It is not "hubris" to recognize that the Founding Fathers were avid admirers of the Roman Republic; nor is it hubris to recognize that the Founders' fondness of Rome and its myths heavily influenced the United States to this day. Furthermore, it was the American Revolution that inspired nations like France, Brazil, many nations of South …
It is not "hubris" to recognize that the Founding Fathers were avid admirers of the Roman Republic; nor is it hubris to recognize that the Founders' fondness of Rome and its myths heavily influenced the United States to this day. Furthermore, it was the American Revolution that inspired nations like France, Brazil, many nations of South America and Caribbean to revolt against the European colonizers. And the American Revolution would have not happened had Europe not persecuted the very people who would create Americe; had it not been so authoritarian in its dealing with the colonists. To claim all America's successes as "European" is a willful misunderstanding of American culture and identity. That's to say, America is fundamentally anti-European in its ideas. If you need proof of this, look at the horrors of the French Revolution compared to the American Revolution. Even the Founding Fathers refused to support France in its ambitions. That's a point in history where you can see a distinct "American" identity.
Your points bear no relation to either the OP or my own assertion though - we are talking about whether the article (or the rather misleading title, actually) comparing the US to Rome, as Far Right fantasists like Elon Musk who know precious little history are wont to do lately, has any historical merit. I only mentioned Europe to make the point that however well the Founding Fathers implemented Montesquieu’s doctrine on the separation of powers in their new democracy, this concept of freedom was inherited from the Enlightenment (in Europe) and not created ex novo, as the Roman civil law system that transformed the known world was.
I'm aware of your assertions. The reason I wrote about the Founding Fathers' fondness of Rome and its Republic and their influence on the US, was my argument for why there *is* historical merit to compare the US to Rome. The influence Rome had on America is evident in the way the Founding Fathers wrote the separation of powers. And the influence and power the United States has gained overshadows that of Rome. So the comparison is fair in my view. Secondly, the reason I mentioned the impact the American Revolution had on other countries was to emphasize how the American view of freedom has a unique impact of its own; and how American freedom was not purely a European idea. The Constitution, Bill or Rights, and the American ideal of freedom were and are, uniquely American. While it's true that freedom was an idea from the Enlightenment (and an idea far before that period), the US had a different view of "freedom" than Europe did; and it seems you understated the influence the US had on the world at that time and currently. If my reasoning wasn't clear, then my apologies. As for Elon Musk and the Far Right, that has no relevance to the topic at hand.
I agree with you that the American idea of freedom has been unique and sustained for a long period. I don’t think I’ve understated US influence on the world relative to the Roman comparison - the Pax Romana has not been close to being equalled for breadth (in the known world at the time) or longevity in history. And while I agree the inspiration the Founding Fathers took from Roman Republican ideals, separation of powers (esp independence of the judiciary) was certainly not an antique doctrine but one devised by Montesquieu. In fact if we look at the biggest indicator of what would bring a subsequent republic or empire to be compared what metric would we use? I suggest it’d be how far and deeply the laws and cultural norms have been emulated and appropriated by the ‘colonised’ nations (let’s make no mistake, if one thinks of the US as an empire - which it likely isn’t and it’s indicative this narrative has started abounding just when pre-WW2 expansionism is being revived by Trump - then everywhere else has to be thought of in terms of colonised or rival kingdom). The statute books of countries from France, Italy, the US, and a host of others retain to this day many institutes born and spread by Rome. What would the USA’s legacy be if we were to analyze it in this key?
The issue of how this narrative has been seized by the Far Right lately - and relevance - in my view relates precisely to timing (now) of the OP, and what imho is the hubris and naïveté of the proponents of this theory.
I see, you believe the Far-Right view the United States as the Roman Empire; desiring to conquer and to expand its territory. And you have a very simplistic, post-modernist view on empires. For example, you say if there is an empire, that everyone else must be viewed as colonized or a rival kingdom. But this is already the case.
We in the modern era may think we are so beyond the old ways of human history, but in actuality, nothing has changed. You talk about the technicalities of what it takes to be an empire; you can talk about how the US "technically" doesn't have colonies, or hasn't been around as long as Rome. But make no mistake, the modern Superpower of the United States is the modern-day equivalent of an empire; a vast one at that. Its ways of "conquering" are economic. Its ways of swaying the views of the world and subduing its people are entertainment. Its way of enforcing its interests is controlling the global trade routes on the earth's oceans with its Navy. The US does not even need to fire a shot to get what it wants. It merely whispers and the world falls like dominos.
This is why I say that the power the US holds overshadows anything the Roman Empire could ever dream of. The US' legacy is still being established, but its shameless pursuit of freedom, constitutionalism and democracy (rightly or wrongly) will far outlast America as a country.
A good example of how potent US influence is would be the example of the Prime Minister of Canada resigning. Trump wanted a specific thing from Trudeau; he wanted him to get control over the mass illegal and legal immigration in Canada, and to fix the trade deficit with Canada. Then, Trump added that if Canada didn't do these things, it might as well become the 51st state since it can't take care of itself. And Trump ran with this joke. Trudeau didn't want to give in the Trump's demands, and his cabinet felt so threated by Trump's tariff threats and jokes about Canada becoming the 51st state, that the Second in command of Canada resigned. Soon after, the Prime Minister of Canada resigned as well.
In the end, Trump got what he wanted. He didn't want Canada; he wanted Trudeau gone, and he wanted Canada to fall in line. And that's what happened. Similar things can be said about Greenland and the Panama canal. Trump wants to *buy* Greenland and the canal back to keep America's influence over its region in the world. This is a new reinforcement of the Monroe Doctrine and aligns with how the US "conquers;" through money. It likes to buy land and uses tariffs and sanctions as a weapon. However, the modern US under Trump does not want to conquer for the sake of it, it wants to maintain its global hegemony among its rising rivals.
So, all this talk about buying specific countries in North America is a form of American protectionism and a revival of the Monroe Doctrine. It's not purely colonization or expansion for the sake of it. This is to expand America's ability to protect its interests; as any good empire would.
We may call colonies "territories" now, or rival kingdoms "adversaries," but the idea is the same. Humanity's desperation to secure resources and advantages for their favored tribe goes beyond political identity, right into the soul of human nature. I am not surprised by how the political pendulum has swung to the Right. The Left is just as much to blame for the rise of Trump as the Right is.
Ah, now I see where you’re coming from. I disagree on most of your views but I get why you bristled at my characterising this Far Right obsession as empty hubris. I’ll tell you one thing though - if there were any truth to these fantasies about American nationalistic ‘greatness’ bandied about by Trump he wouldn’t have been elected on the platform he has - of America markedly NOT being ‘great’ any more.
And of course America WAS great for a while - when the Berlin Wall came down and free market capitalism made new middle classes in many countries prosperous, when America stood for a discernible set of values and freedoms based on multilateralism and respect for the rule of law and democracy; when they united a coalition of peace loving nations after they were attacked on 9/11 to fight together against Taleban barbarism.
All that is long gone and this rubbish you’re quoting about Greenland and Canada is just pseudo-fascism by a small coterie of deluded plutocrats who think portraying themselves as Julius Caesar through boosted algorithms can keep the unwashed masses distracted from the damage they’re doing to a world order that had stood for decades.
You can call Trump's efforts anything you'd like, but I can understand those who I may disagree with, and make sense of their actions. I see the world and humanity as how it is; and world history as continual.
Trump wants to make a name for himself; as one who restored greatness back to America. It's not too dissimilar to other Presidents throughout history. Every human being wants to be remembered; how much more so does a President? His bull-like demeanor, and his shameless ability to say anything without a filter, and his unpredictability, are used as weapons in Trump's arsenal. Quite frankly, I haven't seen a President-elect make so many bold moves before taking the oval office. Most Presidents are mindfully cautious of America's overpowering influence; but Trump doesn't mind using the weight of the United States to get his way.
I find it more fascinating than anything. But I'm just like that.
I don't view Trump as purely evil as do some partisans; nor do I view the same with Biden, or Kamala. They're humans with wildly different perspectives in life that guide their every decision.
When it comes to Trump, there will never be anyone like him again. I imagine he'll get his way in the long run, but only time will tell. But most certainly, his name will be chiseled into the stone tablets of history; and the movement he started will continue.
And I say all of this to say, that America's history is rich and intriguing. It's inspiration from Rome and its later development into a modern day Superpower makes it at the very least comparable to Rome if not surpassing Rome in power and influence. Its approaches to world hegemony are economic, cultural, and protective in nature; differing from Rome's pure expansionism and overextention.
Trump is a political figure that challenged the status quo of the system, and fundamentally changed the way politics in America is done. His attempts at buying Greenland, the Panama canal, and strong-arming Canada, are his attempts to cement America's influence in the region. His methods are unorthodox, and scare allies and enemies alike. But, America is the equivalent of an empire. Nothing is holding it back from subduing world but its conscience. Trump's methods to aquire land aren't wholly unusual for America, but it's been a while since we've seen that approach. As an empire, it could go even further in this desire if it wants to.
I'm a curious person. I can't help but be enthralled by the times we live in. While I have my own opinions, I cannot help but be intrigued. It beats being anxious, in my humble opinion.
I find this world view to be populistic and historically naive. What made America great was not its arsenal or economic prowess, but the suggestive power of hope it spread around the world - based on personal freedom and prosperity, which led to the building of a world order in which multilateralism based on rule of law and respect of human rights were granite foundations.
Trump is dismantling those very things, destroying those foundations. His legacy is going to be the proliferation of captive societies in which billionaires buy the media that holds power to account so they can get richer by bending the knee to plutocrats: Putin’s model in other words.
It is not "hubris" to recognize that the Founding Fathers were avid admirers of the Roman Republic; nor is it hubris to recognize that the Founders' fondness of Rome and its myths heavily influenced the United States to this day. Furthermore, it was the American Revolution that inspired nations like France, Brazil, many nations of South America and Caribbean to revolt against the European colonizers. And the American Revolution would have not happened had Europe not persecuted the very people who would create Americe; had it not been so authoritarian in its dealing with the colonists. To claim all America's successes as "European" is a willful misunderstanding of American culture and identity. That's to say, America is fundamentally anti-European in its ideas. If you need proof of this, look at the horrors of the French Revolution compared to the American Revolution. Even the Founding Fathers refused to support France in its ambitions. That's a point in history where you can see a distinct "American" identity.
Your points bear no relation to either the OP or my own assertion though - we are talking about whether the article (or the rather misleading title, actually) comparing the US to Rome, as Far Right fantasists like Elon Musk who know precious little history are wont to do lately, has any historical merit. I only mentioned Europe to make the point that however well the Founding Fathers implemented Montesquieu’s doctrine on the separation of powers in their new democracy, this concept of freedom was inherited from the Enlightenment (in Europe) and not created ex novo, as the Roman civil law system that transformed the known world was.
I'm aware of your assertions. The reason I wrote about the Founding Fathers' fondness of Rome and its Republic and their influence on the US, was my argument for why there *is* historical merit to compare the US to Rome. The influence Rome had on America is evident in the way the Founding Fathers wrote the separation of powers. And the influence and power the United States has gained overshadows that of Rome. So the comparison is fair in my view. Secondly, the reason I mentioned the impact the American Revolution had on other countries was to emphasize how the American view of freedom has a unique impact of its own; and how American freedom was not purely a European idea. The Constitution, Bill or Rights, and the American ideal of freedom were and are, uniquely American. While it's true that freedom was an idea from the Enlightenment (and an idea far before that period), the US had a different view of "freedom" than Europe did; and it seems you understated the influence the US had on the world at that time and currently. If my reasoning wasn't clear, then my apologies. As for Elon Musk and the Far Right, that has no relevance to the topic at hand.
I agree with you that the American idea of freedom has been unique and sustained for a long period. I don’t think I’ve understated US influence on the world relative to the Roman comparison - the Pax Romana has not been close to being equalled for breadth (in the known world at the time) or longevity in history. And while I agree the inspiration the Founding Fathers took from Roman Republican ideals, separation of powers (esp independence of the judiciary) was certainly not an antique doctrine but one devised by Montesquieu. In fact if we look at the biggest indicator of what would bring a subsequent republic or empire to be compared what metric would we use? I suggest it’d be how far and deeply the laws and cultural norms have been emulated and appropriated by the ‘colonised’ nations (let’s make no mistake, if one thinks of the US as an empire - which it likely isn’t and it’s indicative this narrative has started abounding just when pre-WW2 expansionism is being revived by Trump - then everywhere else has to be thought of in terms of colonised or rival kingdom). The statute books of countries from France, Italy, the US, and a host of others retain to this day many institutes born and spread by Rome. What would the USA’s legacy be if we were to analyze it in this key?
The issue of how this narrative has been seized by the Far Right lately - and relevance - in my view relates precisely to timing (now) of the OP, and what imho is the hubris and naïveté of the proponents of this theory.
I see, you believe the Far-Right view the United States as the Roman Empire; desiring to conquer and to expand its territory. And you have a very simplistic, post-modernist view on empires. For example, you say if there is an empire, that everyone else must be viewed as colonized or a rival kingdom. But this is already the case.
We in the modern era may think we are so beyond the old ways of human history, but in actuality, nothing has changed. You talk about the technicalities of what it takes to be an empire; you can talk about how the US "technically" doesn't have colonies, or hasn't been around as long as Rome. But make no mistake, the modern Superpower of the United States is the modern-day equivalent of an empire; a vast one at that. Its ways of "conquering" are economic. Its ways of swaying the views of the world and subduing its people are entertainment. Its way of enforcing its interests is controlling the global trade routes on the earth's oceans with its Navy. The US does not even need to fire a shot to get what it wants. It merely whispers and the world falls like dominos.
This is why I say that the power the US holds overshadows anything the Roman Empire could ever dream of. The US' legacy is still being established, but its shameless pursuit of freedom, constitutionalism and democracy (rightly or wrongly) will far outlast America as a country.
A good example of how potent US influence is would be the example of the Prime Minister of Canada resigning. Trump wanted a specific thing from Trudeau; he wanted him to get control over the mass illegal and legal immigration in Canada, and to fix the trade deficit with Canada. Then, Trump added that if Canada didn't do these things, it might as well become the 51st state since it can't take care of itself. And Trump ran with this joke. Trudeau didn't want to give in the Trump's demands, and his cabinet felt so threated by Trump's tariff threats and jokes about Canada becoming the 51st state, that the Second in command of Canada resigned. Soon after, the Prime Minister of Canada resigned as well.
In the end, Trump got what he wanted. He didn't want Canada; he wanted Trudeau gone, and he wanted Canada to fall in line. And that's what happened. Similar things can be said about Greenland and the Panama canal. Trump wants to *buy* Greenland and the canal back to keep America's influence over its region in the world. This is a new reinforcement of the Monroe Doctrine and aligns with how the US "conquers;" through money. It likes to buy land and uses tariffs and sanctions as a weapon. However, the modern US under Trump does not want to conquer for the sake of it, it wants to maintain its global hegemony among its rising rivals.
So, all this talk about buying specific countries in North America is a form of American protectionism and a revival of the Monroe Doctrine. It's not purely colonization or expansion for the sake of it. This is to expand America's ability to protect its interests; as any good empire would.
We may call colonies "territories" now, or rival kingdoms "adversaries," but the idea is the same. Humanity's desperation to secure resources and advantages for their favored tribe goes beyond political identity, right into the soul of human nature. I am not surprised by how the political pendulum has swung to the Right. The Left is just as much to blame for the rise of Trump as the Right is.
Ah, now I see where you’re coming from. I disagree on most of your views but I get why you bristled at my characterising this Far Right obsession as empty hubris. I’ll tell you one thing though - if there were any truth to these fantasies about American nationalistic ‘greatness’ bandied about by Trump he wouldn’t have been elected on the platform he has - of America markedly NOT being ‘great’ any more.
And of course America WAS great for a while - when the Berlin Wall came down and free market capitalism made new middle classes in many countries prosperous, when America stood for a discernible set of values and freedoms based on multilateralism and respect for the rule of law and democracy; when they united a coalition of peace loving nations after they were attacked on 9/11 to fight together against Taleban barbarism.
All that is long gone and this rubbish you’re quoting about Greenland and Canada is just pseudo-fascism by a small coterie of deluded plutocrats who think portraying themselves as Julius Caesar through boosted algorithms can keep the unwashed masses distracted from the damage they’re doing to a world order that had stood for decades.
You can call Trump's efforts anything you'd like, but I can understand those who I may disagree with, and make sense of their actions. I see the world and humanity as how it is; and world history as continual.
Trump wants to make a name for himself; as one who restored greatness back to America. It's not too dissimilar to other Presidents throughout history. Every human being wants to be remembered; how much more so does a President? His bull-like demeanor, and his shameless ability to say anything without a filter, and his unpredictability, are used as weapons in Trump's arsenal. Quite frankly, I haven't seen a President-elect make so many bold moves before taking the oval office. Most Presidents are mindfully cautious of America's overpowering influence; but Trump doesn't mind using the weight of the United States to get his way.
I find it more fascinating than anything. But I'm just like that.
I don't view Trump as purely evil as do some partisans; nor do I view the same with Biden, or Kamala. They're humans with wildly different perspectives in life that guide their every decision.
When it comes to Trump, there will never be anyone like him again. I imagine he'll get his way in the long run, but only time will tell. But most certainly, his name will be chiseled into the stone tablets of history; and the movement he started will continue.
And I say all of this to say, that America's history is rich and intriguing. It's inspiration from Rome and its later development into a modern day Superpower makes it at the very least comparable to Rome if not surpassing Rome in power and influence. Its approaches to world hegemony are economic, cultural, and protective in nature; differing from Rome's pure expansionism and overextention.
Trump is a political figure that challenged the status quo of the system, and fundamentally changed the way politics in America is done. His attempts at buying Greenland, the Panama canal, and strong-arming Canada, are his attempts to cement America's influence in the region. His methods are unorthodox, and scare allies and enemies alike. But, America is the equivalent of an empire. Nothing is holding it back from subduing world but its conscience. Trump's methods to aquire land aren't wholly unusual for America, but it's been a while since we've seen that approach. As an empire, it could go even further in this desire if it wants to.
I'm a curious person. I can't help but be enthralled by the times we live in. While I have my own opinions, I cannot help but be intrigued. It beats being anxious, in my humble opinion.
I find this world view to be populistic and historically naive. What made America great was not its arsenal or economic prowess, but the suggestive power of hope it spread around the world - based on personal freedom and prosperity, which led to the building of a world order in which multilateralism based on rule of law and respect of human rights were granite foundations.
Trump is dismantling those very things, destroying those foundations. His legacy is going to be the proliferation of captive societies in which billionaires buy the media that holds power to account so they can get richer by bending the knee to plutocrats: Putin’s model in other words.