I've been going through this pretty good podcast on the history of ancient Rome...
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-history-of-rome/id261654474
... and the thought came to me -- could someone in the USA pull off what Julius Caesar started and Augustus finished in becoming a ruler that basically had supreme power?
could a us military leader (or state governor and general, which is essentially what ceasar was) of any level pull off using military force to overthrow the us gov and become dictator? as things are today? flat out no and there really isn't much room for debate. while us servicemen and women are sworn to follow the orders of their superiors. the chain of command is clearly stated. which is something that really didn't exist in rome. for a roman soldier there was no higher authority than your general. generals were in essence private individuals with either state or self funded armies who in theory were subject to certain rules. but in reality there were no safeguards to enforce those rules nor did anyone have direct authority over them in any real practical sense.
its pretty clear cut that the president is commander and chief (political jokes aside) so a general usurping the pres is pretty much out. to take things one very large step forward is the enlisted oath:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I highlighted the important bits that make overthrowing the gov be it the pres, a disgruntled general or anyone else for that matter very literally impossible with our military as things stand today. the enlisted must follow all orders given by the president. however, they are duty bound (not honor or anything else) to ignore those orders should they be unlawful or violate the constitution. sure, you could try to impose martial law and temporarily suspend the constitution. but to date I know of no legal grounds for doing so. even when Lincoln did so during the civil war it was later deemed to be an illegal act and something that, at least in theory, would be opposed by the military (and virtually everyone else) should a president attempt to do so in the future.
while "in theory" it could happen in the future under some random string of events, I don't see anyway it could happen today.
Lets say someone is eventually worth one trillion of today's dollars and is popular enough to get elected as president. Could this person then bribe/intimidate/etc. the right people to change enough things and set himself up to have ultimate power? Would it only be possible if some catastrophic event happened first (nuclear wars, asteroid, complete collapse of the economy, etc.)?
the reason it is impossible is largely because of the examples you noted above actually. ceasar and later (really actually) augustus showed. first things first. claiming dominion over a democracy and turning it into a dictatorship has very little to do with bribing or intimidating rich and powerful people. it has everything to do with bribing the praetorian guard and obtaining the love of the masses. you want to be emperor? get the secret service, the military and the common man on your side. miss on any of the above and your pretty much s.o.l.
*shrug* read up on the night of the long knives. hitler can tell you a thing or two on how "important" it is to have wealthy and or influential people on your side.
step #1. send a poor person to go shoot said rich and or influential person in the face
step #2. send a poor person to collect all their things and put it in your account
step #3. ixnay on invading Russia... aye....
step #4. profit?
It's fascinating to me to think about what all would have to be covered to avoid being overthrown (military control/influence, network of secret service and body guards, etc.) once this person finally openly shows their intentions, and whether pieces could be achieved to help their cause before it's clear what the aim is (for example getting enough of "his people" on the supreme court).
there are 2 real ways to undermine a democracy. well three really, but the third is kind of out of scope for this conversation.
1. the first is the way you mention above, via military force. in our form of democracy that is virtually impossible. this is in large part because our founding fathers were well versed on rome and its history. a lot of what we have today was modeled from rome and as a result of rome's shortcomings. they were supremely concerned with any one person claiming the title of "king" or anything similar. so much so that even having a president was a hotly contested debate and one that many of the founding fathers was 100% against.
besides, being an actual "dictator" or whatever in name and face is so far from appealing in this country its beyond mention. people hating you, trying to kill you, always looking over your shoulder for threats. not to mention the fact that it is absurdly easy to destroy someone who lives in the public eye. every emperor of rome knew that their reign ended the very second they lost the support of the mob and or the praetorians. it would be no different today.
2. then there is the practical way in todays age. you really want to be a "dictator"? first things first, don't call yourself a dictator. in fact, stay out of the public light entirely. politics is a no no as is any other position of power that would put you in the limelight. do what our lovely elite does today in this country. buy yourself some members of congress, a media outlet or two and play us ignorant masses like marionettes.
sad reality is that we have our share of dictators in this country today. once you make the "too big to fail" list as an individual.... are you not a dictator in all but title? you break the law? you receive no punishment. further, those you wronged aren't even allowed to know who "you" are. you then demand that the people you directly wronged give you money? you receive it with no stipulations or punishments. *shrug* all the power, very few (if any) of the concerns as you can largely stay anonymous. sounds like a winner to me...
