Elections, Battles and Assassinations

Our elections have gotten quite complicated compared to the ones during the Roman Empire. Didn't think the Romans elected Emperors? They did, but of course the process was quite different, and some of the differences are illuminating.

Romney, Giuliani, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Edwards (not a complete list), all these usurpers, I mean contenders, are consigned to the dustbin of history. It was similar in Roman times. Ever heard of Emperors Marcus (406-407), Priscus Attalus (409-410, 414-416) or Johannes (423-425)? And there were many more, but there was one dramatic difference.

Romney, et al should be thankful that losing in US primaries doesn't require you to be mutilated and killed; it did in Roman times; the mutilation was necessary because Emperors were supposed to be unblemished. Someone who had lost a limb could never again be a contender, even if allowed to live.

We should be thankful that nominations include primaries and caucuses, and that we vote in them, or meet in them, respectively, and that we vote in elections. (How the votes are counted, and who is allowed to vote, is a separate issue). We are lucky not to have elections Roman style. The Roman version usually began when an Emperor was raised to stand on the shields of the soldiers, while the army proclaimed him. His elevation (literal, you see) was later ratified by a compliant Senate. In effect, this was how an Emperor was nominated. Some, like Priscus Attalus, weren't even named by a Roman army; he was named by the Gothic King, whose army controlled Rome at the time, and the Senate was just as compliant.

However, the actual Roman contest, unless there were no other contenders, was almost always bloody. None were decided by citizens voting, nor in the Senate, since it only complied with whoever was in power. Elections were decided in battle, when the armies of the contenders met and fought.

Sometimes battles could be avoided, if simple assassinations could be arranged instead. Emperor Majorian (457-461), the last to attempt reforms of the western Empire, was conveniently assassinated by the general who had elevated him: he was getting too popular, too dangerous to the wealthy, and too successful as a general.

Some of the most important elections were decided in famous battles. They were the Roman equivalent of our debates. The battle of the Milvian Bridge (312), in which Constantine defeated his fellow emperor, Maxentius, also began the official Christianization of the Empire. Constantine conquered using the Christian cross, and then converted. Again, when Eugenius (392-394) was named Emperor by the general, Arbogastes (yes, and raised on the soldiers' shields), he attempted to re-establish paganism, in order to ingratiate himself with the powerful Senatorial families. He even restored the Goddess of Victory to the Senate, and his army marched out in the names of Jove and Mars. He was defeated by Theodosius (the Great) on the banks of the Frigidus, and his head was displayed on the head of a pike. Theodosius then established the Church as the only legal religion.

There was a period, in the third century, before and during the official reign of Aurelian (270-75), when there were a series of usurpers, and two regions on opposite sides of the Empire (Gaul and the Near East) that simultaneously claimed to be empires ruled by a succession of "Roman Emperors." Both of them had to be dispatched by Aurelian and his armies, and each one had gone through the "nomination" process described above.

Our system is tame by comparison, but at least there is a presumption that the people have the deciding voice, not a General, not opposed armies, facing each other somewhere. Can you imagine this--between Memphis and St. Louis--two armies about to clash, both American, representing say, Obama and McCain?

Considering that McCain was a military man and a war hero, the contest might be balanced very differently than our coming election: the force on McCain's side would be considerably larger--unless the military had abandoned him because they didn't want to fight in Iraq anymore. Well, that could happen, but it isn't yet likely. I Thank God for popular elections!

Pakistan, in the election just concluded, looks much more like the above, or rather, the army is on one side, the people on the other. Who will win? After all, the army is loath to relinquish control. As of this writing, the opposition is winning by a large margin, and is calling for Musharaff to resign. He would be a statesman to do so, but will the Army let him?

There could be the reverse of the Roman pattern in our coming election, with either Obama or Clinton. Their numbers could be much greater than for the military hero, McCain. Democrats are energized, and independents are streaming to the Democratic side in those states with open primaries; the turnouts are so much larger than on the Republican side. It is likely, and Republicans know it, that independents will go in the same direction in the general election.

The main danger to the Democrats is that the losing side (Clintonistas or Obama-istas) would defect to the opposing camp, or stay home on Election Day. I think staying home would be more likely, especially among the hordes of Obama-istas, especially the young voters, white and black, who haven't had great voting turnouts until now.

The votes Clinton has won are much more the traditional Democrats, organized by the more traditional groups, like unions, and party stalwarts: the ones who vote Democratic regardless, and turn out reliably, and also Hispanics. There might be some Clinton voters who would vote for McCain, if they really can't stand Obama, but not many. Would Hispanics? Obama has carried larger percentages of them in later primaries. It is also more likely that the independents that have turned out to vote for Obama (and Edwards in the earlier primaries) would turn out for Obama, but not vote at all if Hillary was the nominee.

At least, after the primaries, and after the general election, the loser is not going to be beheaded, nor will his (or her) head be paraded around on a pike.

There is one way the Romans settled elections, however, that has happened here, and not so long ago, and could happen again: assassination. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy's murder turned the election around, giving the nomination to Humphrey, a party loyalist tainted with the Vietnam War; Gene's kids, and Bobby's stayed home; Nixon was elected.

I pray that doesn't happen again, but a populist, leading a surging movement, looking as if he could build a huge mandate and campaigning against another war--how else are the forces of reaction and greed going to stop him? Obama is like both Kennedy's in this way, too. I hope Obama has a reliable security detail, one more reliable than the Secret Service, the same service that didn't protect Bobby, or his brother. See Selfish Class.