Rome’s Fall and America

Comparing the  Roman Republic – increasing violence until power was brutally concentrated – to the American Republic is risky, as 2000 years have passed and – so far – we do not have innocent gladiators dueling amoral beasts, except in the odd courtroom. Still, comparisons are useful.

The Roman Republic – which lasted almost 500 years – was advanced yet primitive. It had real similarities to our American republic, representation of common interests, opportunities for individual advancement, and a civilian-military balance, but it was also entirely different.

Our republic was, of course, created by wise men who – no secret – carefully studied the Greeks and Romans, trying to distill the best lessons – good and bad – from their well-recorded pasts.

Some of these lessons guided how Europeans ruled themselves, especially an early emphasis on limiting the power of a centralized government, seeking to protect the personal and property rights of citizens after the populist Magna Carta in 1215, 63 limits on King John.

Without writing another book, lessons pop up from both Roman and English history, especially from the collapsing Roman Republic. These lessons include a need to be on constant guard – ever vigilant – for those in political leadership who try to concentrate power, allowing abuse of power.

A second lesson from the late Roman era is that political violence is like an infectious disease; once introduced into the body politic, it grows, becomes normalized, can quickly undermine respect for laws that keep society predictable, if not entirely peaceful, and produces fear and more violence.

In the Roman Republic, certain facts became increasingly common, eventually eroding the very idea of a Republic, public trust in the people’s ability to understand common interests, interact civilly, and self-govern. Concentrated power was second-best but seen as necessary, to reestablish public safety and national security.

If that sounds terrifying, that a people could default to wanting one-party rule or a benevolent dictator to settle things and just rule – even with ruthlessness and mass oppression – that is the story of human history.

From Ramses II, Attila the Hun, Rome’s Caligula, Russia’s Ivan the Terrible, the Mongol-Turkic  Tumur, and Romania’s Vlad the Impaler, to modern oppressors like Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Castro, and a hundred lesser cabal leaders and dictators, this is what replaces freer times.

So, how does this relate to today? While history never repeats exactly, and errors in a republic can be corrected by the people before the calamity, the Roman example is frighteningly instructive.

What happened toward the end of the Roman Republic is that people stopped listening to each other, did not care to know what those they differed with thought, and reverted to tribalism – political and actual.

The late Romans did not maintain respect for historical Roman practices, political patience, pride in their form of government, respect for democratic institutions (senate, four assemblies, temporary leaders), tolerance for free speech, common religion, upward mobility, advancement by merit, and non-violent conflict resolution.

What did they do? From roughly 133 BC to 44 BC, when Ceasar was assassinated, the republic gradually became less accountable to the people, leaders more corrupt, “legal” and illegal oppression more common, social divisions deeper, citizenship cheaper, and the army weaker. 

What else? Interestingly, in an attempt to appease political critics, excuse their military weakness, and quiet border conflicts, the Romans made citizenship easier to acquire. Contrary to their goal – social stability – this actually deepened divisions and caused riots, poor assimilation, and instability.

Historically, from Gibbon’s six-volume history to modern accounts – which try to attribute the Republic’s fall to climate change, begging the question of how that happened without fossil fuels – the consensus is that pride in the Republic and opposition to political violence turned into constant grievances, debt, overspending, and political dysfunction until the Republic collapsed in 27 BC.

Of course, you can see where this is going, and why one worries – even without lions and togas – about where our own Republic may be headed. Is disintegration inevitable? Absolutely not, and it was not for Rome. 

Sadly, the late Romans did not pay attention to their own history, to how their practices were at odds with the extraordinary, balanced, thoughtful Republic their ancestors had created, and to the need for self-awareness, self-discipline, self-correction, and stepping up, being equal to their time.

Are we there? Maybe, maybe not. This election cycle will tell us a lot about who America and Americans really are. We will either choose a limited government, separation of powers, respect for our laws, and pride in our past or the opposite, cheap talk, easy hate, corruption, and circuses.

For myself, chits are on red squares. I think Americans are better informed – by history – than late Romans, more aware of what we have, and what we could lose. I think most do not want political violence, assassinations, or persecution; they do not want the Republic to fail. Hope I am right.

Robert Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, former Reagan and Bush 41 White House staffer, attorney, and naval intelligence officer (USNR). He wrote “Narcotics and Terrorism” (2003), “Eagles and Evergreens” (2018), and is National Spokesman for AMAC.