When it comes to would-be Caesars, it’s more important to pay attention to what people do, rather than what they say. Augustus and his successors went through all the motions of maintaining republican government, holding consulship elections and other democratic procedures – all while they seized power and curtailed freedom. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of power-seizing Caesars is that they never openly declare their intentions. Instead, they quietly tighten their grip, while pretending to defend the republic or “our democracy” (sound familiar?).
So, while the aspirational blathering of Trump and his minions may seem troubling, it doesn’t fit the Caesar pattern. I’m more concerned about the politicians that do fit the pattern, and historically they have mostly been on the left—which, after all, has expansive, intrusive government in its DNA. Consider for example Woodrow Wilson’s Espionage and Sedition acts, Roosevelt’s internment camps, right down to Biden’s multiple instances of flouting the Constitution and Supreme Court with fait-accomplis on eviction moratoriums and student loans. Instead of "bread and circuses" we have free rent and $500 billion ladled out to people who are vastly wealthier than the average citizen.
The last few years have seen Americans jailed for joke election tweets, secretly surveilled under deliberately falsified FISA warrants, and falsely arrested with intimidating 4am SWAT teams. They have also seen the rapid expansion of an administrative state that isn’t answerable to anybody. The poster child for this is Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was set up to be funded by the Fed, so that neither Congress nor the Executive would have control over it. (note the CFPB head insisted he couldn’t be removed by the president, when Trump took office). And above all, we have seen attempts to remove presidential candidates from the ballot (not just Trump, but also Kennedy) -- all to preserve "our democracy!" This is a trend that is much scarier than 4 more years of Trump's mean and idiotic tweets.
Trump and his ilk are loathsome and say some crazy things. But the dangerous bite rarely comes from the dog that barks, it comes from the snake that doesn’t.
Looking at this again after a few months, one omission jumps out at me: the Populares and Optimates in ancient Rome. One wonders whether this was just an oversight--because their existence clearly undercuts this article's thesis.
The Populares, who are the closest analog to the modern left, were the supporters of Caesar and his ilk. Conversely, the Optimates included conservatives like Cicero and Cato (of the posthumously named Institute) who opposed Caesar.
It is the case that Trump has assumed some of the Left/Populares' causes (along with their blue-collar voters). But it is important to remember which side has habitually favored a much larger and intrusive government that is controlled by an elite of "experts," --which is not answerable to the public, and which continually engages in throwing out goodies (free student loans and housing grants anyone?) in an attempt to buy popular support
In any case, Trump is a lot more like Cleon the Tanner than Caesar. But that will be the subject of another post.
"So, while the aspirational blathering of Trump and his minions may seem troubling, it doesn’t fit the Caesar pattern. I’m more concerned about the politicians that do fit the pattern, and historically they have mostly been on the left—which, after all, has expansive, intrusive government in its DNA. Consider for example Woodrow Wilson’s Espionage and Sedition acts, Roosevelt’s internment camps, right down to Biden’s multiple instances of flouting the Constitution and Supreme Court with fait-accomplis on eviction moratoriums and student loans. Instead of "bread and circuses" we have free rent and $500 billion ladled out to people who are vastly wealthier than the average “
You’ve missed a few things here. Wilson’s Espionage and Sedition Act was right in line with many ideas put forth by Republicans over the years - See Richard Nixon’s use of the CIA for internal monitoring of American citizens and Trump’s threats along the same line, including muzzling the press. These are things he would certainly do if he thought he could get away with it. Roosevelt’s internment camps are right in line with Trump’s proposal of imprisonment of his political enemies (Lock her up!. He should be tried for treason).
Few American presidents have failed to push the limits of the Constitution - most notably Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus in some of the border states. They have often called on it and sometimes had it reversed. But none of them have attempted to overthrow the Constitution in order to stay in power. That is Caesarist with a vengeance. So please don’t try this tired old ‘equivalence’ thing.
I would call imprisoning a political opponent (e.g., Eugene Debs) overthrowing the Constitution to stay in power. I would also say the same for:
* paying foreign operatives to create phony FISA warrants to illegally surveil your political opposition
* using the IRS to persecute your political opposition (Lois Lerner)
* attempting to use courts to keep political opponents off the ballot (done to both Kennedy and Trump)
* Openly flouting Supreme Court rulings because "I can do it before they stop me"
The important difference is this: when Republicans do these things (think Joe McCarthy), the Press and public institutions (as well as Republicans like Prescott Bush) all rally to bring them down. When the left does them, the press and govt institutions (which, TBH, are 95% Democrats) stand back and cheerlead. Nixon was impeached and would have been convicted. Nothing ever happened to Wilson, Roosevelt, JFK, or LBJ for offenses as bad or worse than his. Step outside your political biases (and the notion that "well, they were on the right side") and acknowledge that reality.
I have no affection for Trump, but I fear the "treatment" is far greater than the disease he represents. There are lots of powerful counterweights to Trump (even judges he appointed struck down his silly efforts). There are very few for the other side.
Watching surfers get arrested for going into the Ocean during COVID-19 was a real wake-up call for me that there are a lot of people in govt. who revel in the capricious application of coercive power over other Americans. Having spent time in totalitarian regimes (like the DDR), I've seen this movie before. They call themselves democrats and claim they're "defending democracy" as they take away your rights. Those people are much more dangerous and more of an existential threat to freedom than some orange panjandrum who will be gone in a few years anyhow.
You are well read and well spoken. Am I the victim of a liberal, left leaning press?
A crowd that chants, "Hang Mike Pence" and a president that says,"So what" is the same constitutional threat as jailing Eugene Debs?
Siding with Russia and saying Ukraine started the war looks to me like the behavior of an authoritarian leader. Please tell me that our democratic institutions will survive the next four years. I am concerned for my children and grandchildren.
Sorry, you haven’t made your case. Let’s look a couple of things.
First, if Trump had won in 2020, no Republican legislature would have enacted or tried to enact all those ‘election integrity’ laws, which tells you just which side of the Constitution they are on and what they are prepared to try to do to control the vote. They know it is only the Electoral College that keeps them in presidential contention, a body which no longer functions as it was designed to do anyway, so it is open season on potential Democratic voters in every way they can manage.
Second, if the Supreme Court had read the 14th Amendment as it was intended, they would have approved of any state wishing to take Trump off the ballot - indeed, they should have done it themselves.
If Nixon had been impeached, yes, he probably would have been convicted. But unlike your heroic Republicans of yore, if the current Republican half of the Senate had had any integrity or even the courage of their initial convictions, they would have done the same to Trump. You may recall that a number of them, including McConnell accused him publicly of doing just what he was impeached for, and then allowed McConnell and their own fears of the MAGA mob to bully them into the party line of denial.
You simply can’t compare anything Wilson, Roosevelt, JFK, or LBJ may or may not have done with what Trump attempted. Nor, for all your contempt for the Biden regime, can you get around the fact that the House Oversight Committee has tried and failed, almost to the exclusion of the actual governing they were elected to do, to find any reason at all to impeach anyone of their political enemies, even Joe Biden. Even some of the Republicans on that committee have noted that their efforts have been is fruitless and counterproductive. Neither, for all their persecution of Hunter Biden have they taken the least look at Donald Trump’s kids and all the ways they used their father’s presidential status to enrich themselves. On the other hand, of course, Joe Biden stood by and allowed justice to take its course in his son’s case. I think you can imagine what would have happened during Trump 1.0 if any of his kids had been brought before the bar.
You say you have experience in the DDR, a satellite state of the USSR. Perhaps you can explain then why it is that Trump (and some of his myrmidons) have openly expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin, something no Democrat or indeed many Republicans would never do. Could it be that he desires the kind of power they have?
Trump may well be gone in a couple of years, but he is hardly alone in his authoritarian desires. Nor is he the ineffectual buffoon you would portray him as. In addition to the havoc he caused on January 6th and all the efforts he made, as President, to subvert the Constitution in order to stay in power, he has successful convinced a substantial portion of American voters that our electoral process is a sham (unless, of course, he wins).
"You simply can’t compare anything Wilson, Roosevelt, JFK, or LBJ may or may not have done with what Trump attempted. "
So challenging election results (something Democrats have done in all four of the last elections won by Republicans, BTW) is worse than:
* Throwing political opponents in jail?
* Imprisoning 120,000 AMERICANS without cause?
* CIA/FBI wiretapping political opponents (under JFK)?
* Illegally surveilling and targeting anti-war groups and MLK. (Ever hear of COINTELPRO?)
The only context in which that makes sense is if you believe holding political power is the most important thing in the world. My fear is that belief is precisely what motivates the left.
Challenging election results is an American political pastime, up until one is President of the United States. Then it is very closely akin to a coup. Sorry, your horse won’t ride.
Great piece. The need to appeal to rousing principle in defense of liberalism is especially prescient. This view does a lot to explain the flash-in-a-pan track record of narrowly focused centrist groups like No Labels and the Forward Party. When populists on both the left and the right are appealing to grand "good vs. evil" narratives, the defenders of liberalism must do the same.
For those interested in a further deep dive on the philosophical and institutional underpinnings of the new right authoritarians, much of which overlaps with the Caesarists mentioned here, take a look at The New Republic's piece on the Claremont Institute: https://newrepublic.com/article/174656/claremont-institute-think-tank-trump
I must subscribe to the New Republic in order to read the referenced article.
I own a pair of muskets or flintlocks. The phrase is "a flash in the pan" means all show and no action. The phrase comes from the spark of the flint setting off the primary powder in the pan but NOT the gun powder in the barrel.
Great article. If we can just make through the boomer times — the next 2 - 3 elections — our democracy might be safe. This is my personal perspective as a late boomer and professional, but the pill and abortion rights have led to a dramatic shift in women’s domestic and economic power in the United States, far exceeding that of other global powers. A vocal and voting portion of our population wants to return to the old order faster than a democracy can or will give it to them. So Caesar it is. But Caesar needs an army and the US military has suffered centuries of personal loss during war and peacetime to protect this democracy. Their vote counts too.
Definitely thought provoking. At the risk of coming across as just another contrarian internet troll, I couldn't help thinking it's odd to count Cicero as a liberal, when he defended a well-lettered society immersed in slavery, torture, rape, and merciless military violence against foreigners. All those things continued under both the Republic and the Caesars.
It isn't clear that liberalism, in its current form, has a monopoly on useful insights about the ills of the Roman or American republics. In our liberal society, institutions exist to give individuals the freest possible reign to develop themselves. Rome was not about that. It was about the state. Any liberal living today would have experienced Cicero's Rome as a nightmare.
The uncomfortable question for liberals is whether Rome holds any lessons for them other than the manifest unworkability of Caesarism. What if another lesson of Rome is that maximal individualism is not the only stable way to organize a human society? What if a republic functions best when individuals acknowledge public obligations beyond a vague, secular injunction to do no harm, as interpreted by the individual, or, more likely, by a managerial bureaucracy of the inept, elite technocrats to which the article above alludes? What if the institutions they run, based on liberal individualist philosophy, have been repeatedly, catastrophically wrong about their expert solutions for decades now, from offshoring of critical industries like semiconductors to Covid lockdowns to racialized social engineering that supposedly liberates the potential of all individuals?
There is a real, compelling critique of contemporary liberalism to be made along these lines. By implication, alternatives exist to the current (tenuously) reigning ethos of American society and institutions. This article seems to ignore that critique in order to attack "Caesarism," which is a much easier target.
The American experiment is over. What will replace it? Who knows? However, the death of the American republic is not in doubt. I have a standard comment on this
“China is very good at building dams, the US is very good at enforcing PC. Which system will prevail in the 21st century?”
Mr. Syck has this completely wrong. Maybe instead of sitting in some ivory tower armed with a keyboard and campus-fed political bias, he should have sought out Trump supporters to ask them about their political views and interests.
There is no interest in a strong man authoritarian leader. This is an interest to break the elite ruling class corrupt hold on power that is a much more realistic and prevalent form of authoritarian power... one that the Covid pandemic demonstrated to us.
It is the same proletariat against the bourgeoise conflict that cycles through democracies during times of struggle and conflict. Trump is Brexit. It would be great if we had more brave and patriotic candidates on the stage to choose from, but all the rest are tools and puppets of that establishment... seeking to fill their bank accounts and the bank accounts of their elite upper class friends.
Trump is a severaly flawed personality. The fact that we only have him and nobody else but vegetables, cardboard cutouts and lying puppets... THAT is a testemant for how severe many of us consider the problems to be.
People who want Caesars need a lesson in statistics. If one agrees, contrary to fact as other commenters have said, that the Caesars were good for Rome and looks through history, or even at the world just today, what has been the chance of getting such a purportedly noble result? Those who tout such a government have themselves in mind as its leader.
Enjoyed the piece. I would almost be willing to trade in democracy for the abolition of Christianity from public life, but then, I'm kidding. Not so much. I'd keep Jesus, though.
When it comes to would-be Caesars, it’s more important to pay attention to what people do, rather than what they say. Augustus and his successors went through all the motions of maintaining republican government, holding consulship elections and other democratic procedures – all while they seized power and curtailed freedom. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of power-seizing Caesars is that they never openly declare their intentions. Instead, they quietly tighten their grip, while pretending to defend the republic or “our democracy” (sound familiar?).
So, while the aspirational blathering of Trump and his minions may seem troubling, it doesn’t fit the Caesar pattern. I’m more concerned about the politicians that do fit the pattern, and historically they have mostly been on the left—which, after all, has expansive, intrusive government in its DNA. Consider for example Woodrow Wilson’s Espionage and Sedition acts, Roosevelt’s internment camps, right down to Biden’s multiple instances of flouting the Constitution and Supreme Court with fait-accomplis on eviction moratoriums and student loans. Instead of "bread and circuses" we have free rent and $500 billion ladled out to people who are vastly wealthier than the average citizen.
The last few years have seen Americans jailed for joke election tweets, secretly surveilled under deliberately falsified FISA warrants, and falsely arrested with intimidating 4am SWAT teams. They have also seen the rapid expansion of an administrative state that isn’t answerable to anybody. The poster child for this is Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was set up to be funded by the Fed, so that neither Congress nor the Executive would have control over it. (note the CFPB head insisted he couldn’t be removed by the president, when Trump took office). And above all, we have seen attempts to remove presidential candidates from the ballot (not just Trump, but also Kennedy) -- all to preserve "our democracy!" This is a trend that is much scarier than 4 more years of Trump's mean and idiotic tweets.
Trump and his ilk are loathsome and say some crazy things. But the dangerous bite rarely comes from the dog that barks, it comes from the snake that doesn’t.
Looking at this again after a few months, one omission jumps out at me: the Populares and Optimates in ancient Rome. One wonders whether this was just an oversight--because their existence clearly undercuts this article's thesis.
The Populares, who are the closest analog to the modern left, were the supporters of Caesar and his ilk. Conversely, the Optimates included conservatives like Cicero and Cato (of the posthumously named Institute) who opposed Caesar.
It is the case that Trump has assumed some of the Left/Populares' causes (along with their blue-collar voters). But it is important to remember which side has habitually favored a much larger and intrusive government that is controlled by an elite of "experts," --which is not answerable to the public, and which continually engages in throwing out goodies (free student loans and housing grants anyone?) in an attempt to buy popular support
In any case, Trump is a lot more like Cleon the Tanner than Caesar. But that will be the subject of another post.
You nailed it. For all the talk about Trump's threat to democracy, this administration has shown much more to be concerned about than Trump's did.
"So, while the aspirational blathering of Trump and his minions may seem troubling, it doesn’t fit the Caesar pattern. I’m more concerned about the politicians that do fit the pattern, and historically they have mostly been on the left—which, after all, has expansive, intrusive government in its DNA. Consider for example Woodrow Wilson’s Espionage and Sedition acts, Roosevelt’s internment camps, right down to Biden’s multiple instances of flouting the Constitution and Supreme Court with fait-accomplis on eviction moratoriums and student loans. Instead of "bread and circuses" we have free rent and $500 billion ladled out to people who are vastly wealthier than the average “
You’ve missed a few things here. Wilson’s Espionage and Sedition Act was right in line with many ideas put forth by Republicans over the years - See Richard Nixon’s use of the CIA for internal monitoring of American citizens and Trump’s threats along the same line, including muzzling the press. These are things he would certainly do if he thought he could get away with it. Roosevelt’s internment camps are right in line with Trump’s proposal of imprisonment of his political enemies (Lock her up!. He should be tried for treason).
Few American presidents have failed to push the limits of the Constitution - most notably Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus in some of the border states. They have often called on it and sometimes had it reversed. But none of them have attempted to overthrow the Constitution in order to stay in power. That is Caesarist with a vengeance. So please don’t try this tired old ‘equivalence’ thing.
I would call imprisoning a political opponent (e.g., Eugene Debs) overthrowing the Constitution to stay in power. I would also say the same for:
* paying foreign operatives to create phony FISA warrants to illegally surveil your political opposition
* using the IRS to persecute your political opposition (Lois Lerner)
* attempting to use courts to keep political opponents off the ballot (done to both Kennedy and Trump)
* Openly flouting Supreme Court rulings because "I can do it before they stop me"
The important difference is this: when Republicans do these things (think Joe McCarthy), the Press and public institutions (as well as Republicans like Prescott Bush) all rally to bring them down. When the left does them, the press and govt institutions (which, TBH, are 95% Democrats) stand back and cheerlead. Nixon was impeached and would have been convicted. Nothing ever happened to Wilson, Roosevelt, JFK, or LBJ for offenses as bad or worse than his. Step outside your political biases (and the notion that "well, they were on the right side") and acknowledge that reality.
I have no affection for Trump, but I fear the "treatment" is far greater than the disease he represents. There are lots of powerful counterweights to Trump (even judges he appointed struck down his silly efforts). There are very few for the other side.
Watching surfers get arrested for going into the Ocean during COVID-19 was a real wake-up call for me that there are a lot of people in govt. who revel in the capricious application of coercive power over other Americans. Having spent time in totalitarian regimes (like the DDR), I've seen this movie before. They call themselves democrats and claim they're "defending democracy" as they take away your rights. Those people are much more dangerous and more of an existential threat to freedom than some orange panjandrum who will be gone in a few years anyhow.
You are well read and well spoken. Am I the victim of a liberal, left leaning press?
A crowd that chants, "Hang Mike Pence" and a president that says,"So what" is the same constitutional threat as jailing Eugene Debs?
Siding with Russia and saying Ukraine started the war looks to me like the behavior of an authoritarian leader. Please tell me that our democratic institutions will survive the next four years. I am concerned for my children and grandchildren.
Sorry, you haven’t made your case. Let’s look a couple of things.
First, if Trump had won in 2020, no Republican legislature would have enacted or tried to enact all those ‘election integrity’ laws, which tells you just which side of the Constitution they are on and what they are prepared to try to do to control the vote. They know it is only the Electoral College that keeps them in presidential contention, a body which no longer functions as it was designed to do anyway, so it is open season on potential Democratic voters in every way they can manage.
Second, if the Supreme Court had read the 14th Amendment as it was intended, they would have approved of any state wishing to take Trump off the ballot - indeed, they should have done it themselves.
If Nixon had been impeached, yes, he probably would have been convicted. But unlike your heroic Republicans of yore, if the current Republican half of the Senate had had any integrity or even the courage of their initial convictions, they would have done the same to Trump. You may recall that a number of them, including McConnell accused him publicly of doing just what he was impeached for, and then allowed McConnell and their own fears of the MAGA mob to bully them into the party line of denial.
You simply can’t compare anything Wilson, Roosevelt, JFK, or LBJ may or may not have done with what Trump attempted. Nor, for all your contempt for the Biden regime, can you get around the fact that the House Oversight Committee has tried and failed, almost to the exclusion of the actual governing they were elected to do, to find any reason at all to impeach anyone of their political enemies, even Joe Biden. Even some of the Republicans on that committee have noted that their efforts have been is fruitless and counterproductive. Neither, for all their persecution of Hunter Biden have they taken the least look at Donald Trump’s kids and all the ways they used their father’s presidential status to enrich themselves. On the other hand, of course, Joe Biden stood by and allowed justice to take its course in his son’s case. I think you can imagine what would have happened during Trump 1.0 if any of his kids had been brought before the bar.
You say you have experience in the DDR, a satellite state of the USSR. Perhaps you can explain then why it is that Trump (and some of his myrmidons) have openly expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin, something no Democrat or indeed many Republicans would never do. Could it be that he desires the kind of power they have?
Trump may well be gone in a couple of years, but he is hardly alone in his authoritarian desires. Nor is he the ineffectual buffoon you would portray him as. In addition to the havoc he caused on January 6th and all the efforts he made, as President, to subvert the Constitution in order to stay in power, he has successful convinced a substantial portion of American voters that our electoral process is a sham (unless, of course, he wins).
"You simply can’t compare anything Wilson, Roosevelt, JFK, or LBJ may or may not have done with what Trump attempted. "
So challenging election results (something Democrats have done in all four of the last elections won by Republicans, BTW) is worse than:
* Throwing political opponents in jail?
* Imprisoning 120,000 AMERICANS without cause?
* CIA/FBI wiretapping political opponents (under JFK)?
* Illegally surveilling and targeting anti-war groups and MLK. (Ever hear of COINTELPRO?)
The only context in which that makes sense is if you believe holding political power is the most important thing in the world. My fear is that belief is precisely what motivates the left.
Challenging election results is an American political pastime, up until one is President of the United States. Then it is very closely akin to a coup. Sorry, your horse won’t ride.
Great piece. The need to appeal to rousing principle in defense of liberalism is especially prescient. This view does a lot to explain the flash-in-a-pan track record of narrowly focused centrist groups like No Labels and the Forward Party. When populists on both the left and the right are appealing to grand "good vs. evil" narratives, the defenders of liberalism must do the same.
For those interested in a further deep dive on the philosophical and institutional underpinnings of the new right authoritarians, much of which overlaps with the Caesarists mentioned here, take a look at The New Republic's piece on the Claremont Institute: https://newrepublic.com/article/174656/claremont-institute-think-tank-trump
I must subscribe to the New Republic in order to read the referenced article.
I own a pair of muskets or flintlocks. The phrase is "a flash in the pan" means all show and no action. The phrase comes from the spark of the flint setting off the primary powder in the pan but NOT the gun powder in the barrel.
Great article. If we can just make through the boomer times — the next 2 - 3 elections — our democracy might be safe. This is my personal perspective as a late boomer and professional, but the pill and abortion rights have led to a dramatic shift in women’s domestic and economic power in the United States, far exceeding that of other global powers. A vocal and voting portion of our population wants to return to the old order faster than a democracy can or will give it to them. So Caesar it is. But Caesar needs an army and the US military has suffered centuries of personal loss during war and peacetime to protect this democracy. Their vote counts too.
Definitely thought provoking. At the risk of coming across as just another contrarian internet troll, I couldn't help thinking it's odd to count Cicero as a liberal, when he defended a well-lettered society immersed in slavery, torture, rape, and merciless military violence against foreigners. All those things continued under both the Republic and the Caesars.
It isn't clear that liberalism, in its current form, has a monopoly on useful insights about the ills of the Roman or American republics. In our liberal society, institutions exist to give individuals the freest possible reign to develop themselves. Rome was not about that. It was about the state. Any liberal living today would have experienced Cicero's Rome as a nightmare.
The uncomfortable question for liberals is whether Rome holds any lessons for them other than the manifest unworkability of Caesarism. What if another lesson of Rome is that maximal individualism is not the only stable way to organize a human society? What if a republic functions best when individuals acknowledge public obligations beyond a vague, secular injunction to do no harm, as interpreted by the individual, or, more likely, by a managerial bureaucracy of the inept, elite technocrats to which the article above alludes? What if the institutions they run, based on liberal individualist philosophy, have been repeatedly, catastrophically wrong about their expert solutions for decades now, from offshoring of critical industries like semiconductors to Covid lockdowns to racialized social engineering that supposedly liberates the potential of all individuals?
There is a real, compelling critique of contemporary liberalism to be made along these lines. By implication, alternatives exist to the current (tenuously) reigning ethos of American society and institutions. This article seems to ignore that critique in order to attack "Caesarism," which is a much easier target.
The American experiment is over. What will replace it? Who knows? However, the death of the American republic is not in doubt. I have a standard comment on this
“China is very good at building dams, the US is very good at enforcing PC. Which system will prevail in the 21st century?”
Of course, I could mention El Salvador…
Mr. Syck has this completely wrong. Maybe instead of sitting in some ivory tower armed with a keyboard and campus-fed political bias, he should have sought out Trump supporters to ask them about their political views and interests.
There is no interest in a strong man authoritarian leader. This is an interest to break the elite ruling class corrupt hold on power that is a much more realistic and prevalent form of authoritarian power... one that the Covid pandemic demonstrated to us.
It is the same proletariat against the bourgeoise conflict that cycles through democracies during times of struggle and conflict. Trump is Brexit. It would be great if we had more brave and patriotic candidates on the stage to choose from, but all the rest are tools and puppets of that establishment... seeking to fill their bank accounts and the bank accounts of their elite upper class friends.
Trump is a severaly flawed personality. The fact that we only have him and nobody else but vegetables, cardboard cutouts and lying puppets... THAT is a testemant for how severe many of us consider the problems to be.
People who want Caesars need a lesson in statistics. If one agrees, contrary to fact as other commenters have said, that the Caesars were good for Rome and looks through history, or even at the world just today, what has been the chance of getting such a purportedly noble result? Those who tout such a government have themselves in mind as its leader.
I second comments by T. Monteleone.Thanks
Enjoyed the piece. I would almost be willing to trade in democracy for the abolition of Christianity from public life, but then, I'm kidding. Not so much. I'd keep Jesus, though.