« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

NEW ROME DC Part I or “Rulers, Sex, Generals, and National Security”

 

“The triple pillar of the world transformed into a strumpet’s fool: come and see.”
Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, 1.1

 

ROME BC

Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra opens with a line from Philo who is lamenting the transformation of Rome’s greatest general, Marc Antony, into a fool because of the allure of Cleopatra and the opiate she had become to him.

Thus ended the constitutional Rome through failed leadership, conspiring generals, sex for power, and finally bloodshed before it arose again as an empire consolidated under the dictatorial Caesars.

But Cleopatra did not intoxicate Antony alone.   Through intrigue and sexual beguilement of both Julius Caesar — recently assassinated by Brutus – and then Marcus Antony she did more damage to Rome than her Egyptian armies could ever have hoped to accomplish.

The wedge she created between Antony and Octavianus, Caesar’s nephew and adopted son, contributed to the bringing down of the triumviri; the three-man ruling body of Generals Antony, Ocatavianus and Marcus Lepidus, and Roman soldiers died.

When a woman used her cunning to ensnare Antony, the triumviri was up for grabs. In the end Cleopatra got all which was coming to her; loss of country, life and crown.

But she left the iron hand of the ruler Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus stronger, and the world and Rome would never be the same.

 

ROME DC

Such is the state of America today.  One week ago an honorable and able leader, Mitt Romney, offered himself to sort out the chaos all reasonable thinkers know Obama’s “rule” has become.

Americans chose, by a slender margin, to accept a track record of empty promises, narcissism,  and vacuousness in policy for another four years instead of proven talent and capacity.

Now — within two days of re-election, we learn that a distinguished former military general and head of the CIA resigns in ruins by admissions to infidelity in marriage and consequently to oath of his high office.

As America’s chief intelligence officer, former General David Petraeus was compromised by a scheming paramour, who in turn may have had access to classified details of secret operations.

How he conveniently kept such knowledge quiet before the election to President Obama’s benefit requires answering.

As a daily deluge of new information offering lies, sex, and betrayal — with links to the Benghazi tragedy — shows our enemies the raw weak-kneed leadership infecting Washington DC today, it begs the questions from the citizen’s representatives to ask what  the President knew, and if a cover-up involving four dead Americans was in play for re-election posturing.

 

The Unraveling  Leadership and National Security

Could an enemy attack have done more damage to the leadership structure of our top intelligence officer and to the credibility of  White House itself?

The triumviri of the White House, national security, and military leadership has been permanently affected as the shadow of deceit and conspiracy is now cast over a suspect administration built upon shifting sands of inconvenient truths.

And… America must live with this for exactly 48 months while our enemies gloat at the weakening.

Cleopatra knew what she was doing. Did the scheming woman — now one of two involved in the Petraeus scandal — know what she was doing?

And which of the modern triumviri is most benefited by the ruin of General Petraeus and others?  Perhaps none.

Certainly the White House is under pressure from the scandal, but the President has been, and will be, teflon protected by an adoring press who will resist real investigative journalism.

Just today Obama offered us a glimpse of his transparent administration by answering exactly nothing from the softball questions the White House Press pool asked at the first Presidential Press Conference held in eight months.

The words were many but the clarity was somewhat thicker than the perennial muddy water of the Mississippi River.

After all, an Executive Order writing President feels no need to answer to the press or Congress for that matter. Doing so only causes more questions to be asked and messes with his golf schedule.

 

Corruption, Decline and the Graveyard of Rome

How cruel is irony, and how maddening to those who seek to cover up ineptitude at the highest political levels. One year after Qaddafi’s death (October 2011) the ghost of the Libyan strongman comes back to haunt the US President with the curse from the graveyard of ancient Rome itself.

Libyan  intrigue betrays a seeming complicit former general, David Petraeus, who will begin to testify under oath this week in Congressional hearings about what he knew, and what the President knew when our Ambassador and three other Americans were killed on 9/11/12.

Alas, information one week too late for American’s to use in helping them determine who the next Commander in Chief should be.

Et tu Brute 

Cicero said something in a way only a diplomat could: ”Politicians aren’t born, they are excreted.” But then Caesar soon had him killed.

So I apologize in advance to America’s leaders should this missive overly accuse of conspiracy to weaken our country by ineptitude or with actual malevolence.

After all, perhaps we are simply watching a soap opera or thriller novel in the making. As a thriller writer I certainly am benefited by the real life dramas in a way I never could have imagined.

I merely point out what fears the average thinking American possesses upon witnessing the circus that DC is becoming day by day.

Cicero’s warnings of intrigue in his day foreshadowed the fall of the constitutional Rome, and are hauntingly clear to us now:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

― Marcus Tullius Cicero

James Michael Pratt is a New York Times bestselling author editor and owner of Jerusalem Reports, and frequent contributor to Red State and other conservative sites. He is author of RIGHT and WRONG Not Left and Right – The Third Option, Book 1 for 2013 release. His personal website includes biographical and other information regarding his work. He can also be found on FACEBOOK and Twitter.

 

COMMENTS

  • honor8versus8expedience

    Got chills reading that last quote of Cicero.

  • avgjo

    Awesome, awesome post.

    I have a lot of Latin under my belt. That study included much study of Rome’s history.

    Rome was at its greatest (and it was, I believe, the greatest and noblest of the pagan nations) in its Republic. The respect for law, the love of country and family and the respect for morals and their religion were admirable values, to be imitated. It is clear from the documentation that the Roman Republic and its institutions, filtered through two intervening millenia of Christendom and history, was ever-present in the minds of our Founders.

    Sadly, and perhaps tellingly, the odd person you meet in this country who actually knows something about Rome, usually only knows about the decadence of the Empire. I suppose all those stories about patriotism, honor, keeping one’s word, filial piety and courage are too boring for todays ‘hip’, ‘sophisticated’ bunch of degenerates…or are they?

    I worked in a public school for a while as a math and science tutor. The science teacher under whom I worked was a good, conservative man, and he would let me talk to the students about other topics from time-to-time. These talks often included stories of virtuous men from the Roman Republic. It was amazing to watch these jaded, sadly-old-for-their-years students’ eyes light up with a wonder and interest, more appropriate to youth, that hearkened back to a better, more innocent time long past. I would then follow up with a bit of moralizing, telling them that despite the cynical ‘wisdom’ of the time, one could live a virtuous (even if not perfect) life with honor, if one so chose.

    Whether or not I reached these students too late God only knows at this point. But I just wonder if we put these models of humanity (along with those of the Bible, Ancient Greece and Early America) back in the curriculum whether it would be as a salve to our raw culture? And the lessons of the Empire, some of which you have laid out here, could serve as a dire warning of what can happen to even the best of people if they allow the fruits of their success to supplant what made them great to begin with.

    Thanks for these articles, Mr. Pratt.

    • avgjo

      correction

      should have read:

      …for today’s ‘hip’, ‘sophisticated’ bunch of ‘degenerates’…

      (‘degenerates’ should have been in quotes)

    • jamesmpratt

      You are very kind, and the knowledge you shared exceeds my own on this topic. I admit to being a moralizer, and romantic, seeking to create worthy paralells which we may take as omens – for good or for bad. And I am rather amused at the ire moralizing foments. It is, after all, opining for illustrative purposes. But then, life is short — we have to be true to ourselves. “The past is prologue…” ;) Thanks again for your eloquent insights!

  • rustyoldgarand

    This reeks of “conservative entertainment” to me. It’s all very dramatic, comparing the silly little scandal surrounding Petraeus to Antony and Cleopatra, but does it have anything to do with reality? I mean…it’s not even historically accurate. Antony and Octavian’s legions were in open conflict long before Antony fled to Egypt. Laying the blame for the disintegration of the second triumvirate (nevermind the roman republic) at Cleopatra’s feet is a perversion of history.

    There are many valuable lessons to be learned from the slow disintegration of the roman republic (the danger of an army that revolves around personal loyalty rather than loyalty to the republic, for example), but none of them are discussed here. Hell, the writer doesn’t even acknowledge the fact that Cicero’s ire (best expressed in the Phillippics) was directed at Antony rather than Octavian, which makes the final quote of this piece rather ironic.

    I’m all for an intelligent discussion of the late roman republic and what lessons can be learned from it, but this is something closer to historical charlatanism.

    • avgjo

      Uhh…Antony gave Octavian the opening to exercise his ambition against him by insulting Octavian’s sister, Octavia, to whom Antony was wed, by having an blatantly public affair with Cleopatra. Octavian took advantage of this, using his mastery of propaganda to use this affair to turn public opinion against Antony, making the waging of war much easier (yes, even in those days, perhaps especially in those days, the strongman in charge had to worry about the vagaries of the mob).

      As to Cicero’s relationship with Octavian, that seems to have been more a result of the mutual animus that existed between him and Antony. Cicero once made a comment that (talking about Octavian): ‘the young man must get praises, honors – and the push’. The Latin was ‘laudandum, ornandum, tollendum’ and the last word, ‘tollendum’, translated ‘push’ had the secondary meaning of ‘get rid of’. In fact, after he made this remark, Decimus Brutus warned Cicero that this comment had reached Octavian, who remarked he had no intention of allowing that to happen.

      I think Mr. Pratt’s point remains: a man in a position of trust and great responsibility, who nevertheless cannot control his passions and appetites, can bring ruin to himself and his country.

      I know such moralizing is not hip among today’s ‘cool kids’, including the libs and libertarian dolts, but that doesn’t diminish its truth.

      • rustyoldgarand

        Antony’s relationship with Cleopatra was essentially political. He allied with her in order to consolidate his power in one of Rome’s more important provinces. With or without Cleopatra, the second triumvirate could not have held for long. This puritanical “temptress who destroyed the republic” narrative is ridiculous. Antony was not such an unserious man.

        • avgjo

          He sired children with her.

          That’s far more than an ‘essentially political’ relationship. Most men think with the wrong part of their bodies, especially politicians.

          I repeat: he gave Octavian rhetorical grounds (which translates in the mind of the public to moral grounds) to wage war on him by cheating on Octavian’s sister. Even in those days, you had to turn the people against an enemy to be able to successfully wage war against that enemy.

          Nothing personal, your use of the word ‘puritanical’ let the mask slip. That reveals your entire problem with Mr. Pratt’s analysis, that it is moral in tone.

          Antony was a man who could not control his passions or appetites. As a youth, he was a heavy gambler, amassing large debts. He ran away from his creditors and instead studied rhetoric and philosophy.He was a violent man, and poor administrator who was subject to indulgence of excess (Phillipics). Plutarch asserted that one of the conspirators against Julius Caesar made clear to him the plot, which Antony did not encourage, but which he did not report to Caesar, to whom he was supposed to have been so faithful. Did he sense an opportunity?

          His alliance with Cleopatra, which went hand-in-hand with his physical relations with her, started while he was at peace with the rest of the Triumvirate.

          Bottom line: Antony was an intemperate man, who could not control his lusts. These included physical lusts, lusts to indulge himself in excess and the lust for power (‘libido dominandi’). These rivelets all flow from the same source: his intemperance.

          Again, this is history with a moral tone, so it is not popular.

          Again, its popularity has little to do with its correctness.

          • rustyoldgarand

            Sigh…I wear no masks. I’m a happliy married father of three and neither a liberal, a libertarian, nor a libertine. I am a social conservative, and understand as any educated person does that the decline of the roman republic is primarily a story of moral decay. I don’t object to any kind of “moralizing”, indeed, I think America could use a lot more of it. But to assign specifically sexual decadence any leading role in the fall of the roman republic is simply a cartoonification of history, and you know it.

            With all due respect, you seem to be making a very common mistake, which is equating social conservatism with sexual conservatism, which leads to the presumption that anyone who does not share your sexual mores is uninterested in morality at best, and at worst downright immoral. This is mistaken. But perhaps something good may come of this. You have got me thinking, and I will write a diary entry on just this subject. You may flagellate me there if you so choose.

          • avgjo

            Well, sorry for assuming more than was proper.

            These things can get a little heated, and the blood flows to the head…

            my own intemperance showed. Guilty as charged.

            That said, I am not making the case that anyone not sharing the mores I believe in (they’re God’s in my belief, not mine) is immoral or uninterested in immorality. Rather, I am making the case that, as a society, we must re-examine and re-learn what we once knew (even if we didn’t practice it always) – that intemperance, in ANYTHING (sex, food, drink, study, whatever) is destructive.

            That’s all I was trying to say.

            Aside from that, I look forward to reading your diary. You have made some interesting points in this last diary, and you got me thinking as well.

            Thanks and good day!

    • jamesmpratt

      Admit. Guilty. Moralizer. Charlatan? Ouch. But thanks for reading. I am interested in your perspective.