The Ides of March!

by Maynard on March 14, 2010

A post by Maynard

It was on the Ides of March (that’s March 15 for all you novices) in 44 BC that the Roman Senate dispatched Julius Caesar to his glory. Caesar’s gift to the body politic was to transition Rome from a Republic to an Empire, with himself elevated to the position of dictator. He was assassinated on the Senate floor by a group of senators intent on stemming the rise of tyranny. In the subsequent power struggle, however, it was Caesar’s designated heir who came out on top. Thus it was that Rome became an empire and Augustus Caesar became an emperor and a pagan deity.

We can take this as a reminder that the job of maintaining a republic has historically been a difficult one. And our Senators ought keep in mind that, as they struggle to rein in an executive with delusions of grandeur, they must take care not to fumble the endgame.

Related Posts

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Sam Joe says:
    March 14, 2010 at 13:51

    I hope nobody decides to make extended analogies beyond what Maynard so nicely pointed out here.

  2. RuBegonia says:
    March 14, 2010 at 15:26

    Democracy vs. Republic “I pledge allegiance to the flag…and to the republic for which it stands”.

    [T]he Founding Fathers didn’t believe they were establishing a democracy, and, in fact, many references can be found where they expressed fear and even revulsion at the idea of having a democracy. Rather, they were establishing a republic. To be even more precise, they established a constitutional republic.

    Democracy (from the Greek for ‘rule by the people”) is the rule of the majority, plain and simple. America’s federal government is not set up this way. We voters do not vote on every piece of legislation that comes up. Rather, we vote for representatives who then vote upon legislation. We vote for a president who is to represent us in the executive branch. This makes us a republic (from the Latin for “concerning the people”). But even that doesn’t describe our government sufficiently. Our representatives are limited in what they can do. They must abide by the United States Constitution. They cannot simply make any law they like, they may only make laws that the Constitution empowers them to make. This makes America a constitutional republic.

    You might ask what practical difference it makes. Consider what democratic (i.e., mob) rule would actually mean. It would mean that, as long as you can get 51% of the people to agree on something, it could become law. It doesn’t matter how evil or wrong their belief would be, only that they vote for it. Perhaps 51% of the people believe that the other 49% should give the majority all of their money. In a democracy, this is how it could work. The majority has spoken; therefore, it would be the law.

    Such circumstances would be only slightly less possible in a straight republic. In such a case, all those 51% would need to do is make sure that they elect their representatives to office, and the same end would be achieved.

    But what about a constitutional republic? Ah, here, especially with the American Constitution, we have a different story. Here, we have protections. Now we have safeguards against the rule of the mob. While it may still be possible for evil laws to be enacted, it’s much more difficult to do so.

    So what about “we the people“?

    The Constitution protects us from the rule of the mob. This is what makes a constitutional republic better than a democracy or a straight republic. With a constitutional republic, our rights and liberties are far more solid than in either of the other two forms of government.

    Note, however, that they aren’t completely solid. If we don’t keep watch over the representatives, they have little incentive (other than, perhaps, their own consciences) to abide by the constitutional limits. In this sense, we do live in a democracy, if we take that to mean simply the Greek translation. We, the people rule, if we decide to.

    Maybe the above cut and paste was a bit long and the link would have sufficed – but, there you go! My dogbrain often needs to review the basics.

    P.S. to Maynard ~ Thanks for the TAMmentoring!

  3. thierry says:
    March 14, 2010 at 18:04

    i’ve started rereading decline and fall of the roman empire by edward gibbon again. he always astounds me. i always come away with something highly applicable to now, if not in the text than in the wonderful footnotes or merely in snippets quoted from his life in introductions or biographies.

    ” if you do not resist the spirit of innovation in the first attempt, if you admit the smallest and most specious change in our parliamentary system, you are lost.” gibbon to to lord sheffield over concerns about the french revolution.

    as they shred our system of government with it’s carefully considered separation of powers and parliamentary rules and observances , the obambi and company should do well to recall that the endpoint as in rome wasn’t merely a dictator- or kingship- it was anarchy and the dark ages.

    seeing how gibbon was a ginger too maybe the cat atop the books in the TAM book club should be named eddy or gibbs.

  4. franknitti says:
    March 15, 2010 at 07:19

    I can’t wait for March 19. Anyone know what happened on that date in 1943?

You must be logged in to post a comment.