The Role Of Princeps In American Democracy

It says a lot about how un-democratic the American democracy is when the most protested war in its history could not be stopped by popular opposition. First, it is another example of how state-level societies are inherently unequal because the contemporary American ruling and business classes use their positions to pursue interests and then maintain the status quo. Our country follows the principle as the state neglects as it crushes Native American protests at Standing Rock for an oil-pipeline, breaks unions and strikes against corporate exploitation, and fights in unpopular wars like that in Afghanistan and Iraq so that American, British, and Polish oil companies could drill oil while evading export tariffs. So American government officials

At the same time, it squashes and disregards it when the situation proves advantageous and convenient, then making it seem it nothing happened. Thus creating an allusion of mass-participation. Take the Roman idea of the princeps for example, the word derives from Latin meaning, “The first one in line, most distinguished or entitled.” Princeps refers to two things. First, the honorary title bestowed upon Octavian by the Roman Senate after the long Civil Wars of the 1st century CE. Second, the period of Roman History from the 1st to the late 4th century CE where strong political leaders kept up the appearance of Roman rule by the Republican senate. In reality, the princeps was an allusion that hid the fact these strong political leaders, later known as emperors, controlled the imperial provinces, massive armies, and the ability to collect taxes. All of which made such leaders wealthier and more powerful than the Senate. To cover the full extent of his power over the republic, Octavian negotiated the 1st and 2nd settlement of 23 and 27 BCE with the Roman Senate, making it seem like he was not trying to become a monarch or emperor. Instead of a democratic, unpopular wars reveal that our own political system shares the propinquity of the princeps that possesses the motions of a democracy but acts like a

Although many people opposed the war, the discussion should include the part of the American democracy that bought Bush’s argument to invade Iraq. Since the early 19th century, American white-males participated in the first popular elections, they fell victims to the political rhetoric and hoopla full of music, pancakes, alcohol, and cartoons. For my perspective in grade school, many people I knew supported the invasion because the US government persuaded many people. But I think over time, more and more of the American people over time disapproved of the war. The US government persuaded many citizens of several points. First, Iraq was a dangerous threat to global security because of the claims of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). Second, Iraq as a member of the “Axis of Evil” with Iran and North Korea as sponsors of terror. Third, the US government connected Iraq with the dissident group Al-Qaeda because of one of its members, Al-Zarqawi, traveled to Iraq in 2003. Fourth, the US government promised that their intervention would bring peace and freedom to Iraq and promote values of westernization that would improve Iraqi lives. By the time the American government already created long-term plans for Iraq militarily, economically, and politically with coalition allies and MNCs the larger majority people began to oppose the war. My point is