There has been a lot of discussion about America as an empire, and of Bush as a new Augustus. The comparison is interesting, but mainly because it illustrates the contrast between past and present.
The supposed American empire is sometimes described as a "base empire", in the sense that America has military outposts all over the world. But a base empire is not an empire. In the Roman empire, there were military bases stationed along the frontiers to protect against invasion. But these encampments did not constitute the empire. The Roman empire consisted of contiguous conquered lands that were a source of great revenue. In contrast, a base empire represents nothing but expenditure. A "base empire" is almost a contradiction in terms. In Iraq, our base empire has more resemblance to a failed military campaign than to anything else. . .
As for president Bush versus emperor Augustus, the contrast could not be more stark. Augustus, the first Roman emperor, was a military dictator who made a huge effort to disguise the basis of his power. He did this by taking on the various offices of the Roman Republic, in order that his position seemed a legal continuation of the Republic. He did this for two reasons: first, to disguise his absolute power from the population; second, to hide from the army the fact that it was the basis of all power in the empire. This is described in Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (written in 1776). The failure to disguise power had cost Julius Caesar his life. The failure to conceal from the military it's own power was to cause endless calamities for Augustus' successors.
In contrast to Augustus, Bush is not an absolute ruler. But he seems determined to attempt to increase his power through declarations that he is above the law. The wire tapping scandal, the controversy over prisoner abuse, these can be seen as attempts to claim a greater share of power. But they do not in fact increase Bush's power in a meaningful way. At the same time, his actions are self-destructive; they arouse opposition to a "tyrant". Augustus' policy was almost exactly the reverse: to conceal real power, rather than to assert imaginary power.
The real danger to the American republic does not come from someone like Bush. Although he is known for lies, Bush in a sense is one of our most honest presidents -- because we can see his hypocrisy so clearly. Empires are not built by incompetents. The most dangerous leaders are those who can disguise what they are.
(cross posted at www.zipser.nl)