4 ms·

(I have a comment that may be relevant to some other observations here, but mostly unrelated to the piece itself, amusing as it is.) To understand the USA, and

(I have a comment that may be relevant to some other observations here, but mostly unrelated to the piece itself, amusing as it is.) To understand the USA, and modern politics in general, I find it very helpful to know a little bit of Roman history. The US were deliberately moulded by the very knowledgeable founders as a revised and improved version of the classical Roman republic. The attempt was wildly successful, and measured by most any metric it widely beats the performance of the original system. There is one crucial point to the original Roman republic: it was founded by aristocrats who were fiercely jealous of their liberty and equality to each other. Their collegial Senate ruled since they killed their king around 509 BC, until they killed Julius Caesar some 465 years later - republicans have this 'sic semper tyrannis' thing for assassinating monarchs. A second point is that republicans have a tight lock on the perception of the advertised virtue of their system. Whether it is actually better for the plebs, or the whole of society, to be ruled by a senate or a monarch is never to be left in doubt. Augustus craftily shoved the monarchical empire down the aristocrats' throats by claiming the whole time that he was merely making the republic function as intended. However the immediate successors had a tougher time, and were quite probably historically smeared by senators who resorted to pens instead of swords.

DanielBMarkham 9y ago
That is quite broad, and not related to the piece. I don't disagree with you, but it sounds like you're wandering far afield to make some other point not even close to where the article is going. Banging on your own drum as it were. The well-educated of the time were taught classics, so yes, Romans had an influence, as did the Greeks. They were protestants, more of a deist nature, but protestants. So there's that influence. Wars of religion were recent for them. Up until 1776 or so, they considered themselves Englishmen. It was a time of great philosophical minds. You can't talk about the founding of the U.S. without talking about John Locke, for instance. It's not that the Roman metaphor is completely inaccurate, it's that it's only a tiny slice of a very complex picture. Looking at the U.S. as some modern-day version of Rome can lead to all kinds of silliness. It's fun to do, sure, but best used very sparingly. It can lead to having all sorts of huge gaps in knowledge while assuring yourself that you understand the important parts of what happened.
- jnamaya 9y ago
  Exactly, I don't know much about the Romans but I read a lot of philosophy from around 1700s, and you can see that a lot of the principles in the declaration of Independence and the constitution were shaped by some of those contemporary philosophical ideals.
- B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
  > without talking about John Locke That was the brilliant new technology part, with the "consent of the governed" and its production. I was just going for the Cincinnatus, anti-monarchical, angle - why go to such lengths to avoid any appearance of autocratic power, or shred of desire for it. Not even imposing on important families - or favoring them with - a presidential visit. (For another amusing story of president-elect travel, "Plums delivered nuts safely" is a good search. Coincidentally about a life that years later ended for the reasons mentioned.)

DanielBMarkham 9y ago

That is quite broad, and not related to the piece. I don't disagree with you, but it sounds like you're wandering far afield to make some other point not even close to where the article is going. Banging on your own drum as it were. The well-educated of the time were taught classics, so yes, Romans had an influence, as did the Greeks. They were protestants, more of a deist nature, but protestants. So there's that influence. Wars of religion were recent for them. Up until 1776 or so, they considered themselves Englishmen. It was a time of great philosophical minds. You can't talk about the founding of the U.S. without talking about John Locke, for instance. It's not that the Roman metaphor is completely inaccurate, it's that it's only a tiny slice of a very complex picture. Looking at the U.S. as some modern-day version of Rome can lead to all kinds of silliness. It's fun to do, sure, but best used very sparingly. It can lead to having all sorts of huge gaps in knowledge while assuring yourself that you understand the important parts of what happened.

jnamaya 9y ago
Exactly, I don't know much about the Romans but I read a lot of philosophy from around 1700s, and you can see that a lot of the principles in the declaration of Independence and the constitution were shaped by some of those contemporary philosophical ideals.
B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
> without talking about John Locke That was the brilliant new technology part, with the "consent of the governed" and its production. I was just going for the Cincinnatus, anti-monarchical, angle - why go to such lengths to avoid any appearance of autocratic power, or shred of desire for it. Not even imposing on important families - or favoring them with - a presidential visit. (For another amusing story of president-elect travel, "Plums delivered nuts safely" is a good search. Coincidentally about a life that years later ended for the reasons mentioned.)