Juvenal, a Roman poet, coined the phrase panem et circenses (bread and circuses). But circenses did not have clowns in the first century A.D. Instead, the Roman Colosseum staged executions, animal attacks on slaves, and bloody gladiator contests, all of which passed as entertainment at the time. The phrase took on a distinct political connotation when Roman Senators, like Cicero, used it stealthily to pass controversial legislation. Rome’s citizens barely noticed what the Senate was doing, as long as food and entertainment were freely available. American legislators also know the strategic value of this Roman sleight-of-hand trick. Panem et circenses, in contemporary parlance, translates to tax cuts and a playbill of litigious debates, outlandish name-calling, conspiracy yarns, and/or scandal investigations. How, you might ask, has this Latin phrase become relevant today?
Although the government’s recent tax legislation mainly benefited the wealthy, it did provide some tax relief for the less prosperous. For example, some Trump voters averaging $72,000 per year in income might see as much as a $70 to $100 increase in their monthly pay checks (depending on their overall tax status). Low income earners, however, will experience little or no tax relief. By design, the biggest tax savings will be in 2018, an election year. And, except for the wealthy, the tax savings decrease year over year until they are phased out after ten years. At that point, everybody’s taxes will increase, except for corporate America and the super wealthy whose tax rate remains the same in perpetuity. If income and wealth inequality were concerns before 2018, they will become irremediable by 2028.
This inappropriately called “tax reform” is like throwing loaves of bread to the crowd gathering before the Roman Senate. It may feed the masses’ present appetite but starve their future. While the previous Administration cut the trillion-dollar deficits of its predecessor by two-thirds, the current Administration has reintroduced trillion-dollar deficits with its first budget for fiscal year 2018 and for all succeeding years into the foreseeable future. These deficits are self-made, not the result of war or recession. The result has been Increased Federal Reserve borrowing and, eventually, higher interest rates for auto loans, mortgages, and business investments. The economy’s recovery from the Great Recession will stall, along with the Stock Market which will become more volatile and at risk for a major setback. These deficits also will advance the case for cuts in retirement programs, healthcare, and any Federal support for infrastructure. This type of “tax reform” does promote wealth in corporate America and amongst the already well-heeled, but at the expense of American fiscal solvency, the overall economy, and the future welfare of most Americans. Should we feel placated by this tax relief—or just duped?
Meanwhile, the news media is fed a constant diet of conspiracies, policy chaos, fear-mongering, diatribe, and scandal. Late night comedians no longer need to create material for our entertainment. Their satire is pre-written in the daily news cycle by the misadventures of Congress and the White House. The Roman Colosseum glorified in physical violence but was no less contentious or chaotic than the mayhem in our current politics. The ring leader at center stage is a former reality show entertainer. He provides us with a constant display of loyalty tests in his hiring and firing antics, of ad hoc and ill-considered policies, of twitter fantasies, of legislative bricks, of short-sighted or illegal executive orders, and of preposterous “deep state” conspiracy theories. While it may bemuse the body politic, his real purpose is to distract us. As a result, we may fail to notice that his culpable malfeasance and manipulative propaganda are dragging America like an insidious undertow into the depths of chaos. Are we entertained by the show—or just stupefied?
But why are we being duped and stupefied? The answer becomes apparent when we change the “why” to “who”—specifically, who benefits?
In Timothy Snyder’s short treatise, “On Tyranny,” he states that “the Founding Fathers sought to avoid the evil that they, like the ancient philosophers, called tyranny.” Specifically, those philosophers warned us of the instability that grows out of inequality and the exploitation of a demagogue’s opportunism. But do we really need to read Aristotle or Plato to learn about tyranny. In recent times, we have witnessed the rise of oligarchies and dictatorships. The 20th century world wars alone should have taught us all we need to know about the evils of government supported inequality—whether ethnic, religious, or economic—and the dangers of morally challenged demagogues. These men (yes, they are all men) tell us who to scapegoat for troubled times—any group that differs from them in race, gender, ethnic origin, class, political ideals or religious affiliations. And, of course, they denigrate all who might oppose them, whether the press, opposing parties, or the courts. Their avowed purpose is to make us believe that only they can fix what ails us. In the words of our President, only he can stop the “losing” and make us and America “winners” again. And when he throws crumbs to the masses—like tax relief—be wary of the cupboard left bare. For it is not your benefit that he seeks, but his own. Personal power, fame, and enrichment are his only goals. Whatever “ism” or promise he rides to power is only a ruse, a con, and a lie. His only guiding principle is winning a zero-sum game where his opponents are vanquished. History tells us so. Nationalist socialism, communism, and fascism all rode a form of populism to dictatorships. Maybe it is time to heed the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.
Donald Trump should not be underestimated. He is neither the glorified change agent or cult hero his followers love, nor the devil incarnate or destroyer of representative democracy. He is, however, a clever operator and opportunist who earned his position of power by capitalizing on the failing state of constructive politics in America. His ability to win the Presidential election was not the result of business acumen or deal making ability, but of self-promotion—specifically, of a well-advertised brand. His use of “truthful hyperbole” or imaginative realities were never policy positions that spoke to fundamental change, but fabrications that appealed to and inflamed long held feelings within an aggrieved portion of the electorate. What grievance would justify voting for an opportunist demagogue with a morally bankrupt past? Well, the answer should not surprise any American: he took advantage of an existent morally bankrupt and opportunistic political system.
The irony in this answer is my own belief that most of our elected officials are not personally immoral. But they ARE opportunistic in their pursuit of re-election: fund raising requires their advocacy for the interests of the donor class and for the euphemist campaign stratagems of Party leadership over the interests and general welfare of the electorate. Maybe the ultimate euphemism in the last election was Trump’s “make America great again.” Behind that campaign slogan lurked his promises (1) to appease Evangelicals with a Supreme Court nominee who might sway the Court to repeal Rowe vs. Wade and (2) to secure the safety of Americans with a border wall and a Muslim travel ban. In truth, the demagogue-in-chief is not concerned with the cohesion of these promises with his four-word campaign slogan. The separation of church and state is enshrined in our Constitution. Just as no law can force an evangelical woman to get an abortion; no woman can be refused an abortion on religious grounds. Likewise, there is no statistically relevant evidence implying that immigrants or Muslims have endangered Americans. The over-turning of our Constitutional separation of church and state or the provisioning of a border wall and travel ban are no more likely to make America great than Don Quixote’s assault on a windmill made him a great conquistador.
A campaign slogan may sound good, but, as a euphemism, it is just an alluring fantasy. The fact that most, if not all, politicians subscribe to such alluring fantasies translates into a demeaning political discourse where fiction overrules fact, generalities substitute for practicalities, and emotionally-charged demagoguery wins over reasoned argument and honest persuasion. A successful campaign slogan is malleable and can be applied to any cause that might appeal to specific voter groups, like Evangelicals worried about the lives of the unborn or rural homogeneous white communities fearful of Mexican workers or Muslim terrorists. A successful campaign slogan is not subject to analysis for it is too amorphous to be critiqued in detail. Its purpose is not to inform but to persuade. Its content is not a specific or realistic policy, but any general issue to which voters may be emotionally attached. It operates as a generic reference to prejudices, fears, or all possible dreamscapes, like everybody’s vision of a great America. (Have you ever experienced a timeshare sales presentation?)
If it is unfair to call politicians personally immoral, the same cannot be said for the campaign system that overrules their decisions and conduct in office. That system must change. Simply voting for a disruptor will not suffice, especially a self-serving opportunist. Because of term limits, we will outlast his time in office. But America may not outlast its electoral system. Both political parties now fall under the sway of purchased propaganda, paid campaign operatives, expensive analytics, and the need to attract otherwise expensive media coverage with provocative, though enticingly quotable, remarks—however hyperbolic, irreverent, or unrealistic. And now foreign adversaries can sling mud in our campaign cesspool as well. We must establish public funding and regulation of our campaigns. Yes, I am still advocating for Federal election reform (reference “American Revolution 2016”).
How did Americans fall prey to panem et circenses? Why are we so easily manipulated by politicians and special interests—even foreign adversaries? Well, more than a few political pundits and armchair philosophers have tried to answer this question. Perhaps Americans are so invested in jobs, family, shopping, and entertainment that they have little time for politics. Though we may have busy lives, we must become an informed electorate else risk severing ties to our democratic roots and drifting aimlessly into troubled waters. Our individual future is tied to America’s future. Our investment in civic duties is really a matter of self-preservation. Maybe the humanist ideals at the heart of America no longer inspire us to take responsibility for our form of government.
Humanism has more than one face. In America, it has evolved to cross several divides. Equality, for instance, can imply equal opportunity rather than identical gifts and capabilities. Social collectives of religious, ethnic, or race can avoid conflict and overcome differences by respecting each other’s common rights. And even the physically or mentally disabled can contribute more to society than their genetic inheritance. Personal freedom and equality are not frozen ideals and can be every citizen’s inheritance. But the wisdom gained from the Enlightenment must continue to evolve, else we risk veering off-course. For example, both political Parties reflect aspects of the same founding principles. Conservatives are just on one end of the liberal scale, as liberals are on another end of the conservative scale. Both sides must adhere to our founding principles, or risk being radical and un-American. For example, any attempt to undermine our democratic institutions is radical. In the same vein, any attempt to suppress dialogue and debate in our legislature can become un-American to the extent that it limits representation. Any attempt to undermine free elections or deny the right to vote is radical. Any attempt to undermine the rule of law is radical. Any attempt to gain political power in collusion with a foreign adversary is radical and possibly treasonous.
Both American conservatives and liberals agree on how to form a more perfect union. It is written in our founding documents. No monarch, Pope, Mullah or foreign adversary can dictate the future of this republic. So why would we ever yield to one of the oldest ploys in representative government to bait and distract an electorate? Ours is still a “government of the people, by the people, for the people (that) shall not perish” unless we let it. Self-serving politicians can be voted out of office; demagogues can be silenced by a fact-checking free press; and an informed electorate cannot be bamboozled by lies or manipulative propaganda. If our President and a complicit Congress choose to distract us with tax cuts while they undermine our fiscal and general welfare, we can still vote them out of office. We can still define our future and the further development of our democracy.