I spent part of my holiday looking back at historical figures and events, and I was amazed by how some people in history were treated by their people, and how it looked almost frighteningly familiar to how the republican base treats President Bush.
Three people especially stood out for me: Alexander the Great, Napolean, and Hitler. I'm not saying that Bush is as good or as bad as anyone may see these people, instead I am comparing some of what they have done, and how their people responded to them.
First...how they came to power. None of thse people came to power in any real revolutionary fashion. Hitler was appointed to a governmental post, Napolean was elected somewhere in the process of the French Revolution, well after Louis the XVI was beheaded, and Alexander the Great inherited Macedonia, which was a kingdom. Just like that, George Bush was elected.
All of these people essentially promised either
1) To make their nation great so that all other nations would see them in awe
and/or
2) Spread their nation's goodness throughout the rest of the planet.
All three of these people plus Bush, through these promises, were able to rally their supporters to the point that ALL of them were seen as not only great leaders, but virtually as god on earth.
All of these people, once in power, consolidated their power and, in the instances of Hitler and Napolean, either made themselves, or were made, leaders for life.
And we all know what Alexander the Great, Napolean, and Hilter all did with their consolidated power and security of office: they tried to conquer the known world, or a large portion of it.
One can only wonder what Bush may have done had he been able to do the same. Even so, he has already conquered two nations, and who knows if any more will be attacked in his second term.
However, this is not the end of the story. All three historical figures have not only been doomed themselves, but they ultimately doomed their entire nations too.
Macedonia was broken up and pretty quickly conquered after Alexander the Great died, only 10 years after taking over the kingship of Macedonia.
Napolean was finally defeated (twice) and abdicated the throne once, and was exiled the 2nd time, with the rest of Europe essentially occupiying France, then re-instating the monarchy.
Hitler was obviously defeated, and Germany conquered and occupied by the allied forces after World War II.
What lead to all of these things? I think there were several factors:
- The support of their people (or at least, a large portion of them), as well as these leader's arrogance, led them to believe that they were near infallible.
- They seriously overextended their forces
- They essentially made the rest of the (known) world pissed off at them. This eventually lead to the rest of the world joining forces to stop them.
Of course, we live in a different world from 100 B.C. or the 1800s or even the 1940s, and our comparative strength is much greater than any of the three other nations.
Also, Bush hasn't dared to attack any real power yet, and he is picking and choosing who he has attacked. Of course, this could be due as much to wanting to stay in power in a democratic government as much as not wanting to make Europe even angrier. Of course, there are those occasional wignuts who would celebrate if we decided to invade France.
In any case, the comparisons are striking.