Unlike R.E.M, I don't feel fine...

Allow me two (hopefully) fruitful rants, born of the same tree.

Jambo wrote...

"My fatalism is not from a sense of despair concerning the state of the Union... It is an acceptance that we, as a Nation, are doomed to repeat ourselves. It has all happened before, and it will all happen again. The thing that makes us great is that we are not looking at the end of an empire, or the end of a reign, or a regime... We are merely looking at the tide going out and coming back in."

Fair enough. But it should be noted, not everything dragged out by the tide returns. This "fatalism" about the US that I've been gravitating towards is not simply a partisan response to Barack Obama. I have posts that long predate his reign... err, administration... which ask whether or not we've crossed the apex of our dominance as a nation. And I hasten to add, this is not to say the US won't "exist" at the end of this slow march downhill. The city of Rome still exists. However, it's power and influence has been rendered almost non existent, save the Vatican.

I don't mention Rome in a vacuum. I recently listened to the first five episodes of "The History of Rome" podcasts (search it on Itunes, very easily found, or use Titus' link). The narrator gets better with each episode and I soon got past the impression that Ritchie Cunningham was reading to me from a text book. For instance, he includes plausible comparisons to the founding of the second most famous Republic in world history (ours, as ranked by me). And this got me thinking. Every lesson we need to learn - as a nation - in avoiding the pitfalls of self destruction are housed in the vast history of Rome. The applicable parallels are endless. From the dangers of an overly powerful executive, to the age old battle between Plebe and Patrician, to games of distraction housed in giant stadiums meant to pacify the masses, pick your metaphor, it is all there. A similar lesson is found in the Old Testament, admittedly along more religious lines. When you read it you see the pattern repeat, and repeat, and you're left asking "How did they not see this coming?" Rome offers this lesson to the United States. Now consider this: 49% of the 535 elected representatives we send to Washington are lawyers. You could argue it makes sense - those who study the law would seek to legislate law. In fact you could even argue it's preferable, after all who better to write law than those versed in its' way? And in the current instance both the President and Vice President are lawyers too. But let me ask you this - how many are historians? The closest I can come up with is Newt Gingrich who's undergrad was history, Masters was the Renaissance, and doctorate was European education policy in the Congo. That barely qualifies in my estimation and he's long since left office (and today I wouldn't vote for him if he were in). This is what I'm driving at - I'm taking "Criminal Law 101" right now. And we have to brief X amount of cases for each class meeting and discuss them. And what I quickly realized is that the US legal society at large, from the first year law student to the SCOTUS, is steeped in "case law." Precedent is what is compared, considered, argued, and typically reaffirmed. NOT Constitutionality. The effect, as you may have gathered, is simple. One bad decision begats another. Because its' "precedent" is cited in arguing the latter. And that bad decision begats two more, than that one three more, and then like Mormons in Utah, they own the place. In other words, the debate in D.C. is continually centered around a series of choices all born of rotten fruit. You are laughed at - I've literally had this happen - when questioning the Constitutionality of the choices laid before us emanating from the two parties. Citing the Constitution to these people is invoking the name of some long forgotten, foreign, dinosaur of history that's long since outlived its usefulness. Few public servants - and the lawyer pool from which they're pulled -  are even interested, let alone versed, in an understanding of the Constitution, and even fewer are versed in the boundless lessons present in the history of Rome. And I am of the opinion that between the two they provide crucial lessons on man's attempt at self rule. And neither are even part of the discussion.

So, are we "on the back nine?" Obviously I can not say with certainty. What is certain, as certain as the tide itself, is that one of these days it will return ashore without the United States. And I'm convinced that as a people we are hell bent on hastening that day along.

To be honest, what drives me to post low these many years is yes, partly to keep in touch with my best of friends, but there's a larger reason. I want there to be a record, of some kind. I'm hammering my electronic chisel into clay tablets so that a thousand years from now, when the technology (beyond my imagining) allows our heirs to call up anything ever written down, they will see that Americans were not a homogeneous group in their obsession of Viagra and Kim Kardashian's hind quarters. That some of us were at least attempting to pull on the nag's reigns as we stampeded over the cliff.

Second rant...

More of a question actually. I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of Eastern (from the Near East to the Pacific) is limited in comparison to Western civilization. But I'm more than a passing fan of history (as are we each), so I felt comfortable in at least posing this question. From our earliest days (that's a loose our, I admit) Western civilization has struggled - and I choose that word purposely, for we have oft been unsuccessful - with instituting some form of democracy. The yearning for some form of "self rule" seems to be inherent in the West's DNA.

So here's the question - why is that DNA trait not apparent in the East? From China's emperors and the Moscovite Kings to the PRC and Putin; from the desert tribes of Arabia to not a single self imposed democracy among any of the twenty-two Arab states, why have the peoples of the opposing hemisphere gravitated towards a strong man, at every turn? Is it the differences in the dominate religions? One demands (these are gross generalizations) personal redemption why the other commands submissiveness? Is it that we are simply under two different time lines? The case can certainly be made that where the tribal Pakistani regions are in their development as of 2013 A.D. mirrors the early Roman/Tuscan battles (or even earlier, to be honest). Are we grading on a 2,000+ year curve? Could it be that simple? If so it's particularly frightening to think that 2013 weaponry could plausibly find its' way into the hands of men operating from a 500 B.C. set of values. Imagine Xerxes with a 20 Kiloton bomb. Has the government of the current Persian state, Iran, evolved that far away from absolute or divine rule?

This question may seem self aggrandizing as a western citizen of the world's clearest super power, but my query is purely academic, I assure you. And furthermore, we're entering into internal wars, and picking sides (ala Syria) in a battle in which neither side has undergone a Renaissance, a religious Reformation, or credible call to self rule. There are only "bad guys" to pick from. It may seem trite to say those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, but I don't know how else to describe the current state of America's electorate. Not to knock the NFL (which I do like), but more people watch the Super Bowl than vote. And I have no doubt that more people know the name of Kanye West's new baby than the name of their own congressman. By the way, he named the baby "North." So yes, the child's name is "North West."

Brothers in intellectual arms, lend me your ears - we cannot survive under these conditions!

And this has been the uneasy storm gathering in my gut over the last several years. Our compatriots seem uninterested in providence and the complexities of self rule. Rather give us our grand stadiums of Bears and Jaguars and blood so that we may cheer while the Senate meets among the shadows to settle the affairs of state, unburdened by the attention of those they rule.