Equity

The US has a fragmented and impressive economy that draws international talent and unparalleled military strength, which gives it an edge over other republics.

Yet the Roman Republic, which had its own analytical benefits, eventually fell to authoritarian rule, and the US faces a similar fate if it fails to protect administrative dignity and unchallenged power continues to grow.

Reform is essential to maintaining democratic government, but history shows that enshrined strength frequently threatens this process. Social function and the growing impact of business interests threaten to destroy the basic principles of the US, posing a threat to its long-term security.

From its beginning, the US has worked to address its internal inconsistencies by guaranteeing good therapy for its citizens. Autocratic impulses even emerged first, with minute President John Adams’s Alien and Sedition Acts targeting political dissent, refugees, and free conversation.

Lincoln later expanded his executive power during the Civil War, avoiding Congress to protect the Union and end slavery, which has become the most controversial and considerable political issue since the country’s founding.

Despite for departures from Constitutional procedure—sometimes for great reasons—the system’s checks and balances finally resisted after senior overreach, likeFDR’sfailed Court-Packing plan.

The unique political challenges facing democratic techniques are concerning, but the degradation of democratic culture also causes irreversible shifts in the political landscape. Political bribery, unregulated imperialism, and government serving business interests over citizens mix to continuously get the system.

A select group of actors has created a constant, increasingly scripted cultural-political spectacle, causing civic decay. As a result, the public has reduced active participation in governance in exchange for the passive right to cheer or criticize from the sidelines.

The Roman Republic’s collapse, which endured for centuries before becoming a slave country, provides valuable context—lessons on not only what values to uphold but also on how reform efforts can backfire.

Half-hearted efforts to fix inequality and instability often strained the system, pushing it closer to dysfunction and leading it to autocracy. Learning from Republican Rome’s successes and failures can be applied to the challenges of today.

A balanced republican political system encourages elites to compromise, build consensus, and compete for public approval, qualities the early Roman Republic struggled to develop after its establishment in 509 BC.

The Senate, which was largely dominated by the patrician aristocracy, had theoretically the power to act as an advisory body, but in reality it had significant influence over finances, foreign policy, and much of the legislative process. Nonetheless, there was strong competition among patrician families for the two annual consulship positions.

In addition to limiting any power concentration, these roles, which were filled through the cursus honorum ( course of honor ), allowed two capable leaders to ascend to the position in a predetermined hierarchy and shared short-term executive authority.

Consuls often entered the Senate or assumed other political positions after their terms, where they could be prosecuted for misconduct. Because of this rotation and accountability, leaders ‘ interests were better off running the state than accumulating personal acclaim for their roles or accomplishments.

The design of Roman statues also supported this culture, celebrating the civic virtue of individuals over personal achievements. In deft contrast to the idealized perfection of Greek art, the stereotypes depict aging and imperfections. The Republic also barred actors from government, viewing their imitation of life as deceptive and unworthy of public office.

Republican Rome thrived on political engagement, despite uneven participation, like other effective republican city-states. The Republic’sseasonal political process, shaped by agricultural cycles, military campaigns, and religious festivals, advantaged wealthy landowners who could afford to leave their estates for politics, perpetuating uneven and inconsistent efforts to address problems.

Military victories were frequently a factor in political advancement, which made them popular and occasionally pursued for personal reasons rather than strategic reasons.

Yet this seasonal structure still created predictable opportunities for many citizens to travel to Rome to participate in political affairs, ensuring concentrated and focused decision-making during key periods. Additionally, it found ways to lessen the power imbalance between the patricians and the commoners, or plebeians.

TheConflict of the Orders (5th to 3rd centuries BC ) brought about significant gains for plebeians. Rome’s economy was severely hampered by mass strikes, and soldiers refused to fight, leading to changes like the Concilium Plebis, along with theComita Tributa.

Additionally, after 451 BC, legal safeguards via the Twelve Tables and the establishment of the Tribunes of the Plebs—two annually elected magistrates with executive power to protect plebeian interests—were also won.

Plebeians gained greater social mobility during the fourth century BC, including the right to wed patricians, as well as gaining access to the consular office, the Senate, and other positions of religious authority.

After 338 BC, the Latin Rights extended certain privileges to non-Roman communities in Italy, such as intermarriage and participation in commerce. Although full citizenship gradually became available, these measures integrated new populations while preserving the identity of Roman citizens.

Despite the Republic’s growing wealth and territories, inequality remained rife. The army’s backbone was made up of Plubeians, who suffered the most from imperial expansion but hardly received any rewards.

Longer military service in support of campaigns left them unable to tend to their farms, indebting many. Plubeians frequently capitalized on this by acquiring their lands, but the use of slave labor during conquests reduced plebeians ‘ bargaining power as necessary workers. Many moved to Rome, swelling the urban poor.

Prior republics, including Rome, had a history of erasing debts and lowering slavery to restore economic balances, but these measures ceased in the Late Republic. Expansion also strained governance, as new territories were home to communities who had fewer rights than Roman citizens andpaid heavily in taxes, further exposing the Republic’s systemic inequities.

Policies intended to combat inequality frequently ended up worsening it. The Lex Claudia ( 218 BC ), for instance, barred senators and their sons from owning large commercial ships to prevent them from dominating Rome’s expanding maritime trade. However, this primarily benefited wealthy Plebeians and other elites who could afford their own fleets, widening economic disparities.

Richer plebeians also disproportionately benefited from privilegeslike access to higher office, enabling only some to join the senatorial elite. The horseman’s order, which had its roots in Rome’s cavalry, eventually developed into a distinct wealthy class. Though largely lacking formal political power, members enjoyed elevated benefits and economic strength that deepened Rome’s social stratification.

Many of the new elites developed into populist reformers, or<a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-roman-history-<a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-roman-history-optimates-119359″>optimates-119359″>populares ( “for the people” ), or<a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-roman-history-optimates-119359″>optimates ( “best men” ), who opposed the senatorial elite. Distinctions between the two groupswere not always strict—the <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-roman-history-<a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-roman-history-optimates-119359″>optimates-119359″>populares included both new aristocratic elites and sidelined senatorial factions seeking to reclaim influence lost to dominant <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-roman-history-optimates-119359″>optimates.

Populares-aligned politicians used plebeian support to alter the power balance in their favor, shifting from genuine reform to self-serving opportunism. Alliances were fluid, showing how Roman politics often prioritized status and influence over rigid ideology.

Plebeians ‘ demands for greater equality were further fueled by elite infighting, which used their citizenship and numbers to further their advantage. Political gridlock became more frequent, and violence escalated.

Numerous of their supporters were killed in addition to prominent pro-Plebean leaders like Tiberius Gracchus ( 133 BC ), Gaius Gracchus ( 121 BC ), and Publius Clodius Pulcher ( 52 BC ). In this way, Roman politics devolved into a zero-sum struggle where the defeated often faced death.

They were more prone to break with political customs and precedents when it was appropriate for their cause because of the use of violence and intimidation to harm plebeian interests, coupled with persistent inequality. Power was increasingly extended in executive positions, with populares-aligned Gaius Mariusholding seven consulships, and citizen soldiers showing increasing loyalty to individual commanders rather than the state.

A dramatic overcorrection resulted from Marius ‘ eventual defeat by Lucius Cornelius Sulla, a patrician allies ‘ ally. During his dictatorship ( 82–79 BC ), Sulla’s constitution aimed to curb instability by empoweringthe old aristocracy and Senate, severely weakening the tribunes, and restricting thepowers of citizenship.

The enthralled aristocracy failed to address the root causes of economic inequality. Ambitious figures like Pompey, through military power, and Marcus Licinius Crassus, through immense wealth, exploited these tensions to consolidate power and play kingmaker.

Under Julius Caesar’s plebeian-friendly policies bypassed the Senate by utilizing popular assemblies, Sulla’s reforms ultimately failed, exposing the new fragility of Rome’s legal system.

Thegrowing glorification of individual leaders reached a turning point when Caesar became the first living Roman to appear on a coin, a stark departure from tradition. After being deemed a dictator for life, his assassination by senators infuriated the electorate, which sparked a power struggle and civil war. This ultimately led to the rise of Caesar’s adopted heir, Octavian, who centralized authority in 27 BC and later became known as Augustus.

Many Romans willingly traded their political rights for oligarchic rule, violence, and uncertainty while maintaining a facade of republican governance. When rumors spread of Octavian relinquishing his special powers, public sentiment opposed the idea.

With the emergence of the Roman Empire, an urban proletariat that was dependent on state-sponsored food distribution and entertained by gladiator games became more and more peaceful under the strategy of “bread and circuses,” strengthening the new order.

A reshuffling of the nobility, suppression of opposition, and unchecked territorial expansion fueled instability in Republican Rome. Despite its 500-year existence and shoddy attempts to address it, persistent inequality remained the Republic’s fundamental flaw.

These pose lessons for the US today. Inequality continues to be a major issue in the US. Once marked by strong social mobility, at least for white residents, ithas declined since the 1940s, initially due to the end of the post-war boom but now reflecting deeper systemic flaws.

US social welfare falls behind in comparison to the EU, and policies like corporate bailouts highlight how citizens bear the burden of debt while large corporations profit from government regulation and lucrative contracts. Aculture of consumerism encourages US citizens to take on debt, mirroring the problems of the Roman Republic, instead of building a more efficient economic system.

Republican Rome’s challenges and those faced by the US are similar, but each has its own unique set of problems. In Rome, the wealthy were directly involved in political life, using their influence to shape decisions.

In contrast, US elites have access to representatives, who are encouraged to advance their interests despite not typically coming from the wealthiest social classes. This indirect control reduces the accountability of the elite, as their influence is masked by the modern US political structure and hidden from public view.

Although corrupt or incompetent politicians can be imprisoned or tried for, those who are truly responsible for the system remain largely unaffected, allowing the pay-to-play political system to continue unabated.

Rome’s political processes grew opaque and less respected, a trend increasingly seen in contested US elections in recent decades. After George W. Bush’s contentious victory in 2000 and Trump’s victory in 2016, there were still doubts among Democrats that remained within institutional boundaries.

However, election denial escalated dramatically with Trump’s response to Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, and the ensuing 2021 insurrection marked a major challenge to the peaceful transfer of power and trust in electoral integrity.

Establishing trust in the process calls for strict rules regarding voting, role assignment, and transparency in procedures. Laws crafted through open processes rather than private deals are crucial, allowing citizens to view the electoral process and governance as fair, smooth, and rooted in mutual understanding.

However, the risks of unrelenting public political engagement have grown even more acute. Modern technology enables 24/7 politicization, and constant campaigning distracts from governance and risks citizen burnout.

Public apathy makes it possible for organized elites to rule politics, and only well-resourced groups can effectively mobilize and strategize, according to legal scholar Ganesh Sitaraman.

The US judiciary remains distinct in its reliance on common law, a system shared by a few English-speaking countries, allowing adaptability through evolving precedents as new cases are brought forward.

Juries ‘ use imposes a fundamental responsibility on citizens ‘ moral and legal judgment, ensuring public participation. However, this system is increasingly vulnerable to politicization, as judicial appointments and voting processes for judges and other judicial/law enforcement positions risk undermining impartiality and fairness.

Political parties were also opposed by the Founding Fathers because they feared factionalism would sever national unity. Today, the two major parties and their supporters increasingly treat politicsas a sports rivalry, prioritizing spectacle over policy debate.

Both parties rely on the power of celebrity to entice voters, with Ronald Reagan becoming the first actor-president in 1981, followed by entertainer Trump in 2017, while Democrats have consistently relied on the power of celebrity to win over voters.

This reliance on high-profile public figures allows citizens to disengage, as these amplified individuals are granted tacit approval to shape policy—even when they lack the expertise to do so—reducing the public’s role in democratic governance to passive spectatorship.

Violent language undermines the foundation of republican culture of compromise. While Trump is commonly associated with this trend in the US ( and remains its most persistent voice ), Democrats have also contributed. In the 1960s and 1970s, political violence was primarily directed at influential US figures, but it is now increasingly threatening local officials as well.

Comments about the existential danger posed by political opponents have been consistently undercut by post-election embraces. Trump was welcomed back to the White House by President Obama in 2016, just like Biden did in 2024, and he also toned down his stance toward them after victories. These radical shifts in messaging reveal the performative nature of politicians ‘ language and weaken the credibility of political discourse.

A healthy republic relies on the public’s support and deliberation as its last resort. Yet although Congress holds the constitutional authority to declare war, it has not done sosince 1941.

Instead, executive war powers have grown as a result of the abuse of emergency measures, preventing public sway over war and peace decisions. Numerous presidents have labeled major recent wars like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as mistakes, eroding trust in leadership to responsibly conduct war.

The Trump administration now has to address undocumented populations and immigration. Past policies like Reagan’s Amnesty Bill and Obama’s executive action for so-called Dreamers caused friction and had far-reaching political consequences. Immigration was a central issue in the 2024 election, with Trump likely to have a strong support for a crackdown on illegal immigrants.

Solutions, however, must go beyond piecemeal fixes or mass deportations, which risk violating human rights and republican ideals. The main problems with immigration reform and enforcement are also ignored by less drastic approaches, like those pursued by Biden.

Rome offers a cautionary tale: patricians and plebeians showed rare unity in the Late Republic when they united against Gracchus after hepledged to extend citizenship rights to other populations. The situation demonstrates the need to increase responsibility.

The US economybenefits from labor tied to undocumented populations, and the root causes of migration, includingdecades of US intervention in Latin America, must also be acknowledged.

The US was initially established as a republican league of states, but it soon realized that national cohesion was necessary to ensure security and economic cohesion. Over time, the growing centralization of authority in Washington eroded the balance of this system and led to fears of ever-expanding executive power, particularly over matters of war.

This consolidation of power made the federal government more assertive and interventionist in its foreign policy, enabling it to project influence globally. Yet US states retain significant rights, functioning in a federated system with distributed powers that allow states to experiment with their own agendas. Among the options available to them are working together to counterbalance federal authority include health care reforms, voting rights, and working together.

American citizens also benefit from strong protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which, despite historical flaws in terms of racial and gender equity, established safeguards against government overreach.

However, a hesitance to fully leverage these rights remains, partly due to ignorance. Rights that are intended to advance all citizens, such as the right to bear arms, or judicially decided issues like access to abortion, frequently turn into sources of conflict and are presented as victories for one side as opposed to universal benefits.

This risks turning benefits into partisan battlegrounds, undermining their broader societal purpose. Many of the rights that Americans enjoy were secured by legislative action driven by social movements, not by courts interpreting the Constitution, which shows that the true source of rights is in the collective efforts of citizens and legislators.

US presidents have been generally unable to radically alter the nation’s political system, though the Jacksonian era proves there are exceptions. The two-party system was strengthened, the use of veto power expanded, and centralized executive authority were all the results of Andrew Jackson’s presidency ( 1829–1837 ), which fundamentally altered the role of the presidency.

Jackson, a populist, challenged corrupt elites and the political establishment but also aggravated tensions between the federal and state governments. Democratic participation was increased, but it was only for white men, and led to the substitution of officeholders with individuals loyal to them, with support for the continuation of slavery and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans.

Concentrating authority away from the executive in a few oversight bodies or enlarged bureaucracy can also backfire, often encouraging corruption rather than transparency. For instance, in the 1970s, legislative changes to campaign finance intended to improve transparency unintentionally led to an increase in lobbying, attack ads, and electoral exploitation.

This shift, intended to curb corporate influence, instead deepened it, allowing corporations and interest groups to find new ways to wield power. While the founding fathers were focused on preventing tyranny through checks and balances, they were unable to anticipate the significant influence that corporate interests would have on political outcomes, leading to the development of a system where legal monetary contributions increasingly predominate policy.

The US faces a major struggle in adapting its republican system to the realities of the 21st century. Executive power has played a key role in addressing significant issues, such as the end of slavery, but it also poses a risk of abuse.

Efforts to forcefully reform republics from the top down, like those seen in Rome, often impose rigid systems that fail to meet society’s evolving needs. On the other hand, overreliance on populist power without the necessary safeguards can lead to impulsive choices and unstable government.

Rejecting populism does not equate to diminishing civic engagement, rather, it calls for more sophisticated participation for constructive political processes. Important power is still in place for Americans, including the right to organize, protest, and use of free speech and association.

Realizing the full potential of these rights and their responsible use requires a deeper understanding of the political system and a commitment to responsible use.

This can be accomplished by gaining knowledge from other nations that support public funding, educate young people, and promote political legitimacy through transparency and participation.

Ignoring the need to address the decline in civic culture and public understanding of the system of government will further weaken the foundation of democratic practices.

Although organizations like the Bipartisan Policy Center have been criticized for being compromised by corporate interests, reforming the US republic is necessary because of this.

Over time, bipartisanship has become entrenched as a long-term alignment in support of big-money interests and an imperialist foreign policy, sidelining efforts for systemic change and diverging sharply from the best aspects of the early US vision.

Contrastingly, many reform advocates advocate for quick fixes rather than lasting solutions, often through partisan lenses, populism, or authoritarian impulses.

Meaningful reform, however, will be a slow and contentious process, and progress will remain elusive without addressing the root causes of major problems and accepting a collective responsibility to solve them.

John P. Ruehl is a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute and an Australian-American journalist who resides in Washington, DC. He is a contributor to several foreign affairs publications, and his book, Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas ‘, was published in December 2022.

This article was written by Human Bridges and republished with permission.

Continue Reading