Trump: Roman Strongmen Trifecta Personified
The Roman example serves as a cautionary tale: their republic didn't collapse in a single moment but through a gradual erosion of institutional constraints and normative boundaries over decades.
My question to Claude AI was a simple one. The answer was, and is, chilling.
As I've noted previously, I've become rather enamored with Anthropic's Claude AI as a research and scenario-testing tool for these increasingly authoritarian times we're living through. Yesterday, I continued the experiment by posing this question to Claude:
Do Donald Trump's past and current actions and methods bear any resemblance to Roman political figures during the era of the Roman Republic?
Claude's full response follows in italics, with my clarifications on the time periods during which each Roman leader lived in normal type:
Drawing historical parallels between Donald Trump and figures from the Roman Republic reveals several striking similarities, particularly with populist leaders who challenged institutional norms during the Republic's decline:
Parallels with Roman Leaders
- Similarities to Gaius Marius: (157-86 BC)
- Positioned himself as a champion of common people against elites
- Circumvented traditional qualification requirements for office
- Repeatedly sought power in ways that violated traditional norms
- Used perceived external threats to justify extraordinary measures
- Echoes of Sulla: (138-78 BC)
- Demonstrated willingness to use legal mechanisms in unprecedented ways
- Portrayed himself as a victim of establishment persecution
- Cultivated intense personal loyalty from supporters
- Challenged the authority of traditional institutions
- Most significantly, Caesar-like tendencies: (100-44 BC)
- Blurred lines between personal and state interests
- Relied on personal rather than institutional loyalty
- Leveraged populist rhetoric while aligning with wealthy interests
- Demonstrated contempt for established political norms
Constitutional Context
The late Roman Republic was characterized by:
- Increasing polarization between populist and traditionalist factions
- Erosion of unwritten norms that had constrained political behavior
- Growing willingness to use violence and intimidation in politics
- Economic inequality driving political instability
The key similarity is how Trump, like these Roman figures, has tested whether institutions themselves are sufficient to constrain executive power when traditional norms of behavior are abandoned.
The potential scenario we've discussed—where a president might defy court orders and Congressional appropriations authority—directly parallels the late Republic's constitutional crisis, where formal powers technically existed to check executives but proved ineffective against leaders willing to break conventions.
The Roman example serves as a cautionary tale: their republic didn't collapse in a single moment but through a gradual erosion of institutional constraints and normative boundaries over decades.
In my lifetime, two American presidents have systematically violated the Constitution, other laws, and political norms to try to stay in power.
One of them--Nixon--succeeded for a time until his CONITELPRO-like political subversion campaign against the Democrats was exposed via the Watergate episode.
The other--Trump--attempted a literal coup on January 6, 2021. He was thwarted by opposition from Justice Department professionals who refused to go along with his scheme and by the valor of many U.S. Capitol Police officers, who safely moved House and Senate members away from a Trump-summoned mob bent on preventing the peaceful transfer of power.
In November 2024, 2,284,967 Americans decided they'd rather vote for a civilly convicted sexual abuser and corporate felon rather than a sitting vice president who, while hardly a perfect politician, was unquestionably committed to the survival of the Republic. Those 2,284,697 Americans provided Trump his margin of victory in the popular vote to go along with his Electoral College romp over Harris.
Every day, the rest of us watch in horror as that insane choice by a little over 2 million of our fellow Americans has put the country on the path to a Trumpist authoritarian nightmare, the escape from which will be costly beyond measure.
Trumpism delenda est.
Thanks for reading the Sentinel. If you're not a subscriber, please consider becoming one today and please share this with any of your family, friends, or colleagues who you think would be interested in or benefit from reading it.
