The history of Rome most certainly can serve as the precedent most close to the origins and development of the ‘Washington Republic’, the United States of America.
In Europe, by and large, the Imperial stage preceded the Republican. In Rome it was the other way around. The Roman Empire succeeded the Roman Republic.
The Presidency of George W. Bush has brought the world closer to the image of a US Empire than any presidency before him. It is not simply by the present day US actions in many parts of world that one could reach such a verdict, but by the authoritarian way in which the policies have been conducted: with the greatest disinterest in the opinion of right minded people, and forgetting the most basic rules of a democracy.
America's great monument of Republicanism
What we should not forget, of course, is that the United States were born out of great disgust for imperial and uncompromising attitudes of the King of England and the whole system that he headed. And it is democracy and republicanism that the US tries to sell to (or enforce on) the rest of the world, not mere military authority - or so it is officially said.
But we could also ask the question whether the US should be some kind of exclusive inheritor of the Roman mantle in the first place. The US can not exist without Europe the way it is, and for Europe this is similarly true in respect of America.
Washington, Paris, Berlin, even Rome itself, all share in the legacy, one might argue.
Europe obviously has no interest in US Imperial tendencies. Far from it. But we have been very unwilling or incapable so far to offer our own alternative to a world driven into new imperialism. The project Europe is a project exactly against that.
The multi-faced leadership of Europe
I believe at this point many in Europe would interrupt, and say: but why do you think that the US isn’t an imperial state already, particularly if you include the mechanism of free markets of which the US are masters, if not the Master?
Of course we could seduce the American people into electing a new President who is most amenable to European interests. What could we – I mean Europe - promise the American people in return? In particular: what could we promise them as a solid alternative to protracting the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters? It is impossible to think of solid solutions if the US and Europe are not in it together, and leveling. This process of itself would also countervail tendencies towards imperialism within the US.
A great innovator of the world's popular music, Elvis Presley
Could the US, like the Romans in their time, say that they are the first great nation of its kind ever, even without political and military imperialism?
The US have become accustomed in the past century to accept all the attributes of a world leader, not just in political terms, but also in terms of innovation and cultural development. We only need to contemplate the figures of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Louis Armstrong, and so many others to illustrate this point.
The US President who first took America across the bridge of world leadership
I have myself been raised with the great American example being omnipresent in my parents’ home, with our grandparents and with our relatives in the US. This is the US of which I am personally proud. And I certainly recognize the great influence of American inventiveness on our daily lives, everywhere in the world. In the movies we watch, in the mobile phones and laptops we use, in almost every aspect of our material and cultural world.
The instrument that has made the millions of us connect to the world, almost 24/7
But I can no longer be proud of a United States of America that leads the world on the basis of lies and pure self-interest. “Those who are not with me are against me!” Remember? One could say that these words were a blow to democracy, but perhaps even to genuine Republicanism itself. You always take a vote. You always listen to arguments.
But President George W. Bush refused to do so, and the British Prime Minister Tony Blair went on his knees for the President despite this. As the saying goes, Roosevelt and Churchill would have turned around in their graves.
The wrong single face of Europe?
There is one thing which most likely distinguishes the United States from the Roman world. There is always hope for the better. And there have always been leaders, at the right time, to help the Americans cross that bridge.
Are we at the verge of such a transition of leadership? I am careful not to be too hopeful in this respect. I wouldn't like another disappointment, such as in 2000 and again in 2004. Perhaps we should still bide our time for another four years and endure protracted opportunism and discontent, driven not by the people, or their representatives, but by the directors of America’s big multinational corporations. For if anything imperial can still arise, especially out of the US, it is not the Presidency, it is Corporatism (not dissimilar to the struggle within ourselves: between the consumer and the citizen).
Perhaps to regain control over corporations and their standards across the world, is one of the greatest challenges of the next US President. If may be preferable, actually, if a Republican does that job, not a Democrat. But in terms of public leadership it is very much possible that the immediate, strongest prospect is offered at the latter's side of America’s political fence.
Perhaps the lesson is that, whether or not the history of Rome has anything to say to the present American world, nothing that we hold self-evident today, is necessarily self-evident tomorrow. History can ebb and flow in many different, unsuspected ways. But that the decision of the American people in the forthcoming five months is a very crucial decision too for a great many people across the world and the course of this new century.
No comments:
Post a Comment