Book Review: The Fall of the Roman Republic by Plutarch

Why shouldn’t I review a book written 2,000 years ago?

I can’t say reading Plutarch for the first time gave me a definitive roadmap for how a republic turns to dictatorship, but a few themes are suggestive, such as the aggregation of wealth by the would-be dictators, and the constant military campaigns.

Each of the leaders either began or became extraordinarily wealthy in the course of their “public service.” Military conquest afforded them both taxing authority on conquered people, as well as the chance to be awarded extraordinary “talents” for victories won. Extraordinary wealth, in turn, allowed them to purchase loyalty, both military and civil, from leading Romans. Plutarch describes some of Caesar’s strategic use of wealth in advance of crossing the Rubicon.

A constant campaign of military conquests – almost always successful – also aided the rise of the dictators. Their popularity rose with each victory, limiting the Senate’s ability to do anything but:

1. Fund further conquests and

2. Award triumphs to the the victors.

One (possibly hopeful?) lesson of Plutarch is just how many violent demagogues it took to finally transform Rome from a Republic to a Dictatorship/Empire. Plutarch tracks the rise and fall of five such strongmen, each in his way worse than his predecessor, from Marius to his rival Sulla, through the wealthy Crassus, to Pompey, and finally ending in his rival Julius Caesar. Although clearly the Senate and republican institutions suffered from weaknesses even at the start of Marius’ reign (of terror), the succession of leaders who flouted the forms and reality of republicanism made Caesar and the turn to Emperors more probable.

julius_caesar
Hail Caesar!

Does this mean that – in order to completely erode our institutions – we need President Trump to be succeeded in 2020 by Kanye West,1 followed by some as-yet unknown MME fighter in 2024? Maybe.

 

Post read (668) times.

  1. I’m only partly kidding about Kanye by the way, as he’s got the name-recognition, unbridled narcissism, lack of empathy, and apparent misogyny to rival Donald Trump. He also seems to want to run.

Texas Senate Candidate Sadler: Honey I Shrunk The Texas

Paul, can we talk about your yard signs?

What is the deal with your horrible logo and signage?

You placed a little teeny tiny Texas in the middle, surrounded by a red circle, just below your giant-font name.

Look, I’m new to Texas.  But even I know that you’re not supposed to lead with the message that “Everything Is Tinier In Texas!”

If you’re elected, do you promise to “Shrink Texas Down to Miniature?”

How about “Remember, Sadler Is Bigger Than Little Texas?”

Do you have a little red circle around Texas because “Texas Is Better When It’s Completely Circumscribed?”[1]

When I walk around my Democratic-leaning neighborhood and see your yard signs I picture you as that character in Kids in the Hall who viewed the heads of undesirables through outstretched thumb and forefinger to visualize “crushing their little heads.”  Only in your case, Paul, I read your logo’s plan as “If elected, I will crush your tiny little Texas,” with that character’s strained accent.  I like to hold my fingers up to your sign, squint at it, and squeeze my thumb and forefingers together aggressively.

Look, I understand you don’t really expect to win your Senate race in Texas, because you’re a Democrat running for statewide office, and Texas turned Republican in the years between Barry Goldwater and Ann Richards.  So you kind of know that Ted Cruz is going to crush your campaign and your teeny tiny Texas even without this yard sign problem.

But for your next campaign?  Find out whose brilliant logo idea that was and fire that person.

 


[1] Huh-huh, he said “circumscribed.”  Shut up, Beevis.

Post read (5107) times.