creeping into the language, in spite of strenous efforts by the government to prevent it.

Of course television has played a dramatic role in the cultural influence of America. When the USSR ran a television show that showed poverty in America it backfired on them because the poor in America had TV sets, automobiles, nice clothes, food, and generally a home, things missing for many citizens of Russia and other countries. The result of television and movies has been the spread of American style of dress, food, and language which are being adopted worldwide, especially by the youth of these countries. It isn’t that people want to be Americans as much as they want to be LIKE Americans. Consequently, America is seen as Imperialistic by many liberals and governments, when in fact the influence of America is being voluntarily absorbed by the people to the chagrin of the governments. America is not Imperialistic by policy but there is no doubt that America’s influence is impacting virtually every country in the world and it is this influence that offends many governments who fear that influence, the Muslim countries in particular see American culture as destabilizing. America is seen as the great Satan because of the temptations it offers in the form of freedom.

Imperial America

Increasingly we see various public statements by Americans as well as foreigners accusing America of being “Imperialistic”. The definition of “Imperialism” is “the policy of seeking to extend the power, dominion, or territories of a nation”. The key word here appears to be “policy” because that infers that the government of the United States has a conscious and defined policy to gain territory (land), to increase its power at the expense of others, or dominate other countries. If this is the policy of any political power or elected official since 1900, it has been a well guarded secret.

In fact, the United States was very isolationist prior to WW I and refused to get engaged in the struggle between Britain, France, and Imperial Germany until 1917. As usual the Europeans made the mess and then turned to the US to clean it up. The US not only brought all of their soldiers’ home, leaving Europe to its own devices, but sent food and treasure to repair the self-inflicted damage. The President of the United States was instrumental in establishing the ineffective League of Nations, which was intended to act as a diplomatic forum to prevent further bloodshed.

The US Senate failed to ratify the League of Nations so America was never part of it. This failure to join the League of Nations was a reflection of the isolationist attitude of America and Americans. Even though the US emerged from WW I as a global power it was unwanted and the role rejected by the US. The League itself degenerated into a debating society that was totally ineffective. The failure naturally was attributed to the failure of America to join. The implication is that had America been a member, America would have used its military power to thwart both Mussolini and Hitler. This represents the first step in the “blame America first” policy that has permeated European politics since 1918. The reality is that following WW I America returned to its peaceful and isolationist state and reduced its military to a token level, a point largely ignored by the Europeans.

The important point here is that the United States, who had the military might to dominate Europe and dictate the peace terms, did not. This is demonstrable proof that the US did not have any interest or policy to dominate or to increase either its territories or power after defeating Imperial Germany. In fact the minimal role played by the US and its failure to exercise its power led to that travesty of the Treaty of Versailles, where the European “powers” punished Germany and carved up the Ottoman Empire, thus assuring the instability and violence that afflicts the Middle East today.

This scenario was replayed again as Germany once again rebelled against the onerous terms of Versailles and rose to power. Once again the Europeans turned to the US to for assistance and once again the United States came to the aid of Europe and crushed Germany and the Axis powers. However, this time the US could not withdraw its troops because Europe remained under threat from the communist USSR. Those troops remain in Germany even now, but at the request of Germany.

In an effort to correct the mistake of not joining the League of Nations, the US led the effort to establish the United Nations. This was in reaction to the charges that the old League had failed because the US failed to join. However, the UN has – like the League before it – degenerated into a debating society that is totally powerless and thoroughly corrupt. It has no military power and has not been successful in preventing any war or keeping any peace anywhere in the world. UN “peacekeepers” are not just ineffective they are generally ignored and attacked when they get in the way of the dictator du jour.

Still the point is that following WW II, Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Bosnia, and the cold war, the United States has only grown in power but that has not been the policy of the US government but the result of other nations not being able to defend themselves and looking to the US for assistance in maintaining their sovereignty. Nevertheless, the US has not extended it territory or dominion over other nations. So why is the US accused of being Imperialist? This is addressed in Imperial America II.

Blame America

Why do so many Americans seem so embarrassed about being American that they are compelled to apologize and hang their heads over the actions of the freest, most generous, and kindest nation ever to trod the earth? The French go into orgasmic elation over Napoleon and the “Glory” of France. Ignoring the pre-emptive wars initiated by Napoleon, the thousands of deaths, and the failure of France to ever recover its power after his fall. The Spanish reflect with pride on the reign of Phillip II, without regard to the rape of the New World or the Armada, which marked the beginning of the decline of Spain as a world power Even the Mongolians, leap to their feet and cheer at any mention of the “Great Khan (Genghis)”, who is noted for his barbarism as much as his generalship. But to mention George Washington or the founding fathers and we are immediately reminded that they owned slaves, they were hypocrites, and just a bunch of old white guys protecting themselves – hail academia!!

The fact is that since its founding, America has consistently been the freest and most welcoming nation in the world. While it took a while to free the slaves and even longer to accord the Negro the equal rights promised to all men, it was done and today everyone is assured of equal protection under the law. The United States has attempted to remain free of the entanglements of foreign treaties advised by George Washington, but modern technology has rendered this impossible. America has consistently been labeled a colonial power while systematically eliminating colonialism. It was America that wrested the Spanish Colonies of Cuba, Philippines, and the Caribbean Islands from Spain. These have all been freed but not necessarily for the better.

The real tests came with World War I, where the Germans were intent on dominating Europe and were ably supported by the Ottoman Empire and were well on their way when the United States entered the war on the side of the British. Had the United States maintained its isolationist policies Europe would be a far different place today. But this was the first taste Europe had of the awesome power of the United States. Not necessarily military power but industrial might. However, once the war was over, Europe returned to its old colonial ways and merrily began creating arbitrary countries and re-establishing their empires, while the US returned to its internal affairs, rendering the League of Nations totally impotent.

Following WW I Lenin overthrew the Czar and founded the USSR, a communist nation based on Marxism and glorified by the western intelligentsia. It is this same intelligentsia that is still attempting to establish the moral equivalence between the Soviet style Communism and the American Style Capitalism. The University of California Press in 2004 published titled “The American Gulag and then in 2005 published another book titled “The British Gulag”. The latter was written by a Harvard (no surprise there) Historian named Caroline Elkins. To equate these to Soviet Gulags is outrageous because the people in these prisons are there after being convicted in a court while those in the Soviet Prisons were commonly sent there without any trial or even informed of their crime.

During the 30’s and 40’s the Western Intellectuals couldn’t get enough of communism and George Bernard Shaw visited Russia in 1931 and wrote a panegyric upon his return – denying rumors at the time of mass starvation. In fact there was a systematic suppression of the growing evidence of mass starvation in Russia by the Western Press. The New York Times between 1921 and 1934 actively suppressed the truth about the Ukrainian famines and in 1932 won the Pulitzer Prize for a report that stated “any report of famine in the Ukraine was exaggerated or malignant propaganda, even thought the author (William Duranty) had been there and personally knew of the millions dying of starvation. These are the same people, the same intellectuals, and the same media that are still attempting to demonstrate the bankruptcy of capitalism and the evil empire of America.

Then came WW II which was the direct result of the failure of France and England to grasp their aspirations for territorial expansion and their crippling punishment of Germany. When it became obvious that the neither the French nor the British could withstand the onslaught of Germany, they turned to the United States of help. This actually marked the turning point in world history where the New World – the United States – became the world power – the hegemonic power – and Europe started its ongoing decline into irrelevance. But it was the awesome power of America – both military and industrial power – that ultimately defeated the Axis Powers of Japan, Germany, Italy, and the turncoat French.

The great tragedy in the aftermath of WW II turned out to be the creation of the United Nations. The League of Nations was thought to have failed because America failed to join so the belief was that if America joined the United Nations it was sure to succeed. It has been an unmitigated disaster for America. It has failed in every endeavor it has undertaken. It has not prevented any war, has not prevented or even alleviated poverty; it has become a highly corrupt and ineffectual organization whose only purpose seems to be to thwart America, while expecting America to pay for everything. Worse, the American Left as well as the leftists the world over seem to think that the UN has the moral authority over America so America should not act in its best interest without UN approval. The real irony is that the UN ignores every other country that acts unilaterally but castigates the US.

Another irony is that the political left continues to wail about the poverty in the US without actually understanding the realities. The reality is that being poor in America is a far cry from being poor anywhere else. In America 46% of the “poor” own their own homes, 72% have washing machines, 60% own microwave ovens, 92% have color TV’s, 76% have air conditioning, and 66% own one or more cars. Two thirds of poor households in America have two or more rooms per person and the average poor person in America has more living space than the average person in Paris. In spite of all of these advantages and contributions to the world, the American Intellectuals still view America as oppressive. However, I note they don’t move to Cuba, Russia, or even to North Korea so I guess America isn’t as oppressive as they maintain. Can you spell hypocrite?