An afternoon drinking coffee
Yes, I was at the bookstore, so you all know what that means... it's probably time for another research driven rant... this one could be mildly amusing.
Today's quotes again come from Christian Meier's fantastic biography of Caesar... though sometimes I begin to think that he wrote this just so I could spend hours making it the backbone of my work... no, not really, but it has become increasingly important.
Today's subject matter involves aristocracy, then and now, and the courting of the masses. It's kinda fun, but if you're not in the mood, stop now.
This is a good starting point:
"Enough members of the urban populace were obviously inclined to favour opposition to the Senate. They were not necessarily opposed to its rule: it is indeed unlikely that they were - not even the tribunes of the people opposed it. Yet they might be incensed by the manner in which it was exercised, and by the failure of the present senators to live up to the example of their predecessors." p. 41
Surely everyone sees the parallel there. The House and Senate used to mean something, used to have a responsibility they embraced. Now it's simply a soapbox from which to spew drivel. There may be a handful who actually care, but the rest? I doubt it. They have inherited the seat, many of them, from friends and family. Thus what need have they for concern about the populace. The only purpose we serve is to keep them in office- merely a matter of money, advertising and party line.
"Occasionally leading senators might flatter them [in this case the urban population] - if they clearly needed them. The populares, on the other hand, wooed them constantly. They, being in opposition, had far less power. Only they could represent the people's interests." p. 41
We have no one to court the people's interests. The people are kept ignorant, from cradle to grave. Only those who exert some effort begin to comprehend the inherent flaws in the system. And when the masses are so easy to herd, what purpose is there in courting their demands? The masses are not the ones to court- the ones who control the masses are the ones to court. Hence chasing big business, unions, and the like. People go where they are told- in this culture of ignorance we need someone to wake the people up, help them to think for themselves. It can't be that far gone as to be helpless. Charisma is necessary, in large amounts. And money, of course money. But not from big business. Not from unions. Not from foreign investors. How about monster rallies? How about $1 a head? The money from the people, for the people. Could it work now? I don't know. I would love to think so. The right person at the right time could do it, I have no doubt. A charismatic leader, outside of the current aristocracy... I think it can be done.
"Yet popular action produced no political camp in which ambitious nobles could find a home. At best it afforded them a staying post on their political journey... One politician after another played this role. Yet however similar the lines they spoke, they did not consitute a group with respect to their political aims. As populares they had no common cause - except insofar as they were all obliged to oil the popular apparatus in order to make use of it." - p. 41-42
This is black hole syndrome at its finest. The bright, shining champion of the masses sucked into the soul-crushing morass of aristocratic politics. Funded by the rich, and owing them loyalty as a return, they cannot champion the masses once inside the door. Thus they also grease the hinges, in this case the masses, to get in the door. The only way to keep any idealism alive is to be an outsider to the system. Not funded by the lobbyists and their business backers, but by the very people it is necessary to serve.
This one is a personal favorite:
"The true reason for the weakness of the urban populace was, in the first place, that their vote in the popular assembly had little weight. Most of them were assigned to four out of thirty-five tribes, and the total result depended not on the individual votes, but on the votes of the tribes." - p. 42
Not so much a parallel, but a mirror image. Instead of the four tribes in Rome having no power, four of our tribes (so to speak) have all the power. California, Texas, New York, and Florida control the majority of the votes. So really, one could win an election by carrying those 4 states (or tribes) with 2 or 3 others and the rest be damned. The popular vote matters not, we saw that in 2000. It's all in who you court. The masses don't matter, only certain tribes. However, win the 46 other tribes/states and you can break that bloc. It is rare, but possible. It is an interesting ancient mirror to our own electoral college.
"All in all, the notion of politics based on the people rather than on the Senate was presumably quite inconceivable." - p. 43
We're getting there. Interest groups, lobbyists, PAC's... these are pulsing beat of politics, the populace that is catered to. Give the people bread and circuses, right? Keep them distracted and ignorant and you can steal away the rights their world is founded on, while keeping yourself in power.
I must eat, back in moments...
ok, that was good. where was I?
ah yes. "The lethargy, the dead weight of inertia that Rome's 'good society - the 'good' [boni] as they called themselves - brought to bear in support of the inherited order, was immense. Various reforming laws might be passed and even survive the death of the reformer. But it was felt intolerable that one man should accomplish anything great, even in the Senate's own interest..." - p. 49
Are we headed that way? Is that why we have no charismatic leaders? Do they know that any speaking out is a death warrant in this deteriorating republic? Would they be allowed to win, and if so, to reform? Or would they too be assassinated by the friends of our entrenched nobility, the catspaws of those too high and airily noble to do the deed themselves? Reformers are killed... 2 millenia seem to make no difference. Sad fact. Yet someone has to step up and make enough momentum for a reform to survive them.
"They could not openly - or privately - allow too much to be called into question. It was therefore accepted that the patricians [the handful of great families in Rome like the Julii, the Cornelii, and the Claudii] had special relations with the gods." - p. 52
This similarity is frightening in its current manifestation. I thought the Enlightenment spelled the end of the divine right of kings, but in watching George II it would appear that I was wrong. He's used to have a direct line to the Kremlin... now it's a two way radio with his God... the one he inflicts on the rest of us in his myriad babblings, and now seeks to inflict on the rest of the world under the guise of freedom and democracy. It's a sad state of affairs.
And yet more easy parallels
"To be the son of one's house was, so to speak, more imporant than to belong to the youth of Rome." - p. 59
Look at the Bush family, Kennedy family, etc... it's not hard to see how far that is going. Election of name recognition, and often not much else. Oh, and party lines.
And people wonder at my cynicism and why I say this republic is collapsing... it so closely mirrors the collapse of the Roman collapse and others, that it is hard not to believe it.
Thanks for reading. Thoughts always appreciated...
Today's quotes again come from Christian Meier's fantastic biography of Caesar... though sometimes I begin to think that he wrote this just so I could spend hours making it the backbone of my work... no, not really, but it has become increasingly important.
Today's subject matter involves aristocracy, then and now, and the courting of the masses. It's kinda fun, but if you're not in the mood, stop now.
This is a good starting point:
"Enough members of the urban populace were obviously inclined to favour opposition to the Senate. They were not necessarily opposed to its rule: it is indeed unlikely that they were - not even the tribunes of the people opposed it. Yet they might be incensed by the manner in which it was exercised, and by the failure of the present senators to live up to the example of their predecessors." p. 41
Surely everyone sees the parallel there. The House and Senate used to mean something, used to have a responsibility they embraced. Now it's simply a soapbox from which to spew drivel. There may be a handful who actually care, but the rest? I doubt it. They have inherited the seat, many of them, from friends and family. Thus what need have they for concern about the populace. The only purpose we serve is to keep them in office- merely a matter of money, advertising and party line.
"Occasionally leading senators might flatter them [in this case the urban population] - if they clearly needed them. The populares, on the other hand, wooed them constantly. They, being in opposition, had far less power. Only they could represent the people's interests." p. 41
We have no one to court the people's interests. The people are kept ignorant, from cradle to grave. Only those who exert some effort begin to comprehend the inherent flaws in the system. And when the masses are so easy to herd, what purpose is there in courting their demands? The masses are not the ones to court- the ones who control the masses are the ones to court. Hence chasing big business, unions, and the like. People go where they are told- in this culture of ignorance we need someone to wake the people up, help them to think for themselves. It can't be that far gone as to be helpless. Charisma is necessary, in large amounts. And money, of course money. But not from big business. Not from unions. Not from foreign investors. How about monster rallies? How about $1 a head? The money from the people, for the people. Could it work now? I don't know. I would love to think so. The right person at the right time could do it, I have no doubt. A charismatic leader, outside of the current aristocracy... I think it can be done.
"Yet popular action produced no political camp in which ambitious nobles could find a home. At best it afforded them a staying post on their political journey... One politician after another played this role. Yet however similar the lines they spoke, they did not consitute a group with respect to their political aims. As populares they had no common cause - except insofar as they were all obliged to oil the popular apparatus in order to make use of it." - p. 41-42
This is black hole syndrome at its finest. The bright, shining champion of the masses sucked into the soul-crushing morass of aristocratic politics. Funded by the rich, and owing them loyalty as a return, they cannot champion the masses once inside the door. Thus they also grease the hinges, in this case the masses, to get in the door. The only way to keep any idealism alive is to be an outsider to the system. Not funded by the lobbyists and their business backers, but by the very people it is necessary to serve.
This one is a personal favorite:
"The true reason for the weakness of the urban populace was, in the first place, that their vote in the popular assembly had little weight. Most of them were assigned to four out of thirty-five tribes, and the total result depended not on the individual votes, but on the votes of the tribes." - p. 42
Not so much a parallel, but a mirror image. Instead of the four tribes in Rome having no power, four of our tribes (so to speak) have all the power. California, Texas, New York, and Florida control the majority of the votes. So really, one could win an election by carrying those 4 states (or tribes) with 2 or 3 others and the rest be damned. The popular vote matters not, we saw that in 2000. It's all in who you court. The masses don't matter, only certain tribes. However, win the 46 other tribes/states and you can break that bloc. It is rare, but possible. It is an interesting ancient mirror to our own electoral college.
"All in all, the notion of politics based on the people rather than on the Senate was presumably quite inconceivable." - p. 43
We're getting there. Interest groups, lobbyists, PAC's... these are pulsing beat of politics, the populace that is catered to. Give the people bread and circuses, right? Keep them distracted and ignorant and you can steal away the rights their world is founded on, while keeping yourself in power.
I must eat, back in moments...
ok, that was good. where was I?
ah yes. "The lethargy, the dead weight of inertia that Rome's 'good society - the 'good' [boni] as they called themselves - brought to bear in support of the inherited order, was immense. Various reforming laws might be passed and even survive the death of the reformer. But it was felt intolerable that one man should accomplish anything great, even in the Senate's own interest..." - p. 49
Are we headed that way? Is that why we have no charismatic leaders? Do they know that any speaking out is a death warrant in this deteriorating republic? Would they be allowed to win, and if so, to reform? Or would they too be assassinated by the friends of our entrenched nobility, the catspaws of those too high and airily noble to do the deed themselves? Reformers are killed... 2 millenia seem to make no difference. Sad fact. Yet someone has to step up and make enough momentum for a reform to survive them.
"They could not openly - or privately - allow too much to be called into question. It was therefore accepted that the patricians [the handful of great families in Rome like the Julii, the Cornelii, and the Claudii] had special relations with the gods." - p. 52
This similarity is frightening in its current manifestation. I thought the Enlightenment spelled the end of the divine right of kings, but in watching George II it would appear that I was wrong. He's used to have a direct line to the Kremlin... now it's a two way radio with his God... the one he inflicts on the rest of us in his myriad babblings, and now seeks to inflict on the rest of the world under the guise of freedom and democracy. It's a sad state of affairs.
And yet more easy parallels
"To be the son of one's house was, so to speak, more imporant than to belong to the youth of Rome." - p. 59
Look at the Bush family, Kennedy family, etc... it's not hard to see how far that is going. Election of name recognition, and often not much else. Oh, and party lines.
And people wonder at my cynicism and why I say this republic is collapsing... it so closely mirrors the collapse of the Roman collapse and others, that it is hard not to believe it.
Thanks for reading. Thoughts always appreciated...