The Inevitability of Trump

Anis Shivani has an interesting theory on why Donald Trump will win in November: Basically, he speaks to the "market". Anis's theory is almost an "economics as politics" theory. I don't disagree with this, although I prefer the broader "democracy evolving" history-based theory.

I mentioned this last week:

Henning Webb Prentis once said this about democracy: "The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy, from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more." We are in the middle of the dependency/welfare state stage. Are we ready to return to bondage/fascism?

It occurred to me that calling Trump this was not only unfair, but not 100% historically accurate. Consider the Ancient Roman Republic.

Julius Caesar came along during a period of much turmoil in the Ancient Roman Republic. He was a much-beloved general, who made himself king in all but title (although it is suspected he wanted the title too, but it was just too unpopular). It wasn't until Octavian (better known as Augustus today) had consolidated power after Julius's assassination that Rome truly became a dictatorship.

However, the differences between America and pre-Julian Rome are striking: The upheavals within the power structure of Ancient Rome were generally more violent in nature than anything seen in America today. I might attribute that to general differences between modern civilization and ancient civilization.

To me, the closer historical analogy might be to the Ancient Roman dictator Sulla. From Wikipedia:

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (/ˈsʌlə/; c. 138 BC – 78 BC), known commonly as Sulla, was a Roman general and statesman. He had the distinction of holding the office of consul twice, as well as reviving the dictatorship. Sulla was awarded a grass crown, the most prestigious Roman military honor, during the Social War. Sulla was a skilful general, achieving numerous successes in wars against different opponents, both foreign and Roman...  

Sulla's dictatorship came during a high point in the struggle between optimates and populares, the former seeking to maintain the Senate's oligarchy, and the latter espousing populism. In a dispute over the eastern army command (initially awarded to Sulla by the Senate but reneged at Marius's intrigues) Sulla unconstitutionally marched his armies into Rome and defeated Marius in battle. After his second march on Rome, he revived the office of dictator which had been inactive since the Second Punic War over a century before, and used his powers to enact a series of reforms to the Roman Constitution, meant to restore the primacy of the Senate and limit tribune power. Sulla's ascension was also marked by political purges in proscriptions. After seeking election to and holding a second consulship, he retired to private life and died shortly after. Sulla's decision to seize power - ironically enabled by his rival's military reforms that bound the army's loyalty with the general rather than to Rome - permanently destabilized the Roman power structure. Later leaders like Julius Caesar would follow his precedent in attaining political power through force. 

Note that Sulla's dictatorship came near the end of the Ancient Roman Republic. Sulla didn't kill the Republic, but he did create precedents that led to it's downfall.

The time difference between Sulla's reign (81 B.C.) and Octavian's reign (beginning in 27 B.C.) was probably due to Roman reluctance to have a dictator, not unlike Americans today.

In America, we are only beginning to see the kind of upheavals that led to Ancient Romans welcoming a dictatorship. Trump may or may not be a "fascist dictator", but don't be surprised if he lays the groundwork for the inevitable end of democracy in America.