Do We Need An Emperor?

[We  might not, but the government may.]

For years, I've been toying with notions of parallels between the late Roman Republic and our own US governmental mess. It is a mess, you understand, at nearly every level, though for the most part, its mechanisms function more or less well most of the time.

The problems are mostly at the ideological and leadership levels. The almost universal operating paradigm is what I call neoLibCon. That is to say, it is a fusion of neoliberal domestic and economic policies together with neoconservative foreign policies. There are many complexities (and surprising levels of denial) along the way. It's not a binary "this or that," it's a multiplicity of "this and that."

The government has run rogue at the top for many years, at least since the days of Clinton and Gingrich hammering away at one another. I saw it as Gingrich's attempt to reanimate and replay the English Civil War with himself as Cromwell to Clinton's Charles I.

The struggle and pageant didn't end well for either of the main characters, but it had a profound effect on government and the electorate. Lessons were learned. Primarily, the lesson was that that Leaders can get away with pretty much anything they want, so long as they keep their constituents entertained (bread and circuses), but they may not succeed in reaching their goals (for example, impeaching and removing Clinton from office.) But then, was that ever their goal? We can't be sure, can we?

Perhaps the impeachment saga took place to diminish the aura of the presidency. Or rather to diminish the aura of Democratic presidents while enhancing that of Republican presidents and legislators.

A sort of sideways statement that we are ruled by Rs no matter which party holds congressional majorities and the White House.

It's not just that they are the ruling party, they are the only legitimate party; the Ds exist merely as foils.

For as long as I've been playing on the intertubez, I've noticed a strong animus toward the Democrats, to the point of urging and working for the "utter destruction" of the Democratic Party. That's almost a core principle for the internet political junkies and denizens. Democrats delenda est! 

They are betrayers, feckless, worse than Rs, and corrupt as hell. Yes? And? Democrats must be destroyed!

Well, OK. But if they are the Washington Generals to the Republican Harlem Globetrotters, then the whole thing is just a show, a pageant, with a pre-determined outcome, meant to entertain the rubes while the real work (and money counting) goes on in the back office somewhere. It's a game, a show, a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

So if that's the case, do we need an Emperor instead of a president? Perhaps to be above the president?

Trump of course is inadequate to the role. Octavian was a masterful politician and bullshitter, however, and it was apparently easy for him to elide the roles he assumed and created (once the civil war was done). He "preserved and protected" the Republic while essentially doing away with it.

Is that what we need?

Sometimes I wonder.

The fantasy world that many Trump supporters, defenders and loyalists created around their devotion is still very strong. To some, Trump is their longed for "God-Emperor," who can never fail, he can only be failed. They actually use the term "God-Emperor" in their devotions. Their longing for... something.... is so strong, they can't see the flim-flam and fraudulence of what they're getting. Those who do see it recoil in disgust.

And yet... I'm convinced Trump won't last in office (but I've been wrong about coups and such, so we'll see.) It doesn't actually matter whether he serves out his term or not. What matters is what comes After Trump, and my sense is that a precedent is being set which will solidify the oligarchic rule we've been under for many years and enable direct rule from the palaces of our Overlords, one of whom will be periodically selected to be Emperor. We will have good Emperors and bad.

The Republic, then, having given up the ghost, will be lost forever after.

But then maybe it was inevitable.

"If You Strike at the King...."

My spidey sense is all over the map these days. Politics has nearly reached peak chaos it seems to me, and the dithering behind the scenes has left it up to the lawyers to figure out what to do. Not a good look. 

Dithering, yes. The Dems haven't actually done anything to thwart Himself, and I can hardly imagine them doing so. It is not in their genetic make up to act except on behalf of themselves and their owners and sponsors.

Trump's advantage is that he is one of the owners and sponsors -- though never a heavy hitter -- and he's filled his cabinet with other owners and sponsors, many of which have been around for a very long time and are very rich and very powerful though their profiles might not be as high as Mr. Trump's.

This would be a form of direct rule by the corporate kakistocracy/kleptocracy as opposed to the their indirect rule through a managerial/technocratic class (viz: Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and even the Bush Regime, odd as it may seem.)

Well, that would be something new, wouldn't it? Our original rulers were of the owner class, to be sure, and their hand wasn't always light, their wisdom was often questionable, but it seems clear enough through the lens of history that their intent was patriotic rather than self-aggrandizing. Not so now.

Even during the worst of the Gilded Age, when government served only the interests of the richest of the rich, the malefactors of great wealth did not operate the government directly (for the most part, there were some exceptions here and there). They bent the government to their will through the purchase of politicians and legislative bodies and the installation of compliant managers and smooth-talking con men in office.

Now though, huh. Basically the Trumpians have opened hostilities with the entire entrenched class of technocrats and managers who have run the country on behalf of Our Betters at least since Reagan. Some of them will be sacrificed without issue. Nobody likes them and nobody cares what happens to them. On the other hand there is an entrenched and powerful "alt.government" (I hate the term "alt" but it is a Thing at the moment, so let's play for a bit) that will not go lightly into the sunset. Oh no.

We've seen this play out before during the Snowden Thing among others. If anything there are more factions in the alt.gov than there are in the public face of government. It's just amazing. Anyway, what seems to have happened is that the CIA, among other shadowy agencies, has tossed a few grenades (labeled "Putin Did It") the King's way as an initial shot across his bow. A warning, as it were, that "we can -- and will -- take you down if you don't play nice."

On the other hand (there are always more hands in this game than we know), there are plenty of agencies and alt.gov centers that have made their peace with the New Boss and are eager to obey and serve. Well, at least for public consumption. FBI seems to fit into that framework.

Then there's the NSA which is pretending to be above the fray and neutral as to outcome. Yeah, right.

I've suspected all along that the Putin/Russia Thing is largely a consequence of Snowden and his apparently very comfortable exile/asylum in Moscow. Had that not happened, the relationship between the Kremlin and DC might not have deteriorated to the point it has as quickly as it has. Which doesn't mean it would have been good, but still. For whatever reason, Putin, Hillary and Obama don't get along, regardless of any background issues and noise. 

NSA is the one with the hardest animosity toward Snowden and Russia whereas the CIA is out and about committing whatever atrocities and unpleasantness they can think of and wish to engage in. They're the ones on the front lines, skin in the game and all that, whereas the perfumed princes of the NSA simply sit in their comfy Star Trek chairs and watch the world head straight to hell in a handbasket. Sometimes nudging things in that direction if it pleases them to do so. Damb I loathe these people.

But there are so many other players in the alt.gov, players known and unknown, that it's impossible for someone like me, way on the outside, and never close on the inside, to sort it all out.

At any rate, shots have been fired toward, not yet at, the would be King. I can't say whether there is sufficient support among the factions of the alt.gov to accept direct rule by the kakistocracy/kleptocracy, but there may not be enough resistance to do anything about it.

The Trumpian charge that the CIA in particular and the "intelligence" community in general got the Iraq Thing wrong and continue to wrong-foot their destructive way through the Middle East and elsewhere is valid. But it's not at all clear that Mr. Trump and his cronies would be any better. They have a different set of targets. That doesn't make them any wiser than those who have so screwed up for so very long.

If this matter is to be resolved in the interests of some of the Trumpian targets -- they are many and practically everywhere -- he cannot be allowed to ascend to the Throne. Period. He will not be subject to the control of his inferiors (as he sees them) once he is installed as president-king-emperor. His opponents either yield or they're gone.

Preventing his ascension is apparently still a thing. But as time goes by, options narrow, and I think we know what the ultimate option is.

I say it is unlikely that option will be utilized (and I really don't want to see it). But it's not up to me or any of us. The struggle does not involve us, the Rabble, directly or indirectly. We are at best a chorus in the background of yet another pageant. Mostly we're little more than scenery or props.

Meanwhile, "If you strike at the King..."

[Note: FTR, I've been getting a huge number of hits from Russia lately... go figure...]