Author: photog

In H. G. Wells’ “The Outline of History,” He writes a couple of paragraphs at the conclusion of his description of the Fall of the Roman Empire.   He discusses the phenomenon of “Caesarism.”

“But while the smashing of the Roman social and political structure was thus complete, while in the east it was thrown off by the older and stronger Hellenic tradition, and while in the west it was broken up into fragments that began to take on a new and separate life of their own, there was one thing that did not perish, but grew, and that was the tradition of the world empire of Rome and of the supremacy of the Cæsars. When the reality was destroyed, the legend had freedom to expand. Removed from the possibility of verification, the idea of a serene and splendid Roman world-supremacy grew up in the imagination of mankind, and still holds it to this day.

Ever since the time of Alexander, human thought has been haunted by the possible political unity of the race. All the sturdy chiefs and leaders and kings of the barbarians, who raided through the prostrate but vast disorder of the decayed empire, were capable of conceiving of some mighty king of kings greater than themselves and giving a real law for all men, and they were ready to believe that elsewhere in space and time and capable of returning presently to resume his supremacy, Cæsar had been such a king of kings. Far above their own titles, therefore, they esteemed and envied the title of Cæsar. The international history of Europe from this time henceforth is largely the story of kings and adventurers setting up to be Cæsar and Imperator (Emperor). We shall tell of some of them in their places. So universal did this “Cæsaring” become, that the Great War of 1914-18 mowed down no fewer than four Cæsars, the German Kaiser (= Cæsar), the Austrian Kaiser, the Tsar (= Cæsar) of Russia, and that fantastic figure, the Tsar of Bulgaria. The French “Imperator” (Napoleon III) had already fallen in 1871. There is now (1920) no one left in the world to carry on the Imperial title or the tradition of Divus Cæsar except the Turkish Sultan and the British monarch. The former commemorates his lordship over Constantinople as Kaisar-i-Roum[274]; the latter is called the Cæsar of India (a country no real Cæsar ever looked upon), Kaisar-i-Hind.”

Mr. Wells had his finger on something.  There is a fascination, not with the reality of the actual Roman Empire, but with the fantasy of it as this just, omnipotent, supremely competent and efficient ruler and government.  Now as any student of that era knows this was an almost polar opposite of what the empire actually was.  The oligarchs who reaped the lion’s share of the benefits from the empire’s permanence were heartless creatures who thought of the poor (slave or free) as nothing but animals to be harvested in every way imaginable.

And maybe this gives us a clue as to what kind of government we’re supposed to have.  We’re looking for a system where the humans aren’t treated like animals.  The first thing that comes to mind is the evolution of Socialism and Communism as secular stand-ins for the Christian church.  The “love your neighbor” part of it puts us in mind of the utopian brotherhood that Marx and the other socialists touted as their goal.  But of course, we all remember how those experiments end; death camps, oligarchs (commissars) and bread lines.

The opposite is capitalism with a capitol K.  And we’re currently living through that right now.  And once again we get oligarchs.  But this bunch just send our jobs to China and tell us to stop having children to “save the planet.”  So somehow, we’ve got to figure out a third way.

Different thinkers have tried to come up with different ways to allow representative government to more satisfyingly express the needs and will of the people.  Robert A. Heinlein thought that the vote should be restricted to veterans of the armed services.  Some have thought that only people with children should be able to vote.  And, of course, women think they’re the only ones qualified to vote.  There have been schemes whereby the number of votes you have should be based on things like how much you pay in taxes or receive in government benefits.  In other words, the more you pay into the system the more you get to decide.

There’s one guy named Curtis Yarvin who believes we need a monarch who should be chosen and overseen in the same way that a company selects and oversees a CEO (Chief Executive Officer).  In some ways this is an interesting idea.  The concept becomes a little fuzzy when he tries to describe what the equivalent is to the Chairman and other members of the Board of Directors.  But he’s right in the sense that the leader of this country needs much more authority in order to get things done.  It seems pretty clear that our system of checks and balances between the three branches of government have failed to produce good governance.  The bureaucracy has become bloated and arrogant and need to be pared back radically.  The judiciary is a hornet’s nest of special interests and influence peddling as are the Houses of Congress.  And the stalemate between the Left and Right is maddening to anyone who wants this country fixed.  We seem to be at a dead end.

What’s the answer?