Crossing the Rubicon

When Caesar crossed the Rubicon and began his descent into Rome in early 49 BC a large part of the Roman political class, unable to form resistance against his seasoned soldiers simply left Rome and decamped to Greece.  They both hated and feared Caesar.

One reason why they hated him is that they saw Caesar’s supporters as a collection of lowlifes who were raffish, unscrupulous and on the make.  Put another way, they were political outsiders.

On the other hand, as a populare, a supporter of the rights of the people, Caesar enjoyed significant support from ordinary Romans.  He was seen as someone who would do things for them, as opposed to the Roman political class who were only interested in themselves.

Sound familiar?  Well, Caesar invented Caesarism which is a form of populism in which individuals place their faith in a leader to rid a political system of what they see as its corrupt elements and do things for the ordinary person. 

For Caesarism to take hold of the public imagination two conditions need to be fulfilled.  The first is a general condition of uncertainty, be it political, economic, or both.  The second is a loss of faith in the political class by the ordinary person to deliver, to take at least some account of the needs and wants of ordinary people.

Both of those conditions existed in late republican Rome.  Such conditions also define the contemporary world.  In both cases an increasing number of people seek a leader who will both improve their lives in a material sense and rid them of a corrupt self-interested political class. 

In this regard, Caesar was following in the footsteps of the tyrants of sixth century Greek poleis such as Pisistratus, who similarly were aristocrats who chose to side with the people rather than with the aristocratic class which wielded political power.

The leader needs to be a celebrity, as Caesar made himself, and to have large amounts of money, which Caesar acquired by brutally conquering Gaul.  There was a lot of money to be made out of slaves.

The history of late republican Rome helps to explain the Donald Trump phenomenon.  America, and the Western world in general, are not in good shape economically.  The younger generation, or those who Candice Malcolm christened ‘generation screwed’, face an uncertain future.

On the Right, Charles Murray has described the decay of the white American working class into welfare dependency.  On the Left, Joel Kotkin has analysed both the rise of the ‘clerisy’ and the proletarianiszation of the American middle class.

In such insecure times it is no wonder that Americans look for a saviour, be it Bernie Sanders on the Left, or Donald Trump on the Right.  No one is looking at Sanders or Trump in terms of whether they are competent to run the country in a sensible fashion, sensible meaning in accord with the rules of the political class.

Rather, they are looking for a saviour, someone who will break down the way in which politics are currently conducted. They want someone who will be a circuit breaker, who will restore America to its true path.  They want someone who will give them hope that the American dream is still alive.

It is interesting that John Pilger in a New Matilda piece is far more scathing about Hillary Clinton than Trump.  Trump, he argues, is a ‘maverick’, who, at least does not hate Russia and who condemns the American war in Iraq in 2003.  He is not part of the Establishment.

Ironically Bill Clinton was taught by Carroll Quigley who argued that there was an Anglo-American establishment who pulled the strings in the modern world.  Now Hillary is associated by many with that establishment.

Even if Trump is elected, it will undoubtedly be the case that he will not be able to fulfil the expectations which his supporters have placed in him, at least in a material sense.  What he might be able to do is to activate self-belief.  His importance, for his supporters, is symbolic. 

The same may be said regarding the recent Brexit vote in the United Kingdom.  It was a symbolic renunciation of the failures of the British political class.  But the real question is whether there is a leader in the United Kingdom who is willing to do the heavy lifting and act as a sort of Caesar to bring the decision made by the British people to fruition.  If someone does not step up, then institutional inertia, masses of regulation, the sort of thing on which Brussels thrives, may thwart the will of the British people.

The question may well be asked: why has an Australian equivalent of Trump not emerged as it faces similar problems to America?  In Australia there would appear to be a loss of faith in the capacity of the political class to do anything except look after itself.

In a sense, Australia has had its Trump in the shape of Clive Palmer who both peaked too early and failed to inspire in his Caesarist role.  His legacy has been to leave behind a series of ’mini-mes’ in the shape of Jacqui Lambie and Glenn Lazarus.  The only problem is that such individuals lack both the celebrity status and the money required to aspire to being Caesar.

Caesar, of course, won power, and instituted many reforms, including a new calendar.  But he could never win over the political class who eventually decided that he had to go, as happened on the Ides of March.  It was left to his young heir, Octavian, to devise means of changing the political system while also placating, and eventually neutering, the political class.

​