The Fall of the Roman Empire: A Lesson for Today

 

Why look to the past you might say? To avoid the pitfalls of history is the common answer. So, here is a quick look at why the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 AD (CE) and why it matters today. Keep in mind that we are looking for lessons that might help us avoid a similar fate.

I think we can safely say we won’t be overrun by Goths or Visigoths, but those were just the final nails in the Roman coffin. The reason the Western Roman Empire was vulnerable in the first place, predated that final event. First, Rome overspent on their military and got into a never-ending cycle of warfare. This drained the treasury. The emperors then devalued their currency which led to hyperinflation. Then they levied oppressive taxes crushing the middle class and saw wealthy Romans flee those taxes to rural fiefdoms. Are we seeing any parallels here?

Then Rome suffered labor shortages because their economy relied heavily on enslaved labor. The source of that labor came from military conquests and expansion that began waning in the 2nd century. The result was a labor deficit and agricultural decline. Today, the U.S. has relied on immigrant labor but, as we all know, that labor pool is being decimated.

Other factors mentioned in the fall of the Western Roman Empire were climate change that forced migration of Huns searching for relief and pandemics that diminished the population. There are even a few historians who blame the rise of Christianity which eroded civic values and shifted focus to the afterlife.

So, while we aren’t likely to face an invasion of “barbarian” hordes, there are still parallels. In Rome, the severe wealth gaps were the result of the middle class being crushed by taxes and inflation while the wealthy enjoyed life on massive tax-exempt estates. In the U.S. we also have a shrinking middle-class, record national debt, a tax-sheltered elite, and a shift toward a “financialization” of our economy. That term, financialization, refers to the economic dominance of financial markets and institutions with a shift away from industrial production and more toward financial profit.

Rome saw a breakdown of unwritten social norms that were called Mos Maiorum, or “the ways of our ancestors.” It was that breakdown that led to civil unrest and a wholesale erosion of trust in the Senate. In a mirroring of that historical context, we find a complete breakdown of our traditional process of legislative compromise brought on by extreme partisanship and institutional decay. The same events that prohibited Rome from solving its own problems, now dominate our headlines.

We started a new war, gas and grocery prices began to skyrocket, and the threat of terrorist attacks are rising while we have fired many of those who would prevent those attacks. Our TSA agents and inspectors are not being paid. Our defense budget has risen to nearly a $1 trillion to maintain our global influence. Like Rome, the military costs are beginning to outweigh the benefits.

Wealthy Americans are focusing on short-term luxury while long-term stability wanes. Meanwhile, those outside the luxury-class, are struggling with housing, education, employment, healthcare, grocery and gas prices, and are being forced to work long beyond normal retirement age.

While the city of Rome and the Roman Empire collapsed from infrastructure decay after 476 AD, the Catholic Church and Vatican emerged as the most stable and powerful institution in the West. The Church filled the power vacuum left by the collapsed imperial government. Without formal emperor leadership, the Church assumed the management of civic affairs. They distributed food, provided healthcare at monasteries, and Pope Leo I met with Attila the Hun to spare Rome. White Christian nationalists would like to see a similar shift in America.

The decline of the American Empire has been facilitated by an overextension of militarism, the extreme polarization of an unbending legislature, social distrust, and a domestic schism not seen since the Civil War. This has all been further exacerbated by an elite-driven corporatism. As Abraham Lincoln predicted, our downfall will be more of a suicide than a murder. The metaphorical “shining city on a hill” that could rely on American exceptionalism, has seen its shine tarnished as the hill erodes. Exceptionalism is a myth that relies on liberty and individual freedom, both of which are under attack.

While we work at regime change in Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, we are seeing a regime change within. The once great American democratic regime that flourished under a sovereign U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and relied on a separation of powers, is being replaced by an autocratic white Christian oligarchy. The Roman Empire lasted 1,400 years. We haven’t made it to our 250th birthday.

Immigration: A Spanish Inquisition for the Modern Age

For decades, immigration reform was Washington’s favorite political football—inflated with legislative flatulence, kicked about aimlessly by both parties, and eventually left to rot in the tall grass of the Potomac. By 2024, the "broken system" was less of a policy and more of a wart on the posterior of our national personality.

Enter Donald Trump, the "Man of Action," who decided the best way to fix a leaky faucet was to burn down the house. While the "crippled" Democratic Party was busy trying to change horses mid-Niagara Falls, Trump and his architect of angst, Stephen Miller, promised a solution so bold, so sweeping, that most voters simply shrugged it off as campaign fan fiction.

They should have checked the teleprompter. Because as Cardinal Ximenez famously shouted, “NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!”

The premiere of Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis was a masterclass in avant-garde state terror. Featuring 3,000 federal agents dressed as "Border Patrol" (but looking more like budget-conscious cosplay ninjas), the operation managed to detain 4,000 immigrants at the low, low price of $50,000 per head. Efficiency! To add that necessary "dramatic flair," they used trigger-happy tactics that resulted in the accidental martyrdom of two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

The "optics" were, to put it mildly, a PR person’s fever dream. Nothing says "Make America Great Again" like high-definition footage of children being snatched from swing sets and families being dragged out of Camrys. It turns out that tear-gassing your own tax-paying citizens and using the U.S. Constitution as toilet paper doesn't actually play well in the Midwest, or elsewhere for that matter. Trump’s approval ratings didn't just drop; they performed two and a half gainer into an empty pool.

But this is the Trump Doctrine: Why bother with "situation analysis" or "planning" when you can just act and let the historians deal with the carnage? Whether it’s regime change in Venezuela, a casual “excursion/war” with Iran, or turning Minneapolis into a Call of Duty war zone, the strategy is consistent: Ready, Fire,... where did the target go?

The original Spanish Inquisition was also a "success"—if your metric for success is a 100% Catholic state achieved through the medium of torture, executions, and mass expulsion. You can achieve anything if you’re willing to set the Bill of Rights ablaze to keep yourself warm. Donald Trump hasn’t fixed the immigration system; he’s just performed a high-cost lobotomy on it. The "solution" is here, but the bill is still being tallied in blood, trust, and basic common sense.

A Fascination with War

 

Donald Trump never served in the military and his attitude toward those who do is well documented. Why would someone join the military? The president doesn’t understand what’s in it for them. Donald Trump is a transactional person who approaches all interactions on a short-term quid pro quo basis. He focuses on “what I get” in exchange for what they give. Such individuals are driven by personal gain rather than mutual benefit or genuine connection.

Pete Hegseth served in the military. He headed a group guarding prisoners in Guantanamo. He has two Bronze Stars. One for his work as a platoon leader and civil affairs officer in Iraq, and his second star was for good service as an instructor in Afghanistan. Whatever altruistic reason he may have had for joining the military has been replaced by vengeful rhetoric.

For Hegseth, moral purpose be damned. It is now about killing the enemy. At a news conference last week, he said he would have “no stupid rules of engagement.” In another, he said that the U.S. military would shower “death and destruction from the sky all day long.”

Neither Hegseth (Secretary of War) nor Trump are on the same page. While one is calling it a war that is just beginning, the other is saying it is not a war, but we could walk away now and claim victory. While wars should have clear objectives and exit strategies, this conflict has neither. The impact of the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz seems to have taken them by surprise. Opening up our oil reserves and promising to insure foreign tankers (two of which are now burning in the strait) were reactive measures.

The ever-changing explanations for our involvement in Iran tell us that they shot first and are now looking for a reason why. For Trump, the side benefit is that we are talking about war and not the Epstein files. He also seems to thrive on the attention after he makes something go boom. We may never know if Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., or others in the presidential orbit made financial moves in advance of the decision for war.

In Hegseth’s case, it’s like he is on a vampire liberty. For those who might not know this term, it refers to a time when a sailor on leave could sell his blood for cash, that he would then use to buy booze. The net effect of being a pint low on blood mixed with alcohol meant a quick cheap high.

For Trump it is the fact that he gets to give the green light to war, and now as many as 18 countries are involved and the oil that fuels the world economy just got more expensive. He acts and the entire world must pay attention. I see visions of Leonardo DiCaprio yelling, “I’m king of the world.” How exciting for him.

A new term from the digital age is war porn. It refers to graphic, often decontextualized videos, images, and narratives of combat, death, and destruction, consumed voyeuristically for emotional gratification or shock value. The president and Hegseth watch war footage from the safety of an air-conditioned room. Trump’s flippant attitude about the loss of life on both sides is consistent with his personal detachment and sociopathy.

For both Hegseth and Trump there seems to be an attempt to exaggerate their masculinity. For those described to suffer from hypermasculinity, there is usually intense aggression, callous attitudes toward women, and a high-risk thrill-seeking behavior. Does any of that fit what we know of these two? This macho behavior is often reckless and rejects vulnerability. This might be fine for a WWE fighter headed into a cage match, but not something you want in a president with the nuclear launch codes.

MAGA in Wonderland

Governing by improvisation is dangerous. War by improv is much worse. In Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, Alice meets the Cheshire Cat and asks him which way she should go. The cat then asks her for her destination and Alice tells him she has none. The Cheshire Cat then tells her that she can take any path and end up nowhere in particular.

The message from the Cheshire Cat is that you must define your objective for success before taking action. Our president has recently reversed his “America First” campaign rhetoric of “No new wars” and has justified starting them by telling us that they are not wars. In the case of Iran, he is calling it an “excursion.”

By definition, “An excursion is a short, often leisurely, trip or outing taken for pleasure, education, or a specific purpose, usually with the intention of returning promptly.” Calling a military campaign that is costing taxpayers over a billion dollars a day and thousands of lives an excursion, tests the limits of the intelligence of the American public.

The bombing of Iran is certainly not a leisurely trip, it is not for pleasure or education, and it lacks specific purpose. When questioned about its specific purpose, the president’s answers are vague and shifting. He proclaimed Iran’s nuclear threat “obliterated” back in June of last year (Operation Midnight Hammer), but now claims this “excursion” is to eliminate their nuclear threat. He then shifts the reason to be a defensive measure against “47 years of Iranian aggression.” He then shifts the reasoning to be one of regime change where he hopes the Iranian people will rise and overthrow their government.

The advantage to this war by improv with no expressed end game, is that the president can stop at any time, pull a George Bush, and claim “mission accomplished.” Since no one knows what the mission is, any ending can be declared a victory. Without a defined objective or destination, no one can question the path he takes.

Perhaps Trump is taking direction from a hookah-smoking caterpillar and that magic mushroom pizza is making him feel taller. Whatever his excuse, if he doesn’t end this war quickly, Iran may be his Waterloo.

I leave you with a quote from Octavia Butler’s novel, Parable of the Sower, “That's all anybody can do right now. Live. Hold out. Survive. I don't know whether good times are coming back again. But I know that won't matter if we don't survive these times."

Who to "Root" For

 

In a recent post a friend from the right he wrote, "If you're rooting against the President, you're rooting against the nation." He then went on to correctly state that we could oppose policy, vote against him, and demand oversight. He also inferred that, by not "rooting for" the president meant that we were hoping for a tanking economy, foreign policy disasters, and national humiliation on the world stage. His general statement was that, hoping for the collapse of this administration was…, “reckless and it is anti American.”

His post presents a common theme that blindly accepts the actions of a leader because he is the leader. All opposition beyond the voting booth or disagreeing with simple policy is equated with being anti-American. I wrote a reply.

-----------------

When you say, “root for” our president, that infers that one actively supports that person and encourages them in their endeavors. Given that we are still living in a democracy, I will not “kiss the ring” of a self-declared authoritarian actively ignoring the rule of law, defying judicial rulings, and trampling on the rights of our citizens. I will support our police and military while they do their jobs and work within the law. I do not support the thugs within ICE who, under the guise of immigration enforcement and unspecified national emergencies, shred the Bill of Rights.

As for a tanking economy, foreign policy disasters, and national humiliation on the world stage, this president needs no help as he is doing what he can to bring all of that upon us. I would also ask, what does overthrowing oppressive regimes in other countries have to do with his nationalist America First promises.

So far, he used the U.S. military in Venezuela, at the cost of over $700,000,000, to capture two people. That’s over $350 million per person. The Maduro regime is now run by Delcy Rodriguez and her brother Jorge Rodriguez. How is this an improvement?

The WAR in Iran initially cost over $5 billion and continues to cost taxpayers $900 million to $1 billion per day. The political cost exceeds even that. It has triggered significant economic instability, caused a sharp rise in oil and gas prices, stock market volatility, and has placed a major strain on military ammunition stockpiles. It has added to geopolitical instability and the civilian collateral damage losses will raise the threat level for Americans.

While Donald Trump won the last election with a plurality of 49.8%, today’s disapproval rating is at 56%. Nobody is “rooting” for America to fail. This president is failing by his own actions. He is his own worst enemy. No amount of cheering him on will help. So, pointing out his failures and mistakes is not “anti American”, in fact it is the most American thing a person living in a democracy can do.

1984 in the Age of AI

 

George Orwell’s 1984 dystopian image of a totalitarian state ruled by an omnipresent government, seems almost quaint when compared to 2026 reality. When Orwell wrote in 1949, of the constant surveillance of all citizens, he did not envision the future that was a mere 77 years away.

In his novel, 1984, Orwell’s character Winston was charged with rewriting history at the Ministry of Truth. Facts were manipulated to allow the government to maintain power governing the superstate, Oceania. Citizens were under constant surveillance through telescreens. There was no privacy.

In the novel, 2026, yet to be written, we find that those “telescreens” are now cellphones, computers, CCTV, and smart home devices. People willingly give up their privacy in exchange for a seat at the social media table. Data gleaned from those devices now contain mountains of datapoints on every “connected” citizen.

The enormous volume of data would take more human analysis than would be practical in order for it to be useful. Enter Artificial Intelligence, or AI. This emerging technology can now do that work in a fraction of the time. It is now possible for an interested party to use AI to predict where you are or will be at any moment, where you work, where you shop, what you like to eat, how you vote, how much money you have, how much debt your have, where you like to eat, your medical conditions, your political positions - almost every aspect of your life is recorded.

The most sophisticated AI engines are owned by corporations, but our government can contract with them to spy on its own citizens. They will cite terrorism and national security in their justification, but its use for political purposes is well within its grasp.

Up to now, the business of AI has been concerned with the technology and the monetization of that effort. The ethics of its use fell largely to “others,” as that was outside their business model. This is not unlike a gun manufacturer who only builds the guns and leaves the ethics of the use of its products to the end consumer.

When Anthropic was negotiating government contracts for its AI model, Claude, especially with the defense departments, it finally raised the questions of ethics. They wanted only two restrictions placed on their product’s use.

First, they didn’t want the information to be used in lethal weapon systems that can engage targets without human oversight. Their concern was that current AI models are not reliable enough for life and death decisions. The company thought such use would pose significant dangers.

Secondly, Anthropic did not want Claude to be used for the widespread surveillance of American citizens. They thought it would be unethical for the government to use its product to violate fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The U.S. Department of Defense wanted these restrictions removed. They preferred the less restrictive terminology like “all lawful use.” As we have seen with the current administration, the term “lawful use” would mean unlimited use as the law is what they say it is, not those pesky written laws.

When Anthropic refused to remove these restrictions, the Trump administration (2/27/2026), designated them to be a “supply chain risk” and ordered all federal agencies to cease using the Anthropic technology. The term “supply chain risk” is normally reserved for foreign adversaries. Are Dario and Daniela Amodei headed for Room 101*?

Other companies like OpenAI and xAI signed agreements using the “all legal purposes” stamdard. The government is also now trying to enforce the restrictions on using Anthropic on its military contractors.

This calls into question the true nature of the government’s objections to the two Anthropic restrictions which would both seem to fall within the scope of “legal purposes.” Does this seem like our government wants to surveil its citizens without legal cause? We already learned what they think about obtaining legal warrants as everything seems to be exigent circumstances, national security, or my mother’s favorite, “because I said so.”

*Room 101 was the Party’s torture chamber in 1984. Dario and Daniela Amodei are the co-founders of Antrhopic.

What Are the Warning Signs?

I asked AI to describe a sociopath. I won’t bore you with their lengthy response, but my takeaway was that such a person would be:

1. Dismissive of the rights of others, social norms, and the law,

2. Impulsive and emotionally volatile,

3. Unable to maintain long-term relationships,

4. Unpredictable and their behavior often results in aggression or irritability,

5. A frequent liar,

6. Likely to con others for personal gain,

7. Impulsive and fail to plan ahead,

8. Unremorseful when hurting, mistreating or stealing from others,

9. Volatile, often with verbal outbursts,

10. Dishonest with regard to financial obligations,

11. Dismissive of the safety of others,

12. A flatterer in order to manipulate others for personal gain.

If you objectively read the above list, you will probably be able to find an example of someone who fits this description. To think that someone in such a position of great political power is a sociopath, should give us all pause.

Such individuals may appear to be effective leaders, as they are decisive and exhibit confidence. The consensus is that, in the short term, sociopaths’ adaptive qualities may help them ascend to power, but their leadership style is unsustainable in the long-term. They look good only so long as they get lucky in their decisions or can get away with dismissive explanations.

Their superficial charm can be seen as charismatic and persuasive, and their emotional detachment can be mistaken for “coolness under pressure.” The bottom line, however, is that they don’t care enough to be concerned. They are more enamored with short-term gains over the achievement of long-term benefits.

In the corporate world such individuals rule in a culture of fear, their constant lying erodes innovation, their businesses suffer high turnover, and their “win at all costs” attitude will lead to scandals, fraud, and problems with the law. Within this culture of fear, they will use bullying, gaslighting, and intimidation for control, leading to subordinate stress and burnout.

At the conclusion of the AI response it asked the question, “would you like to learn about the psychological difference between a sociopathic leader and a “dark triad” leader?” This is where it truly got scary.

The “dark triad” of personality disorders combines narcissism, Machiavellianism, and true psychopathic behavior. I doubt that even the MAGA crowd would disagree that the person we are all thinking of is a narcissist. He is in fine company with Hitler, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Stalin, and King Louis XIV in that regard.

As to his Machiavellian skill set, I find him wanting. This requires long term political strategy and deception to consolidate power. While he doesn’t seem to possess the ability for long-term planning, I think others around him (say, Stephen Miller) have such a plan.

On the psychopathic front, this is a matter of degree. I think our “anonymous leader” lacks the ability to be a true psychopath. Psychopaths can maintain the facade of normalcy whereas sociopaths are impulsive, erratic, and hot-headed. Our unnamed leader seems to fall into this latter category as he can’t be bothered to fake empathy.

In a separate but related search I asked if sexual deviance is linked to either narcissism or sociopathy.

The AI response:

“Sexual deviance, particularly behaviors involving exploitation, aggression, and lack of empathy, is strongly linked to both narcissism and psychopathy/sociopathy. Research suggests these traits, often part of the "Dark Triad," predict a higher likelihood of engaging in coercive or non-normative sexual behaviors. Psychopathic traits, particularly the "antisocial" and "lifestyle" facets, are strongly associated with a wide range of deviant sexual interests. This includes high-risk sexual behaviors and a lack of emotional attachment, often driven by a low capacity for empathy.”

After much research and only one college-level course in abnormal psychology, my non-clinical diagnosis is that this “leader of the free world” is merely a narcissistic sociopath. As to his ephebophilia or sexual deviance, much of that evidence remains redacted in those pesky Epstein files. We don’t necessarily get the Dark Triad Trifecta, but we certainly win the Daily Double. Whew! Are you relieved?