Thread by @burtlikko, I'm a white dude in America, well-educated and privileged to have had [...]

I'm a white dude in America, well-educated and privileged to have had a background of economic comfort. Not affluence, but I've had some luxuries, like an education rich in history, and vacations in Europe, particularly to visit family in Italy.

Some of my education was classical. I was always fascinated with ancient Rome and its century long transition from a Republican form of government to a military dictatorship. A lot of the scholarship around that event are hagiographies of Julius Caesar.

As a person raised in America, I Have been taught, and now agree with, the ethic that slavery is a great moral wrong comment and always has been.

I was also taught, and still agree with the, the ethic that a republican form of government predicated upon democracy is legitimate and others are questionable at best. The broader the extent of the franchise, the better.

So over time, I came to react against the hagiographies of Caesar, and see him as a fascinating villain in the world's history. He enslaved most of what is modern France and Belgium for personal profit, and corrupted the Republic for personal power and to avoid prosecution.

In more modern times, other charismatic and populist dictators have also come to power in Europe. Napoleon and Mussolini are most prominent in my thought here.

Napoleon is a somewhat more ambiguous figure, because there were substantial reforms in law and economics which make sense and are good, and the Revolutionary government in France had degenerated to the verge of civil war. Something had to be done. But was it Napoleon?

He abolished democratic institutions, crowned himself emperor, and precipitated a decade of war bloodier and more destructive than anything the world had seen before. That's pretty hard to excuse for civil law reforms.

Mussolini, of course, was one of the original fascists. He abandoned his original ideology of socialism for right wing authoritarianism simply to accumulate personal power. In many ways, he was a role model for Hitler.

So in my travels, I have been chilled to see still alive and in use and celebrated by French and Italian people monuments and commemorations to these men. Bridges, buildings, statues, monuments, and in the Roman forum, fresh flowers put on Caesar's grave every day.

Fascism, authoritarianism, monarchy, and other forms of military dictatorship, while all abhorrent to the American ethic and liberal democracy, appear to have some kind of enduring appeal. There is something that this kind of government offers spme people something they like.

Why should Americans be any different? They just got a four-year long taste of something that wasn't really authoritarianism but was kind of trending in that direction. Some of us (not me) seemed to like it.

And the for years of the trump administration are not yet over. There a lot of people with anxiety about a coup attempt. I'm pretty skeptical of that, but another story I came across in my travels seems relevant.

Marino Faliero was elected the 55th Doge of Venice in the thirternth century, after Venice's military had taken some embarrassing defeats to its rival mercantile Republic, Genoa. Faliero felt that Venice's existing government was too cumbersome and inefficient for the time.

He cultivated friends in the military, and very quickly after taking office attempted an overthrow of the Republic. Presumably he sought a more quasi-monarchial kind of government. He had supporters. A battle was fought for control of Venice itself.

His coup failed, though. He hadn't convinced enough of the military and wealthy classes that they'd be better off under such a regime than under the status quo. He was captured and executed for treason.

To this day, his portrait is not displayed in the gallery of Venice's history. A veil is painted in its place, noting that he was beheaded for treason.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Local_do_retrato_de_Marino_Faliero_na_Galeria_dos_Doges_de_Veneza.jpg

Faliero Really didn't have time as the leader of his nation to make much of an impact beyond attempting to overthrow its government. So there was never a need to build bridges or preserve a tomb or his grave. His legacy is, unambiguously, that of a traitor.

So that's another way that history can deal with truly awful leaders.

How will we Americans deal with Trump? I suspect that if he does do something so foolish as attempt to hang on to power unlawfully after his term ends, he will wind up closer to the Faliero end of history. Sonething like Richard Nixon or James Buchanan.

But if he goes lawfully, even if reluctantly, I would imagine he winds up more like Napoleon. Condemned by many, maybe even most. But also still celebrated by a significant number. And with a sufficient number of ongoing supporters, history will be written ambiguously.

I hate that. He's been absolutely awful for us. Every bit as corrosive of our institutions as Caesar was for Rome. Every bit the lying tinpot strongman that Mussolini was.

And without even offering the Napoleonic bargain of trading away citizens' ability to govern themselves in exchange for beneficial reforms and a truce (though, as it turned out, not an editing resolution) to a seemingly-unresolvable civic crisis.

I guess we just have to face the fact that America is no different than other nations, just younger. Like other nations, we periodically flirt with populism and authoritarianism.

Glum as it makes me to admit, some people find it appealing. Even here, even now.

Latest Threads Unrolled: