I had some troubling thoughts the other day. I share them here, not because I hope they will turn out to be true, but because I sincerely hope they do not become reality. I share them because I believe that unless we act wisely we face a very dim future. I share them because I see some troubling trends that we have an opportunity to reverse if we understand the very negative outcomes that are likely if we continue on our current course
I recently read a troubling analysis in USA TODAY. The paper pointed out the Bush administration's extreme addiction to secrecy and loyalty (which, the paper claims, Mr. Bush views as one and the same thing). The author cited at least two relatively high-level terminations due either to a breach of secrecy or to public criticism of the president.
Now one might rather honestly conclude that George W. has the right to run his administration as he sees fit. He IS the boss of all these appointees and he has the privilege of setting the rules. But the fact that a man with such a demanding need for secrecy currently runs this nation ought to scare every voting American to the very core. The fact that he's cutting us off from the variety of ideas that his aides offer him ought to anger us. It ought also to sadden us because this need to present his team as absolutely unified reveals that Mr. Bush is an extremely shallow man who does not understand the strength, intelligence, and noble character demonstrated by someone who tolerates and even encourages diversity.
While musing on this a thought occurred to me. Now I haven't studied world history extensively. But I do read a lot and it dawned on me that there were disturbing parallels between what's been happening in this country since 9-11-2001 and what happened that brought the Roman republic to destruction.
I have read somewhere that the lifespan of a republic in this world is somewhere around 200 years. By that measure the United States has done well. And we've heard a lot of speculation in the last few months about the strengths of this nation. Despite a frightening attack, part of which many of us viewed live on television, the country did not descend into anarchy. But I worry, because the attacks have been used as an excuse to declare a war, which normally gives a president unusual power to ignore the rights granted us in our Constitution. And this president seems bent on exercising that power to the full.
The reasons given for the fall of the Roman Empire almost certainly depend on the viewpoints of the interpreter. There are troubling parallels, however. Do you think it was the sexual and social decadence of Roman society that led to its downfall? It's happening here. Do you think it was the unorthodox attacks of "less civilized" tribes at the Empire's borders? Those attacks have begun. Do you think it was not so much these ailments that caused Rome's fall as it was the Empire's response to them? Well....
The Romans invented the idea that crime ought to be swiftly and publicly punished. They decided that the more painful the punishment the greater the deterrent. The Romans invented crucifixion, the slowest and most agonizing death they had the technology to devise. But did this most cruel and inhumane treatment of criminals succeed at reducing crime? Or did it do more to fuel the inherent prurience and cruelty of the citizenry, particularly of those hired to enforce the law, and thus contribute to the overall decadence of the society? Toward the end they lined the roads with thousands of crosses, each bearing the dead or dying carcass of a human who had dared to declare his fundamental rights as a human (at least I don't think the Romans often crucified women).
I suppose the ultimate question is if Rome fell because of the social ailments that infested it or if it fell because of the government's (read "the wealthy few who had a say in government") reaction to those ailments. Either way it seems we're repeating the mistakes of the past.
"You're wrong!" someone says. "The attacks of al Queda have unified the people of the United States. Look at the outpouring of patriotism that has followed 9-11. We are a stronger nation now than we were before the attacks."
Dare I say it? The type of shallow "patriotism," with its unquestioning approval of the president and its strong reliance on mere symbols, that has been displayed in the last few months is a sign of weakness, not of strength. It demonstrates an abandonment of diversity which is our nation's true strength. It demonstrates a herd mentality, not even caring if the destination of the herd is a good place to be. And I wonder; is any outcome achieved through fear a good outcome?
There is one small phenomenon associated with the recent rush to patriotism that I think symbolizes what's really happening in this country -- that reveals the true social illness that threatens the survival of the American republic. Somebody who had the equipment and supply chain ready at just the right moment has made lots of money -- probably millions -- selling replicas of the United States flag. Some morality-challenged individual has profited handsomely from the destruction of property and the suffering, death, and loss of many thousands of Americans.
"But that's the 'American Way'!"
Exactly my point. Is it mere coincidence that the terrorists chose as their targets two symbols of United States power: the military/political capital of the country and the economic capital? Is it the economic dominance of the United States, represented by the activities that took place in the World Trade Center, that helped to fuel their ire?
We seem to be addicted to the idea that a small group of people ought to enjoy the benefits of the labor and suffering of the many. Granted, we have greatly enlarged the size of the privileged group, partly through technology and partly through exploitation of the rest of the world. It is also true that the labor of the many is not overtly forced -- that is we no longer tolerate out and out slavery. But until we find a way to express the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and therefore deserve equal compensation for equal effort; until we decide to apply the "he who doesn't work should not eat" principle to everyone and not just the poor; we have not made real social progress and we stand vulnerable to the hatred and attacks of the people we leave out.
Is this the beginning of the end for the United States? It doesn't have to be. Unfortunately the current administration seems to see the role of government as assisting rather than resisting the excesses of big business. Perhaps the real reason for the demise of the Roman empire was that it ran out of people to exploit -- that the privileged few became so large and so demanding that the society could no longer support them. If so, the current administration is headed in the wrong direction. And all indications are that it's not listening and, instead, is milking the political capital gained from 9-11 for every possible advantage to move in the direction it has chosen. Maybe, just maybe, the American voters will detect this and send a powerful opposition force to Washington in the 2002 elections. The Republicans want very much to gain a majority in both houses of Congress -- giving them a sweep of power. An intelligent electorate won't let this happen.