I’ve had some email complimenting one of the regular denizens here for his insightful comments and his reasoned approach to issues. It struck a chord. I thought to myself: What would happen if I let Dez stand on my soapbox for a little while?
The result is available below.
(It goes without saying that Dez’s viewpoints are completely his own. I exerted no editorial filtering of the content below. Mostly, I just want to see feathers fly.)
Empires Begin Stoic and End Epicurean
The title above is credited to Pete (brought up by Tasuja-Ed.), and “assigned” to me as a guide to deliver a topic for discussion and/or debate. In the general review of classical history, especially that of Western civilization, such a title is the rule more often than not. From the Greek city-states to the Alexandrian Hegemony to the Roman Republic and Empire and beyond one can see a repeated cycle. A people of hardened self-reliance and determination, employing a stringent moral, ethical, or philosophical vision, rise to regional dominance and eventually create an empire that celebrates but no longer practices the ideals that lead them to imperial power. This strange dichotomy, and role reversal is exemplified by what is often referred to as the “Tyler Cycle” of civilization:
- From bondage to spiritual faith;
- From spiritual faith to great courage;
- From courage to liberty;
- From liberty to abundance;
- From abundance to complacency;
- From complacency to apathy;
- From apathy to dependence;
- From dependence back into bondage.
Some have disputed Tyler (18th century Scottish historian) as the originator, and credited it to Benjamin Disraeli. However, my point is not to debate the cycle’s author, but whether or not the idea of the cycle holds water… especially as it concerns the United States. I ask you all, “Do you believe this to be a valid representation of the cycle of civilization? If not, why? If yes, where do you think we stand in the cycle; and why?”
I also ask you to consider another quote credited to Tyler (but wreathed in dispute) for the value of the idea, as well as its possible motivations, but not its authorship. Personally, I enjoy the quotation, not because it is an uplifting, exhorting, idealistic feel-good bit of glibness (sarcasm added). It’s a favorite of mine because it is an illustration of the maxim “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” It also illustrates the tenuous nature of our “democratic experiment.” Here it is…
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”
Some may dispute the quote on the grounds that we are not truly a democracy. Good; follow that track and tell us what you think. But whether we are a democracy or not, does the essence of the idea apply to the US?
For those who know me to be somewhat “conservative,” on the surface this quote seems to be an indictment of “liberal” aims and practices in government (Welfare, Universal Health Care, etc.). However, with a view to the growth of the “industrial-military complex” (a term coined by Republican President D. D. Eisenhower) and the corollary business of the government contractor (Halliburton, KBR, et al.) there is an equal opportunity to vilify “conservative” abuses of authority and trust.
As a personal note, I find it rather ironic that the Republican Party, long supporting states rights, decentralized (federal) power and a reduced government, has in the last decades abandoned all of these goals and employed strategies that are complete contradictions of their party’s founding philosophies. Since 9/11 the current administration has increasingly centralized power, not just in the federal government, but the executive branch in particular. The Patriot Act, the wire-tapping controversy, the rights of Gitmo detainees, etc. all speak to an eroding of civil rights and the aggrandizement of the executive branch. Homeland Security, a term that makes my skin crawl, is a new department, shifting much responsibility out of the hands of the U.S. Coast Guard, and other agencies. (The government was so inefficient that, instead of correcting any issues within the involved agencies, we create additional bureaucracy?)
The Attorney General Gonzales scandal, followed by the recent news that DoJ internships were refused to top graduates based upon political affiliations that contrasted with the current administration, is a corruption of justice, fair play, and equality (not to mention an interference with the authority of the Judicial branch). The GOP decries morality, but continues to be involved in sexual scandals (some including minors) or campaign finance and bribery scandals. Many members of the GOP shun the possibility of homosexual marriage on religious grounds while divorcing at record rates, cavorting with escorts, or being caught soliciting same-sex assignations. (Does this example of heterosexual [Biblical] marriage seem to convey holiness?)
Is the Republican Party earning the trust of its constituents through ethical and wise governance or by ruling through fear and misinformation? While crying warnings of socialism against their opponents, they appear to have slipped (or jumped) a step closer toward fascism. This leads us back to the topic at hand… the cycle… in which founding ideals are reversed and abandoned.
