President Julius Caesar?

[lpetrich]

To understand this, let us go back to the first and only Constitutional Convention ever, back in Philadelphia in 1787. After deciding on the composition of Congress, the Founders moved on to the election of the President. Among the possibilities that they considered was Congress electing the President, but they decided that that would make the Presidency too dependent on Congress, so they rejected that. That made the Presidency a separate power base in the Federal Government.

The first President, George Washington, was very modest, wanting no title fancier than "Mister President". He reluctantly served a second term, and he quit at the end of it.

But later Presidents expanded the power of the Presidency. Abraham Lincoln in the Civil war, Woodrow Wilson in World War I, and FDR the New Deal and WWII. By the early 1970's, Presidents had expanded their powers enough for Arthur Schlesinger Jr. to write a book, "The Imperial Presidency".


America Is Eerily Retracing Rome’s Steps to a Fall. Will It Turn Around Before It’s Too Late? - POLITICO
Describing Julius Caesar as like Donald Trump in being a populist demagogue. Complete with surviving scandals about him. Like how he how was "Queen of Bithynia", a reference to an alleged relationship with the king of that territory. But I've never seen Trump called Putin's girlfriend. At least not yet.

Trump has talked about serving a third term and even of being President for Life.

That article made numerous parallels, including:

Trump’s opponents, too, have often reacted like Caesar’s: at first with pearl-clutching incredulity about his “unpresidential” image while failing completely to deal with the power of his message—followed by a propensity to adopt a Trumpian, Caesarean style of “us vs. them” communication themselves. The first presidential debate confirmed this shift, as Biden responded to Trump’s constant attacks with needling, personal rebuttals. Many Democrats don’t advocate a return to “normalcy” brought about by reconciliation, but are rather preparing for a reckoning if Biden wins—expanding and packing the Supreme Court, extending the franchise of statehood and securing the conviction of the Trump leadership.

These parallels come with a warning for the United States today: Two thousand years ago, many establishment Romans misunderstood the damage that Caesar was doing to the state’s political culture and institutions, and a nervously asserted sense of complacency continued in certain circles. History’s most famous orator, Cicero, decried this complacency—the belief that the damage of “one bad consul” could always be undone. In Rome, that was far from the case: Caesar left office legitimized, emboldened and—even in his absence—an ever-present force in the political landscape of Republican Rome. When he departed for the provinces, the rot of authoritarian populism had already set in. Rome fell almost immediately into civic violence as new leaders of the Caesarean ideology emerged, jostling for power. Even Cicero, whose political philosophy was constructed on the idea of consensus within the state, began to speak of society “divided in two.” By failing to curtail Caesar, and failing to address the deep social and structural inequalities driving ordinary supporters into his arms, the establishment ensured that the tribal rhetoric espoused by Caesar at the contio translated into a destructive and pervasive authoritarian ideology.

With violence now a legitimate form of political expression, when Caesar returned to Rome, it was at the head of an army. The environment of strongman politics he helped to create left civil war and violence as the only effective means of political change—and ultimately sealed his own fate. After he had himself appointed “Dictator for Life,” there was no longer a legitimate political avenue by which to remove him: The result, famously, was a bloody tyrannicide in the Senate house itself. But even with his death, transformation of Rome’s political culture into the rule of the strong could not be reversed, as new contenders emerged for yet another round of brutal civil wars that finally extinguished the Republic once and for all.

 

[lpetrich]

Like other parallels, this one is not exact.

Julius Caesar got into power earlier in life than Trump, and his health was likely better. JC became consul for a year at the age of 41, that office being roughly a sort of co-president. After some military adventures, he took over at around age 50, and he was assassinated in a coup attempt at age 56.

JC was a successful army commander, while Trump's businesses have several bankruptcies, at least one bailout by Russian oligarchs, and nowadays a lot of debt.

He was literate enough to write books, and two of them survive, one on his conquest of Gaul and one on the civil wars that he was involved in. Trump, however, has been dependent on ghostwriters for his literary productions, and as President, he apparently does not like to read briefing papers.

JC even used cryptography in some of his correspondence, though very simple sorts (computers were over 2000 years in the future).

JC reformed the calendar to what was essentially the Egyptian calendar with Roman month names. A calendar that we still use today with some modifications. The earlier Roman calendar was a lunisolar calendar, with months pegged to the orbit of the Moon relative to the Sun, and an extra month added every few years. But Roman officials had grown negligent about that extra month, and some of them had sometimes added it to favor their friends -- gerrymandering the calendar. LacusCurtius • The Roman Calendar (Smith's Dictionary, 1875)

Trump doesn't have any achievements anywhere comparable to these. To name one prominent example, JC set up a gerrymander-proof calendar, but Trump has not tried to end gerrymandering of legislative districts.

In temperament, Trump resembles Commodus, a later Roman emperor. Commodus was cruel and egotistical, and he liked to rename stuff after himself, like the months of the year.

 

[Patooka]

If you're going to compare Trump to Roman Emperors, wouldn't Nero be a better choice?

 

[Derec]

If you're going to compare Trump to Roman Emperors, wouldn't Nero be a better choice?

Julius Caesar wasn't an Emperor.

 

[Swammerdami]

If you're going to compare Trump to Roman Emperors, wouldn't Nero be a better choice?

Julius Caesar was outstanding as a military conqueror, and was a true genius. Donald Trump is a sociopathic moron who has the emotional maturity of a 4-year old. Comparing the two is laughable, unless used as evidence for a famous observation by Karl Mark:

Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Another difference: their senate took appropriate deliberative action.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'd prefer thinking of Trumpo as a chimpanzee in a group of chimpanzees. Chimps band together around a leader, but that leader has to have the ability to unify the band. That leader is typically physically gifted, cunning, ruthless, and courageous, although sometimes the leader just happens to be lucky in something it does, like discovering how to make loud banging noises on a discarded metal drum.

Trumpo is not physically gifted, is cunning, is certainly ruthless, and is not courageous. He is certainly lucky and does do a lot of banging, but because he lacks any intellectual prowess he would most likely be the chimp that stays home and guards the fig tree while the other males go make war on neighboring bands.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Also, in a zoo setting, there's often one alpha chimp that gets quite skillful in throwing its poo out of the cage to hit the people who irritate it or won't indulge it. Or just for kicks. I've never seen one before this who does it all day, though.

 

[Elixir]

Another difference: their senate took appropriate deliberative action.

Ours had that chance...

 

[SLD]

The Roman Republic faced vastly different problems than we do. Most conspicuously private armies controlled by political generals. This enabled Caesar to march across the Rubicon and start civil war. No US General would think of doing such a thing.

Not that our Republic can’t fall, but that it will be different when it happens.

SLD