Endless War and the Crisis of Authority
Emancipate, Integrate, Consecrate.
Chapter 39 of Machiavelli’s commentary on Livy, The Discourses, describes how “endless war” exacerbates or exposes a crisis of authority:
THE SAME EVENTS OFTEN OCCUR AMONG DIFFERENT PEOPLES
Anyone who studies present and ancient affairs will easily see how in all cities and all peoples there still exist, and have always existed, the same desire and passions…the result is that the same problems exist in every era…
… Passion was aroused in Rome against the institutions of the consuls, for when that people saw one war lead to another, allowing them no rest… the people thought it was necessary either to abolish the consuls or regulate their power… This greatly angered the nobles, who felt that the majesty of their authority had declined to the extent that they no longer held any authority at all in the republic; nevertheless, the persistence of the tribunes was such that the title of consul was abolished, and after some other laws were passed the people were finally satisfied to appoint tribunes with consular powers rather than consuls—so much greater was the people’s hatred of the consuls’ titles than of their actual authority.1
This crisis of authority does not necessarily lead to genuine reform or improvements, but rather, to the re-establishment of authority with “different titles.”
“The people’s hatred of titles” rather than “actual authority” is reflected today in the conservative crusade against the FBI:
"Break up the FBI," Washington Examiner.
“Time to Break up the FBI?” The American Conservative and Catholic University of America.
“Break Up The FBI,” The Federalist.
Vivek Ramaswamy: “break up the FBI.”
Victor Davis Hanson: “The FBI Can't Continue.”
Tucker blamed the FBI for January 6th.
Ann Coulter: “disband the FBI.”
Public confidence in the FBI has decreased from 80% in 2017 to 59% in 2023, mostly among Republicans.
What would Republicans replace the FBI with? Perhaps another institution, like the DOJ, or CIA, or NSA. Or maybe Republicans would prefer that Immigration and Customs Enforcement take over the role of the FBI. Republicans could empower ICE to begin investigations into illegal activities. ICE could adopt all of the same powers as the FBI, simply with a different title.
Why did the Roman people tire of war? Why did they come to distrust the consuls and the nobility? Why did populism come to Rome?
Augustus and Reagan
In 18 BC, the Emperor Augustus introduced the Lex Julia de Civitate, which granted citizenship, for the first time, to non-Italians. In 1986, Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who arrived prior to 1984. Neither Augustus nor Reagan was responsible for the original wave of immigrants. Both leaders were attempting to stabilize an empire by incorporating foreigners into the legal structure of the state. In doing so, they set a precedent, encouraging and incentivizing new waves of immigrants to come.
However, the effects of Reagan’s Amnesty were not immediate or offensive to the American public. Reagan remained popular among the conservative base. Similarly, the laws of Augustus were not offensive to the Roman people.
Caesar and Eisenhower
Julius Caesar and Dwight Eisenhower have much in common.
Eisenhower was the most popular political-military leader since George Washington. This fact is obscured in several ways:
A lack of polling data prior to FDR;
The impact of TV and radio in making Eisenhower a celebrity;
The impact of FDR’s Communications Act of 1934, and Eisenhower’s Order 10730.
FDR’s artificial boost from the hatred of Republicans for the 1929 crash;
Eisenhower’s artificial suppression from the partisan FDR machine.
Of the last 15 presidents, Eisenhower was the 3rd most popular, following Kennedy and FDR. There are two problems with Kennedy and FDR, however:
Kennedy stole the 1960 election using the power of the mob.
FDR achieved his popularity by silencing, censoring, and banning his opponents, like Father Coughlin.
Eisenhower, on the other hand, had his popularity devastated by Order 10730, which enforced the Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board. The timing of this ruling was undesirable for Eisenhower, and he advised the Supreme Court to drop the case:
At a White House stag dinner in February 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower shocked the new chief justice of the United States... As of the dinner, the case was still under advisement. Yet Eisenhower seated Warren near one of the attorneys who had argued the case for the southern states, John W. Davis, and went out of his way to praise Davis as a great man… Eisenhower took Warren by the arm and asked him to consider the perspective of white parents in the Deep South. “These are not bad people,” the president said. “All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big black bucks.”
Eisenhower was not able to persuade Warren, and when the ruling was decided, Eisenhower felt he had no choice but to enforce the decision. Could Eisenhower have ignored the court, like Andrew Jackson? Or was he threatened or under political pressure from his own party and the political establishment? Whatever the cause of Order 10730, it clearly impacted Eisenhower’s polling numbers.
What about JFK? Wasn’t he more popular than Eisenhower? Nope — Eisenhower won with a margin of 10.85% in 1952, and JFK only won with a margin of 0.17%. The myth of JFK runs deep.
The problem with JFK is that he only served as president for 1,036 days, whereas Eisenhower served for 2,922 days.
Presidential popularity tends to decrease over time. JFK's popularity peaked at 83% a few months into his presidency, and decreased to 56% by the time of his death. Had JFK served a full two terms, like Eisenhower, his popularity probably would have decreased further. This is largely because, unlike Eisenhower, JFK was a hard-core and radical supporter of Civil Rights, which was eroding his poll numbers among white Americans.
Eisenhower wasn’t just popular with whites — he was also the most popular Republican president with blacks since Herbert Hoover.
The reason why Eisenhower is so popular is he was viewed (besides Patton, who died in a mysterious car accident in 1945) as the leader of the allied war effort. He was enormously popular among soldiers, just like Julius Caesar. And like Caesar, his actions in 1954 accelerated a process of ethnic disintegration.
The events of 1954 set the stage for Nixon’s loss in 1960 to JFK. Growing discontent over de-segregation led to the Goldwater campaign of 1964, and the Wallace campaign of 1968. Whereas Wallace campaigned on an open platform of segregation, Nixon ran on a “southern strategy” of appealing to white racial anxiety, while never explicitly supporting segregation.
Caesar’s rule inspired the same kind of backlash, but to a more extreme degree. Caesar was assassinated in part because he sullied “the purity of Roman blood” by introducing Gauls into the senate.
Caesar’s actions, like Eisenhower’s, did not come about in a vacuum, but were the result of a long process of de-racialization:
Early Roman society was sharply divided between a landed aristocracy of patricians and a mass of commoners called plebeians. Only patricians could enter the Senate or occupy leading governmental or religious posts. During the fourth century B.C.E., some of the more affluent plebeian families won access to top official positions, gaining seats in the Senate and entry into the nobility by winning the consulship. By the middle of the third century, plebeians and patricians had won the right to intermarry, and the richer elements of both groups melded into one aristocracy.
Appian’s Civil Wars, written by a Greek in the 2nd century, recounts that:
"[Lucius Cornelius Cinna] ran through the city calling the slaves to his assistance by an offer of freedom... inciting them all to revolution... The Senate decreed that since Cinna had… offered freedom to the slaves, he should no longer be consul, or even a citizen… Cinna sent heralds around the city to offer freedom to slaves who would desert to him, and forthwith a large number did desert. The Senate was alarmed… The slaves who had joined Cinna in answer to his proclamation and had thereupon been freed and were at this time enrolled in the army by Cinna himself, broke into and plundered houses, and killed persons whom they met on the street. Some of them attacked their own masters particularly. After Cinna had forbidden this several times, but without avail, he surrounded them with his Gallic soldiery one night while they were taking their rest, and killed them all.”2
Cinna here plays the role of a reluctant abolitionist, who sees slaves as his potential allies, but is disturbed by their cruelty and anarchism. The senate, in this case, plays the role of the Southern aristocrats who opposed emancipation.
A timeline can be constructed as follows:
Abolition and amnesty (The Lex Julia de civitate of 90 BC, the abolition of slavery of Cinna in 84 BC; the 14th Amendment of 1868)
“Civil Rights” (Julius Caesar 44 BC, FDR 1941, establishing a new cult and imperial victories abroad)
Consecration (Augustus 17 BC, Eisenhower and Johnson between 1954 and 1964)
If you look at the territorial map of Rome and America you’ll see that it roughly doubled between the Emancipation and the Foreign Elite stages. Then, between the Integration and Consecration stages, it seems to have doubled again.
This had clear economic consequences:
The greatest jump in Roman GDP came between 200 BC and 0 AD, during the period of Emancipation, Integration, and Consecration. For the next 200 years, Rome saw continuous growth, but after 200 AD, it began 200 years of decline. Then, in 400 AD, Rome collapsed, reversing most of the gains of the last 600 years.
American GDP is still growing year over year, although at a slower pace than during the years of Emancipation, Integration, and Consecration. The best year for American GDP growth was 1942, with 18.9% growth. However, most of that was a bounce back from the Great Depression. It is more accurate to say that the 53% growth from 1961 to 1969 represents the greatest period of growth.
If the Roman pattern holds true, then the EIC century (1860 - 1964) will give way to two centuries of sustained economic growth. I expect America to not collapse before 2165 at the earliest, and it will probably limp on until 2365 in some form.
Abolition and amnesty.
In Rome, the four largest or most influential immigrant groups were the Greeks, Hebrews, Gauls, and Germans. The Greeks excelled in pedagogy, and were highly valued as teachers, lawyers, scholars, and historians. However, Greeks were also considered to be vicious, cunning, and cruel, and less civilized than Latins. The Hebrews were praised for their theology and mercantile skills, but were criticized alongside the Greeks for being barbarous. The Gauls were incorporated by Cinna and Caesar into the Roman military as mercenaries. Later, the Germans became more popular as mercenary allies. In addition to these immigrant groups, Rome contended with “Socii,” who were native to Italy, but who were not considered Latin in origin.
In American history, there have been four major immigrant groups: Catholics, Jews, Hispanics, and Asians. On top of these four immigrant groups, blacks have been considered as a group native to America, but not white in origin. Catholics and Jews have been criticized by WASP culture in the same vein that the Latins criticized the Greeks and Hebrews. Hispanics have not played a prominent role in America’s military, but they have been perceived mostly as filling an excessive demand for labor. Finally, Asians are stereotyped as performing highly skilled technical labor, in the fields of programming, medicine, and engineering.
In Rome, the first “non-Latins” to be granted citizenship were the Socii. The Socii were traditionally held to be subjects of Rome, but not citizens. Similarly, for the first 92 years of American history, blacks were held as American subjects, but not citizens. The abolition of slavery by Cinna mirrors the failed campaigns of John Brown, and the 14th Amendment corresponds almost exactly with the Lex Julia de civitate of 90 BC.
It is often forgotten that Civil Rights wasn’t just about black people. It was also about prohibiting discrimination to Catholics and Jews. Prior to 1964, it was legal to not hire Catholics or Jews. In 1968, the Fair Housing Act expanded Civil Rights to prohibit discrimination in housing. This legislation can be seen as giving non-WASP groups “full citizenship,” whereas before, they could be legally discriminated against.
conclusion.
Eisenhower is not thought of as a Caesar figure, because he didn’t march on DC and cross the Potomac. However, he did accomplish much of the same ethnic policy as Caesar, which was to integrate foreign tribes and nations into a new imperial order. JFK and Johnson, by contrast, helped to formalize and consecrate this arrangement with new laws rather than ad hoc decrees.
Despite the fact that Caesar integrated Gauls into the senate, he did not place a non-Latin at the head of the empire; nor did Augustus. That did not occur until 195 AD, with the ascension of Septimius Severus, a Libyan. However, the rebellion of Vindex in 68 AD demonstrated a degree of non-Latin autonomy at a much earlier stage.
Is Obama and Kamala representative of Vindex, or of Septimius? This represents a 100 year discrepancy in the alignment of our timeline with Rome. If Obama represents Septimius, then the next two centuries will see a general decline of American power, but the collapse is still a long way off.
The Portable Machiavelli, translated by Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa, 1979.
The Discourses, Chapter XXXIX, 253.
App. BC 1.8.
have you ever read roman revolution by syme?
I always thought it there was any parallel to be seen with the US and Rome, the strongest was that of when the US defeated it's peer rival the USSR and when Rome defeated it's peer rival Carthage.