NationStates Jolt Archive

Im reading a new book by Orson Scott Card called "Empire". Its really not that great at the moment, but early on it raised a great point. The latte-intellectuals love to throw around comparison between America and Rome, comparing the fall of both.

This book raised a new theory and I think it may hold some water: America's weakness is not a likeness of the fall of the Roman Empire, its a likeness of the fall of the Roman Republic. The book suggests that America's strength has become bloated to the point that it's democratic supports can no longer hold it, and the people are waiting for a dictator (One that has powerful public support, who is actually a strong a likeable leader) to lead them. That America has ended the stages of a Republic, and is waiting to be thrust into that of Empire

I understand the obvious flaws of this theory (Mainly that there are competitors of equal power), but I'd love to see some discussion on this.

Im reading a new book by Orson Scott Card called "Empire". Its really not that great at the moment, but early on it raised a great point. The latte-intellectuals love to throw around comparison between America and Rome, comparing the fall of both.

This book raised a new theory and I think it may hold some water: America's weakness is not a likeness of the fall of the Roman Empire, its a likeness of the fall of the Roman Republic. The book suggests that America's strength has become bloated to the point that it's democratic supports can no longer hold it, and the people are waiting for a dictator (One that has powerful public support, who is actually a strong a likeable leader) to lead them. That America has ended the stages of a Republic, and is waiting to be thrust into that of Empire

I understand the obvious flaws of this theory (Mainly that there are competitors of equal power), but I'd love to see some discussion on this.

Yeah, I suspect there is a scale beyond which you can't sustain democracy. It would be increased for the modern era because of increased accessibility of resources and communication, but I suspect there'd be a point...

And I would not at all be surprised if the US were at said point.

Even the least patriotic of Americans wouldn't let that shit go down. That atleast, is guaranteed.

It does seem like we're heading from republic to oligarchy. Or kleptocracy with a little theocracy thrown in.

I can see where the theory holds up. Four, or even eight years - at this point - is evidently not enough for a leader to make forward progress with his/her own plan. Sure, they can totally screw up a nation in that time, but good work when dealing with a nation as dynamic, self-driven, and multifarious as the United States can take a lot of time and democracy doesn't have enough of it. America as a political entity looks like its nearing the point of a transition into a one-party state, but I don't think that the American people would be willing to rally around that idea yet. Democracy is still the central tenet of American culture.

I can see where the theory holds up. Four, or even eight years - at this point - is evidently not enough for a leader to make forward progress with his/her own plan. Sure, they can totally screw up a nation in that time, but good work when dealing with a nation as dynamic, self-driven, and multifarious as the United States can take a lot of time and democracy doesn't have enough of it. America as a political entity looks like its nearing the point of a transition into a one-party state, but I don't think that the American people would be willing to rally around that idea yet. Democracy is still the central tenet of American culture.

But in this regard, wouldnt you agree that a charismatic leader Barack Obama has far more potential for becoming an emperor than our current leader. More people would faithfully follow.

I've always thought that the american model of hegemony owed more to the athenians than the romans, i.e., not assuming sovereignty directly over other territories exactly but rather assuming a position a the head of a league of subordinate nations in order to economically exploit them, preserve democracy, the greek way of life U.S.W.

On the other hand, its quite clear that the leadership of the american political class will go to any lengths to keep the harry howmuchamonth plebians fat, ignorant and happyish. (But not too happy). So it is similar to rome in that respect I suppose.

I sure hope this theory turns into bollocks. It is up to the American people to distinguish those who lurk in the dark waiting for the right time to become yet another modern Messiah/dictator and make it so. When Mccarthy was around they struggled to get rid of him and eventually did, so I hope, as a Westerner, that our society will still uphold democracy in the years to come.

I've always thought that the american model of hegemony owed more to the athenians than the romans, i.e., not assuming sovereignty directly over other territories exactly but rather assuming a position a the head of a league of subordinate nations in order to economically exploit them, preserve democracy, the greek way of life U.S.W.


That is also a worthy point, however the independent city structure of the Greeks meant they always lacked projection power. Rome posessed such power and used it. Of course, it is true that America favors economic subjucation to smashing everyone who wont obey.

But in this regard, wouldnt you agree that a charismatic leader Barack Obama has far more potential for becoming an emperor than our current leader. More people would faithfully follow.
Compared to the current American President, sure. But that doesn't mean that it would be much. In terms of an election, Barack Obama would not win the whopping majority that could result in a populace that rally behind the idea of evolving into an Imperial state.

I believe the U.S. is more likely to fracture into multiple national entities than consolidate under one-party/dictatorial rule.

I also do not buy into the notion of the U.S. moving into such a political system anytime soon. While anything is possible, I feel that modern communication technology such as the internet prevents the kind of propaganda consolidation that is necessary to establish one-party rule in a Western society that is currently democratic.

But, then again, I've been wrong before. :(

That is also a worthy point, however the independent city structure of the Greeks meant they always lacked projection power. Rome posessed such power and used it. Of course, it is true that America favors economic subjucation to smashing everyone who wont obey.

Well, the greeks did fight parts of the pelponnesian war in sicily. So by the standards of the day they were not completely without power projection. (Especially compared to their size).

I suppose my point is that the romans were the only game in town, so when the republic fell the entire 'world' became an empire and there was nothing except the roman populace to prevent it. In the case of the US dominance is acheived through institutions like NATO, NAFTA etc. Because of the nature of these bodies its not so easy for the US to just abandon "democracy" - on the face of it at least - because that would undermine the very mechanisms it uses to maintain global preeminence.

I dont think the US is gonna become the American Empire anytime soon.

I sure hope this theory turns into bollocks. It is up to the American people to distinguish those who lurk in the dark waiting for the right time to become yet another modern Messiah/dictator and make it so. When Mccarthy was around they struggled to get rid of him and eventually did, so I hope, as a Westerner, that our society will still uphold democracy in the years to come.
Democracy is nothing in and of itself, ever. It is merely a means to an end.
I would enjoy seeing a dictator who knows what he’s doing come to power. Can't be any worse.

Even the least patriotic of Americans wouldn't let that shit go down. That atleast, is guaranteed.

That guarantee is just so much ink on paper to the sort of people who would seize power. Just saying.

That guarantee is just so much ink on paper to the sort of people who would seize power. Just saying.

Way to go. You've probably just turned this into a second ammendment thread.

I dont think the US is gonna become the American Empire anytime soon.

Yep, I'd agree. We're not in Star Trek's Mirror Universe.

But in this regard, wouldnt you agree that a charismatic leader Barack Obama has far more potential for becoming an emperor than our current leader. More people would faithfully follow.

I think you're underestimating the level of cynicism and mistrust of politicians of any sort, and especially so-called "charismatic leaders."

And Barack Husein Obama has as much chance of being elected President as Ted Williams has of thawing out and hitting .500 for the Red Sox, let alone becoming an "emperor." :p

I think you're underestimating the level of cynicism and mistrust of politicians of any sort, and especially so-called "charismatic leaders."

And Barack Husein Obama has as much chance of being elected President as Ted Williams has of thawing out and hitting .500 for the Red Sox, let alone becoming an "emperor." :p

Your obssessive need to spout racist anti-Musilm crap is getting really annoying. Particularly when you consider that Obama is neither Arab nor Muslim.

It does seem like we're heading from republic to oligarchy. Or kleptocracy with a little theocracy thrown in.

I don't America will become an empire or undemocratic anytime soon, but if it were to become undemocratic tomorrow I would see it being a plutocracy.

I was thinking more along the lines of a plutocracy.

Doubtless we will get a mickey mouse emperor. So I suppose you are right.

I don't America will become an empire or undemocratic anytime soon, but if it were to become undemocratic tomorrow I would see it being a plutocracy.
Plutocracy. That's the damn word I was looking for. I blame it on the cherry-vanilla icecream causing my brain to freeze.

Yep, I'd agree. We're not in Star Trek's Mirror Universe.

if only :(

and comparing America to Rome is ridiculous a better comparison (though still far-fetched) is to the British empire (mostly because a key focus was economics unlike most empires in history) in which case I would say the US is in the same place Britain was during the early Pax Britannica, with its arch enemy beaten the US has followed a strategy of having an military so incredibly large that no nation dares go to war with it has also had huge economic success with its very own east India company known as Microsoft (which you may want to keep evangelicals firmly out of in experience)

Of course the most likely candidate for being the U.S in this scenario is Iran it has had its revolutionary war with the US which was sparked by religious men and controls a supply of resource (in this case oil which is much more valuable than cotton)

Edit: I recommend Niall Ferguson series called Empire (for those of you with NTL you can watch the first episode absolute free on demand) but if you can’t see it you can get he rough idea here: http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/e-h/empire.html

Edit2: its a sad fact that nobody has read this post :(

Even the least patriotic of Americans wouldn't let that shit go down. That atleast, is guaranteed.

What on earth are you talking about? Ever heard of PNAC? It's the American empire doctrine all spruced up and you can sure as hell bet there are some big names who signed onto it. The current administration comes to mind.

Im reading a new book by Orson Scott Card called "Empire". Its really not that great at the moment, but early on it raised a great point. The latte-intellectuals love to throw around comparison between America and Rome, comparing the fall of both.

This book raised a new theory and I think it may hold some water: America's weakness is not a likeness of the fall of the Roman Empire, its a likeness of the fall of the Roman Republic. The book suggests that America's strength has become bloated to the point that it's democratic supports can no longer hold it, and the people are waiting for a dictator (One that has powerful public support, who is actually a strong a likeable leader) to lead them. That America has ended the stages of a Republic, and is waiting to be thrust into that of Empire

I understand the obvious flaws of this theory (Mainly that there are competitors of equal power), but I'd love to see some discussion on this.

Although I agree that there are similarities between the Roman Republic and the American one, the problems that were plaguing the Roman one were vast. It was a highly flawed system designed to govern a city projected over a mediteranean empire. Throughout the republican period, Rome suffered several serious civil conflicts, almost always regarding the method and implementation of their democratic system; the balance of power between the plebs and the senate. The fear of the landholding classes of the mob was second only to the fear that one charismatic senator could gain the trust and support of the plebs and declare himself king.

And then they decided to let these kinds of people assemble their own armies from the pleb population and pay for them out of their own pocket.

It was a recipe for civil war and ultimately when the dust settled and one emperor emerged, it was probably better for the empire than the flawed system the romans had been using. But even then, some pretext of a senate was still held, even if the teeth had been removed.

The US on the other hand, has a much more flexible and balanced democratic system. Certainly, it's not without its flaws, But the elements present in the roman system which allowed that republic to fall, aren't present in the American one. For starters, america's soldiers feel their loyalty to the abstract notion of America, and not to a general that pays them out of their own pocket.

Plus, the federal nature of the nation means that even if someone were to have the impossible ability to hold the presidential position 'permanently', state legislatures would not accept it. The democratic nature of the nation is too engrained in its people for a Roman-style loss of democracy. The nation is democratic from the bottom up; in order for it to be comparable to Rome, America would have to be ruled from a Washington with its own Senate, Plebean council and a compliant non-voting populace in the rest of the country.

Good luck with that.

Your obssessive need to spout racist anti-Musilm crap is getting really annoying. Particularly when you consider that Obama is neither Arab nor Muslim.

Your obsessive need to try to shout down anyone who challenges your leftie orthodoxies by shrieking "racist" is really getting enjoyable. Particularly when you consider that Islam is not a "race", and thus that your ranting is also grounded in ignorance. And while we're on the subject, I have voted on several occasions for Republican candidates (of course) who happened to be black, such as Alan Keyes. So your "racist" blast is doubly ignorant in this case.

Whether you like it or not, Obama's background and upbringing will resonate negatively with a large percentage of voters. That, and his extremely liberal voting record. Fact.

It's a tendency of all states to try and centralize, especially in a democratic system with a blurred line between producer and political class. So yes, I feel it is certain that the US will turn from a liberal democracy to an aliberal democracy where a dictator claims to be the embodiment of the will of the people. The only question, I think, is how long it will take for someone to achieve that.

So far, it is a very good book and I am enjoying. HOwever, I do not see anything about it likely to happen. Especially the military going against the President as that would be grounds for immediate court-martial.

I doubt that a dictatorship in America could survive, mainly because the federal government doesn't have enough control. The police are under the control of the state governments, for one thing, and any attempt by the feds to take them over will spark another civil war faster than you can say "Fort Sumter".

Also, the government has little control over the media. Our media regularly incites mistrust of government officials, inflating stories of corruption out of control. I can't even see the government shutting down a media outlet successfully.

Finally, while the military has rarely disobeyed orders, only once has the US military engaged in offensive operations on our own soil (except during attacks by foreign militaries). That was during the Civil War. Ordering the military to supress as obvious a rebellion as the Civil War is one thing. Ordering them to suppress unarmed demonstraters is another. True, they would probably do it - but after a night of brooding in the barracks, mutinies would occur. The military could even become the leaders of a revolution.

That the citizens are armed would make things even more problematic. Subduing a freedom-loving populace is hard enough; subduing an ARMED freedom-loving populace would be nearly impossible.

An attempt to form a dictatorship in the US would fail. It WOULD provoke a civil war that devastates the country. But freedom would prevail in the end. I doubt they'd even change the Constitution.

I doubt that a dictatorship in America could survive, mainly because the federal government doesn't have enough control. The police are under the control of the state governments, for one thing, and any attempt by the feds to take them over will spark another civil war faster than you can say "Fort Sumter".

Also, the government has little control over the media. Our media regularly incites mistrust of government officials, inflating stories of corruption out of control. I can't even see the government shutting down a media outlet successfully.

Finally, while the military has rarely disobeyed orders, only once has the US military engaged in offensive operations on our own soil (except during attacks by foreign militaries). That was during the Civil War. Ordering the military to supress as obvious a rebellion as the Civil War is one thing. Ordering them to suppress unarmed demonstraters is another. True, they would probably do it - but after a night of brooding in the barracks, mutinies would occur. The military could even become the leaders of a revolution.

That the citizens are armed would make things even more problematic. Subduing a freedom-loving populace is hard enough; subduing an ARMED freedom-loving populace would be nearly impossible.

An attempt to form a dictatorship in the US would fail. It WOULD provoke a civil war that devastates the country. But freedom would prevail in the end. I doubt they'd even change the Constitution.


boy. thats makes so much sence. nice post there.:p

Well, the government's already well on its way to becoming a dictatorhip, or at least an oligochary. Not that there is anything wrong with those governments necessarily, but they are easily abused.

There are constantly attempts to take arms away from the people. If the people don't have weapons, the leaders need not fear them. If the people have weapons, the leaders need to think long and hard about how far they are willing to go against public opinion.

Everywhere you look your name is on a list. Social Security made sure of that. Everything you do uses your social security number. You are very easy to track. Everything is done over the internet now, where your information is open to anyone. No matter how secure the connection is, there is still someone who can hack into it. And if everything you do is there for whomever to see, certainly the government can see it. And if they can see it, that's one step closer they are to controling it.

And the power of the states is pretty much useless. Why are there speed limits? Because the Us government passed a law which said that states would get less support and funding and such if they did not pass speed limit laws. So even though the states are the ones pushing the buttons, the federal government is pulling their strings.

And no matter how many times we say we will fight for freedom (which is debatable if we should) the vast majority of persons in the United States today look to the government to fix all their problems. And they will be very tolerant of things which the government says will fix their problems. Look at the Iraq war. Whether you think it justified or not (I think it is), the majority of the people were convinced there was a problem, and the government promised to fix it. And so they went along with it. The same thing can happen (and will happen) again. They will be convinced there is a problem, they are already convinced the government can save them (thank you FDR :rolleyes:) and they will let the government do whatever it says it has to do. And once they realize that they were mistaken, it will be too late to do anything about it.

Your obsessive need to try to shout down anyone who challenges your leftie orthodoxies by shrieking "racist" is really getting enjoyable. Particularly when you consider that Islam is not a "race", and thus that your ranting is also grounded in ignorance. And while we're on the subject, I have voted on several occasions for Republican candidates (of course) who happened to be black, such as Alan Keyes. So your "racist" blast is doubly ignorant in this case.

Whether you like it or not, Obama's background and upbringing will resonate negatively with a large percentage of voters. That, and his extremely liberal voting record. Fact.

1. So you voted for Keyes. I wouldn't brag about that if I were you, even if Keyes "happens to be black", as you put it. You think you desrve a medal?

2. Who before you have I "shrieked racist" at? I've not leveled that charge at anyone here before now. And if you thought to insult me with "leftie", you failed. I don't consider left-wing or similar words to be an insult.

3. "His background will resonate negatively with voters"? His father was Kenyan. I wasn't aware the Kenya was a member of the Axis of Evil. Nor was his father muslim. Obama himself is christian. I am, of course, aware that muslim is not a race, thus the "anti-Muslim" part. But nice try at diverting attention from your post.

Incidentally, if you didn't mean to imply anything anti-Arab or anti-Muslim by emphasizing Obama's middle name, why did you do it?

Democracy is nothing in and of itself, ever. It is merely a means to an end.
Odd choice of phrase. A bit scarey even :eek:
I would enjoy seeing a dictator who knows what he’s doing come to power. Can't be any worse.

Eh? Is that a joke? A competent dictator in control of that doomsday arsenal and that dominant economic power ... nothing to worry about?

I'm starting to suspect that all of NSG are as drunk as I was twelve hours ago. :)

Well, the government's already well on its way to becoming a dictatorhip, or at least an oligochary. Not that there is anything wrong with those governments necessarily, but they are easily abused.

There are constantly attempts to take arms away from the people. If the people don't have weapons, the leaders need not fear them. If the people have weapons, the leaders need to think long and hard about how far they are willing to go against public opinion.

Or as that great democrat Mao once said: "power issues from the barrel of a gun." :p
If armed insurrection is the only bulwark against dictatorship, why do the citizens tolerate such a heavily armed government? Not just now, but ever since the collapse of the USSR, that power seems unnecessary, even a positive menace to democracy.

The rest of your points are sensible, but look around the other mature democracies (Europe and half the once-British empire) and you see systems quite secure without an armed populace. Less people in jail for the most part, too.

Interesting that you use the word "fear." How do governments (or individuals) react to what they fear? When they have the power to do something about it?

<snip long but reasonable post>

Or as that great democrat Mao once said: "power issues from the barrel of a gun." :p
If armed insurrection is the only bulwark against dictatorship, why do the citizens tolerate such a heavily armed government? Not just now, but ever since the collapse of the USSR, that power seems unnecessary, even a positive menace to democracy.

Why do the majority tolerate it? Because they are afraid of the alternative: being open to potentially hostile countries.

I tolerate it only because I think it is the governments responsibility to be prepared to defend its people. In fact that's really its only responsibility, in my opinion. And to do that, the nation must have the force ready to nearly instantaneously react to threat or attack. Sure, it can call reserves in later, but it must have something substantial there all the time.

The rest of your points are sensible, but look around the other mature democracies (Europe and half the once-British empire) and you see systems quite secure without an armed populace. Less people in jail for the most part, too.

How recently were those arms-bans put into place? Within the last 50 years. Dictatorships are not born overnight, not for the most part. These nations haven't gone through the sudden turmoil that thrusts dictators to power. So if they're going to become dictatorships, it will be very slowly. And when there finally comes a time to rebel, they won't be able to do so.

And as for the jails, I don't know about numbers. But the United States has more people than most of them, so we need to look at proportions. We also need to take into account how common crime is and how successful it is (robbery versus attempted robbery), not just if criminals are "brought to justice."

Interesting that you use the word "fear." How do governments (or individuals) react to what they fear? When they have the power to do something about it?

I use the word fear not in the same way as I mean one would fear a Doberman at one's heels. I fear drowning, but I'm not in any position where I am in danger of drowning. So, the government (if it is wise) should not put itself in the position where it is danger because of the people (unless, of course, it it utterly convinced that it would be wrong not to, but then it should be willing to accept the consequenses).

1. So you voted for Keyes. I wouldn't brag about that if I were you, even if Keyes "happens to be black", as you put it. You think you desrve a medal?

No, it just helps refute your "racist" statement, which you obviously made with little knowledge of what you were talking about.

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll brag about it anyway. And you're not me, nor even an approximation of me. Your loss.

2. Who before you have I "shrieked racist" at? I've not leveled that charge at anyone here before now.

I haven't read every one of your posts, but shrieking "racist" is an all-purpose incantation that lefties rely on to magically silence anyone who is hostile to Islam, opposes affirmative action, thinks Bush really did win in Florida, etc.

And if you thought to insult me with "leftie", you failed. I don't consider left-wing or similar words to be an insult.

No insult, merely a statement of fact. And it seems that many of your fellow lefties act like it is insulting, probably because it exposes them for what they are when they are attempting to fool people into thinking they're "moderates" or "centrists" or "non-partisan".

3. "His background will resonate negatively with voters"? His father was Kenyan. I wasn't aware the Kenya was a member of the Axis of Evil. Nor was his father muslim. Obama himself is christian. I am, of course, aware that muslim is not a race, thus the "anti-Muslim" part. But nice try at diverting attention from your post.

Incidentally, if you didn't mean to imply anything anti-Arab or anti-Muslim by emphasizing Obama's middle name, why did you do it?

Oh, but I did mean to imply anything anti-Moslem (not anti-Arab, since not all Arabs are Moslems). His father was in fact a Moslem from a prominent Kenyan Moslem family. His father gave him a Moslem name--and by the way, not only his middle name but his first name as well (Barack = Baraka) are Moslem names--and two years after his birth his father abandoned the family, returned to Kenya and divorced his mother according to Moslem law. His mother subsequently married an Indonesian (and another Moslem) and raised him in Indonesia, where he lived until age 10 before moving back to Hawaii.

It has been alleged that not only did Obama Sr. demand from Obama's mother that the boy be raised as a Moslem (to which she agreed), but that Obama was in fact educated in Moslem madrassas.

There are serious questions about his background, early education and true beliefs that need answering. And as the truth comes out, the American people will realize that he is the wrong man to lead this nation, particularly at a time when Islamo-Nazism has declared war on us, even if he is not in fact a "Manchurian candidate". Or more accurately, a "Meccan candidate."

http://www.biobble.com/en/2006-446/Barack_Obama_biography.html
http://www.mlrmag.com/FullText.asp?year=04&month=08&day=17

But in this regard, wouldnt you agree that a charismatic leader Barack Obama has far more potential for becoming an emperor than our current leader. More people would faithfully follow.

More people would rally against barack osama. If you're going to pick a leader, don't pick him.

More people would rally against barack obama. If you're going to pick a leader, don't pick him.

I corrected Obama's name for you and I do not think that this country will have a dictator/emperor.

I haven't read every one of your posts, but shrieking "racist" is an all-purpose incantation that lefties rely on to magically silence anyone who is hostile to Islam, opposes affirmative action, thinks Bush really did win in Florida, etc.


In your case it's merely a statement of fact. We know it doesn't "magically silence" you.


Oh, but I did mean to imply anything anti-Moslem

That's OK. Some people hate Jews, some people hate Muslims. As long as you're hating someone, that's the important thing.

That's OK. Some people hate Jews, some people hate Muslims. As long as you're hating someone, that's the important thing.

No one should hate anyone.

These days the real vote for Americans is not at the ballot box, but where they spend their money. I expect the US to go in this kind of direction in the future, materialism and business will overtake any notions of ideology, it will simply be survival of the richest.

I've always thought that the american model of hegemony owed more to the athenians than the romans, i.e., not assuming sovereignty directly over other territories exactly but rather assuming a position a the head of a league of subordinate nations in order to economically exploit them, preserve democracy, the greek way of life U.S.W.



I'd say that that's a much better metaphor to make for the modern US than the Rome analogy.

Eh? Is that a joke? A competent dictator in control of that doomsday arsenal and that dominant economic power ... nothing to worry about?
Russia was effectively a dictatorship and will be one again very soon. In its dealings with foreign nations, it did nothing worse than the US does now or has done in the past. Historically, you should fear democracies. After all, the only nation to ever use nuclear power in war was a democracy.

A dictatorship is not necessarily a bad thing. Democracies are perfectly capable of being oppressive.

boy. thats makes so much sence. nice post there.:p
Thank you.

American politics has become so polarized that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are representing the will of the people. Now is the time for a third party to be successful, but it seems that most minor parties only focus on a few issues rather than any comprehensive ideology. A party that pretends to listen to the people's needs will have a much better chance at dominating a one-party America. Take fascism and nazism. Yes, there is a difference. Mussolini's fascist economic model was created to encourage class cooperation rather than class competition. It represented both the employers and the employees of industries. National Socialism (Nazism), effectively combined nationalism for the conservatives and socialism for the liberals. Of course, the socialists were later purged when the Nazis were in power.

As I said earlier, a dictatorship must possess certain tools to survive. Control of all aspects of government is one. Control of the media is another. Control of all weapons is a third. The federal government lacks ALL of these.

All aspects of government? The federal government has relatively little control over law enforcement and the judicial system. The sole power the President or Congress have over the judicial system is the appointment and impeachment of higher court justices. At the local level, the federal government has little control of either the courts or the cops (who work for the states, not the government).

Media? Please. We don't even have a state-run media in the US.

Weapons? Second Amendment, baby. Second Amendment.

I heard this theory going around when JFK was in office. He was likened to Julius Caesar and everyone feared that the Kennedys were going to become the emperors of the new Rome. It's not surprising that it resurfaces every now and then, especially when there is a family (the Bushes) that seems to have imperial designs.

Im reading a new book by Orson Scott Card called "Empire". Its really not that great at the moment, but early on it raised a great point. The latte-intellectuals love to throw around comparison between America and Rome, comparing the fall of both.

This book raised a new theory and I think it may hold some water: America's weakness is not a likeness of the fall of the Roman Empire, its a likeness of the fall of the Roman Republic. The book suggests that America's strength has become bloated to the point that it's democratic supports can no longer hold it, and the people are waiting for a dictator (One that has powerful public support, who is actually a strong a likeable leader) to lead them. That America has ended the stages of a Republic, and is waiting to be thrust into that of Empire

I understand the obvious flaws of this theory (Mainly that there are competitors of equal power), but I'd love to see some discussion on this.

Ive only read the beggining parts of it.I really liked that one general who wanted to lead a coup,thoough.

But in this regard, wouldnt you agree that a charismatic leader Barack Obama has far more potential for becoming an emperor than our current leader. More people would faithfully follow.

If Barack Obama tried to become emporer...Screw him.I couldnt think of a worse president.Maybe Hillary Clinton.Or Ted Kennedy.He still sucks though.

Your obssessive need to spout racist anti-Musilm crap is getting really annoying. Particularly when you consider that Obama is neither Arab nor Muslim.

Well he was a Muslim,and now is mostly just agnostic.Also his dad is from Kenya.And his name is "Barack Obama".Would I vote for him?No.

The US is large yes, but not large enough to stretch democracy to its breaking point. Just ask India, home of 1 billion and still managing, to the best of my knowledge.

Well he was a Muslim,and now is mostly just agnostic.Also his dad is from Kenya.And his name is "Barack Obama".Would I vote for him?No.

That's not the whole of it.

Barack

Husein

Obama

Considering the recent chain of events, what American (the majority voting bloc) would vote a guy into office with a name like that?

That's not the whole of it.

Barack

Husein

Obama

Considering the recent chain of events, what American (the majority voting bloc) would vote a guy into office with a name like that?

So you think we are that dumb to vote on a name alone? Boy are you stupid.

People will vote for who ever they want to vote for if they believe that person would do a good job. I would consider voting for him for President for I think he'll be a very good one. Take that and shove it.

Why the distaste for dictatorship?

Democracy allows for mobrule, and policy dictated by the neuroses and idiocies of an electorate few of whom merit a vote. Admittedly, one entertains more risks in a dictatorship, however absolutism does preclude the centrist mediocrity and illogicality of democracy.

Why the distaste for dictatorship?

I guess you have forgotten the history of dictatorships?

Why the distaste for dictatorship?

Democracy allows for mobrule, and policy dictated by the neuroses and idiocies of an electorate few of whom merit a vote. Admittedly, one entertains more risks in a dictatorship, however absolutism does preclude the centrist mediocrity and illogicality of democracy.

Which is why if we are going to have an centralized government at all, it should be a theocratic republic. The theocracy makes sure the moral are in charge and the republic makes sure those obedient to that morality are in charge.

I guess you have forgotten the history of dictatorships?

Not really. Whilst such delights as Stalin, Hitler and Mao (cite them as evidence after this and I'm throwing myself off a bridge) do all arise from absolutism, so too do individuals such as Franco, Tito, and Napoleon. The majority of dictatorships fundamentally improve economic and social stability amd security for those over whom they rule, whilst also being empowered to make decisions that, if being unpopular, are ideologically and pragmatically necessary.

Not really. Whilst such delights as Stalin, Hitler and Mao (cite them as evidence after this and I'm throwing myself off a bridge) do all arise from absolutism, so too do individuals such as Franco, Tito, and Napoleon. The majority of dictatorships fundamentally improve economic and social stability amd security for those over whom they rule, whilst also being empowered to make decisions that, if being unpopular, are ideologically and pragmatically necessary.

Except that dictatorships incite rebellion (points to british history), start unnecessary wars (points to Saddam Hussien), and genocide.

So you think we are that dumb to vote on a name alone? Boy are you stupid.

People will vote for who ever they want to vote for if they believe that person would do a good job. I would consider voting for him for President for I think he'll be a very good one. Take that and shove it.

Yup, sure am. Stupid that is. Geez man, calm down would ya? I think he's the best candidate we've got right now. Met him as well. Heard him speak in the Veteran Affairs committee when I interned a couple summers back. He's a terrific guy. And you know what? I hope he's elected. Hmm, betcha didn't know that, did you? You know why? Because you automatically assumed I would be against him. Wrong, boyo. I made a generic statement that will probably prove true. Wow, amazing how assumptions can totally screw things up! And you would be surprised how little you understand, yourself. Many people, perhaps not the majority, but quite a few, will not vote for someone with such a name, simply because of its (wrongly assumed) connotations. Relax, man.

Which is why if we are going to have an centralized government at all, it should be a theocratic republic. The theocracy makes sure the moral are in charge and the republic makes sure those obedient to that morality are in charge.

This is irony?

Any government should be fundamentally, and entirely, secular in nature. Decisions should be made upon expediancy and necessity, not an anachronistic and misinterpretated code of behaviour.

This is irony?

Any government should be fundamentally, and entirely, secular in nature. Decisions should be made upon expediancy and necessity, not an anachronistic and misinterpretated code of behaviour.

Totally disagree. It's when we get into arguments about expediency and necessisty that we have things like the Holocaust. If our first thought is always "What is moral?" we would have a lot less of that.

But this is probably a discussion for another thread if we want to argue this further.

Why the distaste for dictatorship?

Democracy allows for mobrule, and policy dictated by the neuroses and idiocies of an electorate few of whom merit a vote. Admittedly, one entertains more risks in a dictatorship, however absolutism does preclude the centrist mediocrity and illogicality of democracy.

Democracy ensures freedom far moreso than a dictatorship. Illogicality of democracy? Absolutism precludes individual freedom, which is the single greatest measure of a nation's government.

And you know what? I hope he's elected. Hmm, betcha didn't know that, did you?

He might. One can never tell. Look for him to run in the 2012 election.

You know why? Because you automatically assumed I would be against him. Wrong, boyo.

I assumed you would be against him? Wrong boyo. Never assume something someone says on this board. I never assumed you would be against him. Not once. That is only in your mind my young padawan learner.

I made a generic statement that will probably prove true. Wow, amazing how assumptions can totally screw things up! And you would be surprised how little you understand, yourself.

I would not go around insulting people if I were you. And before you get on me for making assumptions, you should examine them for yourself. I never made an assumption about you but you instantly made an assumption that I assumed you would be against him. You are now making an assumption that I have little understanding about politics. That's funny since I am studying Political Science as well as History at school where I am going into my last semester. Of course, I will continue to learn until the day I die. No one will ever have full understanding of anything in their life.

So before you accuse someone of making an assumption, make sure you, yourself, are not making an assumption.

Many people, perhaps not the majority, but quite a few, will not vote for someone with such a name, simply because of its (wrongly assumed) connotations. Relax, man.

You could be right then again, you could be wrong. And you need to relax yourself.