Читать книгу Preserving Democracy - Elgin L Hushbeck - Страница 10

Nothing Lasts Forever

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

George Santayana

I t was a huge party. The one thousand guests, a veritable Who’s-Who of society, enjoyed the best foods served on golden plates and the best wines in golden goblets. In fact many enjoyed the wine perhaps a little too much. It seemed a strange time to celebrate, for the city was under attack. But the guests at the party were unconcerned. The city was protected not only by a wide moat, but by walls walls that the ancient Greek Historian Herodotus claimed were over 80 feet thick and 300 feet high. No attacker had been able to get past the defenses in over a thousand years. There was plenty of food stored up and a river even ran under the walls, providing plenty of water, should the attacking army try to starve them out. So the party went on safely behind the walls.

But the safety was only an illusion. Not only would the city fall, it would fall that very night. For Cyrus’s army, knowing they could not breech the walls and unwilling to wait the years it would taketo starve the inhabitants of the city out, did something the guests had not even considered. They diverted the river Euphrates so that it no longer flowed under the city walls. Instead of a river providing water, now there was just an empty river bed, which allowed Cyrus’s army to march directly into the city right under the wall. With virtually all its leaders and top officials drunk at the party, Babylon fell in a single night. It was really over before the guests even knew what was happening.

There is often a fine line between ignorance and arrogance, so fine that often it is very difficult to distinguish if someone is really arrogant, or if they just do not know any better. Of course the worst case results from a mixture of the two, arrogance based on ignorance. This was the case with the rulers of Babylon, their arrogance in throwing such a party while the city was under siege and ignorance of the grave danger they were really in. They simply took it for granted that they were safe, unaware of the danger around them.

There are some similarities with 21^st century America. So much of what is good and even great about this country is simply taken for granted. It is just how things are, how they should be, and how they will always be. And most are unaware of the weaknesses and dangers in the system that could be exploited or could result in its downfall.

Instead we have slogans. Democracy is good and the more democracy the better. Count every vote. For some it does not even matter whether the voter is a citizen or even if they are here legally.² They are a person and in a democracy shouldn’t everyone have their say? Aren’t we all just citizens of the world?

And of course anything the people want and vote for is automatically good. The people voted for it democratically, and democracy is good, therefore anything they vote for must likewise be good.

Conversely, anything that stands in the way of voting, and therefore democracy, is bad. Voter registration must be simple, easy, with a minimum of hassles, lest any inconvenience be a barrier to voting, with the epitome being the ability to register when you vote.

Voter fraud is merely an abstract concept, a red herring used by those wishing to limit democracy. Asking potential voters to demonstrate their identity so as to ensure only those with a legal right to vote, actually vote, and that they vote only once, simply raises too many barriers and thereby hinders democracy.

Voting itself must be easy. The old fashioned ideas of ‘election day’ and ‘going to the polls’ is too restrictive, and thus limits peoples’ ability to vote. So now we have early voting and absentee voting, not just for those who need it but for anyone who wants it.

Voting is simultaneously a sacrosanct right and a troublesome nuisance. Everything must be done to ensure that people can cast a vote and that their vote is counted. Whether or not one’s vote is ultimately negated by fraud or illegal voting is irrelevant, that it was cast and counted is what is important.

Since anything the people want is automatically good, simply because it is an expression of the will of the people, the problems faced by our country can only result from the will of the people being thwarted or blocked in some way by that most evil of all groups, the special interest.

As a result, politicians then fall into two groups. Not Republicans or Democrats, though they use those names. No, the real meaningful categories are those who fight for the people, and those who represent the dreaded special interests. Of course the problem is that most politicians say they fight for the people, and that their opponent represents the dreaded special interests. There are a few who babble on about some policy details, but they are just boring.

One theme that does seem to resonate with the people is change. The direction of the change is irrelevant. Change to what, is likewise irrelevant. What resonates is change for change’s sake. Thus every so often the office of President changes party. This type of change, however, is restricted mainly to the President, as for the most part, that is the only politician people actually know. Senators and Representatives are normally spared this regular change unless things are really bad. After all if you don’t really know who they are or how long they have been there, how do you know if it is time for a change?

The other main theme that resonates is what they (the politicians) are giving us (the voters). But here there is a conflict between those who receive things from government, and those who have to pay for government. Voters must then go to the trouble of deciding whether to vote for more benefits, or more tax cuts, though even here the politicians have become accommodating enough to frequently promise both.

The net effect of all this is that the size and cost of government has exploded over the last century. But not to worry because that is what the people want, and what the people want must be good.

A Looming Danger?

Most Americans would probably be shocked to learn that the Founding Fathers were leery of democracy and saw it as dangerous, something to be controlled and limited. In fact, going back at least as far as the early Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and up until very recently, democracy has always been seen as a dangerous and unworkable form of government, something that could last only a short time, and that would end badly.

Nor were such views merely the musing of ancient philosophers. They had been borne out time and time again in history. Wherever democracy was tried, it failed. Ancient Greece founded democracy, and while democracy was still in its infancy, defeated the Persians. But internal wars among the city states weakened democratic rule, which was interrupted by tyrants, suppressed by Alexander the Great, and then eventually succumbed to the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic likewise weakened and collapsed but there was no other Rome waiting at the gate to take over, and so the Republic collapsed into the dictatorship of the Caesars.

Smaller attempts at democracy likewise collapsed and failed. Perhaps the most notable of these was the Renaissance city of Florence led by Savonarola and Machiavelli. But wherever it has been tried, it has failed. That is until the United States.

The genius of the Founding Fathers is in their understanding of these earlier democracies. The success of the United States is not in spite of these earlier failures, but because of them. Drawing deeply on their understanding of these earlier attempts and on the work of political philosophers from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, to more recent ones such as John Locke, they constructed a government based on a written Constitution aimed at avoiding the dangers and pitfalls inherent within democracy and which had caused the failure of the earlier attempts. The government they established has lasted for over 200 years.

So does that mean the Founding Fathers avoided all the problems? Well they certainly did much better than Renaissance Florence, which lasted a mere 17 years. They also avoided the catastrophe that befell the near contemporary French Revolution, which ended so badly in the Reign of Terror that today when people think of the French Revolution, the Guillotine is far more likely to come to mind than democracy. But we still have not reached the benchmark set by Rome that were still going strong at comparable points in their history.

A Cause for Concern

But not to worry, the Founding Fathers were geniuses and the government they constructed took all of these dangers into account by setting up a system of checks and balances that will protect us. So we have nothing to worry about. Or do we? Even if we assume the Founding Fathers were geniuses and the government they established did provide checks and balances for all the dangers, one possible cause for concern is that we no longer have the government they created. This is not necessarily bad. After all, the first thing the new Congress did after being established by the Constitution, was to change it by adding the Bill of Rights. Since then we have formally changed the Constitution another seventeen times, the last time in 1992. More importantly the courts have informally changed (i.e., reinterpreted) the Constitution numerous times, and continue to do so virtually every year.

So we are changing our government all the time. Some of these changes are needed to keep up with changes in society, technology, etc.. However, today when we make a change to the government, are we just allowing government to be more responsive and effective? Are we just fixing problems unforeseen by the Founding Fathers? Or are we changing something far more fundamental? Are we changing a key support that keeps the whole system functioning, a key check or balance that keeps the system from collapsing?

How would we know the difference?

The American education system being what it is, many Americans no longer have any real knowledge of even who the Founding Fathers were, past perhaps George Washington. As for the problems of democracy they grappled with, and the reason for the system of checks and balances they created, they are so far removed that most don’t even realize there are problems with democracy.

But not to worry, if we ever do make a mistake; we have the ability to change the Constitution. Once the problem is realized; we can simply fix the problem and continue on. The error in such thinking can be seen in the following analogy.

A Stroll in the Desert

Imagine an intrepid but somewhat naive adventurer who is staying at a beautiful resort on the edge of a vast desert. In the distance he sees a hill and wonders what is on the other side. So our adventurer decides to hike out to the hill and see for himself.

After hiking for some time, he finally reaches the top of the hill. The view is gorgeous, well worth the hike. Off in the distance our adventurer sees another hill and instantly has the same question; what is beyond it? He is feeling pretty good, and while he didn’t think to bring any food or water, he is after all not only intrepid but naive, he tells himself that he can always turn back to the safety of the resort if he needs to. So he decides to press on.

Now from the moment our intrepid adventurer set out on his journey, the maximum distance he could travel before he died was both limited and yet unknown. It was limited because the human body has limits on how far it can go without food or water. Given that our intrepid adventurer is wandering through a desert, water will be the major issue.

Since the only water in our mythical desert is at our mythical resort, the distance our adventurer can travel is also limited. At some point his body will simply give out due to lack of water, and he will die.

Exactly how far he can go is unknown for a number of reasons. How fast he loses water will be determined by things such as the heat, and whether he runs, walks briskly, or walks slowly. But while unknown, there remains a limit to how far he can go. So with each step our intrepid adventurer takes, he comes closer to death.

Now early on this is hardly even worth thinking about. He is so close to the resort that he can easily make it back. But the more distance he walks away from the resort, the less of a safety margin he will have. If we assume that our adventurer always walks in a straight line, the point of no return is half the maximum distance he can travel. If he goes beyond the halfway point, then the resort will be too far away to reach and he will die before getting back.

The real problem however is that body functions do not decline in a linear or straight line fashion. The halfway point of our perceived energy is not the same as the halfway point of the distance we can travel. In short, our adventurer can cover ground much faster when he starts his trek across the desert, than at the end when he has only the strength left to crawl.

As a result, when our explorer reaches the point of no return, the point beyond which the resort is too far away to make it back, he does not even realize it. He does not understand the danger. Sure, he may feel tired and thirsty, but it is not all that bad, and he feels that he can go a little more before turning back to the safety of the resort.

And so he continues on, not realizing that from the moment he crossed the halfway point, he was a dead man. By the time he does decide there is a problem and that he should go back, it is already too late. His body begins to run down fast. Each step becomes harder until he can only crawl, and then he can’t even do that. And so he dies.

This story illustrates the problems of democracies. They likewise do not proceed in a straight line fashion. Changes that will threaten a democratic system may not show any problems, and in fact may even seem beneficial until it is already too late. Farmers who eat all of their crop, including the part that should have been set aside as seed for next year, will for a while seem to be better off, as they will have more to eat. Yet when next year comes and there is no seed to plant and thus no crop, it is already too late; the seeds for next year’s crop have already been eaten.

Now in theory, any change in a democracy can always be undone. Any bad law can always be repealed. This is true in theory; but reality is vastly different for a number of reasons. For one there is the natural resistance to change, and in a democratic system getting a majority to approve of a change is difficult. Even when the problem is recognized by all, getting a majority to agree on a particular solution can be very difficult.

For example, today virtually everyone agrees that Social Security has problems. While there is some disagreement concerning the exact date, there is general agreement that the Social Security system is going to run out of money at some point in the future. There is also agreement that the sooner we address this issue, the easier it will be to fix. Still, while there is a general agreement on the problems, there is no agreement on how to fix Social Security. It is working at the moment, and so nothing is done, and the system continues its stroll into the desert.

There is the further problem that the root cause may be recognized only by a few, or may not even be recognized at all. The apparent problem may be a severe economic slowdown, and demand may be for more government intervention to fix the problem. But if government intervention is what caused the problem in the first place, more government intervention may only exacerbate the slowdown, leading to even more demands for even more intervention, the point of no return having already been long passed.

While, as was the case in Florence, things can spin out of control very quickly, collapse does not always happen this way. A democracy can pass the point of no return, and still function as a democracy for decades before the system collapses. Such was the case with the Roman Republic.

The Fall of the

Roman Republic

When most people think of the fall of Rome, they think of the end of the Roman Empire some 400 years after the birth of Christ. In fact for many, Rome was always ruled by Caesars, without much thought as to how Rome was governed before the first Caesar, Julius, came to power.

In its earliest days, Rome was ruled by kings.³ At the time Rome was little more than just another city on the Italian peninsula. But the Romans quickly tired of the rule of kings. They wanted liberty, and so overthrew the monarchy, setting up a Republic in its place. They kept the king’s body of counselors, or Senate. But instead of a king, the new republic was to be ruled by two consuls, sharing power, and limited to ruling a single year; as a single ruler, able to rule year after year, could easily become a new king.

It was not a perfect democracy by any means. Class played a huge role in Rome, as did class struggles. At the top were the patricians, the ruling class from which came the consuls, and most of the Senate. Next were the equites, often businessmen, their distinguishing feature being, at least initially, that they were rich enough to be able to afford a horse. It is from the equites that we get the word equestrian. These two groups were called the good and were the people of Rome, at least at first. Next in line were the plebs, which included all the rest, except of course for those in the lowest category: the slaves.

The plebs did have the vote, at least in theory, but they were often instructed how they should vote. Still they did have some political power, and the early history of Rome is marked by periods of unrest that resulted in expanded political power for the plebs in the form of new offices, written laws, and eventually the opening of existing offices to plebs, including even consul, though again this was often more in theory than in practice.

One of the most significant changes was also the earliest. Following a revolt in 494 B.C the office of Tribune, to represent the plebs, was created. Like consuls, two were elected and their term was limited to a single year. Over time the office of tribune grew in power to rival even that of consul as a Tribune could veto any bill.

For nearly 400 years, through many changes, the delicate balance of power was maintained, and the Republic was preserved. The power of the Consuls and Tribunes was balanced off with a mixture of the power of the Senate, the force of tradition, and the fact that they only ruled for a year. While in office they were immune from prosecution, but once their term was over they could be brought before the courts to answer for any illegal actions while in office.

But problems were growing. The expansion of Rome opened up access to new areas, and Italian farmers began to find it increasingly difficult to compete with crops grown by slave labor in these other areas. Not only was slave labor in the new areas a problem, but many of those captured were sent back to Rome as slaves. One result of this increase in slave labor was that only the largest farms, farms that could afford many slaves, could survive. With no work in the countryside, the plebs came to Rome where they were struggling for what little work could be found. Yet, in the cities things were not much better as likewise most of the jobs were done by slaves.

At the same time attitudes were changing in subtle but very significant ways. Its conquests had brought Rome not only great wealth, but also an influx of new ideas, not the least of which were those from Greece. ‘Rome’ as a shared collective idea was weakened. In its place was a new idea: the importance of the individual. One side effect of this change was that people began to look more to individuals, instead of the institutions such as the Senate, to deal with problems. Thus individuals had a greater ability to gain political power, and likewise began to think more of themselves than the state. In many ways, while it was Rome that had conquered the world, it would be a series of individuals who ended the Republic.

The old saying^a, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, pretty much sums up the start of the downfall of the Roman Republic. In 133 B.C. Tiberius Gracchus was elected one of the two Tribunes for that year. Tiberius’ ambition was combined with what appears to be a genuine concern for the problems he saw. But while Gracchus saw the problems that were developing, he did not see the root cause of the problem as slavery. Slavery was so ingrained into the culture of the times that to deal with it would have been literally unthinkable. It was only with the fall of the Roman Empire 500 years later and the subsequent rise of Christianity that a new set of values would come to dominate the culture and slavery would be questioned.^b

Instead of the root cause, Tiberius saw the results; large farms displacing smaller ones forcing the smaller farmer off the land and into the city where there were no jobs. To counter this he put forth legislation to limit the size of a farm and to buy back land previously sold by the state at the original selling price, so that this land could be divided up into smaller lots and given to the poor. Tiberius argued eloquently for his bill appealing to the plebs,

You fight and die to give wealth and luxury to others. You are called masters of the world, but there is not a foot of ground that you can call your own.⁴

Tiberius’s plan faced a lot of opposition, particular from landowners whose property had appreciated in value, either though the improvement that they had done, or simply as a result of inflation. Opposition was particularly strong from those who had purchased their land from a prior owner at a greater cost than the government was now willing to pay. In response, the Senate denounced the proposed law. When the Assembly passed it, Senators convinced or persuaded the other Tribune, Octavius, to exercise his veto.

While Tiberius’ proposed law caused a large uproar, it did not in and of itself threaten the Roman Republic. His reaction to the veto, however, was the first step in its subsequent downfall. Tiberius could have waited until Octavius’ term was up at the end of the year, but then his term would have been over as well, and he would no longer be in a position to push for the reforms.

So he concocted a scheme to remove Octavius by having the Assembly pass a law which said that any Tribune who acted contrary to the wishes of the plebs was to be immediately removed from office. As soon as this new measure was passed Tiberius had his people forcibly remove Octavius, thereby effectively negating the Tribunal veto.

While it achieved his purpose, his actions were seen for what they were, a subversion of hundreds of years of Roman law. His enemies could not touch him while he remained Tribune, but they made it well known that as soon as his term was up they would bring charges against him.

Faced with almost certain conviction and having already circumvented Roman law, Tiberius decided that the only way out was to retain the immunity granted a Tribune, and so ran for an unprecedented second term. This act cost him what little support he had left in the Senate, and so he appealed to the plebs with a whole new series of promises all aimed at buying enough votes to win reelection.

The flouting of law and tradition, combined with the uproar over all the new promises caused tensions to grow. Critics charged that Tiberius was trying to set himself up as king. Tempers flared, and on the day of the election, broke out into violence in the Forum, during which Tiberius was killed.

Though Tiberius was gone, the plebs saw him as their hero and a martyr. To end the unrest the Senate put many of Tiberius’ laws into effect. But the plebs were still restless and anyone who was seen as betraying Tiberius’ memory could turn up dead, as did Scipio Aemilianus, a brother-in-law to Tiberius, when he intervened before the newly created land board on behalf of some land owners.

Tiberius’ brother, Gaius, determined to complete his brother’s work. A brilliant orator, he was not as idealistic as his brother, but a much more practical and skilled politician. In 124 B.C. he became Tribune. He built a large following through a series of laws tailored to build support among specific groups. The most significant was that the state would now sell grain to the poor at what amounted to half the market price, shattering the Roman notion of self-reliance, replacing it instead with dependence on the State, a dependence later politicians were to exploit.

Having amassed a huge power base Gaius busted wide open the crack that his brother had made; he not only ran for, but won a second term. Yet, before long he also overreached. He was still plagued by the Senate who constantly fought against his reforms. He sought to remedy the situation by doubling the Senate’s size. This would allow him to put his supporters into the newly created Senate positions and give him a majority

Gaius’ greatest mistake however was his attempt to expand the vote in varying degree throughout all of Italy. The masses in Rome were in no mood to dilute their own political power. His opponents seized on this mistake by submitting a series of laws aimed at enticing political support away from Gaius, with their own set of giveaways. It worked and when Gaius tried for a third term, he was defeated. Once out of power, his opponents began repealing his laws. Again tension flared and Gaius was forced to flee Rome. But he was overtaken and killed.

Tiberius and Gaius set in motion the chain of events that eventually led to the collapse of the Roman Republic. To be sure they did not cause the problems that were plaguing Rome, but their overreaching to solve those problems had three key results, which when combined had lasting and detrimental effects.

First was an increase in the political power of the plebs. Tiberius and Gaius both rose to power, and in the end Gaius was brought down with appeals to the masses of Rome. This was not in and of itself a bad thing, until combined with the second factor, which was an increased dependency on the state. Both the Gracchi brothers and their opponents appealed to the masses by what were effectively giveaways, such as Gaius’ Corn Laws. Many of these giveaways made the masses dependent in one way or another on the state.

The third factor was that the Gracchi’s actions had raised the specter of tyranny, such that any further attempt at significant reform would be seen as an attempt to destroy the Republic. The result was a government where political power was gained by appealing to the masses which were thereby increasingly dependent on the state, but in which no real significant change could be allowed. Rome had reached its point of no return. Though it did not know it, it was doomed.

The paralysis made it increasingly difficult to get anything done. Action required power, and power required political support, and that depended on who could sway the masses. As a result political power began to center around personalities that could attract large followings.

Rome was still threatened on many fronts. Defeating these threats and making Rome ‘safe’ combined with the wealth such victories brought was the surest way to gain the support of the masses. A general with the military skills to win battles, and political skills to appeal to the masses could rise very quickly. Within twenty years of the death of Gaius, following a series of military victories, Marius was reelected consul not only for a second term, but for five terms, later adding a sixth, and then even a seventh.

The giveaways continued. Food prices were reduced even further. More land was given away in an effort to please the people. In 105 B.C. the state began to sponsor gladiatorial games, adding entertainment to the growing list of dependencies. Seeing all these benefits going to Rome, Italy revolted. When it became clear that Rome could not win, it ended the war by granting full Roman citizenship to the rest of Italy, though some procedural maneuvering undercut this citizenship such that little actually changed and the paralysis continued.

But political paralysis in the face of large problems breeds instability, and instability in turn breeds the desire to get something done. Political battles became more pronounced. The courts increasingly became little more than a tool to be use against political opponents. Increasingly political battles ended in bloodshed, both with individuals and, given the political importance of generals, in some cases with armies from the opposing factions. In 82 B.C. an army supporting the Senate and led by Sulla, who had been a general under Marius, defeated an army, supported by the Assembly and led by Marius’ son.

Following the victory, Sulla demanded that he be made dictator, the Senate agreed in an effort to restore order and get something done. Sulla further expanded the vote to include some who had supported him, restored the power of the Senate, re-instituted the one-term limit on consuls, and greatly limited the office of Tribune of the Plebs, that had in his eyes caused so much trouble. Confident that he had restored Rome to its former glory, and that most of his enemies were dead, he stepped down as dictator after only two years. But the examples set by Sulla and Marius proved more lasting than Sulla’s reforms, needing only a new crisis to reemerge.

The new crisis came just seven years later. It started at a gladiatorial training compound in Campania, where slaves were trained for the games. During a mass escape attempt, seventy-eight gladiators made it out. Led by Spartacus, they began raiding nearby villages for food. Rome’s best general of the time, Pompey, was already famous and very popular. But he was away fighting in Spain. Still, it was only a small group of gladiators, so Rome sent an army of 3,000 men to deal with them before the situation could get out of hand.

Unlike the Spartacus of the movie, the real Spartacus was not born into slavery, but had been a mercenary who had served in the Roman army. So Spartacus not only knew how to fight as a gladiator, he knew how the Roman armies fought, and so how to fight them. When the Romans thought that they had the gladiators trapped on a mountain side, they relaxed a bit as they starved the gladiators out. But instead of attacking the army directly, the gladiators used vines to climb down cliffs and sneak around behind the army. They attacked from the rear where the Romans were not prepared.

The defeat of the Roman army of 3,000 sent shock waves across the countryside. Spartacus issued a call for all slaves to revolt and join him. And come they did. The small group of gladiators, who had escaped to become a band of raiders, grew to become a disciplined army of 70,000 men, defeating several more Roman armies along the way. The huge mass of slaves began to move north to the Alps and freedom, looting whatever they needed from the towns they passed along the way.

In response, Rome sent even larger armies, headed this time by the two consuls of Rome. One consul found a splinter group and defeated it. The other found Spartacus’ main force. However, this consul, Gellius Publicola, was known more for his ridicule of Athenian philosophers than his generalship. His army was defeated.

The way to Alps and freedom was now open; but the slaves, having their freedom, now sought to be like their former masters. Having defeated all that Rome had thrown at them and having looted the towns they passed by had given them the confidence to believe that they were invincible. The rest of Italy would be theirs for the taking.

The former slaves became the masters. They even took some of the prisoners from Gellius’ army and made them fight in their own gladiatorial games. Then they turned and headed south. Their numbers continued to grow and the army of 70,000 became 120,000. It could have grown even larger but Spartacus, fearing the problems of maintaining an even larger force, began turning recruits away.

Rome was now in full panic. Pompey was recalled from Spain but that would take time. Marcus Licinius Crassus, an ambitious and wealthy man, seized the opportunity and stepped forward. He demanded complete authority, for he did not want to share the glory that would come as savior of Rome, nor the power that would surely follow from it.

While an accomplished general, he was also the wealthiest man in Rome. Some questioned whether he had what it took to defeat Spartacus. His opportunity to remove all doubts occurred when two of his legions, disobeying orders, attacked Spartacus before Crassus was ready and were defeated. Crassus had the legions decimated as a punishment. Decimation was an ancient but rarely used punishment. The legions were lined up and then every tenth man was selected out and killed. It was a brutal punishment, but one that convinced Rome that Crassus would do whatever it took to win.

As Spartacus headed south, Crassus and his army pursued. Spartacus sought to escape to Sicily but when he was betrayed by the pirates he had hired, he was trapped in the toe of Italy. Crassus built a barricade across the entire peninsula to lock them in. After two failed attempts to break through, time was running out for Spartacus.

But time was running out for Crassus as well. Pompey was coming and when he arrived, as the senior General, he would take charge. If that happened, Pompey, not Crassus, would get any glory that came from the victory. Knowing this, Spartacus sought a negotiated settlement. But such a settlement would not serve Crassus’ need. He wanted all or nothing.

When a third attempt to break the barricade succeeded, a mad dash across Italy ensued, Spartacus and his forces attempting to reach Brundisium, where they hoped to get passage out of Italy. Crassus’ forces were in pursuit and Pompey’s forces were getting ever closer. Finally Crassus was able to force the main body of Spartacus’ army into battle. Crassus’ victory was complete. Contrary to the movie, Spartacus died in the battle. Six thousand of the captured slaves were crucified along the Appian Way.

But Crassus did not get the total glory that he had sought or that his victory had earned. Pompey had arrived on the scene just in time to clean up some of the stragglers from the battle. Militarily Pompey’s contribution was negligible. Politically, Pompey, already being very popular with the people, claimed and received half the glory of ‘saving Rome.’ Always seeking the best in any situation, Crassus formed an alliance with Pompey. The two commanders marched their armies back to Rome and together sought to be made consuls.

This move violated a whole new series of traditions. But by this time what was Roman law had ceased to really matter. The only thing that really mattered was what one could actually get away with, at least as long as your side controlled the courts, and if they didn’t the law still didn’t really matter. But the idea of the Republic was still important, or at least useful, and so the facade of an election was maintained. The two sought, and/or bribed, the support they needed and were elected consul.

Pompey’s base of power was in the plebs and true to his base he favored the Assembly over the Senate. Crassus, riding the wave of popularity, went along, though hedging a bit with the Senate should the tide of fortune change. Once in office they set about to undo Sulla’s reforms, including restoring power to the office that had caused such problems in the past, the Tribune of the Plebs.

In Rome’s stroll into the desert, the Republic was by now well past the point of no return. While the facade of democracy remained, it was no more real than a Hollywood set, and a rundown set at that. In reality Rome was no longer ruled by a democratic vote of the people, but rather by powerful men who were the real powers behind the scenes. It was no longer governed by law and tradition, either. For these men, law and tradition were nothing more than tools to be manipulated in their quest for power.

While the true power was behind the scenes, it was still fractured and divided. By the end of their consulship Pompey and Crassus were at odds with each other. But neither had amassed enough power to do without the other, nor were they the only power players in Rome.

When their consulship ended both went their separate ways. Pompey’s power was grounded in his military successes, and so after taking on and disposing of the pirates that were troubling shipping, he set off to the east to quell some trouble that had arisen, and to conquer more territory, including the conquest and sack of the city of Jerusalem.

Crassus, on the other hand, had his true base of power in his wealth, which was prodigious. Thus Crassus sought out and supported promising young men, helping them out in times of financial trouble, the most notable being a promising young nephew of Marius, Julius Caesar.

Some, like Crassus, sought power for the wealth and security it brought. Some like Pompey were just so talented that they seemed to drift into power, as boats drifting in the current. With such men, a facade of democracy is certainly no hindrance and can actually be beneficial. So the democratic facade was allowed to continue. But it was only a facade and it would just be a matter of time until some new crisis, or some ambitious person came along to whom the facade was a hindrance. When that happened, it would be torn down completely.

The first attempt occurred a few years later in 62 B.C. when another of Crassus’ promising investments, Catiline, became impatient with the pace of things and planned to simply seize power. His attempt failed, ending in Catiline’s death along with many of his supporters, though two of his known associates escaped formal implication, if not suspicion: Crassus and the young Caesar.

In 60 B.C., Caesar, now a political force in his own right convinced Crassus and Pompey to settle their differences and the three of them formed an alliance of mutual support. Caesar lacked only one thing to make his power base complete: an Army. Unlike Catiline, Caesar was very patient, and used his power to secure command of an army in Gaul, modern day France. Over the next ten years while keeping a close eye on Rome, he led his army to victory in Gaul and even a brief excursion into Britain, earning himself the solid loyalty of his troops in the process.

By the time Caesar’s military service in Gaul was up, the alliance of three had become two, Crassus having died. Pompey, with no real ambition, was not seen as a threat. But Caesar’s ambition was strong, and he planned to return and run for consul. He was a force to be reckoned with before, now he was a military force as well. His opponents feared he would be unstoppable. But there was one way to stop him.

While serving as Governor in Gaul or as consul in Rome, Caesar was immune from prosecution. The problem for Caesar was that there would be a gap of several months from the time his Governorship ended till the elections for consul. Normally, this would not have been a problem. There were several ways to manipulate events to maintain his immunity. But two could play at this game, and his opponents were blocking his every move.

In all this political maneuvering, his opponents had two key advantages, first they were in Rome. Caesar’s power base was in the masses, but out of sight, out of mind. Second, his opponents had by this time managed to turn Pompey against Caesar. In the end there was no way for Caesar to keep his immunity. Nor was it likely that he could win in court, which by this time had ceased to be a source of justice and was little more than just another tool to be used to attack political opponents, or to protect political allies, depending on who was in power at the moment. Then again there was the problem that Caesar had played a little fast and loose with the law in any event. Like so many others of the time, the law for Caesar was simply another tool to be manipulated when possible for one’s own political purposes.

So if he left his command and returned to Rome, he faced certain conviction and the end of his career, if not his life. But if he did not return to Rome, the center of all political power, his career was over anyway. For Caesar to continue his power, there was just one way that remained open to him. So in 49 B.C., Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the river in northern Italy that at the time marked the end of Gaul and the beginning of Italy, and came to Rome. But he did not come alone. He came with his army, bringing down for the last time the remaining facade of a democracy that had lasted for 460 years.

Parallelomania?

There are two big dangers whenever we try to learn from past events. The first would be to focus on the similarities and see too many parallels. When early scholars of religion began to compare the different religions of the world they started to see parallels between them. Out of this came a number of theories on the interrelationship of religions which they began to pursue. They found that the more they looked, the more parallels they found. For several decades they believed they had discovered something truly significant, and continued to search even deeper until they started seeing parallels everywhere, even between things that could not possibly have any connection.

The noted Jewish scholar Samuel Sandmel began to set things straight in the early 1960s in an article, entitled Parallelomania⁵. The main flaw in parallels is that they are selective and thus superficial. They are selective in that they take only those things that match, and ignore differences. This is what leads them to be superficial in that the mere appearance of a parallel however weak is taken as a parallel. The net result is that you can find meaning and significance where it does not exist. For example, consider all the parallels that have been noted between the assassinations of Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy.⁶

So the easiest way to go wrong would be to claim that American democracy is going to fail, ‘just like Rome.’ One could certainly find parallels between Rome and America. For example parallels could be found between Gaius Gracchus and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both, when frustrated in their political aims, tried to increase the size of the institution blocking them in order to stack it with their own people. Gaius Gracchus tried to increase the Senate, and FDR the Supreme Court. Both would also go on to break the tradition that limited their terms. But while perhaps interesting, this ultimately has little significance in and of itself. While one can always find such parallels, there are also lots of differences. History rarely if ever repeats itself in that way.

The other danger, equally flawed, would be to focus on the differences and claim that American democracy is so different from Rome, or the other earlier attempts, that we have nothing to learn, and that American democracy will always exist. Now it is true that the parallels, in and of themselves, are irrelevant, as are the differences. They tell us little about what will actually happen to American democracy.

But there are some important and valuable lessons to learn here. A more reasoned approach would be, rather than looking at the superficial parallels and differences, to look at the underlying factors and conditions that led to the demise of the Roman Republic. While events and situations change, people in large part remain the same.

There may be little similarity between the threats Rome faced during the time of Marius and Sulla and the threats faced by America in the 21^st century, but the basic things that drive peoples’ actions, ambition, fear, greed, love, etc., have not changed all that much. Given the differences in time, culture and circumstances, these will certainly work themselves out in different fashions, as different people respond to different events and conditions. But they still exist.

While the parallel between Gaius Gracchus and Franklin D. Roosevelt mentioned earlier is not all that significant in and of itself, at a deeper level there is something to worry about. As we saw, one of the things that caused Roman democracy to fail was the breakdown of law and tradition. A key difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy there are strict rules that govern what those in power can and cannot do. Thus while the superficial parallels tell us little, the deeper disregard for the rules and traditions that such actions reveal, is troubling.

This is not some new or revolutionary idea. The Founding Fathers knew very well the story of Rome. They also knew of the other democracies of history and of their failure, along with the writing of philosophers on the strengths and weakness of democracy. The resulting system they created included checks and balances.

In the chapters that follow, I will look at some of these deeper trends, and will show there is a great deal to worry about. American democracy is well into our own stroll into the desert. I don’t think we have yet reached the point of no return, but as we will see, there is at least some cause for concern.