![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So...#3 Now
19 Dec 2019 09:29So now we have a third US president to have been impeached -- 2 in the last 20ish years:
I've been readying a book about the death of the Roman Republic. I find it useful to read about the Roman Republic because that political system is what the founders of the US based our political processes on.
The book by Edward J. Watts is called Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny. (The page references below are from the first hardback edition from Basic Books.)
In reading the book, I believe I finally understood the founders' intentions with regards to the US Senate. The Roman Republic had several lawmaking bodies -- the Council of Plebeians, the Tribal Assembly, the Centuriate Assembly, etc. -- each with its own sphere of influence. The Roman Senate was intended as a check on these assemblies -- basically a sort of brake to keep the assemblies from driving the Republic off the rails. I suspect that the US Senate (longer terms, more deliberative, slower moving) was intended similarly -- to be a check on the popular laws originating from the House.
And of course, Congress as a whole was intended as a check against the President and the Courts.
But when the Senate votes by party to support a corrupt president, well, you can see now where that leads.
- Johnson
- Clinton
- Trump
- Adams/Jackson (1824)
- Hayes/Tilden (1876)
- Harrison/Cleveland (1888)
- Bush/Gore (2000)
- Trump/Clinton (2016)
I've been readying a book about the death of the Roman Republic. I find it useful to read about the Roman Republic because that political system is what the founders of the US based our political processes on.
The book by Edward J. Watts is called Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny. (The page references below are from the first hardback edition from Basic Books.)
The Republic was based on compromise and competition guided by a set of political norms that could be unfair but that were nevertheless recognized by all elites. They allowed themselves to be bound by the rules of the Republic in exchange for the chance to compete for the rewards it offered. (p. 91)This sounds to me remarkably like what the far right has been doing in the past 30 years -- delegitimizing the system that has worked since the second world war.
Marius undercut public faith in the legitimacy of the elites who had been running the Republic for most of the past generation....A delegitimized establishment helped Marius in the short run, but it seriously damaged the Republic. The political system had encouraged compromises and generated political consensus was now discredited alongside the men who had led it. Politicians like Saturninus then took advantage of this structural weakness.... (p. 117)
In reading the book, I believe I finally understood the founders' intentions with regards to the US Senate. The Roman Republic had several lawmaking bodies -- the Council of Plebeians, the Tribal Assembly, the Centuriate Assembly, etc. -- each with its own sphere of influence. The Roman Senate was intended as a check on these assemblies -- basically a sort of brake to keep the assemblies from driving the Republic off the rails. I suspect that the US Senate (longer terms, more deliberative, slower moving) was intended similarly -- to be a check on the popular laws originating from the House.
And of course, Congress as a whole was intended as a check against the President and the Courts.
But when the Senate votes by party to support a corrupt president, well, you can see now where that leads.
