Rome Redux: the Dictatorial Presidential Directive
There have been countless articles dedicated to the similarities between America's growing imperialism and ancient Rome's. The similarity, of course, is too pronounced to ignore, though its accuracy and degree may reasonably be debated.
Now we have taken yet another step in Rome's direction. The Roman Republic had, as part of its governance structure, the emergency office of dictator which could only be held for six months in states of emergency. The dictator was just that: an authoritarian figure whose pronouncements carried the force of law. The office had such a short term limit because it was designed to free up impediments to solving an immediate crisis, and once that crisis had been resolved, the regular rule of law was supposed to resume.
Of course, that's not the way it always worked. The dynast Sulla managed to install himself as dictator indefinitely. And, importantly, Julius Caesar's demand that he be made dictator for life was the final nail in the coffin of the Roman Republic.
There are plenty of cases where authoritarian regimes come to power in times of national emergency, and this was clear to our Founders. Nonetheless, they never created a constitutional office of dictator even in cases of severe national distress precisely because they were so acutely aware of what that provision had brought about in the Roman Republic. And yet, here we are now. Our president has created the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive which effectively gives him dictatorial control of our branches of government for the duration of:
any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions
I wonder how long our republic will last.
Labels: 'merica, george-bush, history, politics, rome
5 Comments:
While the internal machinations of US politics of late are reminiscent of late Republican Rome, I find the even more striking parallel to be between US foreign (and to some extent domestic) policy and the Athenian empire between the Persian and Pelopponesian wars.
This is especially obvious in the way that spreading democracy to former enemies is used as a tool to cement the power of the hegemonic power, rather than being for the sake of democracy itself. Also, the parallels in the treatment of the allies and multi-state institutions is uncanny.
plastictreeofdoom@gmail.com
I think you're absolutely right and it's an astute analogy in respect to our foreign policy attitudes.
I don't think, though, that we're likely to be overwhelmed by an external power like Athens eventually was. Our endgame may end up being more like the Roman devolution (here are some of the seeds).
I don't think, though, that we're likely to be overwhelmed by an external power...
When the Germans had the most powerful and technically-advanced army in the world they thought the same.
Germany thought Russia would be a push-over, The US thinks that China will be a push-over. History always repeats.
As a recovering historian, I've come to the conclusion that history does not always repeat ;-)
But more importantly, Germany invaded the USSR and only then incurred the Soviet wrath. We have no plan to invade China.
That's not to say that there aren't parallels, of course . . . I'm only rejecting the idea that human history is cyclical.
Post a Comment
<< Home