I'm starting to write comments that are just plain too long for the comments threads in other people's blogs, and although I have a seldom-used Live Journal blog, I think it's more appropriate to let that languish and join the community I actually do read several times a day, here at dKos. I'll try to keep my focus relatively narrow—my background is in (among other things) ancient history and in particular social history, the lives and attitudes of the common people in ancient Rome. My scholarship is by no means exhaustive, but I work to expand it every day.
A frequently heard and legitimate comparison is made between our current political situation and Germany of the 1920s/1930s, but there must be others out there who see how tightly it mirrors events at the stagger and fall of the Roman Republic. Sometimes I wonder whether campaign scripters such as Rove haven't simply taken the style of successful ancient politics as a blueprint. Sometimes I wonder whether it's simply that innate human behaviour hasn't had much chance to evolve over the past two millennia, no matter how hard we try to create a different model for society. Not to put it too simply, but if we know how people behaved in a society whose spectrum of values was so close to our own and who reacted to a given situation much as we in the U.S. do now, we (liberal-latte Democrats and their friends) should be able to influence the crowd ourselves.
In Michael Moore's USA Today article Why Democrats shouldn't be scared today, he writes:
Kerry needs to trust that his victory is only going to happen by inspiring the natural base of the Democratic Party — blacks, working people, women, the poor and young people. Women and people of color make up 62% of this country. That's a big majority. Give them a reason to come out on Nov. 2.
I come late to blogging on these topics because I was resisting doing anything political in a journal. I let others write; I read and reacted in comments or by spreading others' thoughts in conversations with friends and relatives around the country, with friends of my mother. The specific wording of Moore's article triggered again a thought I've been mulling over for some time.
The tenor of the Republican National Convention and the Bush campaign invites a comparison to recent box-office star Jesus (bigger than Legolas in some circles). Jesus, and the message brought by that prophet/philosopher/rabbi/hippie zealot/your-choice, enthused the common people. Much of his ministry discussed a "disenfranchised" class of people (remember that whole "Meek shall inherit the earth" speech that was given about 6 seconds offhand reference in Passion of the Christ?). Speaking historically, his ministry and the ensuing cult in its early years hugely affected women, the lower classes, slaves (often foreign, or what society would consider some "other race"), the young. The Christian Movement addressed their concerns; their enthusiasm and empowered participation buoyed the early church and propelled it into becoming a major force.
I've been won over to support John F Kerry (he was number 4 on my list of the possible candidate choices, so I wasn't an easy sell and I approached the "Anything But Bush" argument warily), but I'm in no way calling him messiah-like. It's necessary, however, to compare the "Christian" values of an administration that favours moneyed interests to the "Christian" values of the actual Christian Movement in its form when it was still within living memory of its founders. If Kerry invites a dissection of his military service, Bush clearly invites a dissection of, not his personal faith and conviction, but his party and administration's outward behaviour and example. Kerry has his own camel caravan to navigate through a certain needle. However, in terms of policy and interests, the party that proudly praises itself for "values," the party that uses Christian-specific imagery and claims a connection with the inspiration of the Divine, certainly doesn't look like the prophet they follow and whose acolytes asked others to live like him. The party does, however, run a very close parallel to what happened to the cult when it was subsumed by the big-money, big-army, big-bureaucracy superpower government of those early days.
Later, I'll discuss point by point how the Republican/Democrat campaigns reflect the political campaigns of Octavian (aka Augustus, adopted son of Julius Caesar, who had seen only protected military service, who had limited government experience and a flock of advisors from previous administrations) and Antonius (decorated war hero and senator given to nuanced speechifying, with independently wealthy African-born wife fluent in many languages) when the superpower was reaching the pinnacle of the two-party split; how humans behave as humans always behave; and why I'm an Antonius apologist. But no time for more such sleepy philosophising right now.
Extra Bonus Offhand Thought: Does Passion of the Christ's presentation of the Sermon of the Mount remind anyone of network coverage of political speeches? Sound byte, then cut to the bloodletting scene.
(Did I mention I was up for 39 hours straight, much of it focussed on taking in the RNC and commentary thereon from pundits from all sides? Something has fused within my neurons. I welcome any comments, advice, or Ambien.)
