Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole electoral system. Marcus Tullius Cicero

‘Never Trumpers” would certainly embrace Cicero’s quote. The sentiment does illustrate the wide ideological chasm between the ideas of a Republic and a Democracy.

At first glance the differences between a Republic and a Democracy seem to be much the same idea, same institution. In both political structures the voters or citizens choose men (now women too) to represent their interests in a political system.

However, in a Republic ,the official government has restraints on its legislation powers by way of traditional precedent or like the US and many other countries which have a Constitution, or a Bill of Rights which limit or restrict certain rights from being changed, amended. In a pure Democracy the majority, through voting, can establish any laws the majority decides with no restrictions such that a pure Democracy possesses almost unlimited power over the minority¹.

A Republic adheres to traditions, laws over time, Democracies don’t have the same respect for the past or their ancestors whom founded their state. In CT’s opinion strict Republicans firmly believe then man and his nature never changes, as strict Democrats believe man is evolving over time.

A pristine hero/myth of the Republican Romans was an early (460 BC) suffect consul ² named Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (519-430 BC).

The Roman Republic had the power to grant emergency powers to one individual, a Dictator , for a temporary period, traditionally six months. The Senate utilized this emergency power sparingly in the 450 years of the Republic. The Senate appointed a Dictator at time of great State stress, which was almost always the result of wars going the wrong way for the Romans.

In 458, as related by Roman writer, Livy (circa 63 BC-17 AD), and other Latin writers the Senate appointed Cincinnatus as Dictator to relieve a siege of Rome , by a tribe called the Aequi. When alerted about the Senate appointment, Cincinnatus, a small farmer-he was a former patrician Consul (460) who now farmed 4 acres of land on the west side of the Tiber-was ploughing his field when the Senators called for his aid. Cincinnatus instantly left his farm and in fifteen days he had assembled an army, relieved the siege on Rome and defeated the Aequi. Now that the Republic was free of danger, Cincinnatus, instead of living luxuriously in Rome, simply returned to his plough and his crappy little farm³.

In 439 BC Cincinnatus was appointed as Dictator for a second time when, again, the Roman military situation was dire. He was at this plough once again, however he expeditiously organized an army crushed the foreign army in battle and then simply returned to his crappy little farm.

Cincinnatus lived his life, as a simple sturdy Italian farmer who when called to service to his State dropped whatever he was doing ,performed his task without complaint or compensation and was victorious.

Cincinnatus disdained the glamour, honour, riches or fame-that was his for the taking: he simply went back from battle to work his farm. Romans saw Cincinnatus as the quintessential Roman: humble, hard working, loyalty to the state was tantamount-discipline, courage in all ways of life.

Nigel Bagnall, a Roman historian, outlines how early Roman Republican values were created, exercised and respected,

Polybius believed that the reason behind Rome’s seeming invincibility was that her traditions and standards were superior to those of other people. Austerity, discipline and faithfulness in honouring her undertakings, together with the strict honesty of her citizens, put her in a class of her own. The severe training which molded the Roman character began in infancy. The Roman paterfamilias ruled his family as an autocrat, instilling obedience , loyalty and integrity with a severity that could only be surpassed by the institutionalized training of Spartan youth under state direction. The result of this upbringing, upheld and fortified by the rigorous demands of public opinion, was that the Romans displayed high moral standards and set themselves an ideal of virtue based on will power, self-restraint, a seriousness devoid of frivolity, perseverance, and a binding sense of duty to the family, social group or military unit; all established within the hierarchy of state authority. The importance of the individual was subordinated to his corporate responsibilities, a willingness to sacrifice his own interests of his life for the good of the group was accepted as the normal standard of personal conduct⁴.

A prime example which pertains to what Polybius and Bagnall were explaining can be found in the life of a Roman consul (consuls were always the supreme generals during their one year term), Cornelius Atilius Regulus (307-250 BC). Regulus was elected consul in 267 BC. In the First Punic War (264-241 BC): Rome against Carthage. Regulus was captured in Tunis in 255 following a battle fought against the Carthaginians. The Carthaginians gave Regulus their terms for peace with Rome and let him return to Rome to present their peace offer to the Senate. Regulus had to give his word, his oath to Carthage officials such that if the terms were not agreed to by Rome, Regulus must end his parole and come back to Carthage as a prisoner⁵.

In Rome Regulus gave the Senators the offered peace document and pleaded with them not to take the Carthagininan offer as Regulus thought the offer was detrimental to Rome. The Senators agreed with Regulus, so Regulus returned to Carthage as a prisoner and the long war continued against Carthage for another eight years. In 250 Regulus was tortured to death in a dingy, dark, dirty Carthaginian gaol.

Some scholars believe that the Regulus story was a myth. Polybius (c.200-c.118 BC) the celebrated Greek historian, whom is the primary source for Punic Wars histories, doesn’t mention this particular instance.

In reality, it doesn’t matter. The selfless Regulus deed, whether it occurred or not, was the epitome of proper Roman behaviour. The possible fiction of the event nonetheless was, undeniably, the fact of Roman traditional ideals.

[1^]: This quote encapsulates the existential quandary facing all democracies:

> The Greeks…labored under the delusion that  democracy was a guarantee of peace and plenty, not realizing that unrestrained majority rule always destroys freedom, puts the 
> minority at the mercy of the mob, and works at cross-purposes to the effective use of human energy and individual initiative.”
> 
> Henry Grady Weaver (1889-1949)  “The Mainspring of Human Progress” 1938.

[2^]: A ‘suffect consul’ means that one of the elected consuls had resigned or died in office so a ‘suffect consul’ was appointed by the Senate. [3^]: “The Oxford Classical Dictionary,” pg. 1288, Edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spaworth, 2003,Oxford University Press, published in New York. For more about Cincinnatus. [4^]: “The Punic Wars”, Nigel Bagnall, 1999. Published by Pimlico, London, England, page 33. [5^]: A painting by Cornelius Lens, 1791: “Regulus Returning to Carthage”