The End Of The Republic

Historians disagree about when the Roman Republic ended. Some argue that it was when Tiberius Gracchus stood for re-election as tribune in 132 BC. Some argue it was when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon refusing to disband his army and submit to the Senate. some argue in favor of the lex frumentaria as the beginning of the end. That’s the law passed by Gaius Gracchus providing subsidized grain to the poor.

It is one of those debates historians and cranks enjoy having as there is no right answer, just what works for your theory about the present. You pick a date that fits your needs and go from there. The best case for the end is when Tiberius Gracchus stood for re-election in 132 BC. It was at this point when the ruling elite of Rome, the patrician class, lost their respect for their own rules.

At that point the law was no longer the agreed upon rules under which they would settle their differences. It became an obstacle to power or a weapon to wield against rivals once you attained power. The spirit of the law, the point of the law, no longer matteredto the people charged with enforcing the laws. From there is was a short road to a “who, whom?” social order.

Of course, none of this could have happened without the destruction of the small landowners after the destruction of Corinth and Carthage. In 146 BC the Romans finally defeated their old enemies. Both cities were destroyed in spectacular fashion. The Romans burned the cities, killed all of the men and sold the women and children into slavery. That created a glut of cheap labor.

The influx of slaves changed the economics of the Republic. Large landowners could now replace their free Roman labor with slaves. This undercut the small landowners, who could not compete with slave labor. The result  was a consolidation of the land and a massive influx of people into the city, mostly former farmers and soldiers. This removed the check on the ruling elite.

This story from yesterday makes suggests we are firmly in the lawlessness stage of decline that we saw with the Romans. The people in charge no longer respect the laws that are supposed to keep them in power.

Senior White House officials are in talks with business leaders that could expand the executive actions President Barack Obama takes on immigration.

Obama was initially expected to focus only on slowing deportations of potentially millions of undocumented immigrants and altering federal enforcement policies. Now top aides are talking with leaders in big companies like Cisco, Intel and Accenture, hoping to add more changes that would get them on board.

Representatives for high-tech, agriculture and construction interests have put forward a range of fixes, from recapturing unused green cards to tweaking existing work authorization programs.

The outreach is an effort to broaden the political support for Obama’s decision to go it alone on immigration — another sign that suggests the White House fears a backlash in November, particularly among independent voters in battleground Senate races where Republicans are seizing on the issue.

“The president has not made a decision regarding next steps, but he believes it’s important to understand and consider the full range of perspectives on potential solutions,” said White House spokesman Shawn Turner. “The meetings were in keeping with the president’s commitment to do whatever he can, within the constraints of the law, to address the immigration issue.”

Turner said the meetings with business leaders were among more than 20 “listening sessions” with outside groups.

“They are very seriously looking at a big variety of things to figure out what people think would be helpful,” a source in one of the meetings said, describing the meeting as a “productive listening session.”

Senior administration officials stepped up their engagement with companies and business groups over the past month as they look to produce a series of executive orders starting in September. Aides are asking industry executives for ideas and are trying to earn their support against an expected barrage from Republicans opposed to Obama taking any action.

You’ll notice that the Obama administration is not looking for how they can enforce the spirit of the laws passed by the people’s representatives. They are not looking at the law as a limit to their power. They are looking at the law as an obstacle and spending all of their time scheming to get around it.

All of those quislings from corporate America in there know they are a part of an effort to subvert the law and harm the American people. They just want to line their pockets with your money. If we had any sense, the roads leading out of Washington would resemble the Appian Way after the Third Servile War.

No one can point to a single line in the Constitution that gives the president this power, but the Constitution is a museum piece now. No one can point to anything in the law that gives him this right. Obama probably does not understand any of it, but the people around him surely know it. They don’t care about the law or the results that will flow from their lawlessness. Whether or not it is the point of no return is unknown, but it is on the way to a might makes America.

6 thoughts on “The End Of The Republic

  1. I think that the difference between the Romans and us is that (and this is one thing the Marxists got right) in classical times, there was no class consciousness. The Plebs might have revolted, but they could never have a revolution. I think that the first true revolution was in 1688. It is the first middle-class revolution and it had a renewing effect on England.

    I think that there is hope. I think that we could have a “Glorious Revolution” like the Brits did in 1688. But that means is that we are going have to take risks. We are going have to take the risk of going extra-legal for a while to return to legality and justice. We are going to have to drop the pseudonyms and lead from in front. We are going to have to mass and stick our necks out.

    The alternatives are aristocracy, empire, and decline — or a hot civil war (which a bloodless revolution might trigger anyway), a hot civil war which might make a US-USSR nuclear exchange look like a pillow fight.

    Is liberty worth the risks?

  2. The years 1861, 1913, 1919, and 1933 were all very significant. ’61 lit the fuse and ’33 represented escape velocity. I don’t see this thing ever coming back down.

    I’m sure the Romans had a similarly vague experience, but Cicero pretty much declared it over in 66 BC.

    To my ear we are closer to the state of the Athenian Assembly around the time they sentences Socrates to death for making fun of them, and, basically, telling them to kiss his ass.

  3. NOW, I see that I wrote “not close” – when I meant “now close” – kinda different.

    But that’s kinda the way hyperbolic curves are in reality. The real data aren’t perfectly smooth, but, like you said, have inflection points. Only the theoretical, regression analysis points, make a smooth line.

  4. For my money, the long, slow, decline of our Republic began immediately after the installation of the Constitution. The mortal wound was the Civil War, when the States lost ultimate power to the Federal Government. We are not close to the beginning of the hyperbolic part of the curve, rule of law vs rule of lawyer.

    • It is an unanswerable question, JD. The decline is a process, not an event. I tend to agree that the Civil War was an inflexion point. Once that check on Federal power was gone, the clock started ticking on the Republic. World War I is another inflexion point.

      The general lawlessness we see with Obama is not entirely new either. The contempt for custom and the law was on display with Clinton. I think I can make the argument that Watergate was a watershed moment in the growing lawlessness of the ruling class.

Comments are closed.