June 15, 2023 - 9:00am
When a relative of a senior politician makes money in complicated circumstances, questions are asked. That’s especially the case when foreign interests are involved.
At the moment, it’s Hunter Biden — son of Joe — who’s under scrutiny. Despite the best efforts of hostile Republicans, the younger Biden has yet to be indicted (unlike Donald Trump).
Of course, if a senior Democrat — or someone close to him or her — were found to be under foreign influence, then the Right would be justified in their hostility.
On Twitter, the venture capitalist David Sacks drew a provocative parallel: “In the days of Roman Republic, Senatorial families were oft paid patronage by foreign kings.” In this way they could be relied upon to “intervene on the king’s behalf.” Sacks goes on to cite the case of Jugurtha, king of Numidia, as an especially blatant example.
This prompted a reply from Elon Musk: “Perhaps we just need a modern day Sulla”. That’s not just a provocative parallel — it’s downright disturbing. Sulla, or Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, to give him his full name, was a pivotal figure in Roman history. Born almost 40 years before Julius Caesar in 138 BC, he made his name as a general, crushing foreign kings (including Jugurtha).
In 82 BC, Sulla seized power in Rome itself, becoming its first military dictator. Losing no time, he re-established traditional values after a period of political upheaval — and rooted out corruption including the influence of foreign powers. Then, after three years, he did something unexpected: he voluntarily retired. Quite clearly, he wasn’t about power for power’s sake. Rather, he was there to do a job — and, so, once he’d done it, he went back to his farm.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeGood governance and order didn’t arise from best wishes and virtuosity. The state didn’t command it to be so and it was so. We got to good governance and order by centuries of conflict and revolution, where more corrupt and autocratic systems were destroyed or eclipsed by less corrupt and more democratic systems. It is (or was) only competitive pressure and the threat of complete elimination if they don’t govern well that keeps ruling elites on the straight and narrow and everyone broadly united.
The problem is, good governance and order diminish the very threat needed to make sure elites self regulate and maintain unity. Polarisation of belief is a luxury of ordered societies and an inevitability of collapsed societies. Having got to the top of the hill of well-run society, the only way is down.
In the example of Rome, Sulla didn’t create the civil wars that were going to end the Republic and no appeal to the Republican ideal was going to end the civil wars – the polarisation of factions was too great to unite under the Republic. Having reached a peak of good governance, downhill was the only destination and with it not just the Republic but Roman civilisation itself. The Republic could never be revived, so Sulla and Julius did the next best thing and saved Roman civilisation for what turned out to be another 400+ years.
This does beg the question whether saving Roman civilisation delayed alternative and better successors, but from the perspective of a Roman at the time, saving Roman civilisation was clearly the better outcome. Which is why, rightly or wrongly, if our modern democratic systems are collapsing because of their inherent weakness when faced with polarisation, many will opt for a Sulla rather than watch their entire civilisation go down with democracy.
Sulla didn’t save Roman civilisation in any way, he just started the destruction of the republic.
He declared civil war on his own state because he had been passed over for a very lucrative army command. He instituted the process where a roman general uses money acquired from foreign conquests was used to buy the personal loyalty of legions which he then used to install himself by force as dictator, then have all his political opponents murdered – which was followed by Caesar & Octavian.
His political reforms consisted of stripping the plebians of any of the power and representation they had struggled to acquire over the centuries, and the system he instituted barely outlived him.
You forget to mention Gaius Marius in all this and at least Sulla did actually retire.
Marius was amazing. To this day, apart from Octavian, I think he was the most transformative figure in Roman history.
AND…he saved Rome twice from the weakness and selfishness of Rome’s elites.
And a least he died in his bed!
And a least he died in his bed!
Marius was amazing. To this day, apart from Octavian, I think he was the most transformative figure in Roman history.
AND…he saved Rome twice from the weakness and selfishness of Rome’s elites.
My understanding is that while we think of the Patricians as the nobility and the Plebians as the common folk it was not that simple. The Patricians were the original Romans who let all sorts of immigrants in on the basis of them not having any power but then, over the years, the Plebs got some and wanted more power. Many of the Patricians remembered their history and fought back. Futilely, as almost all countries that have let immigrants in have found out.
And history is destined to repeat itself
That is a very strange description of Roman history.
The whole mythology of Rome’s founding is that it was a city of immigrants. Some of the oldest & most powerful patrician families were identified as being immigrants, and the conflict between Plebs and Patricians goes very far back. There was never am idea that Plebs were non-Roman outsiders in anything I have read: They were just the historic working class, some of whom had risen to become rich and powerful. You Patricians are always trying to divert attention from the class struggle by attacking immigrants.
I’ve just tried to reply ‘well said’ and got told I was ‘awaiting for approval’. What on earth?
I sometimes think it is random. I occasionally post something salty without any problem – but my most temperate posts randomly get nuked.
I sometimes think it is random. I occasionally post something salty without any problem – but my most temperate posts randomly get nuked.
You utter a simple logical fallacy: it isn’t “attacking immigrants” to make the point that there are, currently, vastly too many of them (a city the size of Birmingham every 2 lest we forget). It is obvious to anyone that quite apart from the issues of how e acculturate such a large number in such a short time, public services are under severe strain.
Needless to say, they don’t tend to end up in the posh areas where so many pro-immigration liberals live! Most people, including ethnic minorities, do not support this level of migration.
I’ve just tried to reply ‘well said’ and got told I was ‘awaiting for approval’. What on earth?
You utter a simple logical fallacy: it isn’t “attacking immigrants” to make the point that there are, currently, vastly too many of them (a city the size of Birmingham every 2 lest we forget). It is obvious to anyone that quite apart from the issues of how e acculturate such a large number in such a short time, public services are under severe strain.
Needless to say, they don’t tend to end up in the posh areas where so many pro-immigration liberals live! Most people, including ethnic minorities, do not support this level of migration.
And history is destined to repeat itself
That is a very strange description of Roman history.
The whole mythology of Rome’s founding is that it was a city of immigrants. Some of the oldest & most powerful patrician families were identified as being immigrants, and the conflict between Plebs and Patricians goes very far back. There was never am idea that Plebs were non-Roman outsiders in anything I have read: They were just the historic working class, some of whom had risen to become rich and powerful. You Patricians are always trying to divert attention from the class struggle by attacking immigrants.
Well said.
You forget to mention Gaius Marius in all this and at least Sulla did actually retire.
My understanding is that while we think of the Patricians as the nobility and the Plebians as the common folk it was not that simple. The Patricians were the original Romans who let all sorts of immigrants in on the basis of them not having any power but then, over the years, the Plebs got some and wanted more power. Many of the Patricians remembered their history and fought back. Futilely, as almost all countries that have let immigrants in have found out.
Well said.
“This does beg the question whether saving Roman civilisation delayed alternative and better successors,”
Well most fortuitously we DO know the answer to your question, which is a resounding YES!
What finally followed was manically violent, completely intolerant, monotheistic Christianity. All in all a complete disaster for more than a thousand years.
In fact ‘we’ have yet to fully recover from this disaster.
Er, the Roman state actually facilitated Christianity’s political dominance through the conversion of Constantine and his successors…
A terrible mistake as it turned out.
A terrible mistake as it turned out.
Er, the Roman state actually facilitated Christianity’s political dominance through the conversion of Constantine and his successors…
Sulla didn’t save Roman civilisation in any way, he just started the destruction of the republic.
He declared civil war on his own state because he had been passed over for a very lucrative army command. He instituted the process where a roman general uses money acquired from foreign conquests was used to buy the personal loyalty of legions which he then used to install himself by force as dictator, then have all his political opponents murdered – which was followed by Caesar & Octavian.
His political reforms consisted of stripping the plebians of any of the power and representation they had struggled to acquire over the centuries, and the system he instituted barely outlived him.
“This does beg the question whether saving Roman civilisation delayed alternative and better successors,”
Well most fortuitously we DO know the answer to your question, which is a resounding YES!
What finally followed was manically violent, completely intolerant, monotheistic Christianity. All in all a complete disaster for more than a thousand years.
In fact ‘we’ have yet to fully recover from this disaster.
Good governance and order didn’t arise from best wishes and virtuosity. The state didn’t command it to be so and it was so. We got to good governance and order by centuries of conflict and revolution, where more corrupt and autocratic systems were destroyed or eclipsed by less corrupt and more democratic systems. It is (or was) only competitive pressure and the threat of complete elimination if they don’t govern well that keeps ruling elites on the straight and narrow and everyone broadly united.
The problem is, good governance and order diminish the very threat needed to make sure elites self regulate and maintain unity. Polarisation of belief is a luxury of ordered societies and an inevitability of collapsed societies. Having got to the top of the hill of well-run society, the only way is down.
In the example of Rome, Sulla didn’t create the civil wars that were going to end the Republic and no appeal to the Republican ideal was going to end the civil wars – the polarisation of factions was too great to unite under the Republic. Having reached a peak of good governance, downhill was the only destination and with it not just the Republic but Roman civilisation itself. The Republic could never be revived, so Sulla and Julius did the next best thing and saved Roman civilisation for what turned out to be another 400+ years.
This does beg the question whether saving Roman civilisation delayed alternative and better successors, but from the perspective of a Roman at the time, saving Roman civilisation was clearly the better outcome. Which is why, rightly or wrongly, if our modern democratic systems are collapsing because of their inherent weakness when faced with polarisation, many will opt for a Sulla rather than watch their entire civilisation go down with democracy.
For goodness sake…It.Was.A.Joke.
For goodness sake…It.Was.A.Joke.
“Despite the best efforts of hostile Republicans, the younger Biden has yet to be indicted (unlike Donald Trump).”
I think what the author meant to say is that through their control of the branches of law enforcement the Democrats have been able to ensure that Trump was prosecuted while ensuring that the investigations into the dealings of Biden Jr and his father are obstructed and frustrated
This really is a serious problem – not just for the US – but for all of us as they effectively guarantee the security of the entire western world.
This really is a serious problem – not just for the US – but for all of us as they effectively guarantee the security of the entire western world.
“Despite the best efforts of hostile Republicans, the younger Biden has yet to be indicted (unlike Donald Trump).”
I think what the author meant to say is that through their control of the branches of law enforcement the Democrats have been able to ensure that Trump was prosecuted while ensuring that the investigations into the dealings of Biden Jr and his father are obstructed and frustrated
What an incredibly ridiculous, awful essay. The author wasted 400 words micro analyzing a tweet from Musk. Like many of us, Musk thinks the US political system is corrupt and needs to be reformed. Let’s not over analyze it please.
I don’t know – I think the point is that the cumulative games being played by the Democrats, with their allies in the FBI, Big Tech and the mainstream media, compounded by the political cowardice of the courts – are creating enormous tension in the US. I truly believe that if they have another dodgy election – and the courts refuse to hear cases about it – that they will have civil conflict. The author is trying to make the case for avoiding conflict – but I am not sure I agree. Taking the high road against unscrupulous cheaters is a fools choice.
I don’t know – I think the point is that the cumulative games being played by the Democrats, with their allies in the FBI, Big Tech and the mainstream media, compounded by the political cowardice of the courts – are creating enormous tension in the US. I truly believe that if they have another dodgy election – and the courts refuse to hear cases about it – that they will have civil conflict. The author is trying to make the case for avoiding conflict – but I am not sure I agree. Taking the high road against unscrupulous cheaters is a fools choice.
What an incredibly ridiculous, awful essay. The author wasted 400 words micro analyzing a tweet from Musk. Like many of us, Musk thinks the US political system is corrupt and needs to be reformed. Let’s not over analyze it please.
It’s the difference between potential decline and guaranteed (managed) decline. As a Brit who has lived through the latter over the past century I can’t recommend this path to our American cousins when they are at a fork in the road.
It’s the difference between potential decline and guaranteed (managed) decline. As a Brit who has lived through the latter over the past century I can’t recommend this path to our American cousins when they are at a fork in the road.
What is there for “modern day conservatives” to conserve? For better or worse we await the American Caudillo.
What is there for “modern day conservatives” to conserve? For better or worse we await the American Caudillo.
The article writer makes the error of casting the Empire period as a lesser state or a failure of history and of governance. His evidence is that some … 400 years later Rome’s dominion came to an end.
Read up on Octavian / Augustus and you may reach the conclusion that it was a period of huge ‘success’ of governance and Roman expansion and dominion.
Granted events unfolded the way they did but to lay the eventual end 400 years later of Rome’s rule on Sulla’s actions is a stretch too far and just shows us the writers viewpoint.
If you take it to 476 that’s over 500 years, not to mention what continued in Constantinople for centuries.
If you take it to 476 that’s over 500 years, not to mention what continued in Constantinople for centuries.
The article writer makes the error of casting the Empire period as a lesser state or a failure of history and of governance. His evidence is that some … 400 years later Rome’s dominion came to an end.
Read up on Octavian / Augustus and you may reach the conclusion that it was a period of huge ‘success’ of governance and Roman expansion and dominion.
Granted events unfolded the way they did but to lay the eventual end 400 years later of Rome’s rule on Sulla’s actions is a stretch too far and just shows us the writers viewpoint.
Did the Romans have nicknames? (Charles S might know.)
If he’d been around today, his nickname would surely have been Sulla the Culler.
Yes hundreds of them. They were called cognomen which loosely translates as ‘known name’.
Some example:-
Felix = Lucky. (Sulla’s cognomen)
Cicero = Chick pea.
Crassus= Fat.
Bibulus= Drunkard.
Strabo= Squinty.
Naso= Big nose.
Scaurus= Lame.
Even. Caesar was one although its meaning is much disputed.
The name Cicero certainly registers: Cicer arietinum is the botanical name of the chickpea.
There is a tormentone (earworm) which took Italy by storm 10 years ago: this string will find it on YouTube:
CICIRINELLA TENEVA TENEVA – Tequila e Montepulciano Band [VideoClip Ufficiale]
which will bring up a most watchable video. The name Cicirinella means “little chick pea”.
The name Cicero certainly registers: Cicer arietinum is the botanical name of the chickpea.
There is a tormentone (earworm) which took Italy by storm 10 years ago: this string will find it on YouTube:
CICIRINELLA TENEVA TENEVA – Tequila e Montepulciano Band [VideoClip Ufficiale]
which will bring up a most watchable video. The name Cicirinella means “little chick pea”.
Yes hundreds of them. They were called cognomen which loosely translates as ‘known name’.
Some example:-
Felix = Lucky. (Sulla’s cognomen)
Cicero = Chick pea.
Crassus= Fat.
Bibulus= Drunkard.
Strabo= Squinty.
Naso= Big nose.
Scaurus= Lame.
Even. Caesar was one although its meaning is much disputed.
Did the Romans have nicknames? (Charles S might know.)
If he’d been around today, his nickname would surely have been Sulla the Culler.
Word! There is an allure on the Right for strong-man rule, fascism, etc. because of the ‘order’ it brings and the enemies subdued. But this has a dark side, as the history of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy show.