American Caesar - Yea or nay?

Let's say that at some point in the not-so-distant future, a young man or woman emerges in the United States with a vision to unite the world under one banner, the end goal being to eliminate war, guarantee that all lands respect human rights, eliminate poverty through genuine cooperation between rich and poor economies, stop our pillaging of the planet and adopt sustainable economic practices, colonize the solar system, and basically usher our species into a Golden Age of peace and prosperity - but to do it, they first must overthrow the current regime in Washington and end two hundred years of democratic tradition, which our American Caesar sees as corrupt beyond redemption anyways.

Assume that said person has the charisma and means to pull this off, and genuinely believes in the vision of a united planet.

Should they do it? If not, why not? Also, if this did actually happen, would you be pleased with the change so long as the results are good, or would you still mourn the death of democracy, even with all of its baggage?

I picked the USA in this scenario mostly because I think its the only country that even has a chance of accomplishing the goal of world conquest by military means (Russia might manage it too, if they get out of their current funk), and this thread is about a Caesar, not a Ghandhi, type of figure. Make no mistake, this hypothetical leader would use force when diplomacy failed, and he or she would be GOOD at it to boot.

The plan has a gaping flaw: How would an absolute monarchy guarantee human rights and personal freedom? It can't do so in any meaningful way: Any subsequent ruler might just abolish those rights.

No, because your fantasy land where such a thing is even remotely realistic doesn't exist. Such a person would end up as an American Hitler, not an American Caesar. He or she would impale our nation on the spears of others, and have nothing to show for it but millions of dead bodies and immeasurable resources wasted.

Pax Americana?

No.

It won't happen because people are still people. Should someone attempt it? Eh. It will only lead to more bloodshed. But then, someone will probably try anyhow.

Pretty much: The US military is strong enough to conquer the entire American continent if they tried... But try as they might, they wouldn't manage to keep it. That's too much attrition.

Conquering the entire world? That's just ridiculous. You'd need an immense population surplus to do that without getting destroyed in the process. The Chinese are the only ones with the numbers, and they don't have the tech. Still, even if they had the tech, China would need to put boots on the ground: Even assuming they win Midway II, (and a global insurgency would defeat any government through sheer attrition anyway), they would have a hard time conquering the American continent, without even mentioning an occupation.

You can conquer a whole buncha countries, but you can't keep'em. No matter how much meat and how much dakka, you probably can't conquer the entire world. And you can't occupy the entire gooddamn world under any circumstances.

edited 18th Nov '11 2:45:22 PM by SavageHeathen

Caesar eventually has to give up power to Nero, so no.

Sounds more like American Napoleon. He built an empire for the purpose of safeguarding the values from the French Revolution and established the Napoleonic Code, but people opposed him anyway.

Most of the opposition to Napoleon comes from the fact that he basically turned his back on all those ideals the moment he crowned himself Emprah and made his brother King of Spain. The sad irony being that one big motivation he had for doing that was to cement his legitimacy as a ruler amongst the other European nations, who wanted a monarch ruling France.

Basically, Europe didn't like Napoleon because he wasn't a monarch, and once he was a monarch they didn't like Napoleon because he was a monarch.

Nay. It never ends well.

That said, the US may be slowly becoming that way anyway.

The American Century ist over.

Almost. It's ending, yeah, but its not over just yet.

If "the American Century" refers to a period between ~1945 to present and possibly in the near-future where the US is the major superpower (because the Soviets, though militarily comparable, were never really quite as assertive—or, for that matter, obvious—about their political influence), then good-fucking-riddance. Let the world start making its own damn decisions and doing its own damn thing with its own damn business, and the US can work on the absurd number of problems we have.

No more neoconservatives using the lure of nationalism and the promise of glory to flag-waving fools to distract us from our own dysfunctional excuse for a country. A good thing, too; I was getting tired of living in a country that could honestly and unquestioningly back fools like Cheney and their patsies, like Bush, at least at the outset, before the real effects of unchecked neoconservative imperialist-nationalist nonsense kick in.

edited 18th Nov '11 3:03:12 PM by USAF713

It wouldn't happen. The military is for the citizens, and every last man and woman in arms has family here. They would never agree to this.

I don't understand the OP's scenario, as it would end in a smouldering crater where civilisation used to be and he is asking whether it would be worth it.

Of course. Should they fail, they were just another lunatic. Should they succeed: manifest destiny.

And the CIA would be the pretorian guard right???

OP:

Nyet, tovarisch. If anyone conquers the globe to achieve all that, he must be democratically elected.

In such an analogy, the Secret Service would be the Praetorian Guard...

Though, if it were to end the same way with one of the Praetorian Guard becoming the next Caesar, I'd say the FBI would be the best bet...

That said, I agree with Lich. If someone, anyone, can get themselves in a position to become the next Caesar(along with unifying a massive section of the world), why shouldn't he?

edited 18th Nov '11 3:41:28 PM by Swish

If someone actually had the skills and abilities to conquer the world, rule it well, and lead to prosperity and peace while increasing human rights, I'd say that would be a pretty amazing time to live in.

I'd say that any kind of government is acceptable so long as it maintains good, but changeable laws, human rights, serves its citizenry to the fullest extent, and creates peace and prosperity.

edited 18th Nov '11 3:47:48 PM by ATC

@ Tom

I'm guessing you can elect a president who wishes to take over the world, no?

@ OP

I doubt that world war would be a useful method in uniting the world and solving these problems.

It's funny that this topic came up. I was actually toying with a story concept that involving exactly this kind of character. He's not officially a monarch or dictator, and he was technically democratically elected, though his election results are rather dubious (he lost the popular vote by a wide margin, but won the electoral vote in a landslide), not that anyone with any political clout would openly point that out, for fear of being the next politician to suffer an unfortunate accident.

Despite the general shadiness of his regime, he's rather liked by the common folk in the US, despite what his election results would suggest, even as a good portion of the rest of the world despises him, due to the fact that World War III has started, and it's the US, Russia, Japan, and Britain vs China, their satellite territories (India, Mongolia, Korea, and most other southeast Asian countries without US military bases set up in them), and the European Union (which sided with them out of economic dependence which developed following a global economic collapse in the 2040's which originated with a Chinese economic collapse.)

edited 18th Nov '11 8:12:35 PM by Archereon

hypothetically i suppose if the results are good then its ok

but fantasies of sky daddies who save us dont really help anyone

Unlikely, but do able. eastern europe and russia going commey again is more likely, but its good to mix things up a bit.

Any grand ruler who behaves like a Casar is not necessarily a good thing to begin with. Caesar wasn't assissnated because he was good for Rome.

Well, it depends on your perspective; Caesar was good for the impoverished, common citizens (as a populist, they made up an enormous part of his overall political support), and he did much to remedy the numerous problems that the Roman Republic was suffering from (rampant corruption, weak central authority leading to insubordinate outer provinces, an oligarchy of the rich oppressing the poor) during his dictatorship. One could say that, ironically, by assuming perpetual dictatorship over Rome, he did more to preserve the spirit of Roman democracy than the corrupt oligarchs who led the Republic before him. In fact, it's more likely that the people who assassinated him were more concerned with losing the power and prestige that they enjoyed before Caesar's reign than they were with the loss of democracy, since in Caesar's time, the Roman Republic was a democracy only in name. On the other hand, the senators who found their power slowly being taken away, the people who died as a direct result of his conquests, and the governors who could no longer rule their provinces while ignoring the word of Rome might have had a problem.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I would love to see a modern Caesar rise in any country; the world could use more people like that. As for whether or not America needs one, not yet, but possibly in the future.

edited 18th Nov '11 10:41:52 PM by tropetown