Disturbing Similarities Between the Fall of Rome and Today’s America
Rome in the second century BC was growing fast; Romans were making more little Romans so effectively that poverty was becoming a problem, as farmers had to split their land among too many sons. By the end of the republic in the first century BC, quite the opposite was happening: Romans were not reproducing anymore.
A variety of Roman practices seemed to have played a part in the plummeting birth rate. The legal age for an adult man to marry a female was age 12 — but these laws were apparently not enforced, and considering what nutrition was like at the time, you can imagine the physical and emotional damage that likely resulted, preventing successful reproduction. Abortion, contraception, infanticide, prostitution, and homosexuality also dramatically lowered birthrates.
The result? Rome found itself increasingly importing “barbarians” from outside their nation to do the agricultural work that Romans would not do, because there were not enough Romans anymore. Does any of this ring any bells?
By the last gasp stages of the Roman empire, there are some really disturbing problems with guest workers — but the problem is not the immigrants, but their righteous anger at mistreatment. The Visigoths, pressed by the Huns, ask Roman permission to settle in the empire. Short of workers and soldiers, the empire granted their request. But Roman authorities took advantage of their desperate situation by selling food to the Visigoths that was supposed to be given to them — who had nothing to sell but slaves. The Romans sold the food in exchange for “good-looking women, [and] pursued mature boys for disgraceful purposes.” Eventually, the abuse of the Visigoths ended badly for Rome — very badly, with the sack of Rome in 410 AD.
There are a lot of causes of the fall of the Roman republic, and it is important not to get too carried away with the comparisons. The early Roman republic was primarily a military state, in a way that the United States historically has not been. At least one of the causes of the fall of the Roman republic was that armies became increasingly loyal to their general — not to the Roman republic. (That’s why, when you take your oath entering the U.S. military, it is to uphold the Constitution — not your commander.) We also have not descended into the regular use of violence for political purposes that began with the assassination of Tiberius Gracchus — and continued all the way to Julius Caesar’s unfortunate end.
Still, I keep finding many disappointing parallels — and it does not do anything for my hopes for the future of this republic.
While I can see what you’re trying to imply, I’m a bit confused. If I’m reading this right, some of the article refers to the end of the Roman republic, and some refers to the end of the Roman Empire, about a half millennium later.
I have long been writing: “If you wanna know how the Roman Empire FELL? Just look out the window.” Look at our ROMAN SENATE. See NERO fiddle, while the whole world BURNS.
Historians say that the numbers 666, refer to NERO. Perhaps they’re right. But it’s not THAT Nero. It’s THIS ONE.
“And I saw the Beast. And he was given a MOUTH, to speak Haughty and Blasphemous words. And he was allowed to exercise authority for forty two Months.” Revelation 13-5.
42 Months = June 2012.
He’s NOT in over his head. He DOES know what he’s doing. He’s NOT dithering. Everything he does, let’s EVIL get STRONGER.
After reading the quote from Revelation, do you really believe that this MUSLIM UPRISING, all over the Middle East, is a COINCIDENCE?
Arabs and Persians, Shiites and Sunnis, coming together?
Is it because they are INSANE, that HAMAS believes that OBAMA is their DELIVEROR? They sell Mugs with his Face on them. Dressed in Arab Hat and Dishtowel. He BOWS to the “Keeper of the Holy Sites”. He does NOT Bow to the Christian Queen of England.
We have a President who is something out of a Hollywood Movie.
Born to a Muslim/Marxist and an Atheist Communist. Raised in Kenya and Indonesia, until he was 11 Years Old. Attended MOSQUE. Knelt on his Prayer Blanket, facing MECCA, and prayed to a GOD of Blood, Death, and Subjugation, 5 times a day. He attended Muslim Schools, where he “Learned” the whole “DEATH TO AMERICA”, “DEATH TO ISRAEL”, DEATH TO THE INFIDELS” thing.
And, now, he sits on the Throne of the most Powerful Christian Nation, in the world? The one Nation that stands, ALONE, against the Legions of Evil.
I don’t know about YOU, but if I’m SATAN, that’s where I want MY GUY, when the Final Battle comes.
Think about it.
I mean, REALLY think about it. There is NO WAY that this guy is President. NO WAY.
“I have not come to refute the Prophets, but to fulfill them.”
It seems that CHRIST is not the only one, here, to fulfill the Prophets.
OPEN YOUR EYES.
This isn’t the LSD thread.
Er, LDS?
everyone KNOWS that THE more WORDS you CAPITALIZE, the SMARTER people THINK you ARE.
do you really not see that the christian god is a god of blood or that the messiah of israel was warped by the anti-messiah paul into a human blood sacrifice at golgatha? open your eyes…the number of man is six and your christian bible has 66 books, coincidence? if you’re looking ahead for the anti-messiah, you’ve missed the children’s eyes returned to the father and the law and the prophets fullfilled as they were from the beginning. the first son of oil came and was raised up after three days, the spirit poured out at his ascencion. the second son of oil is yet to come, after the time of the trampling of the outer court, as a comforter when the spirit is taken back so the first son might once again be among us. the father changes not and his ways are from everlasting.
He wasn’t raised in Kenya. He did visit, though.
Lack of Christianity and biblical predictions, in my opinion, will not be the doom of America, nor of the world as we know it. The Bible has been interpreted in many different ways, by everyone from Mother Teresa to-don’t get a hemorrhoid over this-Adolf Hitler. The non-Christian Mayans’ peaceful society was destroyed by bloodthirsty Christian conquistadors. Your bias against Muslims, Communists and Atheists is sickeningly reminiscent to that of the leaders of many genocides’ bias against plenty of other minorities. I don’t have a problem with anyone else’s faith, but I do have a problem with them being condescending about it and shoving it in other’s faces. I’m not declaring your beliefs invalid, but I can’t honestly say the same for your argument. You can repeat that to the leader of your cult too, if you’d like.
Yes, you have a good point here. My point was that the need to bring in immigrants to make up for a failure of Romans to reproduce led to many other problems as well–and not necessarily the fault of the immigrants.
yeah, immigrants like Trajan and Marcus Aurelius and some of the other great Roman emperors.
Even Cicero was a “new man”: Not Roman but Italian in origin.
Dear Dr. Bones,
¿How does one say _iam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes_ in Powe®Poin™?
(( You seen one whight-winger, you seen ’em all. ))
Happy days.
You seem to improperly conflate the transition from the Roman Republic to the Empire with the collapse of the western, Classical half of that empire…events separated by about half a millennium! (To be fair, there are other writers who do a much worse job of distinguishing the two.)
If you were to write something like, “If this goes on, then by the end of this century the Empire of the West will be firmly in charge, no matter how much of the facade of the American constitutional republic remains”, I’d chop that. I’d also remind you that the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of your readers will likely be thankful that it is so; imagine the lethal infighting between Trotsky and Stalin going on for three generations.
You are certainly correct that the civil wars fought after Julius Caesar’s assassination (and the ones fought earlier in the first century BC) meant that there were only a few tears shed for the fall of the Republic. By the time Augustus dies, there are few Romans who remember the Republic, and those who do, remember a corrupt and incompetent debacle.
Kind of a loose and sloppy job of throwing a lot of things at a wall. This essay needs a lot of work. You jump from statements regarding issues discussed during ratification to a potpourri of vague connections to the “Fall” of Rome. At least you are also appropriately vague in your conclusions.
Generally, I find your productions solid, but not this one.
Yeah, a forthright statement such as –
“There are a lot of causes of the fall of the Roman republic, and it is important not to get too carried away with the comparisons.”
-is not enough to dissuade the Birkenstocked Red Pencil Neck from over protection of it’s specialty, the re-writing of late 18th century American history, of which the goal is to shoe horn collectivist dogma into that period. All to justify the need to sell its soul to the present must have Big Government Dream
Beware of D-White speaking in tongues. Ping! Pong!
And that odor of burning tweed…
You’ve been with the professors
And they’ve all liked your looks
Let’s see: “Birkenstocked red pencil neck” D-White Ping pong etc” all qualify as what on the spectrum of “discussion?” Mr Lucky’s brand of rational analysis.
I can’t get you to commit, Mr L, as to whether you are with George Mason and Governor Clinton on the ratification of the Constitution, or with Madison and Hamilton, but then, you would have to actually know something about any of them, rather than just vividly imagining my days and ways. You can be specific when you are talking about LSD dosage, but not so much when it comes to Founding Fathers and/or the validity or lack thereof of comparisons of American and Roman Empires. Maybe you can fill us in on how Nero mixed his music.
Anyway, when one is comparing us to the Romans, concrete specifics and larger and smaller contexts would seem to be essential.
And that odor of burning tweed…
You’ve been with the professors
And they’ve all liked your looks
My point in discussing the U.S. Constitution was to point out that the problems of republics failing was, even in 1787, an important lesson of history for the Framers.
There are many, many comparisons that can be made between the Romans and the Americans. Both early Republics were created by yeomen farmers. Both ended up with big urban populations bleating for bread and circuses.
Roman and American laws used to be few and simple. By the end thousands and thousands of Byzantine (literally) laws could destroy an honest man.
Taxes started at next to nothing in both cases and eventually ascended into the stratosphere. The Roman middle class was eventually taxed out of existence. To keep them from running off to escape their tax bills, the Emperor tied the farmers to the land – creating medieval serfs.
Early on every male was a member of the local militia or legion. Now we have professional soldiers at remote outposts trying to keep the barbarians at bay – because we lost the will to conqueror or defeat them.
Nice wrap-up. Only quibble I’ve got is this: technology has telescoped time, and we’ve lost our Republic faster than did Rome (BC44).
It’s over.
I would in many ways tend to agree the American Republic has fallen. Post WWII we became an empire in fact if not in name. Much like Rome, however, we continue to believe we are a republic. The transition from republic to empire was not truly noticed by the Roman people I think, and for the most part has not been noticed here.
I’m not certain that transition in our case is necessarily bad. If we are an empire we are perhaps the most restrained and benevolent empire in history.
That being said, the sooner we recognize who and what we are, and begin to act like it the better off we and the world will be.
Patrick
That was a cheap shot at the Byzantine Empire – the on going (unfortunately) bias of the Catholic West to the Orthodox East. The long term effects of that stupid bias is still being paid by the so-called (non-existent anymore) “West.”
As for “byzantine laws” take a look at any “western” not just the US tax code (and that includes the whole of the post WWII era) and then talk about “byzantine laws” with such contempt.
One of the questions my students get to answer involves this very question: Byzantines would not have argued that the Roman Empire had fallen at all. They were living in it.
Yeaaaaah – kind of yeaaaaah – but still…
While the Romans per-se (i.e. living in/ descendants of those living in Latium) indeed had a sense of Romanness which permeated in a certain degree upper social layers in the provinces, and this lasted for a few generations after, say (arbitrarily) Julius’ death –
But this was gone pretty soon as these social layers were corroded/ absorbed by either aborigenes (gauls, Germans, etc) or by the cascade of tribes besieging the empire’s borders -
As far as the Eastern Empire, Byzantium or the area controlled from Constantinopolis ’till 1458, that is an even shakier affair, since the geography was indeed defeating – think of Anatolia/ Armenia, Syria, Greece, Sicilly, eastern Italy, the then back North, anything surounding the Black Sea, then the larger Balkans -
Pretty messy – and all those people who lived on that expanse sure didn’t think about themselves as “Romans” of “byzantine” line –
And didn’t care much about the Byzantine legislation either (Justinian code’s merits notwithstanding), and even less about the Byzantines virtues – hehehe – now I nailed it -
I’d say that the only comparable things between the Roman Republic? Roman Empire? and today’s USA is that, Rome fell, and the US appears indeed on a descending slope -
More analogies between the two are unwarranted -
PS: still, the sterility of the Byzantine politics, with the ideological conflict between iconoclasts and iconodules morphing over the time in some hippodrome rivalries between the greens and the blues evoke the meaninglessness and sterility of today’s American politics – I offer here admiral Mullen’s agonizing about the gays in military, evidence of a compass gone awry –
And sure this broken compass gives the point to many in adminstration – we’ll see the consequences -
Comparing the politics of the fall of the Roman Republic to the the current situation in the USA present some startling similarities. The one thing we can be sure of is thing happen faster now. This speed-up of the progress of events means that empire collapse will surely happen faster now. As an example the USSR. History as a guide to outcomes gives warning. History as a guide to timing provides little or no insight!
Well, Rome did have its problems around 400 A.D. in terms of moral decay and laziness when it came to defending the empire. Are there many parallels between us and the Romans? A few, but not many. After all, by that time they were an absolute monarchy (the emperors) and we are not.
I see us more decaying like the British Empire did after World War II. We have become so wrapped up in socialism and entitlements that we simply cannot afford being a world power anymore. The selfishness and laziness of a lot of the American people (abundantly on display with the union workers in Wisconsin) shows that many people today “Ask not what they can do for their country, but how much their country can do for them.” This is not how world powers remain world powers. Have we totally become like Great Britain after World War II? Well, maybe we’re at the point of around 1947, when they lost India but were still big enough of a power to be respected by most of the world. We have not reached the point of the 1990s, when all was truly lost for England and she was no better than any of the other social-welfare states in Europe. We are not there yet, but we ARE getting there rapidly.
I was primarily pointing out the similarities to the fall of the Roman Republic in the first century B.C.
Tell me Mr. Clayton. what were those similiars you pointed out?
When England declined there were two young super-powers right there, to remind the Brits that they were no longer superpowers, whereas right now, there is no real competitor for us, although China looms.
In his late-night radio show on WMAL, John Batchelor (http://www.wmal.com/showdj.asp?DJID=9992) interviews people with expertise in foreign affairs. Last night he was discussing the effects of recent U.S. behavior re Libya, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. One point made was that the Saudi’s are turning away from us for their weapons and security concerns and towards China. Essentially, by doing what we’ve done we’ve declared that we are not concerned with our overseas interests; and China is stepping in to fill the gap.
(Interestingly enough, China also figured in the problems facing the Romans. China sold silk and pottery via the Silk Road, but would only take gold in exchange. Eventually Rome’s gold reserves suffered.)
The article is, of course, most provocative.
And yet, however that might be, I wonder, can the summation of comparison between the USA (or, Italy or, England or, Sweden or any nation)and ancient Rome (or, any nation) in development of empire—and then, apparently consequential decay, more succinctly—and perhaps, more plainly—be shown through looking one layer behind; which is, simply in notice of a most natural lazy streak but ungoverned, as ultimately causal in the proliferation of citizens everywhere seeking to exist on others’ perspiration; producers versus suckers; or: “Who, and just how many will finagle to live on some governmental teat?”?
I wonder, . . .
This comparison has been being made for the last 60 years at least. Find a new theme.
I’ll find a new theme when we stop going down the path of destruction.
Thomas Madden’s “Empires of Trust” presents a “new theme.”
You mean “When history quits repeating itself”?
Oldtimers remember a best-selling book of decades ago, “The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire”. It, like this thoughtful article, drew parallels between us and the Romans, citing multi-ethnicity, corruption such as debasement of the currency, democracy with people voting for entitlements, and moral decay. Isn’t that the pattern of all wealthy nations in history? Doesn’t the Bible cover the topic with the warning that it’s more difficult for a rich man to reach Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle? Scott Fitzgerald compared the morals of the rich to the typical American of the pre-FDR era; he even stated, “The rich are different from you and me”, and his books centered on the moral vacuum of the wealthy class. The old adage, “An idle mind is the devil’s workshop” also implies that human nature’s dark side is always a threat to any society.
What happened to the typical Italian when the corrupt regime finally collapsed? They did not all suddenly die; instead, they survived through hard times, and embraced a religion which focused on the human spirit, with emphasis on individual accountability and a common code of conduct. Of course, non-Italians were more like the outer fringes of Mexico, where the laws were never enforced, leading to anarchy and chaos.
Libertyship46 draws a more accurate parallel, in my opinion. We did not incorporate the countries of Europe or Japan at the end of WWII, or any other country freed from totalitarianism by our military. It’s ironic that as we fought the USSR militarily, at the same time we, along with every European country, copied its model of wealth redistribution.
Now we’ve all run out of money to redistribute, as anyone can verify by looking at page 97 of the 2010 IRS Instructions for Form 1040; simple math based on their piecharts of income vs outlay show in FY2009 SS, Medicare, Medicaid and their portion of debt interest exceeded the entire federal income. The big question is if there is enough rugged individualism left in America to bite the fiscal bullet and admit socialism doesn’t work.
“The big question—-”. The answer is NO.
The problem is that most minority groups wont rally around the Constitution and Flag with the White Euro Christian Males.
They rally around redistributing their wealth to themselves, which they think that they are entitled to, because white Euros, Christians, and males have oppressed the globe and women for a very long time.
Im afraid that we are going to have to go through some hard times before we gather the courage to rally around our core culture, religion and tribe again.
Interesting. I am just finishing an amazing book about the fall of Rome and the rise of ‘Roman’ Byzantium. Roman culture to a large extent continued in halting ways until the taking of Constantinople in the 1440′s by the Muslims. A good Byzantine citizen in Constantinople in 873 would not have known what a Byzantine citizen was as he considered himself a Roman. Albeit the empire in the West did indeed fall to the barbarians and parts of it later to the great march of Islam.
One of the more fascinating anecdotes regarding Alaric’s sacking of Rome on Sept. 4 2010, is that the Roman Senate sat arrgogantly in their palaces and in the Senate feeling assured that this COULD NOT happen to them, afterall the ancient imperial city of Rome had not been taken in 800 years and surely their walls would hold out the barbarians. They had no fear of these filthy wannabes from the north. As we know it didn’t work out to well for Rome. (Note: In the sacking they opened Augustus Ceasers tomb and scattered his ashes to the winds)
What is of interest in this parallel is the unbelievable arrogance that we see in Washington among our politicians. Our elite betters in politics, academia, and ‘the in the know intellectual crowd’ know that ‘It Can’t Happen Here” no matter what we do; deficits, debt, spend-spend-spend, big government control, big government programs, etc. because we are above that.
Hopefully we lowly common citizens can hold these self serving elites back from taking the whole wagon over the cliff. Be advised it CAN happen here. The Romans found out to late. When was the last time you met a Latin speaking Roman?
You make references to Byzantine Empire and to Byzantine citizens. Need to be rather careful. The term “Eastern Roman Empire” is somewhat like the “Holy Roman Empire” ie, none of these three terms.
The Byzantine domain (in many regards this fuzzy over the centuries “domain” doesn’t conform to the term “empire” in either legal, political or economic definition) was East of Rome, for sure, but so was Persia and China – so the geographic orientation is vacuous. Finally, it wasn’t Roman but Greek (and much can be said about how much of the “roman” itself is in effect “hellenistic” to start with).
Eventually Byzantium becomes quite Greek, but as late as Justinian, they are still issuing law in Latin.
I will indeed be careful. Still my intent was not to write a history of the Roman world East or West. Yes, Byzantium eventually dumped Latin for Greek, I am certainly aware of that (to the point where it was nearly impossible to interpret the law written in Latin as no one could read it, or so I have read) and that the culture got very mixed over the centuries as did the West in the end.
Thank you and good point, I read history, love it and do not claim to be the world’s authority on the Byzantine Empire. In my day job I am a business owner who sees first hand what our leaders are doing and am not very happy with any of them and yes see the past as a means of interpreting events in the future. Humans do not change much so history is a very sound guide. Thank you Mr. Cramer and Byzantium and the other Byzantium as well.
Actually, a good case can be made that Rome was Greek (or rather, the westernmost outpost of Classical culture), but that Constantinople was Persian (or rather, the northwesternmost outpost of a “Magian” culture that encompassed Byzantium, Persian, and various Muslim cultures of the Middle East). Mehmet II was analogous to Augustus in Rome and Liu Bang in China: the first true emperor.
I can appreciate the attempt to draw parallels between the Roman Empire and the U.S. but, you will have to dig very deep to find anyone in the Roman Empire as ineffective, incompetent, and ignorant as the president we now have at the helm of our country.
I don’t think it is possible to find any Roman individual, that has been recorded in history, to be as worthless as Obama. Romans could not live long enough to be that useless.
One point should emanate though; History is not being recorded anymore.
Nero definitely exceeds Obama–and I consider Obama the most incompetent and ignorant person to hold that office that I can remember. “What an artist the world is losing,” were reputed to be Nero’s last words. I won’t even discuss Nero’s bizarre sexual sadism.
Exceeding Obama?
Nero, of noble parentage (certified). Nero, schooled by Seneca. Nero, adopted by Claudius. Nero, running a responsible and moderate administration. Nero, rebuilding at his personal cost what he had burned. Nero, a great lover. Nero, an achiever.
Nero. Not a Zero.
Nero certified? Certainly certifiable by the end. A bit too in love with cruelty and sexual sadism.
Nero was a monster. The man used Christians as torches to light his various orgies and other disgusting plans. It’s a shame that monster lived as long as he did.
Nero, rebuilding at his personal cost what he had burned.
There is considerable doubt that Nero was responsible for the great Roman fire, and he also didn’t “fiddle,” but instead participated directly in the fire brigades. I’m not rehabilitating Nero — just pointing out what has come to light about that episode in his reign.
Nero? Caligula?
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/emperors/tp/070810-5-Worst-Roman-Emperors.htm
Okay; I’ll play along.
Nero was much more of an accomplished man than Obama. Has Obama sung anything of note? Rebuilt anything of note? Actually DONE anything of note? And I don’t consider signing his name to a massive piece of legislation, or spending more lavishly on his entertainment pursuits, to be ‘accomplishments’. (Although, he has been treated like ‘royalty’ by the Democrat Party and the groveling media.)
Nero might have been more evil than good, but, that is about the only parallel I can find between these two.
The key point is absolutely applicable to the US today.
The central problem, even more central than marxist sedition, is that the wealth and power of the federal government has grown so massive that few can resist the temptation to enrich and enpower themselves. It only takes a little nibbling at the borders for an ordinary person to become wealthy and powerful beyond anything previously in history. Consider Harry Reid, an ordinary man and a Mormon, who, with no talent, has converted himself into a capo with unimaginable power and wealth. Harry isn’t capable of running a gas station, no matter making decisions that impact every person in this country.
If 10% of the elected officials in the federal government are honest, I’d be shocked to learn it. And the bureaucrats deep into the system are the same.
I don’t trust a single Democrat, a single bureaucrat, and no more than a handful of Republicans. And I know I’m not alone. Actually, it’s far worse than distrust. I consider them to be some of the greatest criminals who ever lived.
It seems that the criminality is increasingly more blatant, arrogant of the ones (us) who must pick up the tab and suffer the consequences from decisions made by thugs in suits.
Now, it looks like thousands of American young men and women will be sent into warring wealthy Middle East nations who (having plenty money and manpower) could fight their own battles.
Be sure to go register for the draft; if you want to be in line for a government loan or government job…or see the sunny Mediterranean.
Indeed. I suspect that our national dissolution will accelerate dramatically when a sufficiently large percentage of the population no longer identifies with, or takes any pride in being, American. Our Communist-in-Chief has done a great deal to hasten that particular portion of our decline. I’m not sure where the tipping point is in this regard, or indeed, if we can pull back from this particular precipice, but I do know that if Mr. Obama secures a second term, we’ll come perilously close.
A large percentage of the people now living in America don’t identify with America because they are not Americans. American society was the way it was because it was created by Americans (a mixture of NW Europeans — mainly Celts and Germanic peoples). The society and political system they created were a projection of their common characteristics. Italians created Italian society and politics; Irish, French, etc., ditto. Arabs in the US cannot assimilate into American society because Arabs live in tribal societies. Always have, probably always will. That’s why there have been no Arab democracies, and cannot be. Tribes vie with each other for dominance, and when they achieve it, they plunder everybody else, until they get knocked off in their turn. Tribal peoples are most likely particularly able to resist assimilation in another nation. Ties of ancestry accompany alien groups into whatever state they invade. The US can best be compared to the Weimar Republic in Germany (as opposed to the Weimar Republic in Cuba?). That society was destroyed by aliens (Gramscians of the Frankfurt School) who gradually rendered all of the society’s definitive rules ineffective. The society, defined and maintained by a common set of accepted rules, traditions, religion, then dis-integrated (think about that word).
Although Anglo-Germanic grammar can be idiosyncratic, singular subjects like system, take singular verbs. Do not be distracted by other plural elements in the sentence.
Damn D-White, that’s near Birkenstocked Red Magic Marker Neck! Or maybe just plain Birkie Red Neck from here on out. You know, like 500mcg Newspeak.
Great job in the Tingler too. You delivered the line “Well cut my head off” with the same kind of authority.
You walk into the room
With your pencil in your hand
Of course we’re goin’ down.
In the last few weeks, seeing videos of restaurant/subway/bus fist fights, shopping center flash riots and sneering, swaggering gang regalia baby daddies and jaw jutting teen moms loaded with shopping bags; what do you think will happen when the entitlement gravy train goes off the rails?
Or am I not being civil?
The point is that history provides lessons that, if learned, can enable those in the present to avoid the pitfalls of the past. Unfortunately one sign of decline is the refusal to do just this. People refuse to learn from the past because they “know better” or believe that they are dramatically different from – and superior to – their ancestors. Time and again it is amply demonstrated that this is not true but this too is a sign of decline and that part of the lesson is also ignored. Some put their faith in technology or ideology and fondly believe that if we employ the right gadgets or get everybody to think the right thoughts all will be well. But the key is humanity itself. People are free to make the decisions that shape the future. The decisions that count are moral decisions – the best technology ever conceived in the hands of a corrupt fool will result in destructive consequences every time. This lesson too is ignored by those who “know better”.
Once was every few years someone wrote an article on how America is collapsing like Rome. If the American Republic goes the way of the Roman Republic, the American Empire can look forward to almost 500 more years of dominating the world. What a way to go!
Don’t you think Thucydides (“Civil War in Corcyra,” translation by Rex Warner) is more or less comparable as well?
“To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; ….”
“Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership, since party members were more ready to go to any extreme for any reason whatever.”
“There was a general deterioration of the character throughout the … world….. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each side viewed the other with suspicion.”
“Indeed, it is true that in these acts of revenge on others men take it upon themselves to begin the process of repealing those general laws of humanity which are there to given a hope of salvation to all who are in distress, instead of leaving those laws in existance, remembering that there may come a time when they, too, will be in danger and will need their protection” [This is the theme of "A Man for All Seasons."]
I (and Thucydides) could go on.
Essay needs to be cleaned up. Does the author support the criminalization of men who pay for sexual fun that the feminists are now pushing? Throwing “prostitution” (which had been going on the entire history of Rome) in with “ease of divorce” is just a way of saying that you think Rome fell because social conservatism wasn’t followed while ignoring the fact that Rome fell AFTER IT TURNED “CHRISTIAN” (went soft, turned the other cheek, abandoned polygamy).
The author is also ignoring the current alliance between Christians and feminists to regulate men on tons of issues, including backbreaking child support. It’s OK to go after feminism as one factor in the downfall of Rome but it’s unfair to go after the idea that men of that period might have wanted to do what they wanted and sire a few kids without regulations like the infamous Bachelor Tax, which apparently only served to tell Roman men that monogamous marriage was not otherwise in their interest, or the excessive child support laws of today.
Wouldn’t American men create more babies if child support laws were altered so the men wouldn’t have to pay more than $400 per month in child support?
Russia is willing to subsidize baby production. Why are Americans determined to punish men for getting women pregnant?
Oh yes. I remember Republicans being fooled by rhetoric during the 1980s about “irresponsible black men” creating lots of unwed pregnancies, and responded to this by aligning with feminists to raise child support payments to amounts so high that no sane man would want to get a woman pregnant in the US anymore.
We wouldn’t have a population problem if there were more pregnancies. Just give men the signal that it won’t destroy their lives and they’ll hop to it.
Also, want more marriage? End alimony (and stealth alimony) as an institution. Look out for men’s rights and they will rebuild the civilization that turned its back on them when it turned into a matriarchy, supported by white knights and manginas, 40 years ago.
“Rome fell AFTER IT TURNED “CHRISTIAN” (went soft, turned the other cheek, abandoned polygamy).”
Although not because of it. Rodney Stark’s book The Rise of Christianity points out that Christians reproduced like bunny rabbits, while pagan Romans did not. But that was not enough, especially after the various plagues went through the Empire.
Interestingly enough, I have heard that the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was initiated because of Rome’s population issues, and the subsequent dropping revenue.
“The author is also ignoring the current alliance between Christians and feminists to regulate men on tons of issues, including backbreaking child support. It’s OK to go after feminism as one factor in the downfall of Rome”
Feminism? What? The problem had more to do with the collapse of traditional Roman virtues in many areas, of which marriage was one. “Current alliance”? Sorry, but you are imagining this.
Child support is backbreaking, I’m sure. So is raising a child without help from the father. Making divorce the norm has certainly made all of these problems much worse.
If turning Christian is what did the Roman Empire in, it’s because the Christians quite reasonably regarded the Roman Empire as not being worth defending. After all, centuries of persecution had rendered the government loathsome in the eyes of many Christians. Who wants to fight for a country that slaughtered your brethren for centuries without cause?
That argument doesn’t fly after Constantine swapped Christianity in for the old polytheism in what otherwise remained unaltered as a state unseparated from religion.
In other words, while Christianity in particular may not have toppled Rome, it certainly did nothing to alter its decline.
Sigh.
Please.
all this tells you is that crochety old people have been crying “doom! Doom! Doom!” for centuries.
You had all that, a few respectable plagues, and some weather jolts. Mostly plagues and weather jolts. That’s why people invest in Ag colleges, to increase yields. For that matter, that’s why we get hopped up on vaccines. And, gosh, even the global warming hysteria fed into the ‘weather stabilization’ notion. We’ve been trying to avert romefall2.0 for a thousand years.
I’d like to point out that boomers getting up on virtuous are a sick, sick joke. Highest rate of STD’s, divorces, and abortions. Not the whippersnappers growing up in the ruins of what remained after the lifeline temper tantrum of a giant generation.
As it happens, I addressed this severely flawed comparison two months ago.
Simply, I find it thoroughly irrelevant.
Aside from the fact that you have to refer to the fall of the Western Empire 500 years after the transformation of the Republic, incidentally overlooking that the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire kept going for another 1,000 years, you also have to overlook the numerous other factors affecting Rome shortly before the Republic became the Principate.
Yes, there was “peace” after the Third Punic War – well, except for the Jugurthine War, the Cimbrian War, the Servile Wars – which included the rise of Crassus, the Social War, the Mithradatic Wars – which led directly to Sulla’s Civil Wars, the campaign against the Cilician Pirates – which led to the rise of Pompey, and the Gallic Wars – which of course featured the rise of Caesar.
Then there was the massive surge in slavery and resultant economic disruption caused by all the victories in those wars, which tended to restrict the actual extent of prosperity, as did the proscriptions of the Sullan Civil Wars.
As for the use of “barbarians”, it must be noted that prior to the Germanic Migrations, the Roman Empire had assimilated massive foreign populations, particularly the “barbarians” of Hispania (Spain and Portugal), Gaul (France), Brittania (England, Wales, and part of Scotland), as well as the civilized people of the rest of the Mediterranean region. The problem with the Germanic Migrations was significantly more complex than just the migration.
Then of course there is the issue as to just how much of a Republic the Roman Republic actually was, given that the Roman Senate was not an elected body.
So yes, those are all very critical issues. I’m sure I’ll be quite worried about them in another century or five or ten when they’ve actually affected the United States for as long as they affected Rome before taking it down. Until then, a few vague and distant equivalencies simply do not make the cut.
You forgot one thing, the compression of time/communication and its effect on speeding the whole process.
I did not forget it all.
While the Romans may not have had instanteous communications or jets, they still had a remarkably efficient system of roads and relay stations for communications. That’s how revolts could start so quickly when an Emperor died, and how later civil wars over the succession could be resolved so rapidly.
However, compression of communications still does not effect 100-500 years of social evolution, political evolution, and population migration into 1-10 years. Even pushing it to 10-50 years requires a rather extreme stretch, and ignoring a similar “big picture” look at the evolutions that have occurred in American history.
There are so many things wrong with your list that I almost don’t know where to start. The dramatic expansion of slavery caused enormous wealth, especially for those with the capital to buy slaves and take advantage of the unenforceability of existing Roman law about private use of seized land that led to the Gracchian reforms.
Yes, there were wars after the Third Punic War, but these were not generally existential threats to Rome’s continued operation. (Although Spartacus got close.) Many of these were wars of imperial expansion that made Rome rich. (And that is one of the differences between us and Rome.)
Nor did I ever claim that the migration of the barbarians was the core of the problem. It was a symptom of the problem of low birthrate.
Just remember one thing, the barbarians are not at the gates, they are inside, this barbarian is socialism not Attila but every bit as deadly to our civilization.
The trouble is that this comparison has been made so often, it’s lost all force. Comparing the present to the fall of Rome is the secular equivalent of saying that the “Last Days” of the Bible have arrived: everyone does and has been doing it for centuries, without ever getting it right.
It would be more compelling if you used a parallel to some lesser-known historical decline. US=Rome isn’t a very good parallel anyway. The US has more in common with Rome’s enemy, Carthage, an entrepreneurial culture which finally collapsed when its venal elite placed profit above victory.
There is more than a passing resemblance between the role of the Praetorian Guard and today’s public employee unions: pay them well and they’ll keep you in power. When you need a good rent-a-mob to intimidate your opponents, just whistle.
A better comparison is what the Praetorian Guard becomes: the chooser of the Emperor. Labor unions, by deciding who the Democratic candidate will be much of the country, makes the decision that matters.
List here the Janissaries too -
Let me first make a general remark.
To Regional Economists and Geographers (my field) the subject of “Empires” is basically a subject of “economies” and “diseconomies of scale.” Spatial entities (be those empires, countries, states, cities and/or any other legal unit break apart when the splitting forces – pull factors – overtake the join in forces – push factors, or agglomeration effects. These factors include both tangible demographic and economic components, as well as intangible cultural, religious etc components. Statistical (so-called ‘factor’) analysis is rather difficult to carry out to discern the exact contribution of each force at a specific point in space and time, but the qualitative aspects of this macro analysis is unmistakably valid, to an extent.
Now, a specific remark as far as the “Roman Empire” and the present day US are concerned.
The Roman Empire gradually disintegrated in the first three centuries AD, the “West” part of that Empire that is, following the death of Gaius Julius Ceasar Augustus. The “Eastern” part (the Greek, or Hellenistic part) kept growing following the disintegration of the Macedonian Empire into various parts after Alexander’s death – but then kept rising again under Roman rule and especially under the reign of Emperor Constantine and the formal adoption of Christianity as the state’s religion. Emperor Justinian tried to expand West but the Roman Catholic Church resisted it. By that time, Latin was hardly spoken in the Byzantine Empire, as Greek became the lingua franca of the domain. Of course, following the destruction of Constantinople by the crusaders of the fourth Crucade, and the conquering islam two centuries later put an end to a weakened Byzantium.
Now, what’s the point of this brief summary? It’s one that usually escapes historical, demographic and economic analysis by overemphasizing “process” and de-emphasize “people” – great men/women. My point is that the historical narrative tends to be “marxist” as it focuses on some inevitable “process” and a “destiny” type of Analysis suggesting events could only be the way they have been conveniently “recorded” by past and current historians. But that’s not the case. My brief narrative above is full of NAMES, great names in fact; things went wrong with the Roman Empire because no one the size of Julius Ceasar lived after him. Same thing with Alexander, Constantine and Justinian, Hellenism and Byzantium.
And this leads me to today’s US. No matter what the demographic and economic state of the Union is at present, it’s the size of its leaders that matter. Ronald Reagan was a great man, the equivalent of those great men I just mentioned. All those coming after him are simply dwarfs compared to him, with the icing on that cake being the current fraud occupying the WH. That’s, in my view, the lesson from the Roman Empire’s decline (and all Emprires’ eventual decline): they run out of great men.
Nice response; Especially the summation.
It’s more than merely great men, it’s a very complex set of interactions between the men and women themselves, the nature of the society, and the outside world. George Washington is great, but he could only do what he did at one specific place and time; if he had been born in Russia or France, things might have been difference.
The unique greatness of Washington certianly had to do with the place and time, or more specifically a place and time that included Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Mason, and a few others. If there was any other magic about the place and time, it was that it inherited its concept of local government from Germany, and its concept of national government from England. What a failure had it been the other way around!
good post
And who do the barbarians attack nowadays? The great men. Reagan specifically, but he was strong enough to defeat them. So was Thatcher. Dubya was stong enough to survive but not to thrive. All endured hell.
I’m not one who is yearning for Palin, but your post makes me wonder about her. She certainly has the “barbarian attack” part down cold.
Great men are often underestimated because of the Marxian emphasis of history–but at the core of the collapse of the Roman Republic were impersonal economic forces, such as the declining birthrate. The end of the Roman Climate Optimum plays a major role in the decline of the Western Roman Empire, both because of economic decline caused by climate, and because barbarians moving west from central Asia in response to the climate induced struggles.
Nonetheless, there were certainly great men comparable to Julius Caesar, such as Augustus and Tiberius. The problem is that they were often not good men. There are plenty of “great men” in the late Roman Republic whose pursuit of power and wealth took precedence over everything that had made the Republic great.
Indeed Clayton, they were “important” men but in my definition they weren’t “great” at par with JC. You see, I don’t buy into the theory that Mao, Stalin and Hitler were great men, although they certainly were important (not that I wish to equate Tiberius or Augustus to these criminals). For example, Cleitus, Hephaestion and Ptolemy were important generals, but not at par with Alexander.
As to the role that ‘climate change’ and the ‘hords from the East’ playing a role in the decline – sure, along with a multitude of others. But if there were leaders capable of rising to the occasion so to speak, they would have acted to prevent what happened by being capable to assemble the empire’s vast human, capital, technology and other resources to the fullest and thus counter the threat. Indeed, they would look at these threats/dangers as opportunities, as JC did prior to them. But none was capable of doing so, although I understand it’s much easier to accept the “inevitability” hypothesis than the counter “what if” argument. The later obviously is laking in direct evidence which the former basks in (however spurious), but (in my view) it’s valid as reasonable inference (see my narrative above).
BTW, I appreciate all the commenters’ posts in response to my original post – the article was certainly thought provoking and the quality of almost all 80-some comments is testament to that, never mind the whatever minor disagreements which have surfaced, Clayton.
The Roman Republic lasted 500 years and was Pagan. The Roman Empire lasted 334 years as a Pagan worshipping world power. The Empire crumbled 163 years after Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Empire. 843 years as Pagan…163 as Christian. I think this is a much more applicable comparison.
As Mr Cramer pointed out previously, don’t confuse the western empire with the eastern (Byzantine) empire. Constantine I moved to Constantinople, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I) and the (Christian) Byzantine empire lasted until 1453. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_XI)
(In any event, speaking as a Christian, one would expect a Christian empire to be under attack more heavily than a pagan one).
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what conclusion we’re supposed to derive from your statement. You seem to think you’ve written something brilliantly obvious.
The crumbling started, however, well before Christianity.
Blaming Christianity, while indirectly praising paganism (Romans weren’t pagans – but this is a minor detail here to you “argument”), as the reason for the fall of the “Roman Empire” is as ludicrous as blaming “Friday” from:
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/03/18/in-defense-of-rebecca-blacks-friday-music-video/#comment-58341
for the collapse of western civ. No wonder we’re stuck with BHO in the WH, when we have people who think like this in our midst. Read more carefully p. 2 of the article, it might assist your.
N-n-n-nnOT a-all o-of us w-were b-b-b-bbbAAAD. I tr — I tr – di-did m-my l-l-EVEL b-best un-un-unti-til my f-fu-fuc-DAMNED wife m-made me e-e-EAT th-those m-m-mm-USH-rooms
–C-C-laudius.
Cramer says:
” Abortion, contraception, infanticide, prostitution, and homosexuality also dramatically lowered birthrates.”
Bingo. Their detrimental effects go far beyond demography, and their consequences for the decline of Rome apply to the current West as a whole, not just the US.
Agree. Although don’t know if this is a cause, result or symptom.
America has murdered 73,000,000 of its future citizens and contracepted who knows how many more.
Meanwhile, many have children to increase the government handouts they bring in…but virtually abandon them to a fatherless, hopeless, antisocial existence.
Not exactly the best way to build a selfless, dedicated, patriotic citizenry.
If you don’t understand this article you are still a sleeping LIberal !
Yup hordes of aliens overrun the empire in its waning days, and government HANDOUTS became a way of life for many. Yes the similarities are compelling but never fear. We are not like the Romans because they were mere mortals. The left has created the Socialist Man who is a far better creation than that which was wrought by the hand of God. So you see we are very different because there is no longer such a quaint idea as human nature and its corollary natural law. Again the idea the hand of God offends. So even though our once great Republic has shown itself to be in the last stages of almost irreversible decadence, never fear. Socialist Man will triumph.
It’s only a matter of time before the DOD takes over: a population which has voted for a Mohammedan barbarian for president, still supported by half the population, no longer deserves democracy.
Goodbye America, and thanks for everything.
If we were an Empire like Rome, we would take what we need to get out of hock. Instead, we give away what we need to go belly up!
” At least one of the causes of the fall of the Roman republic was that armies became increasingly loyal to their general — not to the Roman republic. (That’s why, when you take your oath entering the U.S. military, it is to uphold the Constitution — not your commander.) ”
I hate to disappoint you on this, but they may have taken an oath to the Constitution, but they are blindly following the enemy. A good doctor Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, did the right thing. He tried to have his questions answered about Obama’s eligibility because there are so many questions. He went all the way up the chain of command as required, he even wrote Obama personally. His representative John Kyle ignored him, and dismissed him. He sits in prison now. Why? For honoring his oath to the Constitution, not the man. The rest of the Military are following the man, even though he is the enemy within.
My husband and I agree that if Obama ordered our military to kill Americans to retain power, it’s 50/50 he would be stopped or the majority would obey his order. I don’t have the faith in the Military hierarchy. They are not General George Washingtons.
They make the perfect Obots. Follow orders without question. That sounds more like an oath to a man than the Constitution. I guess our founders were relying on people with true courage. I’ve lost faith in our Military. Not the soldiers, the ones making the decisions.
Fortunately we now have the Oath Keepers to at least give the regime cause for worry. May their ranks continue to grow!
While it’s impossible to know such things in advance, I suspect that if Obama tried to send the Army against the populace desertions and fraggings would both skyrocket. The deserters, of course, would bring with them all the weapons they could get their hands on. Who knows, they mayhem might go all the way to the top and a few members of Obama’s Secret Service retinue might decide to introduce him to the ghost of Indira Gandhi.
The ultimate deterrent, of course, is a well-armed civilian population, which is precisely why the 2nd Amendment exists. Combine that with thousands of battle-tested deserters (plus their advanced weaponry) and a fractured, demoralized and exhausted army stands little chance. Heck, the Afghan resistance sent the Red Army packing and is about to do the same to the Imperial Yankee Army. Surely we can do so as well.
Here is a quote you might enjoy from the most courageous of all Generals.
The right wing, where I stood, was exposed to and received all the enemy’s fire … I heard the bullets whistle, and, believe me, there is something charming in the sound.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to his brother, May 31, 1754
the fall of the Roman Republic, yes, the fall of Rome, no.
Your title is misleading, especially since, alas, few younger readers know anything about Roman history (except for HBO Rome, of course).
But your arguments have some merit. I myself see the Gracchi brother’s attempt to subvert the Senate and customs of Rome “for a good cause” similar to what is happening in Wisconsin.
The US is a republic, not a democracy. Democracy easily can degenerate into mob rule by a demagogue. In a Republic, all interested parties have a say in the matter, and there is a balance of power to prevent any one segment of the population, even a majority, from taking over and lording it over the others.
Maybe someone should explain these things to Obama, who ran rough shod over the Republicans in the health care bill, and to the Republican right, who is trying to do the same thing, both in the name of “democracy”…
It seems apparent to me the reason Rome fell and the reason the United States is falling is that they and we believe in no one and no thing greater than ourselves. Neither they nor we are big enough to hold that belief, successfully.
Joe
There isn’t a mass murder in history that was not committed in the name of “something greater” than the individual human life being massacred.
It’s in primitive statements like that where the genesis of civilization’s collapse are to be seen — not in things like homosexuality or divorce (!)
America, with its principle notion of the inalienable individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — his own happiness — was the antidote to such moral cannibalism; may it become so once again, before the cannibals become too numerous.
Clayton: wasn’t the Roman Empire becoming so large geographically after Julius Caesar with acquisitions and immigrants that governing was becoming an issue? Was this a huge factor? There must have been a tipping point. Provincial governors lining their own pockets. Nibbling around the edges then the Barbarian influx. The Roman Army not being paid? Religion?
The Roman Empire was the violence machinery.The violence of the slavery and of the colonization.Despite the BBC films, Romans where not the most developed people in the Empire.The counteraction had grown,while the forces of the aggression had weakened.The rediculousness of the rised question is connected with the idea of the cultural and civilization greatness of the Roman Empire,the idea that was created by the Church and Eurocentrists.
The “rised” question? What language are you speaking?
Alert! Def Con Level Birkenstocked Red Pencil Neck!
Pick It Fence BUT reduced to nostalgic knee jerk correcting of homework hallucinations on line due to long lost power over captive classrooms! Federalist Papers now BUT a distant 500mcg echo!
Let them eat “rised” tweed! Then -
Nuke ‘em Dano-White!
And you say, “Impossible”
As he hands you a bone.
SSSSSSSSST; Bang!!!!!
One similarity that Mr. Cramer did not specifically mention is that in present-day America, as in the decades leading up to Rome’s collapse, people of any means normally do not serve in the military. Some do, but not many, and this is true of liberals as well as conservatives.
Correction: I should have said the elite as opposed to “people of any means.” Plenty of middle-class folks do serve.
Your articles are uniformly excellent Clayton.
Rome fell due to their expensive excess of their love for the “bread & circus” lifestyle and over taxation of the people. They also eventually used foreigners to aid in their defense, which did not have a patriotic allegiance to their homeland, like a native born citizen would’ve had for Rome.
Well stated; now try not only soldiers that weren’t “native born citizens” with allegiance to Rome, but a non native born citizen of Rome as Rome’s Emperor, and you have the US of today.
Good book on this subject is “Family and Civilization” 1947 by Carle C. Zimmerman. He compares Rome to what has happened in the USA. He was way ahead of his time on this subject.
Read “Suicide of the West,” (1964) by James Burnham. Then read Brigitte Gabriel, Mark Steyn and ….
Rodney Stark’s data on fewer child marriages was interesting. Though, even if Christendom WAS better than the pagan world, the common law rule, up until recently permitted teens to get marriage at shockingly young ages.
This is from James Wilson’s lecture on laws.
“Disability to contract marriage may arise from immature age. A man, as we have seen before,q may consent to marriage at fourteen; a woman, at twelve years of age. If, before those respective ages, a marriage take place, either party may, at the age of consent, but not before or after that age, disagree, declare the marriage void, and marry again: but if, at the age of consent, they agree to continue together, there is no occasion for another marriage between them; that which has taken place being deemed a marriage, though only an inchoate and imperfect one. If, at the time of the inchoate marriage, one of the parties is, and the other is not of the age of consent, when the last arrives at that age, the first as well as the last may disagree; for in a contract of marriage, both or neither must be bound.r”
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2011/03/james-wilsons-understanding-of.html
Does anyone here today speculate that in say two thousand years historians will lament the fall of the Confederacy?
Obama’s Fiscal Armageddon
No one could possibly say that this president of ours isn’t always on the job, highly-attuned to his responsibilities, committed to serving the American people. As incontrovertible proof of all that, he abbreviated his South and Central American jaunt and headed home–a full two hours earlier than planned.
Nevermind those allegations that heading off with family in tow for Brazil when Japan was on the verge of exploding, when Libya was in critical meltdown, when Wisconsin was in revolt was ill-conceived and outrageously-timed. Obama’s finger was on the pulse of national and world events at all times. He even passed up an excursion to Mayan ruins to accent his dedication and jetted home from his 5 day trip–two hours early.
Who knows what inspired the sudden attack of awareness that he should be in Washington rather than in Latin America? After all, he was as well capable of tending to the affairs of state in Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador as he was in the White House. And never you mind, you naysayers and Obama-bashers carping that he never should have left D.C. in the first place during upheavals at home and abroad! Just disregard the messages of detachment and disinterest sent by an American president going on another vacation during these tempestuous times.
Malia and Sasha were on spring break. He had to take them somewhere!
But, the enigma remains: Why the rush back? Lord help us if it were because of Liz Taylor’s death! That’s doubtful, although anything is possible with a star-struck president so enamored with the Hollywood set.
Perhaps he had to get back because his Libyan coalition which had never really coalesced was rapidly disintegrating or because word had leaked out that the administration is considering for FBI chief a candidate who would make Gaius Caligula’s appointment of his horse as Roman senator seem like a stroke of genius.
Then, again, Obama’s Libyan war that is not a war couldn’t be the cause of his hasty retreat home since his non-war strategy couldn’t be any murkier whether he was in the lands of latinos or in the White House. And, as for short-listing Jamie Gorelick . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3951
I liked the article. Maybe if people would bother to read a book from time to time they would learn something. Maybe it would make them think and want to learn for themselves. Most of the comments here are just plain stupid. I don’t know this for a fact but it appears as though most of the people here can’t think before they talk resulting in them looking like total fools.
IMHO gommygoomy has it right. Great post.
I did not know that Apple and Microsoft worked together to create software.