Trump crosses the Rubicon

Gaius Julius Caesar’s decision to cross the Rubicon in 49 BCE, defying Roman law by bringing his army into Italy, marked the beginning of a civil war that would eventually dismantle the Roman Republic and pave the way for the Roman Empire. This action symbolized a rebellion against a political system that many, including Caesar, believed was corrupt and ineffective. Centuries later, some draw a parallel between Caesar’s decisive actions and contemporary populist leaders like Donald Trump, whose rise has been marked by a similar discontent with the perceived dysfunction of the current political system.

Both Caesar and Trump positioned themselves as champions against an elite ruling class. In Caesar’s time, Rome’s Senate was seen as self-serving, plagued by corruption and entangled in complex rivalries that prioritized personal gain over the public good. Caesar’s march into Rome was a gamble that he was willing to take, banking on the Roman people's desire for stability and justice in the face of a failing Republic. He offered himself as a “dictator perpetuo” (dictator in perpetuity), ostensibly to reform the Republic's flaws. The Roman populace, weary of the political gridlock, rallied to his side, hoping he would bring the order and justice they craved, even if it meant losing traditional liberties.

In a modern context, Donald Trump’s political appeal similarly rests on his ability to tap into widespread frustration with established institutions, including government, media, and global corporations. Much like Caesar, Trump has presented himself as a disruptor who understands the grievances of “ordinary” citizens and aims to dismantle what his supporters see as a dysfunctional elite. His promise to “drain the swamp” echoes Caesar’s aim to reform the entrenched Roman Senate and bring power back to the people. In both cases, supporters rally not necessarily for more freedom but for a leader who is perceived as fair, decisive, and willing to challenge the establishment for their sake.

The Stoic philosophers, observing the politics of their time, noted a tendency in people to desire strong, just rulers rather than true freedom. Stoics like Seneca and Marcus Aurelius understood that people often wanted the security and stability that came from being ruled by someone with their best interests at heart. This view aligns with what has been observed in the cases of Caesar and Trump. The public's call for reform, justice, and order seems, in many cases, to outweigh their desire for traditional liberties. The yearning is less for the freedom of self-governance and more for a reliable figure who can ensure fairness and accountability.

In both Caesar’s and Trump’s cases, it raises a critical question about the nature of leadership and democracy. Is the role of a leader to secure absolute freedom for the people, or is it to provide a semblance of security and justice that makes people feel protected, even if it means they relinquish certain freedoms? Caesar’s gamble paid off in terms of public support, but it also led to the end of the Roman Republic. Trump’s mandate from his supporters could similarly be seen as a reflection of disillusionment with the current system, showing that sometimes, the quest for a fair ruler outweighs the quest for freedom itself.

It is worth remembering that Caesar’s leadership, while controversial, brought stability and broad prosperity to Rome. His reforms improved the lives of many by addressing issues like debt relief, redistributing land, and expanding citizenship. Despite the eventual decline of the Republic, Caesar’s rule can be seen as broadly beneficial for the Roman people, fostering a period of growth and stability that laid the groundwork for the Pax Romana, an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity.