3 ms·

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWcVtWennr0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWcVtWennr0 Here he is discussing the dangers of the erosion of civic knowledge.

neilv 1y ago
He sure called it.
stevenae 1y ago
How accurate is his claim that Augustus became emperor through (my paraphrasing) democratic means and promises to fix real problems for Romans?
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  Well, first, you have to consider that the Roman republic was never really democratic but was at the hand of a small aristocracy which had sometimes but rarely the interest of the Romans at all, let alone the non citizen inhabitants. But even, then it is definitely not accurate. Augustus gained powers through the numerous conflicts which followed Caesar murder at a time when the Republic was already challenged thanks to legions he more or less inherited (oversimplification) from Caesar. He was given powers by the Senate through what we would call rubber stamping only after his military power was inescapable.
- roguecoder 1y ago
  I recommend "Augustus: First Emperor of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Given that "democratic" didn't mean the same thing then it does now (with suffrage limited to a small group of the uber-rich), and that some of the problems he was fixing was "the threat of this army I happen to have" and "this war I actively participated in", I don't think it is wrong. He wasn't in Rome when the Senate awarded him power and the Vestal Virgins drank in his name, which isn't something that would be commanded. After decades of war and strife and food shortages, peace under one warlord looked more appealing than having three who would likely eventually be at each other's throats.
  - stevenae 1y ago
    Thank you!
karaterobot 1y ago
> What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed, people will not know who is responsible. And when the problems get bad enough—as they might do for example with another serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial meltdown—some one person will come forward and say 'give me total power, and I will solve this problem'. That is how the Roman republic fell: Augustus became emperor not because he arrested the Roman Senate, he became emperor because he promised that he would solve problems that were not being solved. > If we know who is responsible, I have enough faith in the American people to demand performance from those responsible. If we don't know, we will stay away from the polls, we will not demand it, and the day will come when somebody will come forward, and we and the government will, in effect, say 'take the ball and run with it. Do what you have to do.' That is the way democracy dies, and if something is not done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what you should worry about at night.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  This is a big problem. Democracies throughout the west are refusing to do anything about big problems that have populist support. This is enabling authoritarianism because the authoritarians present an alternative vision and promise to actually do something. If mainstream parties would just take real action on issues like immigration or crime it would suck all the oxygen away from authoritarians.
  - ls612 1y ago
    Why solve the problems when you can just outlaw populist parties instead? /s
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    > refusing to do anything about big problems that have populist support In most countries I lived in, "big problems that have populist support" are completely manufactured bullshit. Crime may actually be down and populists will be screaming a out it, because in politics perception matters more than actual numbers.

neilv 1y ago

He sure called it.

stevenae 1y ago

How accurate is his claim that Augustus became emperor through (my paraphrasing) democratic means and promises to fix real problems for Romans?

StopDisinfo910 1y ago
Well, first, you have to consider that the Roman republic was never really democratic but was at the hand of a small aristocracy which had sometimes but rarely the interest of the Romans at all, let alone the non citizen inhabitants. But even, then it is definitely not accurate. Augustus gained powers through the numerous conflicts which followed Caesar murder at a time when the Republic was already challenged thanks to legions he more or less inherited (oversimplification) from Caesar. He was given powers by the Senate through what we would call rubber stamping only after his military power was inescapable.
roguecoder 1y ago
I recommend "Augustus: First Emperor of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Given that "democratic" didn't mean the same thing then it does now (with suffrage limited to a small group of the uber-rich), and that some of the problems he was fixing was "the threat of this army I happen to have" and "this war I actively participated in", I don't think it is wrong. He wasn't in Rome when the Senate awarded him power and the Vestal Virgins drank in his name, which isn't something that would be commanded. After decades of war and strife and food shortages, peace under one warlord looked more appealing than having three who would likely eventually be at each other's throats.
- stevenae 1y ago
  Thank you!

karaterobot 1y ago

> What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed, people will not know who is responsible. And when the problems get bad enough—as they might do for example with another serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial meltdown—some one person will come forward and say 'give me total power, and I will solve this problem'. That is how the Roman republic fell: Augustus became emperor not because he arrested the Roman Senate, he became emperor because he promised that he would solve problems that were not being solved. > If we know who is responsible, I have enough faith in the American people to demand performance from those responsible. If we don't know, we will stay away from the polls, we will not demand it, and the day will come when somebody will come forward, and we and the government will, in effect, say 'take the ball and run with it. Do what you have to do.' That is the way democracy dies, and if something is not done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what you should worry about at night.

Amezarak 1y ago
This is a big problem. Democracies throughout the west are refusing to do anything about big problems that have populist support. This is enabling authoritarianism because the authoritarians present an alternative vision and promise to actually do something. If mainstream parties would just take real action on issues like immigration or crime it would suck all the oxygen away from authoritarians.
- ls612 1y ago
  Why solve the problems when you can just outlaw populist parties instead? /s
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  > refusing to do anything about big problems that have populist support In most countries I lived in, "big problems that have populist support" are completely manufactured bullshit. Crime may actually be down and populists will be screaming a out it, because in politics perception matters more than actual numbers.