@Skallagrim my good chap. What say you to the current state of America vaguely resembling the build up to the Social War of the Roman Republic? Because to my eyes it looks like the Optimates are, again, trying to dump Tiberius Gracchus in the river Tiber but he is struggling all the way.
Did I just compare Trump to Tiberius Gracchus, IE,
one of the last chances of reform the Roman Republic might have had? I think I may have.
This comparison lines up pretty much exactly with what I think about the matter. It fits time-wise, too.
If I may be so bold as to suggest that if you wish to look for
an American Cato Major (a man stubbornly representing and old, and doomed, ideal of the Republic-as-it-once-was), the man to look at is
perhaps a Barry Goldwater. If 1998 (when Goldwater died) is roughly analogous to 149 BC (when Cato Major died), then the timeline goes roughly as follows:
Gracchii active: 133 BC - 121 BC. Equates to roughly
2014 - 2028. This indeed suggests that Trump may be seen as the Tiberius Gracchus of this day. And, of course, that
Gaius Gracchus is yet to come. Observe that the reforms of T. Gracchus were screwed over by legal manipulations and obstructions. He was vilified as a demagogue and rough, uncouth figure unworthy of respect or even common dignity. Stop me if this sounds at all familiar. This period is not yet over. Depending on how things turn out, I expect a wave of (let us say) "neo-Trumpism" to roll over the country in 2024 or 2028. A more practical, results-oriented candidate sweeps to the fore. The first true leader of what may be termed the
country party (basis of the Populares) against the
urban party (basis of the Optimates). I don't expect it to end much better than it did back in Roman days. The man who fights the elite at this stage doesn't survive it.
Note that at this stage, presently existing party lines aren't very telling. Trump precedes the
Populares. Mitt Romney, also a Republican, is a man of (what will become) the
Optimates, through and through.
Social War: 91 BC - 87 BC. Equates to roughly
2056 - 2060. The ruthless suppression of the proto-Populares, and the subsequent legal gutting of their reforms, inevitably causes growing discontent. This can only be held at bay through political and legal trickery for so long. Eventually, something's gotta give. Note that modern Westerners really are less bloody in settling public disputes than the old Romans, so it may be a political war with attendant mob violence, rather than an outright civil war. But there is the key similarity of a struggle between the "common folk" (trending rural; socially more conservative; want a safe and normal country; seek cultural homogeneity within society) and the elite (trending urban; socially cosmopolitan; want profitable trade and a 'borderless world'; eagerly bring in heterogenous groups; speak of "diversity", but treat said minority groups as voting cattle).
The conflict ends when elite essentially buys off the trouble-makers with some obvious concessions, while remaining firmly in power. The emergence of an external conflict to re-focus public attention may well be engineered on purpose. (See below.)
Conflict between Marius and Sulla: 88 BC - 87 BC. Equates to roughly
2061 - 2062. Our time's equivalents to these may not have to be military leaders. Note that military promotion was the way to achieve meteoric ascendancy in Ancient Rome. What is the closest counterpart to that in the modern West? What is the fastest, surest route to social standing and political power? Answer that, and you'll be able to predict their nature quite well.
The major social conflict naturally brings Big Name Leaders to the front. On both sides. And they'll clash. The Popular leader (that's you, Marius!) has the advantage in public backing, but by this point, the elite has learned that the safe strategy of appointing non-entities to the front will not suffice anymore. So, at the risk of appointing men hey can't quite control, they select true leaders of their own. (That's you, Sulla!) The latter candidate has the intitutional advantage: his side can (still) outlast the
Populares. They (still) have deep pockets.
On the other hand, this isn't about land reform, as it was back then. This will be about economic opportunity. The voting base of the
Populares will be the people losing their jobs to globalisation and automatisation; the people who suffer because mass immigration is going too fast (and pulls in people too culturally removed from the West) to facilitate the kind of relatively fast assimilation that we saw with European immigrants in earlier ages. But at the same time, this is the period where the Populares cease to be a generally "white" faction. Currently, the Democrats still rope in most African-Americans and Hispanics. By the early 2060s, that will no longer be the case. A lot of people in those demographics will by then be unequivocally victimised by elite interests (much as the white working class, previously a left-wing voter base, was thus victimised and cast aside). They will side with the
Populares. The Optimates will double down on importing new immigrants.
Meanwhile, the "solution" to poverty may include (promises of) a basic income. enough of the poor voters will be lured in by these kinds of promises to ensure that the
Optimates get to coast on for a bit. But this promise of dramatic reform will either be reneged on, or it will turn into a fiasco. The economy will suffer immensely.
Sulla's (second) civil war: 83 BC - 81 BC. Equates to roughly
2066 - 2067. Things become way too dicey for the elite, as their promises prove either unfeasible, or are implemented and then fail. Their leading man (typically one who truly believes in elite rule) suppresses all opponents in a heavy-handed manner.
Sulla's dictatorship: 81 BC. Equates to roughly
2068. Said leader then uses legally dubious (or even outright extralegal) means to ensure elite control over the government. Imagine something like major court-packing, and dubious constitutional amendments. Forget about an Electoral College as we know it getting to survive this. Expect gerrymandering the likes of which even God has never seen. Possibly, there may be an outright "Second Constitutional Convention".
Instead of promises of social reform, elite rule becomes entrenched by law, and the commoners see their voting rights hollowed out. If any kind of soial security persists, it is a pittance. "Go die quietly, somewhere we can't see you" is the basic message to the poor. At this stage, the fate of the
Optimates is essentially sealed. Their imposed order looks like it's won them control, but it's now built on a time bomb.
Note that the man doing this stuff in all likelihood
genuinely believes that he's saving the Republic. He probably retires honourably afterwards, like a Cincinnatus, and his supporters call him a "second Washington". But he has set the precedent for ignoring the law and ruling by force. He has also made bloody revolution inevitable.
Mithridatic wars: 88 BC - 63 BC. Equates to roughly
2061 - 2086. That foreign war I was talking about. Was a way to point dangerous men elsewhere, and for men to gain standing, in Rome. Will be more of a way to distract the public (and maybe outright conscipt young trouble-makers) in the modern West. In this conflict (or series of conflicts), the Republic finds its limits. It is still the world's foremost military power, but there are enemies that it can only defeat with considerable difficulty. This is inherently worrying: the Republic is not up to the task of a Universal State! Nevertheless, this conflict "vents" some social pressure.
Caesar's civil war: 49 BC - 45 BC. Equates to roughly
2100 - 2104 By this time, power-politics have become unveiled for all to see. Someone is going to come out on top, and it becomes a knife-fight to the bitter end. In reality, it matters very little
who wins. The point is
that someone wins. One man rules the state at the end. Every single faction is embittered as can be. There are no more real compromises.
Caesar assassinated: 44 BC. Equates to roughly
2105. Said man either is or becomes so hated that he's killed, or he is so feared that he lives, but then his successor gets removed from power before you can say "
coup d'état". Either way, we get...
The last bout of civil war(s): 43 BC - 30 BC. Equates to roughly
2106 - 2119. Those who would have the throne compete for it. This really tears whatever was left of the old political order to bloody tatters. There may be a faction who really wanted to restore the Republic now that the "tyrant" is dead, but they stand no chance at all. This fight is won by the most reactionary contender, for the simple reason that all public trust is now gone, and
only the inherent legitimacy of tradition can bind the people together again. Thus, if anyone else wins, he doesn't get to rule for long, the wars continue... until the right man wins.
Principate founded: 27 BC. Equates to roughly
2122. The right man founds the Universal Empire. The endlesly messed-up cohorts of young men who lived through the preceding years get shipped off to conquer or re-conquer some stuff, so that they are
well out of the country. I imagine that at some point in the following decade, an American soldier and a Polish soldier will shake hands on the Rhine, and praise Christ and the Emperor.
...Now, let me be clear: these years are mere indications. This is by no means precise. I can take events in Egypt or China, and we'll skew it all by a few decades. But the same trend persists. So what are a few decades, really? This is a mere impression of the future, not an accurate-to-life recording. Things never line up perfectly. For instance, does the War on Terror really line up all that well with the Third Punic War? Eh. (But then again, Bush jr. finishing off Saddam once and for all where Bush sr. let him stay in power
does provide a parallel.) Does the fact that the "Trumpist" uprising broke through in 2016 rather than 2014 (as direct 1-on-1 analogy would suggest) make a meaningful difference? I don't think so.