OPINION: History teaches us no republic is safe from would-be autocrats

Once, long ago in a faraway land, a political leader who fashioned himself a strong man stepped forward to make his country great again. The political norms there had broken down. Legislators has used bad-faith arguments to block any action from taking place, some using procedural delays to prevent the senate from voting for measures they didn’t like. Legislative paralysis had led to political violence. Oligarchs stole public and private property with impunity. The populace blamed the elite for the chaos, claiming those in charge didn’t care about the common folk.

The strong man rigged elections to take complete control of the government, promising the people that he would restore the rule of law. Tired of the paralysis and chaos, a majority of the people accepted the strong man’s assurances that all would be better and supported his authority. He became sufficiently powerful that no one could run for public office he didn’t approve of, so only his minions were elected, and they subsequently “elected” him dictator for life.

That land was Rome, and the strong man was Augustus. He put an end to the Roman republic. With his rule came restrictions on free speech and freedom of assembly and movement, and appeasement of the people with spectacles where the killing and maiming of victims desensitized the public to humanity, and complete loyalty became the only path to status and wealth.

The founding fathers of the American republic had this, and other descents into authoritarianism firmly in mind when they fashioned the government and constitution of the United States. All of them were students of history, and they particularly studied the history of the Roman republic. Scholars have carefully documented how they were influenced by what they had studied. In Federalist No. 1, for example, Alexander Hamilton, remembering the example of Augustus, wrote that “a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to despotism than the latter.” In Federalist No. 63, James Madison wrote “As far as antiquity can instruct us on this subject (government based on the consent of the governed), its examples support the reasoning we have employed.” There are scores of similar examples. Above all, the founders rejected anything resembling authoritarian government, hoping the Constitution would prevent it. Franklin had Rome in mind when he told questioners what kind of government the founders had crafted: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Now, however, the United States may be on the verge of the very authoritarianism the founders rejected. The reasons are many, but seem rooted in progressive changes that have characterized American culture and government over the last three decades, essentially since the “revolution” in the cultural understanding of equality and freedom of the 1960s which elevated the status of women and minorities, celebrated the independence of the individual, and cultivated respect for the environment. Today, additional anxiety is generated by demographers’ prediction that by 2050, the share of the U.S. population that is white and non-Hispanic will be less than 50% for the first time.

A number of groups are dedicated to the restoration of what they imagine of an earlier America, if necessary under an authoritarian government. Among them is the Heritage Foundation, whose Project 2025 promotes four principles: restoration of the family as the centerpiece of American life and protection of American children; dismantling of the administrative state and return of self-governance to the American people; defense of the nation’s sovereignty, borders and bounty from global threats; and the securing of Americans’ God-given rights to live freely. Another is the Society for American Civic Renewal, whose mission statement states belief in a form of Christianity “not blurred by modernist philosophies.” Among other things, this group seeks members who “understand the nature of authority and its legitimate forceful exercise in the temporal realm.” These groups’ statements imply much not fully expressed.

Augustus’ Roman empire was not sympathetic to individual freedoms, especially freedom of expression and freedom of movement. Class stratification was strictly monitored and controlled, and the state mandated what class people could marry. The courts were state-managed and ordinary people had no access to justice unless championed by a patron in the officer class. Freedom, as we know it, did not exist, except for the chosen — those chosen by the emperor.

We might all do well to reread Sinclair Lewis’ classic 1935 story, “It Can’t Happen Here.” The sad reality is that it can.

Steve Haycox is a professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.