Strife, Chaos and Leadership!
Who will lead when action is demanded?
A few months ago I wrote about the Gallic siege of Rome in 390 BC where the general, Camillus, saved Rome from herself.
Sure, the Gauls attacked a largely undefended, demoralised Republic, but that was not the end of that story. Camillus succeeded in ending the Gallic invasion and was then tasked with rebuilding of the Capitol.
Within one year the new city was standing.
However, the threat of war from neighbouring peoples did not stop, and once again Camillus was elected as dictator because by that stage the Romans had “ceased to think lightly of any war,” as Livy tells us, and the firm hand of one leader was considered necessary.
With all the wars and rebuilding, a malaise had set in amongst the population. The people’s tribunes tried to attract crowds to their meetings by proposing agrarian laws, but by this time morale had waned:
“They made no great impression on the people, who were too taken up with their building to be often present in the Forum, and for the same reason were crippled with the expenses they had incurred and had little thought of land when they had no means of stocking it.”
“Crippled with expenses.” Do I hear a familiar ring?
I talk of strength of leadership because it is critical in times of strife. Two thousand years on and the western world finds itself in such times. Yet, I look around and I find no Camillus to save us from ourselves.
As I write this, Canada has recently emerged from national elections with the populace voting in, yet again, a left leaning progressive government, not much different from the one that had led them over the past decade to their current pain.
Clearly, we don’t have horses, or generals leading the charge with standards.
Australians have now just done the same.
The Labor Party, led by Anthony Albanese, has just been rewarded with another term of reckless spending, the ramping up of more reckless renewables, and evermore recklessness around censorship of our speech and lives.
The so-called liberal side, led by Peter Dutton, with his unknown position on just about anything because of his tendency to equivocate and backflip on policies, has lost what many considered to be an unlosable election.
Making connections with the past, particularly the ancient past, is rather like examining the double-edged sword analogy. On one side we see the hope of what can be achieved from situations akin to our own, albeit minus the barbarity; on the other we see the warnings which continually go unheeded, leading us to where we in the West are today – leaderless and heading into dangerous seas with no life raft in sight.
The People are feeling demoralised about our political class, with no faith that their elected representatives can or even want to turn things around. Voting almost seems irrelevant. How far we have fallen.
A left leaning progressive government, not much different from the one that had led them over the past decade to their current pain.
But back to the Romans. They never quit. But that in part was due to great leadership.
When the troops realised that they would be fighting not just an old enemy, but a new one added on, their morale took a beating:
“The centurions reported to Camillus…that the soldiers were dispirited and reluctant to arm, were loitering and hanging back as they left the camp, and had even been heard to say that they would be fighting against odds of a hundred to one and an army of such a size as could hardly be withstood even if it were unarmed, still less when armed.”
What Camillus did next ought to be the gold standard for any leader worth his salt:
“He jumped on his horse, and riding between the ranks in front of the standards he faced his troops. ‘Soldiers,’ he cried, ‘what is this gloom, this reluctance, which is so unlike you? Is it the enemy who you don’t know – or me – or yourselves? What else is an enemy but a perpetual opportunity for you to show your mettle and win glory?
He then gave the signal for action, jumped down from his horse, and, seizing the nearest standard-bearer by the hand, hurried him towards the enemy, shouting ‘Attack, soldiers!’ At the sight of Camillus charging the enemy in person, though his age made him unfit for physical feats, the men all cheered and rushed forward together, everyone taking up the cry ‘Follow the general!’”
Clearly, we don’t have horses, or generals leading the charge with standards. But we ought to have these things in spirit!
Like the ancients, we should never think lightly of any war ourselves, and I refer to the war being waged against everything that western civilisation has achieved over the past 2000 years. Because that is what is at stake – our civilisation.
Who will lead us in the mission to save ourselves?
 | A guest post by
|
Indeed, Brett.
Big shifts are occurring. I am interested to see what happens with the Liberal Party in the wake of this disastrous showing from them. Whatever else we all disagree on, we must surely agree that the nation needs a strong opposition.
For some time now, the people doing the leading have been the faceless bureaucrats of the Administrative State. They implement what they like and obstruct what they don't. Politicians can chose between an easy life, or butting their heads up against a wall. The overwhelming majority chose the former.
There are some hopeful signs on the horizon, though. Open Social Media has spawned a new type of politician who engages directly with the public. They're not so focused on 'pronouncements from on high', lazy interviews with tame and/or ignorant media or Parliamentary theatre.
Rather, they put their thoughts out there for comment, push-back and debate. Someone who can build a following in such a competitive environment will be 1. More attuned to real public sentiment and 2. More determined to fight for their beliefs against bureaucratic inertia.
These are the leaders of the future. I suspect that Libertarians will be well represented.