Historical analogies between Ancient Rome and contemporary America never get old for a good reason: The parallels are uncanny, and, however imperfect, are consistently more striking than the divergences. The main confounding factor is that history’s tempo, thanks to modern technology, has increased so drastically that what used to take 150 years in “Roman time” takes 15 or so in American time.
This needn’t strike us as too grasping or absurd or hackneyed a way of thinking. The Founding Fathers, after all, were steeped in classical learning and modeled elements of American democracy quite consciously on Roman precursors. You can see this conscious emulation at work in everything from the architecture of Monticello to our Latin motto to the use of the word “Senate” to indicate a branch of our legislature. The establishment of this “Republic” was conceived in a sort of elaborate metaphor with Rome (with the Europe of the Enlightenment serving as its cultural and philosophical Greece-equivalent). The checks on executive power were set in place precisely to forestall the rise of a Caesar; Washington, the military General, set his precedents as President precisely to avoid becoming a Caesar. In fact, his contemporaries, especially in Europe, praised exactly this self-restraint; they did so by comparing him to the now-little-known Roman warrior Cinncinnatus (after whom the city in Ohio is named), who took up arms reluctantly and went back to his plough after Rome had no need of him.
This brings us to the analogy in question—the much-noted transition from “republic” to “empire.” Consider: In Cheney/Bush we saw our Caesar, the increasing pursuit of an autocratic style of rule. The outward forms of senatorial quibbling persisted even in Caesar’s time, of course; he took his authority from the Senate. It may be objected that Caesar was a military figure—but then Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense, and was also CEO of Halliburton at one point.
After the highly divisive autocracy of Julius Caesar, Rome saw the rise of the serene Octavian, who arrived promising a return to the old forms and old ideals of the pristine Republic, and a cessation of conflict—but whose tenure actually consolidated Caesarism. Regardless of what you think of his policies or governing style, Octavian-Obama has actually consolidated Cheney-Caesar’s expansion of the executive powers. Pervasive internal surveillance, drone kill lists, the right to extrajudicially execute American citizens–most of which took root under our Caesar–have had their flowering under our Octavian. Those quibbling Senators, in Octavian’s day, simply were not up to the running of the empire; whatever meaningful happened in government, happened by executive order.
Of course, the analogies are always rough and imperfect. Caesar wasn’t assassinated, and we haven’t had a bello civili after his rule, merely an exacerbated political polarization; the Senate fawned over Octavian, while our legislative branch, ever since the midterm elections, has opposed Obama (paradoxically enough, through its obstructionism, reinforcing the need to expand the executive branch).
But just as the divergences are there to be seen, so are the parallels. Particularly if we recall that point about the newly quickened pace of history. We can better contextualize these shady/terrifying candidates who have come to dominate the 2016 Presidential election. Our republic-turned-empire may be fast-forwarding—already—to the era of its corrupt Emperors. Our Neros and Caligulas may well be on their way.