Perhaps the best explanation for the frustration of
President Trump's first Hundred Days can be found in a not-much-read book by
Niccolo Machiavelli.
The
great Florentine political thinker is best-known today for The Prince. But his most
extended work -- which also showed the shape of Machiavelli's heart -- are the Discourses on Livy. It's an
extended meditation on democratic politics in a republic, as exemplified by the
history of Rome. Machiavelli, as always, doesn't mince words -- and he has some
extremely pertinent (and uncomfortable) things to say to us.
Here's the question: have the American
people been so corrupted by the welfare state that they can no longer reclaim
their liberty? Is restoration of the American republic along the lines
originally conceived by the Founders, impossible?
Machiavelli
offers us ways to think about how to answer these questions. He does it by
reviewing Roman history with an eye to contemporary political problems of his
own time.
Machiavelli wrote in the 1510s, when Italy
was divided into warring city-states, His native Florence had tried to maintain
itself as a republic, but foreign invaders and the Medici family
overturned that. As a republican, Machiavelli himself lost office and suffered
torture and exile when the Medici returned to power.
In
Chapter 16 of the Discourses
on Livy, Machiavelli remarks that “a people that is corrupted through and
through cannot live in liberty for even a short period...” When a state become
free, “all those who fed off” the state become “hostile factions.” However,
when the Romans overthrew the Tarquin kings in 510 B.C., they were able to establish
and maintain a republic which lasted until the time of Julius Caesar.
This
was possible, says Machiavelli, because, while the Tarquin kings were corrupt,
the Roman people were not. “Had the Roman populace been corrupted, there would
have been no effective way for them to keep their liberty.”
In
Chapter 17, Machiavelli contrasts this state of affairs with what prevailed in
Rome in 44 B.C. when Julius Caesar was assassinated as dictator-for-life by
senators anxious to restore the Republic. Also with what occurred when, in 68
A.D., the line of Julio-Claudian emperors expired with the death of Nero. On
both occasions, it proved impossible to revive the Republic.
Machiavelli
writes:
“[W]ith
the deaths of Caesar, Gaius Caligula, and Nero, and the whole of Caesar's line
extinguished, Rome could not maintain its liberty, let alone lay a foundation
for it. Such diverse results came about... because in the era of the Tarquin
kings the Roman populace were not yet corrupted, while by the later imperial
times they had become quite corrupt. In later years, Brutus' authority and
severity with all his eastern legions, were not enough to make the Romans want
to maintain the liberty that he, like the first Brutus [who overthrew the
Tarquin kings], had restored to them.”
He
explains further:
“[T]he
institutions and laws created in a state at its birth, when men were good, are
no longer relevant once men have become evil. Even if laws in a state vary
according to circumstances, its institutions rarely, if ever do. This means
that new laws are not enough, because the institutions that remain unchanged
will corrupt them.”
It
should not have been surprising, therefore, that the Democrats, the MSM,
academia, and many corporate and other leaders united with the leftist street
to launch the “resistance.” Or that, so far, not one Democrat in Congress has
broken party ranks to support Trumpian reforms. This weekend, they will be
touting their success in stalling and, sometimes, defeating specific measures
taken by the president.
At the
moment, the president has just been offered a choice of a government shutdown on
Saturday or surrendering his pledge to build a border wall.
As I wrote
here back on January 10, the left means to break this president. One
hundred days in, quite clearly, that's where we are. The left will defend Mr.
Obama's New Normal to the last ditch. If they can regain power, they will
expand it. Along the way, they are perfectly willing to undermine the
legitimacy of our 2016 election, to impeach this president or to undermine any
American institution of government which stands in their way to preserving that
New Normal.
Boiled
down, the issue is: the New Normal versus Republican rollback. We are going to
find out, as Lincoln used to say, which is the stronger.
What
corrupted the Roman people two thousand years ago, and ended their republic was
the destruction of the yeomen farmers who made up the electorate and the army.
The Punic Wars destroyed large swatches of agricultural Italy, replacing it
with a slave economy based on large plantations. The two rounds of civil wars
which followed only made the problem worse, deepening the conflict between the
plebs and the patricians.
It
also did something more.
The
growth of the empire and the civil wars created immense private fortunes on a
scale never seen before, both among military men and the politicians
(sometimes, like Caesar and Pompey, the same thing) – and they made Roman generals
(and their troops) more powerful than the Senate. Meanwhile the rural poor
crowded into Rome. There, they were provided a free daily food ration, public
entertainment and cash for their votes -- the infamous “bread and circuses.”
The steady flow of talents and sesterces into Rome enabled the populace (and
the politicians) to be bought off.
The
empire endured for over 400 more years. The proud name of “the Senate and
People of Rome” endured too. But the Republic, except for its empty forms, was
no more.
And
thus, we confront Machiavelli's dilemma.
Has
the American voting public been so corrupted by ObamaCare, Medicaid Part B,
expansions in food stamps, Social Security, disability coverage, and other
benefits that they will sustain the Democrats in their massive resistance? The
president will be able to carry out and pursue much of his foreign policy.
Without a reliable 60-plus-one votes in the Senate, however, we may be in for a
sustained deadlock on Mr. Trump's domestic agenda.
If
that's so, much rides on next year's Congressional elections. Will the
Trumpsters come out again? Moreover, Mr. Trump will have to buck the historical
trend that presidents tend to lose Congressional seats in off-year elections.
Gaining a reliable, conservative Republic majority in both Houses so the
president can enact reforms may prove as daunting a task as Mr. Trump's quest
for the White House itself.
Machiavelli,
of course, advised more radical political surgery. (That's in chapter 18 of the Discourses, which I have not
discussed here.). But, so far, there's no reason to take Old Nick's
prescription on that, only his diagnosis.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/machiavellis_advice_for_mr_trump_and_us.html
