The Fall of Pax Americana

[Makalakumu]

On another thread, a tangential discussion was initiated concerning the similarities and differences between the Late Roman Republic and the current state of American politics. I would very much like to continue this discussion, perhaps even pulling in people who might have actually studied Roman history in depth. Myself, I have read a few books and am currently reading a book on the History of the Roman Republic. This in no way qualifies me as an expert, but it has sparked some opinions...

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

Pax Americana is following in the footsteps of the ancient late Roman republic. Some of the information that supports this...

1. Weathly landowners (precapitolists in roman days multinational corporations in ours) are consolidating ALL wealth leaving the majority with very little.
2. Economic dominion enforced with military activities.
3. Satallite nations set up militarily as part of the Empire. This was justified with the argument "we are showing them a better way of governing themselves...(analogous to democratizing) Has anyone ever read PNAC?
4. Social change suppressed through information control.
5. Social leaders who aspire to level the playing field are assassinated.
6. Success in politics depends upon financial backing
7. Perhaps someone else can add a few more similarities to this list...

Sometimes historical examples and analogies are silly and far fetched. This one is not. Read and learn. It follows that since our country was founded on many old Roman Republic laws that our country could suffer the same fate.

Who will be our Imperator?

upnorthkyosa

 

[Phil Elmore]

1. Weathly landowners (precapitolists in roman days multinational corporations in ours) are consolidating ALL wealth leaving the majority with very little.

The majority of citizens of the United States are blessed with a great deal of upward economic mobility. Even our "lower class" is better off, financially, than in any other nation of the world.

2. Economic dominion enforced with military activities.

I think this is stretching socio-political realities too far. We do not "enforce economic dominion." Trade is consensual, not forced. Pick up any six items at a Wal*Mart and you'll find at least five of them manufactured in China. Our trade deficit is wildly out of proportion in other nations' favor. Are we "enforcing economic dominion" on them, or they us? In both cases the trade is done by consenting adults, not at gunpoint.

3. Satallite nations set up militarily as part of the Empire. This was justified with the argument "we are showing them a better way of governing themselves...(analogous to democratizing) Has anyone ever read PNAC?

This one is arguable but rendered moot by the United States' eventual withdrawl from Iraq. Be careful you don't start arguing for the benefits of murderous dictatorships, however. The natural state of free people is self-government; showing contempt for that concept is dangerous ground.

4. Social change suppressed through information control.

There is no "information control." By definition the very things people are comlaining about would not be known if information could be effective controlled. It can't. This does not mean the government has not tried to do so -- but it will never manage it. It cannot be done.

5. Social leaders who aspire to level the playing field are assassinated.

Which "social leaders" are these, by whom were they assassinated, and on what grounds does one "level the playing field" at the expense of those who've earned what they have? Egalitarianism sounds noble but is essentially immoral.

6. Success in politics depends upon financial backing

That's very true. We have only ourselves to blame, however.

7. Perhaps someone else can add a few more similarities to this list...

Sometimes historical examples and analogies are silly and far fetched. This one is not.

No, this one is, though there there are shades of similarity here and there.

Since Bush's election the Left has been crying doom and gloom and the end of the world as we know it -- much as the Right was crying when Clinton was in office. With the election of the next Democrat president, the roles will flip-flop again. Life will go on and little will change.

 

[loki09789]

Thank you Sharp Phil, I was feeling a little alone on this discussion topic. Your points are more clearly articulated than I could make. Refer to IRAQ ON THE RECORD for the origins of this thread.

 

[MisterMike]

So when will our great empire fall, and why?

 

[someguy]

All things are born to die. Abit synical but I can't really think of anything of this world that won't.
There are similarities between the two I'll give you that much upnorthkyosa but everything has similarities. I could comparer Jesus and Hitler if I want to. Both had gigantic impacts on Jews in their times. Obviously they are very differnt and I don't need to prove that as I'm sure every one would agree right?
INformation can and probably has been controled you can't prove that it hasn't or else you wouldn't know about it.
Surely America will fall someday but I don't want to be around to see it just as the fall of Rome was gigantic and sent shock waves across the earth for years and years (well not into the Americas but still) America (in the sense of the United States) will cause serious problems when it falls.

 

[loki09789]

All things are born to die. Abit synical but I can't really think of anything of this world that won't.
There are similarities between the two I'll give you that much upnorthkyosa but everything has similarities. I could comparer Jesus and Hitler if I want to. Both had gigantic impacts on Jews in their times. Obviously they are very differnt and I don't need to prove that as I'm sure every one would agree right?
INformation can and probably has been controled you can't prove that it hasn't or else you wouldn't know about it.
Surely America will fall someday but I don't want to be around to see it just as the fall of Rome was gigantic and sent shock waves across the earth for years and years (well not into the Americas but still) America (in the sense of the United States) will cause serious problems when it falls.

Agreed, Someguy. The Roman Empire's fall did send shock waves, but spread out of over years and years. First it divided into smaller separate empires, Roman empire, Byzantine, Northern are the ones I know of off hand. Interestingly, like your point about similarities between many things, Euro leaders for a long time still used the term Caesar and the true empire model: German Kaiser, Russian Czar... both titles derived from Caesar, both nations far more empirialistic than the USA/Roman comparison. Heck, the USSR rise and fall probably is the closest modern comparison to the Roman rise and fall that I can think of - of course some of my basis is the propaganda of a US education in the shadow of the cold war, so take that opinion with a grain of salt.

I would think that a comparison to the trading empires of England/Dutch/Spanish might be more accurate comparison/analogy in reference to the USA

 

[heretic888]

Hrmmm....

My personal conjecture is that the "American Empire" (as it is so-called) will probably continue on as long as there is human life on Earth, albeit in a different form. It can be argued that the Roman Empire still exists, but in a different form.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Makalakumu]

Phil has some interesting points, but they all refer back to a particular point of view - his. This type of discussion can get really muddy in a hurry because I can make all sorts of connections between similiar events and people can go and point of differences that chop up those connections. The similarities still exist, though.

This brings up an interesting question...there are many in this country who believe that learning about history helps one prevent old mistakes. If this is so, how does one go about showing similarities to historical events? How does one take two events that are temporally different and link them so that a future atrocity does not occur?

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

The majority of citizens of the United States are blessed with a great deal of upward economic mobility. Even our "lower class" is better off, financially, than in any other nation of the world..

Within the Roman Empire itself, upward mobility was possible if you were a Roman Citizen. For those who lived in the conquered territories, there was very little chance of making your life better. I believe that this is analogous to what we see today. In my own life, I have been able to rise far above the class I was born into because of the hard work I accomplished. This was only possible, though, because I was a United States Citizen. In other countries where the US has installed a corporate sponsored dictator, this is not possible.

I think this is stretching socio-political realities too far. We do not "enforce economic dominion." Trade is consensual, not forced. Pick up any six items at a Wal*Mart and you'll find at least five of them manufactured in China. Our trade deficit is wildly out of proportion in other nations' favor. Are we "enforcing economic dominion" on them, or they us? In both cases the trade is done by consenting adults, not at gunpoint.

Our trade deficit reflects the fact that we are producing less because other countries can produce good more cheaply. If you redefine slave labor so that workers who make less then 25 cents per day now qualify, you find yourself with a neat parable between the US and the Romans.

This one is arguable but rendered moot by the United States' eventual withdrawl from Iraq. Be careful you don't start arguing for the benefits of murderous dictatorships, however. The natural state of free people is self-government; showing contempt for that concept is dangerous ground..

Perceived withdrawl. What we see on the telescreen is not reality.

There is no "information control." By definition the very things people are comlaining about would not be known if information could be effective controlled. It can't. This does not mean the government has not tried to do so -- but it will never manage it. It cannot be done...

Total information control cannot be accomplished. You don't need that in a democracy, though. All you need to do is control enough to "convince" the majority that you are correct. This, too, was very Roman. For reference, take a look at Julius Caeser's writtings about his campaign in Gaul.

Which "social leaders" are these, by whom were they assassinated, and on what grounds does one "level the playing field" at the expense of those who've earned what they have? Egalitarianism sounds noble but is essentially immoral.

Egalitarianism is natural is a natural response to an inequity if the balance of energy, but that is besides the point. JFK, MLK, RFK, PW ect....

No, this one is, though there there are shades of similarity here and there.

Refer to my previous post and the questions posed.

Since Bush's election the Left has been crying doom and gloom and the end of the world as we know it -- much as the Right was crying when Clinton was in office. With the election of the next Democrat president, the roles will flip-flop again. Life will go on and little will change.

In a system where both sides are the same people, nothing changing would be the predictable outcome. In Roman times this was also the case. Take a look at the case of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus for reference.

 

[Tgace]

Phil has some interesting points, but they all refer back to a particular point of view - his. This type of discussion can get really muddy in a hurry because I can make all sorts of connections between similiar events and people can go and point of differences that chop up those connections. The similarities still exist, though.

The "similarities" are your point of view....point out all you want...dosent mean we have to accept/believe them.

 

[Makalakumu]

The "similarities" are your point of view....point out all you want...dosent mean we have to accept/believe them.

Which is why I asked the questions I did. Are we doomed to repeat the past? Will people always ignore connections for fear of seeing the future? Is it always going to be someones point of view, or is there anyway to present this objectively?

 

[Tgace]

Which is why I asked the questions I did. Are we doomed to repeat the past? Will people always ignore connections for fear of seeing the future? Is it always going to be someones point of view, or is there anyway to present this objectively?

Just because theres similarities dosent mean theres going to be a repeat of history....Im pretty shure you could stretch a comparison between the US and the colonial British Empire too...which history are we going to repeat??? You are taking the comparison too literally and to far.

 

[Makalakumu]

Just because theres similarities dosent mean theres going to be a repeat of history....Im pretty shure you could stretch a comparison between the US and the colonial British Empire too...which history are we going to repeat??? You are taking the comparison too literally and to far.

What do you expect to see? If history is going to be useful to us as a society, what do you expect to see, as a skeptic, to predict future events? That is the purpose of history isn't it? Or is history Orwellian, in the sense that it is mutable and does not matter?

The fact of the matter remains, there are similarities and differences. No event is going to exactly repeat an event from history. Where is the threshold for comparison? If I am taking the comparison too far, where is the line that I crossed? I will rescind my comment regarding the phrase "nearly analogous" though. It was a bit fervent. Other then that, the points I made, will remain the same.

From your comments, I'm sensing an unmentioned bias. The fall of America seems deeply offensive to you and others who have participated in this discussion. Of course, I could be wrong and I know that I am treading on the turf of Bulverism, but could this bias be skewing what YOU see?

I am certainly no expert on Roman history. In fact, I have read a total of three books on the subject and have had one college class - hardly enough to be considered a savant. Still, I sense that there are some important lessons that history can teach us in these days.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The Roman Republic/Empire lasted 1,000 years. In its existance, they united the known world, created concepts and institutions that survive today. Their technology was the best of time, having plumbing, electricity and advanced medicine.

They were destroyed from within and without. The barbarians at the gates beat them down and eventually broke them. Internal corruption, greed and abuses destroyed the infastructure. They stopped growing, became decadent and died.

The US is faced with external problems that weaken us. (Terrorists, corrupt allies, bad alliances, trade deficits, etc). They are faced with internal problems that are eating away at our core. (Corrupt polititions, corporate greed, a growing obese population who could care less about anything but themselves, lack of internal programs to solve the growing issues, and a growing disenfranchisement of the voting class among other problems).

The US, like Briton, and Rome has a group of satelite states(nations) who are either protectorates (Puerto Rico), dependent on US Military for protection (Japan) primary trade partners (UK) or major military allies (UK). We have military pressences in a wide number of allied nations. (Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

The similarities vary in detail...some are strikingly identical, others only if you squint alot while standing on 1 foot at high noon....but they are there.

Rome went from being a Republic, to being an Emperor. This occured when the Roman Senate gave Gaius Octavius the name Augustus and he became the undisputed emperor after years of bitter civil war. Contrary to popular belief, Gaius Julius Caesar was never emperor. He was in fact dictator of the Republic. Octavius was his heir.

The dictatorship was formed when the people and the military no longer had the desire to exist under the old rules.

For reference: http://www.crystalinks.com/romanempire.html

His first step was to repair the bitter wounds of civil war. On January 13 of 27 BC, Octavian, in his own words, "transferred the Republic from my own power to the authority of the Senate and the Roman people." This action showed shrewd political planning, as Augustus used it purely for public show. The Senate awarded him the name of Augustus, and mobs demanded that he retain power. Augustus carefully retained the titles of traditional offices to disguise his absolute power. He kept only the offices of consul and proconsul and claimed that he held no more power than his colleagues. Some Romans complained that the loss of liberty was too great a price to pay for peace, but most recognized that under the so-called liberty of the Roman Republic, a few hundred men had divided the spoils of empire while the workers and the provincials suffered. The majority of Romans welcomed the peace and stability of the Augustan Age.

Augustus did not derive his power from any single office, but from the authority of his name and his victory. In fact, he carefully pieced together a patchwork of powers that allowed him to be an absolute ruler and yet avoid the hatred Caesar aroused as dictator. In Latin, the name Augustus implies both political authority and religious respect. The Romans had for some time called Octavian imperator, a title once awarded to victorious generals that soon became associated with the ruler and thus led to the English word emperor. In 27 BC he was first called princeps (leading man of the state), which later became the official title of the Roman emperors. His imperium, or military authority, extended throughout the empire and was greater than the power of any other governor or general.

Augustus, in reality, held as much power as any absolute dictator, but wisely disguised it with traditional names so that the other Roman officials, and particularly senators, would still feel pride in their positions. The Senate was not an elected body; it drew its membership from the Roman aristocratic classes, primarily former magistrates who had served in important administrative posts. To be a senator was a matter of status, not a formal job. Under the republic, the Senate held great authority as the institution that preserved Roman knowledge and tradition and became the dominant force in religion, public policy, and foreign affairs. Senators jealously guarded the power and the wealth that resulted from their role in Roman government.

So in Rome, you had a civil war, political manuvering and the creation of new organizations, etc.
In the US we have Homeland Security, The Patriot Act, The Patriot Act II, expanded powers given to various government agencies like the FBI/CIA, political corruption (paying a bit much at the pump? Its not supply n demand, its gouging plain and simple), and an administration that is seeking to divide a nation and distract our attention while consolidating power.

The faces are different, the names have been changed, and the techniques are different, but the road we travel down is the same. The question is....is it too late to turn the tide that was began with the first coup in the 60's?

- We can not today raise an army. Americans are too fat, lazy and self absorbed. Plus, what good will 100 armed rednecks do against 10 trained Rangers?
- Trying to vote them out only changes the face of the evil. Unless you are a member of the "Big 2" you don't stand a chance. Too much apathy, too many folks thinking "its a throwaway vote, so I aint bothering", too many barriers against entry and the decks stacked against you.
- Hoping that we are conquered by a more enlightened society seems futile. Those with more manpower are even more opressive. We got the best gear. So, unless we get invaded by Klingons, we have to figure this mess out ourselves.

The American People need to put down their remote controls, get off their couches, wake up, take the time to understand the issues, form their own -educated- opinions and then raise their voices up and make them heard. A million man march demanding the resignation of the President would be nice. A million e-mails are worthless. Million man marches occuring all over the country...now that would be a nice sign.

Maybe, its time to stop worrying about what someone said in 1965, or what 2 people do in the privacy of their homes, and start worrying about things like our childrens education, high crime, drug abuse, poverty, our roads, our air, our telecommunications and transportation systems, our land, our food and our water?

Or, we can go bomb some more 3rd world nations (who have wealth we can use), and wave the flag, and ride the charriot, as a conquering hero. Where has the guy who whispers "Remember thou art mortal!" gone?

 

[loki09789]

It seems that any counter opinion to your point about Pax Amer. is met with an accusation of blindness/lack of sophistication or perception. As if you are in a minority of clear seers and the rest of us are doomed to repeat history - and that repetition would always be a bad thing.

I am sure that there are others, with authority because they sought office and were appointed/hire/voted into said position who are just as versed on history and are hoping/planning and working toward ways to avoid past mistakes.

I get your point, I don't think it is exclusively relatable to the USA, or that Rome is the only other major civilization that could be compared to the US. I also think that societies, like evolution and life in general has a life cycle. I don't think it is avoidable that an end will come. I don't think it is avoidable that there will be corruption when humans are in the mix - in any group.

If your defense against counter point is going to be that others are just stating opinion, how can it be an equal or open discussion? Your opinion colors your presentation of the 'facts.' How about proving your 'opinion about satellite nations: Which countries are these, and how do we manipulate them?

Can you see the possible analogy to the Trading empires, or USSR's rise and fall to the Romans? No one is claiming to be blind to possible corruption in government or that there is a possible fall for the USA as a super power. MY OPINION is that you are more interested in being proven right than in having a discussion. That you are more motivated by the idea that anyone who doesn't agree with you is not respecting your position.

I see it, just don't think it is the only analogy of civiliations that will work, or that it is as dooms day as you are making it out to be. Don't worry, if your right time will tell, but by then I will be more concerned with other things to remember.

 

[loki09789]

"I am certainly no expert on Roman history. In fact, I have read a total of three books on the subject and have had one college class - hardly enough to be considered a savant. Still, I sense that there are some important lessons that history can teach us in these days."

History is just there, good bad or otherwise. If you are referring to usefulness, you have to establish what type of goal or task is being accomplished. You have to decide what your tool box of ideas will be filled with, and what type of tool history will be in this overview.

I don't think that human political development will ever follow a gentle curve of cultural evolution to perfection - because people have not accomplished this in anything. The only category we, as a race, could claim any 'advancement in is technology - i.e. tools. But, as the users of those tools -both mental/physical- humans on a global scale have proven to be motivated by altruistic as well as greedy desires - whether Roman or Hun, Goth or Japanese.

 

[loki09789]

"The question is....is it too late to turn the tide that was began with the first coup in the 60's?"

What Coup?
Did armed troops storm the white house?

If the comparison of civil war is relevant, it needs to be compared to the Civil War (US). I think we came out of that one with a unified country under a President.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"The question is....is it too late to turn the tide that was began with the first coup in the 60's?"

What Coup?
Did armed troops storm the white house?

If the comparison of civil war is relevant, it needs to be compared to the Civil War (US). I think we came out of that one with a unified country under a President.

No, they put a bullet through the skull of a sitting president. This was later repeated when his brother bagan his run for the throne.
Who is "They"?
Depends on who you ask....everyone from 1 lone commie to George Bush Sr.


Link

As to the "Unified Country" bit.....
physically, yes.
mentally, spiritually and socially?
Nope. The system of "reconstruction" of the "conquered south" created wounds that fester even today.

Let us also not forget...that President also was assassinated.

 

[loki09789]

No, they put a bullet through the skull of a sitting president. This was later repeated when his brother bagan his run for the throne.
Who is "They"?
Depends on who you ask....everyone from 1 lone commie to George Bush Sr.


Link

As to the "Unified Country" bit.....
physically, yes.
mentally, spiritually and socially?
Nope. The system of "reconstruction" of the "conquered south" created wounds that fester even today.

Let us also not forget...that President also was assassinated.

Since you are the one calling it a coup, who are you trying to say shot JFK for political take over?

And I don't think there as EVER been a group/society/culture that has been mentally, spiritually or socially unified. There will always and ever will be disparity of agreement. I am sure it exists everywhere. Individually we can be conflicted on an issue, as a group we can have disparity of agreement. It happens everywhere on every scale.