About 35 years ago I realized there were striking similarities between the historical arc the United States seemed to be following and the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Obviously, the Roman collapse is a huge and complex subject; Gibbons’ definitive book on the subject is 1312 pages, according to Amazon.com, so obviously this essay can’t plumb nearly those depths. Further, many scholars over the last 300 years have advanced various theories as to the reasons for the fall; it’s a complex subject with no easy or pat answers. But there are some very key elements we should consider.

One of the most striking factors in the decline of Rome is the string of incompetent, inept, and/or corrupt rulers in power during this period, and how their actions and decisions led to results that were disastrous for the nation-state. This trend was briefly interrupted by the reign of Constantine, who divided the Empire into an Eastern and a Western component, each autonomous, and moved his capitol to the Eastern Empire in Constantinople in modern Turkey. This part of the Empire survived successfully for a thousand more years, transformed into the Byzantine Empire, and only finally succumbed to the rise of the Ottoman Empire.

The Western Empire, however, continued its steady decline.

Another factor to consider is the effect of uncontrolled influxes of ethnic groups foreign to the native Roman culture. Rome had a policy of allowing conquered peoples to find paths to citizenship, and over time the requirements were gradually but continuously loosened. The movement of the Huns into what is now Hungary but was then a northern province wasn’t a Mongol-horde style invasion as is popularly portrayed in movies, but was actually a more gradual and primarily nomadic occurrence. Though Attila did, indeed, successfully invade Italy, it was to enforce claims to better treatment of his people who were already established within the Empire. Later and more violent invasions, such as that of the Visigoths led by Alaric in 410 AD, were merely the death knell for an empire that had already weakened to the point where it was a mere shadow of its former power.

Yet another contributing factor was that from the height of its powers under Julius and Augustus until its demise, the citizens of Rome demanded – and received – ever more and greater benefits, with ever lessening responsibilities. The circuses sometimes were in operation non-stop to entertain the masses. Military service was no longer required, and the point was reached where the Empire’s military required Germanic and other conquered peoples’ presence to fill out their ranks. This made it impossible for the Western Empire to maintain the control over their far-flung territories that had made the Empire previously viable, further weakening them to invasion, and even simple deterioration of the infrastructure. No longer did “all roads lead to Rome”.

By now, I’m sure the parallels I mentioned earlier are becoming apparent. Let’s examine some American history for context.

In political theory there’s an event known as a “change election” in which a body politic experiences a fundamental shift in its ideological or philosophical underpinnings. Because it takes time for the effect of any election to evidence itself, these events can typically only be identified retrospectively. One that is generally acknowledged is the election of Dwight Eisenhower, and the reason is that during his entire administration he took no action to reverse the policies of FDR that were previously considered unconstitutional, thereby enshrining the Rooseveltian policies as a permanent – and new – part of the American baseline for “constitutional” government action. The reach of government power had been extended under FDR and never reversed.

Though it’s tempting to categorize Reagan’s victory or the 1994 Gingrich Revolution as “change elections”, I don’t believe either qualify, because even though there was some success in rolling back governmental power, it proved temporary and the underlying expansion of government power continues, under both major political parties regardless of which is in power.

The “change election” concept is one we see Obama playing cleverly in his call for “change”, whether consciously or not. The problem is that we also see Republicans essentially doing the same thing, though not as blatantly. Bush and the GOP promoting a plan for a “tax rebate” that’s nothing of the sort, but merely an attempt to buy votes. GOP politicians trying to pre-empt the Democrats by getting in front of them on policies – such as global warming initiatives and oil exploration bans – that should be anathema.

As I’ve written so many times, all one needs do is look at California to see the direction the rest of the country is heading; then look again at the parallels to the Roman Empire I outlined at the start of the essay.

In the last 35 years I’ve seen nothing to change my mind about the similarities in evidence. Worse, I see the process accelerating. In my opinion we’ve actually reached a point in history at which a “change election” is desperately needed if this country’s original principles are to have any chance of being restored, even in a pale imitation of their previous incarnation.

The only glimmers of hope I’ve seen lately are the elections of Bobby Jindahl in Louisiana and Sarah Palin in Alaska. Both ran on very traditional conservative platforms of smaller government and individual responsibility, and both were elected in landslides. Jindahl’s is particularly significant, because Louisiana is traditionally a liberal Democrat stronghold.

These people, and others like them, need to be elevated to the national arena and given the opportunity to make their marks on the national scene. The offerings we’re getting now, from both parties, are just more of the same old same old, and are committed to driving the bus of this country off the cliff. The only thing they argue about is the speed at which we should smash through the guardrail.

Meanwhile, the people sit around ordering their Domino’s while staring at American Idol and the Superbowl.

Bread and circuses.