Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gary Kamiya at Salon: "Are We Rome?"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 08:48 AM
Original message
Gary Kamiya at Salon: "Are We Rome?"
Edited on Thu Jun-07-07 09:07 AM by Hissyspit
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2007/06/07/rome



"Are We Rome?"
Hollowed out by arrogance, corruption and a bloated military, the greatest empire the world has ever known fell. Is America doomed to follow in its footsteps?


By Gary Kamiya

June 7, 2007 | Comparing the present historical epoch to a past one is an excellent intellectual parlor game. It requires you to know enough about the two periods to assess their similarities and differences. It encourages a broad, synthetic analysis and a long view. And it defamiliarizes the present, forcing you to look with fresh eyes at cultural and political realities you had previously taken for granted. At its worst, it can become a mere display of superficial knowledge, in which facile analogies take the place of real engagement. But at its best, it can illuminate both periods, creating that simultaneous sense of recognition and mystery that the best history does.

Cullen Murphy's "Are We Rome?" is an example of the parlor game played at its best. Murphy, the former managing editor of the Atlantic Monthly, brings just the right combination of erudition, audacity and caution to this tricky undertaking. He isn't afraid to make informed generalizations about both contemporary America and an empire that ended more than 1,500 years ago, yet acknowledges the limits of such generalizations, and the areas where historical ignorance rules. He offers stimulating discussions of the similarities, both obvious and hidden, between America and Rome, but also points out that in profound ways their citizens would find each other utterly alien.

And wisely, he avoids trying to do too much. The words of the Greek poet Callimachus, "A big book is a big evil," may not be universally true, but they certainly apply to the genre Murphy is working in. Simply to acquire a working familiarity with the theories that have been advanced to explain the fall of the Roman empire -- Murphy notes that a German historian has listed 210 of them -- is a massive undertaking; to advance an original thesis is the work of decades; to compare Rome to America could occupy a Casaubon -- the pedant who searches in vain for a "Key to All Mythologies" in George Eliot's "Middlemarch" -- for several lifetimes. Mercifully, Murphy is no pedant. He wears his considerable knowledge lightly, avoids overdrawing his analogies and focuses in on a few areas where the comparisons are most illuminating -- and where we would do well to change our ways. You painlessly learn a lot about ancient Rome in this smart, briskly paced book, and a lot about contemporary America, too -- not all of the latter quite as painless.

The Rome-America comparison predates the American Revolution. In those days, Murphy notes, Americans were drawn to the Roman Republic, seeing in it a reflection of their own nascent republic. Today, for obvious reasons, it's the empire that grabs Americans' attention -- although no one can agree upon whether America really possesses an empire or not. The comparison, he notes, "serves as either a grim cautionary tale or an inspirational call to action." Those who are inspired include figures whom Murphy calls the "triumphalists," who "see America as at long last assuming its imperial responsibilities, bringing about a global Pax Americana like the Pax Romana at its most commanding, in the first two centuries A.D." In this camp are neoconservative pundits like Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Max Boot and "the triumphalist-in-chief, trading jodhpurs for flight suit," George W. Bush. These figures unapologetically advocate that the U.S. dominate the world. Against them stand the "declinists," who believe that America is overstretched, that its "imperial need for secrecy, surveillance and social control, all in the name of national security, is corroding our republican institutions." The declinists include the likes of Chalmers Johnson and Paul Kennedy. There is also an in-between group, led by the historian Niall Ferguson, who argue that the U.S. should be an imperial power, but lacks the gumption.

MORE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. Kerry gave the We are NOT Rome speech in 2002 and the corpmedia roundly ignored it.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. No, Rome knew how to occupy countries better
They often improved the quality of life and introduced classical education and technology such as aquaducts and roads. We can't even keep the bloody lights on in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. All empires eventually fall due to those 3 problems. Read:
"The Rise and Fall of the Greatest Powers" by Paul Kennedy and "The Sorrow of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson. We are just about there thanks to *ss and co.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
4. Edited to add the graphic from the front page of Salon. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
5. No. In Rome, Senators knew what they had to do. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yeah, the allowed Caligula to have a horse as a senator.
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. After Googling, I see I'm actually thinking of his personal guards. Watch those Praetorians, Bushie!
Edited on Thu Jun-07-07 09:32 AM by WinkyDink
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. oh, I thought you were referring to that whole Ides of March business
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Ah you mean the rise of blackwater. Now that is scary...
there have been several discussion regarding that scary prospect on here lately.

That is the shadow that lurked behind moron*. I'm waiting to see what happens there, but then again, if we wait to long it will probably be to late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveFool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Is that really any different than having Gonzales as AG? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. ...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. but even that wasn't enough to save the Republic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
10. Rome was the "world's only super power" for a long time. Our title is going to be short term.
The parallels are striking between our glorious empire and the ones that preceded us. So is the beginning of the end. The difference being that some of the others lasted a lot longer than we will.

Lord Acton explained the reasons for the rise and downfall in his famous axiom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
11. Art Hoppe did this in a 1973 newspaper column, "The Mightiest Nation:"
"When little countries far away rebelled, he sent troops without so much as a by-your-leave. And the mightiest nation became engaged in a series of long, costly, inconclusive campaigns in far away lands. So some disillusioned soldiers refused to obey orders and some sailors mutinied, even though the leader raised their pay. And in some places the mightiest nation hired mercenaries to do its fighting.

And because it was the richest nation, it worshiped wealth and the things wealth bought. But the rich grew richer and the poor grew poorer through unfair tax laws. And in the capital 1 in 5 were idle and on welfare.

When the poor grumbled, they were entertained by highly paid athletes and the firing of expensive rockets into the air which sometimes fizzled...."

<snip>

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/07/22/ED78905.DTL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
12. At least the Romans gave us pizza & vino
The nincomneocon-in-chief can't even pronounce "La Dolce Vita".

Watching the gladiators on "American Idol" is bad enough, but if they actually start televising executions on the Circus Maximus currently known as television, we're in deep trouble.:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
13. I've made the comparison here before: George W. Bush = Varus
Son of a conservative policitian/patrician:
George W. Bush: check, dad was president
Varus: check, dad was senator

Exploited the riches of a wealthy state/province as governor, leaving it poorer while enriching himself
George W. Bush: Check, with Texas
Varus: check, with Syria

Oversaw the devastating loss of his more advanced, better trained and equipped army to a ragtag bunch of local rebels:
George W. Bush: check, with Iraq
Varus: check, with Germany

Was betrayed by a confidante who was really working for the enemy:
George W. Bush: check, with Chalabi working for Iran
Varus: check, with Arminius in league with the Germans

Their nation was never influential in this area again:
George W. Bush: check (incomplete, but we have lost a lot of influence)
Varus: check, Rome never again attempted to conquer Germania or go beyond their border that way

Granted - there are some differences. While his army was being destroyed around him, Varus committed suicide in shame, while George W. Bush has no shame. And, Varus had to answer to the Emperor ("Varus, give me back my legions!")




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
15. If Rome had nukes ...
we might not be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Slyder Donating Member (191 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. Actually we look more like the end of the Republic
The US more closely resembles the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic that lasted from 510 BCE to about 14 BCE when Augustus (Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus) put it out of its misery. Check out Tom Holland's book "Rubicon". I broke out in a cold sweat when I read it!

Or for the more adventurous, check out Machiavelli's ruminations on the qualities and faults of the Republic in his "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius". (A wonderful new abridgment and translation was published earlier this year: "The Essential Writings of Machiavelli", edited and translated by Peter Constantine.) Chapter 2 where he defines the qualities of a solid republic is particularly interesting. The US Founding Fathers had studied republics and knew what they were doing. Their foresight may allow us to survive an idiot like Bush! Machiavelli was the first realist to put his mind to government in the modern age. The Prince gives him a bad rep, but he is arguably the first modern thinker.

Unless we get hit with plague, intellectual meltdown, political corruption, depopulation, economic depression, barbarian invasions, roving mercenary armies, the extreme concentration of wealth, and several other things, we do not resemble the fall of the Roman Empire, but rather the end of the Roman Republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC