We Have Autocracy in the US

In an autocracy, the ruler likes to keep the ruling family small. Harriet Miers was only one of many crony appointments close to President Bush. Remember Brownie? And even Dick Cheney, who appointed himself. Since Bush has taken to himself the theory of "the unitary executive," and has indicated, formally in his signing statements, that he (or the Presidency) is a law unto itself, autocracy, at least in the minds of Bush and the sycophants who surround him, is alive and well. What is an autocracy, but "the unlimited political power of a single ruler?"

That doesn't make it effective; it often is anything but.

In the fifth century, Emperor Honorius appointed whoever purchased the office of Procurator (roughly equivalent to a Supreme Court Justice). The appointee was usually the son of a wealthy Senator (the highest nobility at the time) and had no experience at all. What was important was that he didn't challenge the Emperor, God's Vice-Regent on Earth, and that he, or his father, offered games to the public.

There was no reason in an autocracy to challenge the Emperor. Emperor Honorius was so wrapped up in his prize roosters, one of whom he named Rome, that in 410 when a messenger dashed into his throne room in Ravenna shouting, "Rome has fallen!" the Emperor started to run for his chicken coop, alarmed, until the messenger explained he meant the city. "Oh, that Rome," Honorius is supposed to have said. And 1,595 years later Brownie did "a heckuva job" rescuing New Orleans.

Honorius (393-423) was the son of the previous Emperor, just as George is the son of George. Dynasty is important in keeping the state together. (Why isn't Jeb next?) When Honorius' nephew became Emperor after a long regency under his mother, he had an obsession with the other kind of chicken, the human kind; he couldn't keep out of the bedrooms of his courtiers' wives, Christian Emperor though he was. The outraged husband of one of them successfully plotted to do him in. End of Dynasty.

What does this have to do with cronies today?

The Supreme Court, without Harriet, actually said there were things he couldn't do, in places like Guantànamo! You mean he can't imprison "enemy aliens" and torture them without having to go to a real trial? It's enough to give a good autocrat a stomachache!

Not to worry. Our George V (the W was a mistake; his father was George IV--you know who George III was) can still do what he wants, because the Republican sycophants in Congress offered to write legislation to assert that he could: the Military Commission Act; they had to reinvigorate the autocracy. And after passing the MCA, you could count on George (and the clever people around him) to do other things, like insuring that all the US Attorneys were not only slavishly loyal, but that they did the administration's political dirty work for them. If they didn't cooperate, well, that's probably why eight of them were fired.

Their boss, Attorney General Gonzalez, is similar to Harriet Myers, in that he has been close to the President since the early days of politicking in Texas. He still acts as if he's the President's personal lawyer.

Meanwhile the Republican Congressional leadership again, since the ruler told them they should, continued to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Actually, they were best at whipping up their Christian "base" with token gestures, like the anti-gay marriage amendment. In the fifth century the leadership "installed" the bones of martyrs, instead. For more on religion in politics in both eras, click here. The important thing to remember about an autocracy is this: it gives "unlimited power" to a single ruler. So, the Supreme Court decision was only a temporaray setback, but when another octogenarian on the bench either gives up or gives up the ghost, then George V will nominate another Alito, or Roberts--and all will be well with the American Empire. Autocracy will surely have prevailed. Then the rest of those recalcitrant Liberals on the bench might as well retire and let the ruler create a US Supreme Court that is truly patriotic, 100% behind the autocrat.

As the "partial birth abortion" decision showed, the Supreme Court--with Alito and Roberts--has become the Administration's ally, buttressing its support with the religious right.

Why do conservatives, Republicans, favor autocratic rule?

It's true that European conservatives promoted monarchy for centuries, but American conservatives, and Republicans (their very name means representative government) have until recently had a strong libertarian strain, so, favoring autocracy is a new development.

The shift came even before 9/11, perhaps first with Nixon, who, you may recall, wanted to dress up the White House sentries like a Royal Palace Guard. The unitary executive idea first gained legal credence among some conservatives working under Reagan. George V just took to it like a duck to water.

9/11 became the justification: we are at war--and will be for a generation, Bush and others proclaimed--so a "unitary executive," i.e. an autocracy, was necessary in order to fight "the enemy," because it fits the military model of a unified command.

The Roman Empire became a bureaucratic autocracy under Diocletian (284-305) because it was also under siege--from continuous civil war. Fear justified the near totalitarian rule then, and it serves to justify movement towards that kind of government today.

The problem is that an autocratic form of government is inherently inefficient and ultimately ineffective. It is NOT a reasonable response to chaos and fear. The Katrina hurricane disaster and the mess in Iraq are a direct result of promoting incompetents because they are close to the President, or agree with his "ideas" (even if he gets them from people like Rumsfeld and Cheney).

The latter years of the Roman Empire are a catalog of disasters brought on by incompetent governments ruled over by incompetent autocrats, and it looks like we're following down the same road.

I hope we get off it!