Reflections on Marcus Aurelius in the Age of Trump – Part 2

Marcus Aurelius begins his Meditations with a long series of thanksgiving to those who have had a profound impact on his life, including his adoptive father and predecessor, the emperor Antoninus Pius.  His expression of gratitude toward Pius comes not from a need or desire to flatter – Pius had been dead for a decade – but from a sincere appreciation and a genuine respect for the man (let us not forget that Marcus never intended for his notes to be published).

It is, of course, reasonable to argue that because of his ardent devotion to his adoptive father, Marcus Aurelius is not the most objective assessor of Pius.  It is, therefore, more fruitful as well as more instructive to treat the praise not as a truthful portrait of Pius’ character, but as a reflection of what Marcus himself believes to be the most commendable virtues for an emperor and for a man.  If so, what are those virtues?

Here are a few selections from Marcus’ praise of Pius.  The translation is that of the Loeb Classical Library (1902).

In my adoptive father I observed a smooth and inoffensive temper, with great steadiness in keeping close to measures judiciously taken; a greatness proof against vanity and the impressions of pomp and power.

. . .

To debate matters carefully and thoroughly at the council-board, and then to stand by what was resolved on, yet not hastily to give up the inquiry, as one easily satisfied with sudden notions and apprehensions.

Farther, by observing his methods and administration, I had the opportunity of learning how much it was the part of a prince to check the excesses of panegyric and flattery . . . not to court the populace, either by prodigality or compliment; but rather to be sober and firm upon all occasions, keeping things in a steady decorum, without chopping and changing of measures.

Farther, he never envied those that were eminent in any faculty or science, as eloquence, or knowledge of the laws or morals; but, on the contrary, encouraged them in their ways, and promoted their reputation.

He was very moderate and frugal in shows, public buildings, liberalities, and such like, being one that did not so much regard the popularity as the rightness of an action.

To take him altogether, there was nothing harsh, implacable, or violent in his temper.  Neither did he ever seem to drudge and sweat at the helm.  Things were dispatched at leisure, and without being felt; and yet the administration was carried on without confusion, with great order, force, and uniformity.

Marcus concludes his praise with the following observation:

Upon the whole, what was told of Socrates is applicable to him; for he was so much master of himself, that he could either enjoy or abstain from those conveniences of life with respect to which most people are either uneasy without them, or intemperate with them.  Now, to hold on with fortitude in one condition and sobriety in the other is a proof of a great soul and an impregnable virtue, such as he showed in the sickness of Maximus.”

These are high standards for any mortals to live up to, and one should be commended just for trying.  Those who actually live up to them in this age of hubris and crudeness, they are truly extraordinary and remarkable.

Reflections on Marcus Aurelius in the Age of Trump – Part 1

As the President of the United States declares himself to have single-handedly restored American greatness, I cannot help but think of Marcus Aurelius.

Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus was a Roman emperor and the author of Meditations.  His introspective disposition inclined him to prefer the simple life of a philosopher to the luxury and opulence of the palace, but on the death of his adoptive father, the Emperor Antoninus Pius, he set aside his own philosophical yearning and dutifully assumed the throne, for which he had been groomed by two successive emperors from a very young age.  He did not, however, abandon philosophy or the rigorous simplicity of his life upon ascension, as Pius had taught him “to recognize that it is possible to live in a Court and yet do without body-guards and gorgeous garments and linkmen and statues and the like pomp.”

Marcus Aurelius executed his imperial responsibilities with diligence.  Though of a weak constitution, he personally led the legions in the defense of the empire, spending most of his long reign fighting Germanic tribes on the frontiers with his troops.  It was under the harsh conditions of the legionary camp that he composed his Meditations, one of the most renowned original sources on the Stoic philosophy.  His death in 180 marked the end of Rome’s golden age, an age Edward Gibbon declares to be “possibly the only period of history in which the happiness of a great people was the sole object of government.”

How should we then assess Marcus Aurelius and his life?  It should first be readily acknowledged that he was far from the most successful or the most accomplished of the emperors.  He was not a consummate and astute statesman like Augustus, who chose for his successor a man most capable and competent to lead and preserve the new system of imperial government he had erected on the ashes of the Republic.   Marcus, on the other hand, passed the throne to a son whose pride and cruelty brought about his own downfall and nearly that of the empire.

As a general, Marcus Aurelius was not of the same caliber as Scipio, Caesar, or Trajan, and most certainly not as Alexander.  He did manage to secure the empire’s borders against foreign incursions, but he also suffered humiliating setbacks, most notably in 170 when he allowed himself and his legions to be outflanked by the Marcomanni and the Quadi, who then broke through the Julian Alps and besieged Aquileia, the first foreign invasion of Italy in almost 300 years.

Marcus Aurelius’ fame as a Stoic philosopher stems mostly from his Meditations.  The book, however, is not a systematic exposition of Stoicism, and there is nothing at all original in the philosophical themes that are discernible in the book: they had all been expounded by other philosophers, notably the Stoic Epictetus.  Other than as a valuable historical record of contemporary Stoic thoughts, the Meditation contributes little, if anything at all, to the field of philosophy.

As it was never meant to be published, however, the Meditations provides us with a candid look into its author’s own character, and what emerges from this motley collection of short epigrams and oral quotations is a man who was ever wary of the temptation of power, who personified both in words and in actions the ideals of duty, humility, and moral rectitude, and who respected his fellow human beings, no matter what stations they occupied in life, and no matter how obnoxious they were.

Marcus Aurelius’ conscientiousness and modesty are the more incredible when we consider that he held in his hands absolute power over the greatest empire the world has ever seen.  Over the millennia many have exercised absolute power, but no one, either before him or after him, has exercised absolute power with more scruple and humility.  If power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely – and they do – then Marcus Aurelius was truly a wonder, a paragon, an exception destined to vindicate the inevitable truth of power’s corruption.

What is most striking and admirable about Marcus Aurelius, therefore, is not Marcus Aurelius the emperor, or Marcus Aurelius the warrior, or even Marcus Aurelius the philosopher, but Marcus Aurelius the man, who was truly deserving of the epithet “the Great,” more so than Constantine, more so than Theodosius, and most certainly more so than Alexander.  But again, Marcus Aurelius would have rejected such an epithet as vulgar, ostentatious, and vain.  Such was Marcus Aurelius the man.

New Look, New Name, New Beginning?

So, as you can see, the blog now has a new look.  I have also changed its name to Res Publica, which is Latin for, well, republic (although commonwealth would be closer to the original meaning as well as more literal).

Hopefully the changes mean that I’ll be more active with the writing.  No promises though.  We’ll see.  But at the very least I have two new posts coming up soon, so stay tuned!

Higher Things

Whatever happens to the DACA program, one question vexes me to no end: at a time when so many Americans have little love for America, when so many  are ashamed of their country, when so many detest the ideals upon which this Republic was founded, at such a time some people chose to go on a warpath in order to exclude from our commonwealth those who have lived in America for most of their lives, who love America with all their heart and soul, who deeply appreciate the freedom America embodies because they know what it is like to live without that freedom, freedom so many citizens have taken for granted?

“But they broke the law!  They are illegal!” Some cry, as if laws are the beginning and end of all things, forgetting that this great Republic of ours was born of treason against the British king, and few things are more illegal than treason, yet the American Revolution was one of the most heroic endeavors that have ever been undertaken for the cause of freedom.  So, no, as important as laws are – and as those who know me would agree, I have earned enough credit as a constitutionalist to say this with conviction – laws are not the beginning and end of all things.  There are even higher things than laws, things such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.  In fact, all laws ought to serve these noble ideals, not the other way around.  It is, of course, a fair and open question as to the best way of achieving immigration reform – and whether DACA was an executive overreach – but make no mistake, freedom demands comprehensive immigration reform, and the free market, one of the most remarkable manifestations of freedom, calls for it.

But also consider these questions: Who are truly American?  Whom do we want as Americans?  Those who were born into freedom and detest it, or those who were born without freedom and cherish it?  To deny the latter the country they love and deserve is to deprive America of patriots, patriots who along with our constitutional democracy are the true pillar of American greatness.  To do so is unconscionable and, if I did not know better, I would say, traitorous.

In Memoriam

On this 15th Anniversary of 9/11, I still cannot bring myself to the memorial site in downtown Manhattan to pay a more personal tribute as the painful memory of that day still weighs on me. Nevertheless I would like to invite everyone to join me in taking a moment – however briefly – to remember those we lost that day, especially the brave souls of Flight 93 and the first responders whose selfless sacrifice averted an even greater tragedy.

And whatever our political persuasions, whatever our creeds, let us not forget, too, the men and women who continue to risk their lives for their country and for the ideals it stands for, however imperfectly, for even if “paradise does not exist, but we must nonetheless strive to be worthy of it.” (Jules Renard)

In the last fifteen years we have persevered, we have struggled, we have prevailed, we have stumbled, and it is still too soon to grasp all the ramifications of it all, but it is my hope that history will remember us as coming out of this tragedy stronger, better, and freer.

And to my city, to New York, may she forever stand tall and proud:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Some Thoughts on Current Events

First off, to people who see sarcasm and satires in my writings, I’ll say this one last time: I DO NOT do satires or sarcasm.  Sarcasm and satires are for sissies, and I’m no sissy.  I’m a straight talker, and I tell it like it is, as this post will abundantly demonstrate.

Obama: “My ISIS strategy is working.”

Like myself, our Commander-in-Chief is a straight talker, and he tells it like it is, for his strategy is indeed working out perfectly for ISIS.  Methinks the next step would be to provide direct military support to the freedom fighters of the Islamic State and assist them in their struggle for tolerance, justice, and liberty.

Sen. McCain on Muslim Syrian Refugees: “By the way — this thing about the Christians only…I view myself as a fairly religious person. One of the tenets of my faith is that we’re all God’s children. Are we going to discriminate against children because they are not Christian? That’s bizarre.”

The good senator from Arizona must be confused.  The Holy Bible never says anything about showing love and compassion to our fellow human beings.  In fact, the Scriptures emphatically forbid welcoming men, women, and children who are escaping oppression and war.

Besides, even though it might, perhaps, possibly, maybe, unconstitutional to have religious test for public office – Dr. Carson could still be right since the Constitution is not entirely clear on that point – but requiring religious test for refugees is perfectly constitutional.  Yes, it is inhuman and tyrannical, but who cares about humanity and freedom?  In fact, we must not allow concerns for freedom to endanger the most precious jewel of our existence: security.

Someone on Twitter: “FLASHBACK: MUSLIM COUNTRIES REFUSE TO TAKE A SINGLE SYRIAN REFUGEE, CITE RISK OF EXPOSURE TO TERRORISM.” 

Indeed, we should absolutely follow the lead of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, for they are the indomitable champions of freedom, peerless paragons of liberty, and shining beacons of hope for the oppressed and the persecuted.  Only under their guidance and the guidance of the other two great leaders of the Free World, Russia and China, could we achieve our dream of a world free of tyranny and despotism.

See, told you I don’t do sarcasm and satires.

 

 

 

How the Tea Party Can Save America, Freedom, and the Constitution

If the enduring popularity of Trump and other anti-establish presidential candidates proves anything, it’s the Republican primary voters’ frustration over the Republican congressional majority’s inability to undo any of Obama’s utterly un-American policies, and who can blame them?  After all the GAP gained its majority in the House and Senate thanks to the tea party and other anti-Obama voters, and it must fulfill its promises to those voters.  And yet, even with majority in both chambers of Congress, the Republicans have failed repeatedly to garner the necessary votes to repeal any of the President’s signature programs and policies; instead they compromised with the devil again and again.

Now of course, not having the necessary votes is no excuse for the failure of the GOP congressional leadership, but we do need to ask the question: why isn’t a majority enough to pass the bills in the first place?  It should be enough; we are, after all, a democracy where the majority rules.  So why isn’t it enough?  Who or what is responsible for this most undemocratic rule?

Well, it is the Constitution that requires 2/3 majority votes of both the House and the Senate to override presidential vetoes.  Under that rule, the GOP’s simple majority in Congress is not enough to pass any bills that the President opposes.  Without that rule, we could have easily undone every one of Obama’s policies.  In other words, my friends, it is the Constitution’s fault that we haven’t achieved our objectives, and by extension it is also the fault of the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution.  They mistakenly thought that we need such contrivances as checks and balances or protection of the minority in our beloved Republic, and because of their thoughtlessness, now Obama continues on unopposed.

Now, if you give it more thought, you will realize that the shortsightedness of the Founding Fathers is not limited to the inclusion of checks and balances in the Constitution.  The prohibition of religious test as a qualification for public office is another example.  Seriously, like Dr. Carson said, why should we allow Muslims to serve in any public office, much less the Presidency?  In fact, we should only allow members of the purest denominations to serve as elected officials.  Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists should have no business in the administration of this great Republic.

Then, of course, there is also the separation-of-powers principle enshrined in the Constitution.  What’s with that?  If all powers were vested in the House of Representatives where we have the majority, we could run the country exactly the way we like it without any inconvenient opposition from Obama, the Democrats, or those despicable RINOs.

Actually, now that I think about it, even with a majority in the House, there is still a chance that a small but vocal minority of our party would withhold their votes in order to extract concessions that are contrary to our principles.  We cannot allow that.  We must not.  The only solution is to reform the GOP along the lines of the CCP of PRC or the Workers’ Party of DPRK, which enforce rigid discipline so that the will of the party leadership is always obeyed without questions.

Of course, for that to work, we need to make sure that leadership positions are only given to the most devoted and zealous members of our beloved and glorious Tea Party, the one true vanguard of American ideals such as freedom, democracy and constitutional government.  In fact, we should just rename the GOP the Tea Party, or TP.

But even then there is still a good chance that in the next election the voters might return the majority to the Democrats and the RINOs (damn those ungrateful and unpatriotic traitors!)  To avoid that scenario, we must abolish elections all together.

But what if our enemies, aka enemies of America, decide to oppose us by exercising their constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights?  Well, then we should abolish the Bill of Rights as well.  In fact, let’s abolish the entire Constitution.  After all, it is the Constitution’s fault that we still haven’t undone the Obama presidency.

Of course, the Tea Party is a constitutionalist party, but in order to be the constitutionalists that our country needs, we must first discard the Constitution in its entirety.  Only then would we be free to implement our visions for a free, democratic and republican America.

Long live the Party!  Long live the People!  Long live the Constitution!

Exercise in Rhetoric: “Philippi”

I wrote the following for one of the two classes I was teaching this summer.  The class had eight students, ranging from 4th to 7th graders.  I shared teaching responsibilities with a coworker, and he had this wonderful idea of teaching the class about Roman history through role-playing games.

Essentially the kids were divided into Optimates and Populares, the two major political factions of the late Republic, and acted out many historical scenarios, such as proscriptions, senate meetings, legion recruitment, consular elections, civil wars, and many more.  Being a true republican, I naturally took over the leadership of the Optimates while my colleague was the leader of the Populares.

Towards the end of the summer school, there was inevitably the final battle between the two sides for control of Rome (in case you are wondering, all “battles” were decided by rock-paper-scissors).  In an effort to rally the republican forces, which were outnumbered by the Caesarians, I took on the character of Marcus Brutus and delivered the following speech to my troops before the battle:

O Valiant Soldiers! O Proud Romans!

Never have the Senate and People of Rome assembled an army more numerous and more noble, for on this day and on this field the fate of the Republic, nay, the very soul of Rome herself will be decided.

Across the field you see ensigns and eagles not unlike your own, but know that those who dare to oppose you today have forfeited the honorable name of Romans, for they have taken up arms against Rome.  Not even the barbarians of Germania or the savages of the North are so degenerate as to fight against their own country.  How far have those wretched souls fallen!

Do not be troubled by your enemy’s empty boast that they hold the Eternal City in their possession, for they possess nothing but lifeless bricks and stones while the Senate and People of Rome, the true Rome, stand with you today on this field.

It was my distinguished ancestor, Lucius Junius Brutus, who expelled the kings from Rome and cleansed the city of tyranny.  It was he who gave liberty to the People and authority to the Senate.  Just as I shall not dishonor my illustrious ancestor, you shall not dishonor your own forefathers, who defended the Republic with their lives and punished its enemy with death.

On this day, on this field, O Valiant Soldiers, O Proud Romans, the Republic shall rise and fall with us.

Fight for your honor.  Fight for your liberty.  And above all, Fight for Rome!

Share this:

Hopes and Dreams.

So Many Hopes and Dreams.

Such Hopes and Dreams.

For Naught.

Inspired by Senator Paul

I like to drink wine.  The problem is, my body doesn’t handle alcohol all that well.  Anxiously searching for a solution, I first thought about doing what those good old Romans used to do: adding water to wine.  But as soon as the idea popped into my mind, I was appalled by it: no self-respecting wine enthusiast would allow the purity and sanctity of his wine be adulterated by the addition of water.  Alas!  What was I to do?

Then I read what Senator Rand Paul had said:

The First Amendment says keep government out of religion.  It doesn’t say keep religion out of government.

Eureka!  Epiphany!  Holy Moly Batman!  The solution to my dilemma is so simple and yet so elegant in its simplicity: it is anathema to add water to wine, but no one ever said anything about adding wine to water!

Now, before you start calling me an imbecile – come on, let’s be civil here – consider this: when you add water to wine, the taste and quality of wine is irrevocably violated and corrupted by the intrusion of water, but when you add wine to water, you are turning the bland and tasteless water into delicious wine without corrupting the taste and quality of the wine, which remain pure and inviolate.

I know right?  It’s so simple!  Now I can finally enjoy my daily glass of wine with a guiltless conscience, knowing that yes, I can indeed have my cake and eat it, too.

Thank you, the junior senator from Kentucky!  Thank you.