Comments on: Signature Abuse http://www.adfinemfidelis.net/mongrel/2006/07/signature-abuse/ Thoughts on teaching, politics, life in general Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:01:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Doug Natelson http://www.adfinemfidelis.net/mongrel/2006/07/signature-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-48 Doug Natelson Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:29:03 +0000 http://www.adfinemfidelis.net/mongrel/2006/07/31/signature-abuse/#comment-48 Look at <a href="http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/numismatics/parthia/images/pamap.jpg" rel="nofollow">this</a>. We've been done in by provoking a strictly nonessential military confrontation with the Parthians. This sounds strangely familiar. I guess that would make Bush the analog of Marcus Licinius Crassus.... Look at this. We’ve been done in by provoking a strictly nonessential military confrontation with the Parthians. This sounds strangely familiar. I guess that would make Bush the analog of Marcus Licinius Crassus….

]]> By: mongreldogs http://www.adfinemfidelis.net/mongrel/2006/07/signature-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-47 mongreldogs Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:37:18 +0000 http://www.adfinemfidelis.net/mongrel/2006/07/31/signature-abuse/#comment-47 Doug-- Well, this is a song I've been singing for a while now. (In fact, I remember a certain grad school chum who chided me that people are "always talking like it's the end of the Roman republic"...) I agree that the unwritten glue that kept the system together seems to be thinning. Isn't one warning sign a greater focus on preserving the <em>forms</em> without anyone even debating the substance of what we do? And of course, wasn't it in part adventurism in the Middle East what brought on the final collapse of the Roman republic? :) Doug–
Well, this is a song I’ve been singing for a while now. (In fact, I remember a certain grad school chum who chided me that people are “always talking like it’s the end of the Roman republic”…) I agree that the unwritten glue that kept the system together seems to be thinning. Isn’t one warning sign a greater focus on preserving the forms without anyone even debating the substance of what we do?
And of course, wasn’t it in part adventurism in the Middle East what brought on the final collapse of the Roman republic? :)

]]> By: Doug Natelson http://www.adfinemfidelis.net/mongrel/2006/07/signature-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-46 Doug Natelson Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:17:09 +0000 http://www.adfinemfidelis.net/mongrel/2006/07/31/signature-abuse/#comment-46 There are definitely times when I worry that we're living in the last decades of the American Republic. What actually killed off the Roman Republic, which existed for almost 400 years in some form before the final disintegration of their old (unwritten) constitution resulted in Julius Caesar's dubious dictatorship and the eventual rise of the Julio-Claudian monarchy (a monarchy that managed to persist as a political entity for another 450 years)? One obvious flaw in the old Roman system was the trend toward individuals with essentially their own private armies. You can see in Lebanon how well things work when the central government can't control the military actions of part of its constituents. Fortunately, our system of government avoids this danger, at least so far. However, philosophically one major trend that put the Roman Republic on the road to ruin was the "death of a thousand cuts" destruction of their constitution. For hundreds of years, even though the constitution was unwritten, the Romans hewed to certain precepts: no unitary authority; consuls with terms of one year, and no multiple consulships for individuals; no standing for consul in abstentia; no consulship without first holding lower elected office; some level of balance between the tribunes (also one-year office holders), the senate, and the consuls; etc. This was all held together by tradition. Then, over the course of 60 years or so, all of these things fell by the wayside - the justification each time was always some precipitating crisis, and the argument that these steps were not expressly forbidden and were therefore fine. Every time I read about signing statements, reinterpretations of due process for resident aliens and even citizens, the "nuclear option" in the Senate, mid-decade redistricting, redefining the purview of the courts, etc., I get a bit more concerned. That concern is further aggravated when the Congress spends its time worrying about absolute non-issues like flag burning, gay marriage, steroid use in baseball, and so forth instead of actually trying to fix some of the problems in this country. We live in a genuine Age of Miracles. We have technological and medical capacities beyond the wildest dreams of people from one hundred years ago. Why do I not feel like we're going to be able to fix one damned thing? There are definitely times when I worry that we’re living in the last decades of the American Republic. What actually killed off the Roman Republic, which existed for almost 400 years in some form before the final disintegration of their old (unwritten) constitution resulted in Julius Caesar’s dubious dictatorship and the eventual rise of the Julio-Claudian monarchy (a monarchy that managed to persist as a political entity for another 450 years)?

One obvious flaw in the old Roman system was the trend toward individuals with essentially their own private armies. You can see in Lebanon how well things work when the central government can’t control the military actions of part of its constituents. Fortunately, our system of government avoids this danger, at least so far.

However, philosophically one major trend that put the Roman Republic on the road to ruin was the “death of a thousand cuts” destruction of their constitution. For hundreds of years, even though the constitution was unwritten, the Romans hewed to certain precepts: no unitary authority; consuls with terms of one year, and no multiple consulships for individuals; no standing for consul in abstentia; no consulship without first holding lower elected office; some level of balance between the tribunes (also one-year office holders), the senate, and the consuls; etc. This was all held together by tradition. Then, over the course of 60 years or so, all of these things fell by the wayside – the justification each time was always some precipitating crisis, and the argument that these steps were not expressly forbidden and were therefore fine.

Every time I read about signing statements, reinterpretations of due process for resident aliens and even citizens, the “nuclear option” in the Senate, mid-decade redistricting, redefining the purview of the courts, etc., I get a bit more concerned. That concern is further aggravated when the Congress spends its time worrying about absolute non-issues like flag burning, gay marriage, steroid use in baseball, and so forth instead of actually trying to fix some of the problems in this country.

We live in a genuine Age of Miracles. We have technological and medical capacities beyond the wildest dreams of people from one hundred years ago. Why do I not feel like we’re going to be able to fix one damned thing?

]]>