Learning his own history is the free man’s first defense against government abuse of power. Continue reading
Guilt, innocence, and justice–albeit favorite crumbs for tossing out to the crowd–are, to most politicians, acidic concepts whose merest touch can corrode that all-important amour-propre. “Team players,” as one says in Washington–does anyone know what the term would have been in the old Soviet Union???–would never allow such rudeness to pass their lips in a policy meeting. Continue reading
We can trust our leaders…no, really! Continue reading
We think leaders have purpose, try to fulfill a vision. We even are happy to assume that “our” leaders pursue national security, if, perhaps, with something of a self-serving bias. Might it be more accurate to view leaders as tinkerers, folks who pursue power because they are full of ideas they want to try out, like a scientist who does experiments simply for “the sake of knowledge,” worrying no more about the fate of their subjects than the scientist worries about his test mice? Continue reading
After vanquishing its external foes, the late Roman republic had every reason to be satisfied with its global position; domestically, too, the basic facts were highly favorable: relatively strong economy, unified society, and high esteem for the rule of law had laid the foundation for a political organization that would have passed for a fairly modern democracy. But within a few generations, elite irresponsibility had turned Rome into a corrupt and militaristic dictatorship. Sallust focuses on a key turning point, the years following a burst of military adventurism (under Marius and Sulla) and preceding Julius Caesar’s final overthrow of the Republic:
Never in its history–it seems to me–had the empire of Rome been in such a miserable plight. From east to west all the world had been vanquished by her armies and obeyed her will; at home there was profound peace and abundance of wealth, which moral men esteem the chiefest of blessings. Yet there were Roman citizens obstinately determined to destroy both themselves and their country….A deadly moral contagion had infected all their minds….although all disturbers of the peace in this period put forward specious pretexts, claiming either to be protecting the rights of the people or to be strengthening the authority of the Senate, this was mere pretence: in reality, every one of them was fighting for his personal aggrandizement. –Sallust, The Conspiracy of Catiline (Penguin Classics), pp.37-39.
At one point during Julius Caesar’s Gallic campaign, when the Aeduan tribe was allied with Rome, the question of whether or not to break the alliance and join Vercingetorix’s “rebellion”–what today might be called Gaul’s “national liberation movement.” The Aeduan leader had recently been confirmed in his position through the personal intervention of Caesar, who had ruled in accordance with Aeduan laws. The Aeduan leader observed,
It is true that I am under some obligation to Caesar – though the justice of my case was so apparent that he could hardly help deciding in my favor. but the cause of national liberty outweighs any such consideration. Why should we call Caesar in to adjudicate questions involving our rights and the interpretation of our laws? We do not expect him to submit questions of Roman law to our arbitration? (Caesar, The Conquest of Gaul. London: Penguin Classics, pp.173-4.)
With that, the lackey declared his independence and led the Aeduans into revolt.
“Clematius, an utterly innocent man, was put to death without being allowed to open his mouth or speak.
After this act of wickedness, which, now that cruelty had been given free rein, aroused fears that it would be repeated in other cases, a number of people were found guilty and condemned through mere misty suspicion. Of these some were put to death; others suffered confiscation of their property and were driven into exile from their homes; left with no resource but complaints and tears they supported life on the charity of others, and when what had been a just constitutional government was transformed into a gloody despotism many rich and noble houses shut their doors. In the past savage emperors had often preserved the appearance of legality by preferring charges against their victims in the courts of law, but now even a counterfeit accusation was felt to be superfluous; as one mischief was heaped upon another whatever the implacable Caesar had resolved was immediately put into effect, as if it had all the force of a deliberate legal decision.“–Ammianus Marcellinus The Later Roman Empire (AD 453-378)(Tr. Walter Hamilton), London: Penguin Classics, 2004).
Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman military officer and historian, chronicled the decline of the superpower of his day.