Caesar Crosses The Rubicon: The Sequel?

(Updated below) (Update II)

How did the Republic of Rome fall?

It can be argued that what truly heralded the coming, final end of the Roman republic, and the subsequent birth of the Roman empire, was when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon to enter Rome, in utter defiance of the prevailing laws and customs of the time - and from that moment on, because of this action, everything would go downhill with regards to the old Roman republic, including civil wars which would culminate with the corronation of Octavian (Caesar's nephew and adopted son) as Augustus, first Roman emperor (for a nice run-down of the history of Rome, as well as Humanity's History per se, go to MacroHistory).

Of course, there had been already an ongoing gradual series of changes in Roman laws prior to Caesar, each internal crisis or external threat (real or perceived) validating arguments within the republic for the necessity of strong and powerful leaders being vested with vast powers, in order to ensure the safety and security of Rome. Thus the slow but ever-forward erosion of the laws and principles of representative republicanism in favor of a king-like one-man rule - the title and office of "Commander Imperitor" (from which the English word emperor is derived).

Now, it is no secret that the U.S.A.'s institutions were modeled heavily on Roman ones - in other words, the Roman republic served as a template for the founding of the American republic and its system of separate-but-equal branches of government (the legistlative, executive, and judiciary).

Let us fast-forward to today and focus on the following recent news items:

A) President G.W. Bush considers himself not just the Commander-in-Chief , the Decider and the Decision-Maker anymore, but also simply the Commander Guy;

B) The Bush administration has stipulated that the president had the constitutional authority to decide for himself whether to conduct surveillance without warrants and therefore does not need the consent of Congress to do so;

C) This is in line with the fact that President G.W. Bush has brushed aside hundreds of laws already with his signing statements;

D) Congress has already put in the books the Patriot Act and the Military Commission’s Act, both giving the President the power to deal effectively with America’s enemies (powers which include looser surveillance restrictions, indefinite detentions, use of torture, loss of habeas corpus, etc.);

E) President G.W. Bush, in defense of his veto of an Iraq war spending plan passed by the Democratic-led Congress that would have forced him to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, sent the message to Congress that he considered the legislation unconstitutional because it infringed on his presidential powers;

and F) Meanwhile, cries continue to clamor for the need of a Unitary Executive, of a strong and powerful leader who must be above the quaint laws of the republic, because "in stormy times, the rule of law may seem to require the prudence and force that law, or present law, cannot supply, and the executive must be strong".

With these items in mind, go read the U.S. Constitution (especially Articles I-III which define the powers of the three equal branches).

One does not need be a Constitutional lawyer or expert to understand that, especially with regards to item E), President Bush is essentially claiming that the constitutional roles and powers of the Congress are unconstitutional.

In short: the President stands above the Rule of Constitutional Law - particularly in times of crisis presented by external (re: global terrorism) or internal (re: home-grown terrorism) threats.

History clearly shows that such points of view and radical interpretations of the separation of powers within a republic, along with the slow erosion of the rule of law and the clamor for a single strong and powerful leader in times of crisis, have lead to the downfall and de facto end of the Roman republic.

Has President George W. Bush effectively crossed the Rubicon?

Do these days represent the critical period which will lead eventually to the end of the American republic?

You (and the rest of the world) can watch, wait and see - while hoping this does not happen.

Or, you could roll up your sleeves further up your arms and keep on struggling to restore the full Rule of Law and of the Constitution, thus ensuring the survival and maintenance of the Republic. As I wrote before:

(...) let it be known ad nauseam: living in a democratic society is a right and a responsibility.

And yes, this responsibility requires effort. But which is better: having your back bent by the effort required to keep on living in a democratic society, or letting leave for complacency and find yourself one day with a back bent under a totalitarian regime (however benevolent it may be)?

Unfortunately, too many are already losing faith as the current Democratic landscape in Congress seems to voluntarily demean itself before the grandeur of the Iraq War. And through it all, whispers of an Iran War increase in frequency and intensity.

As the saying goes - one must remember and understand history in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

It remains to be established whether Americans will stand up for their republic or let fear and paranoia sweep it away in lieu of despotism.

Addendum: What happened to the Roman republic also happened already (at least once) with the French republic: cries for the need of a strong and powerful leader in times of crisis lead to the corronation of Napoléon the First as Emperor of the French. Although the French republic eventually recovered, the price for having embraced such folly tallied too many human lives that were destroyed or lost ...

Addendum II: Someone else wrote the following, which is very à propos with regard to what I am discussing herein:

"The danger lies in the military becoming increasingly discontent with a society that doesn't reflect its values ... discontent that could extend also to elements in the civilian leadership. In such a case the military may begin to drive its own agenda in a more forceful manner and try to increase its influence with political leadership. This type of internal influence doesn't amount to a coup, but it could certainly pose a threat to constitutional rights and freedoms. It's little wonder that the religious right in the US is so staunchly pro-military. Increasingly they view the military as a bastion of values that for some represent 'true American values' rather than what they are seeing in the media and on the street. It is this increasingly graphic split that is the most dangerous aspect of the culture wars that have been raging over the past few years."

Indeed. This is even more haunting when one takes into account that the U.S. troops are currently showing signs of serious ethical standard problems, in addition to being dominated with far-right, fundamentalist evangelical christianists among its ranks and considering the media as a threat to America. Considering the current mood for fawning over manly leaders oozing with manliness and strenght, the profusely used tactic of accusing of treason those who do not support the Iraq War (and thus not supporting the troops and the Leader) and fundamentalist christianist values, and the perversion of the apparels of government in order to benefit the Leader, all of these elements put together with what I already outlined herein constitute a recipe for the possible ascendancy of a Commander Imperitor.

In short: Fear + Need for security + erosion of the rule of Law + religious fundamentalism + militarism + intolerance for opposing/dissenting opinions and beliefs + calls for a strong and powerful leader = a republic facing possible overthrow in favor of despotism.

Viva la intellectual sloth.

Humanity's recorded history bears this equation all over its pages. Especially with regards to the Roman and French republics ...

Update: 05/24/2007 - The Congress and Senate have officially backed down from imposing upon the Leader a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Iraq forever indeed. At the same time, the politics of lies, ignorance and fear with regards to Iran and Global Terrorism(TM) roll on largely unchallenged. Meanwhile, President Bush entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch, in case of a "catastrophic emergency" . Did someone say dictator powers? Failure of (democratic) leadership indeed.

And so it goes ... unless the People keep the faith and remain steadfast in the fight to preserve and maintain the republic.

But contrary to what some say, the only effective method currently available is to continue to press forth with patience, engagement and convincing argumentation. No more, no less. A shunning or tabula rasa will serve nothing in the long run except for having to do the same ... all over again.

Patience trumps expediency.


Update II: 05/24/2007 - Two more takes on the Roman parallels can be read here and here.


(Reposted as a DKos Diary and at ProgressiveHistorians)