Thoughtful and thought-provoking (short) Atlantic article (gift link, I hope):
…
Augustus was Rome’s first emperor. In so becoming, he dismantled the republic and founded a monarchy that would last for more than a millennium. …
He took control of the government gradually but completely, with the support of those wealthy aristocrats who valued fortune above principle and with the complaisance of a population exhausted by conflict and disillusioned by a system that favored the rich and connected. Perhaps most salient for us today, Augustus consolidated his power with the institutional blessing of the Senate.
At first, the Senate let Augustus bend rules and push boundaries. It let him accumulate domestic powers and bring unqualified members of his family into government. The Senate stood by while Augustus removed enemies from his path, and supported him when he put a self-serving spin on recent actions. Even when elections were held under Augustus, he often handpicked state officials.
The senators never called him emperor in his own day, but as primus inter pares, or first among equals, Augustus was allowed to pretend he was part of the republican system even as he destroyed it. Those who praised Augustus and those who failed to fight back, despite their misgivings, created a king by another name. They may have believed they were securing their own positions by doing so, but their acquiescence to Augustus meant the practical end of their power, forever. In their defense, Rome’s senators legitimately feared death if they broke with him; Augustus certainly had a lot of people killed. Our American senators apparently have only primaries to fear—yet they and their congressional colleagues have shown little inclination to rein in their leader or assert their own constitutional powers.
…
My bold.
Whew! At least we’re not there. Yet.
…
The ultimate lesson of the Roman Republic’s fate is that once you’ve allowed one man to rule as a monarch, even if you pretend he doesn’t, you are past the point of no return. When Augustus died in his bed at a ripe old age, the Roman Senate made him a god. This seems an honor that even the most sycophantic U.S. senators would be unlikely to suggest for our president.
…
It’s worrisome seeing this very thing happen before our eyes and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. The good news is that it should only take a millennium before we revert back to a democracy..
I meant, as an individual, there’s not anything I can do to impact this other than protest and risk getting labeled a terrorist and getting rounded up and deported.
It was an interesting article, but I don’t know how relevant it is to today’s age.
In Venezuela, what really helped transition the nation into a dictatorship was the executive branch rewriting the constitution, neutralizing the legislative branch and filling the judicial branch with sycophants.
I was worried about the judicial branch being filled with sycophants in the US, but with the SCOTUS 9-0 decision Trump has proven he will just ignore the judicial branch when they do not do his bidding.
I don’t know what lies ahead of us.
From what I know of political science, nations that are highly educated, wealthy and healthy tend to not to backslide from democracy into dictatorship. But who knows anymore. What scares me is if some other person just as evil as Trump but far more competent comes to power in the decades ahead.
As an aside, why does everyone always call Augustus the “First Emperor”? It was Gaius Julius who illegally seized absolute power for himself (and they let him get away with it), and he also held the title of “Imperator”.
I learn something new every day. The way I learned it was that Julius was declared “dictator for life” but not “emperor”. Although in practice I suppose that doesn’t make a difference.
“Imperator” didn’t originally mean “leader of the nation”: Like “Caesar” and some of the other titles, the later emperors styled themselves such because JC did. It was a title granted to a popular military commander by his troops, because they liked him above and beyond what was required by duty (which probably meant they got good loot under him, or maybe his strategies and tactics led them to lots of victories, or maybe he was really good at mediating intra-army disputes, or whatever). Julius Caesar was, of course, a very popular general, or he wouldn’t have been able to get away with all of the other things.
Well, that was the Senates fault. The party in control of the senate hated him, so illegally drove Ceasar’s supporting Tribunes from Rome, allowing them to give Caesar and ultimatum- give up your army, return to Rome and face prosecution for “crimes”. Caesar asked to be allowed to run for office in absentia, but they refused- they thought they had Caesar where they wanted him- he’d give up, return with his tail between his legs, then they’d take away his money, honors and exile him. Pompey said he could raise 20 legions “just by stamping his foot” so they didnt fear Julius and him one legion. Caesar had no choice- and in fact when he took over he pardoned any enemy that gave up, made many reforms, and stated he was going to step down…maybe. He let the Senate stay intact, etc- and in theory with the approval of the rump senate his actions were legal.
That’s sarcasm, right? With Poe’s Law, one can never be sure.
Naming himself Dictator for Life was illegal. Bringing his legion across the Rubicon was illegal. Nothing the Senate did nor could have done would have made it legal.
Or he could have, you know, not. Autocrats insisting that their enemies forced them to overthrow the government is an often-repeated story in history, and is tiresome every time.
And your use of the phrase “rump Senate” already proves that he did not, in fact, let the Senate stay intact.
