I realize that the fall of the western Roman Empire, and whether it has any parallels and lessons for America today, has been beaten to death in a stack of books, movies, magazines, op-ed columns and blogs. Despite all the discussion, there is no consensus on this topic. Some people conclude that the parallels between that ancient empire which once thrived between the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the North Sea, and the modern empire that has thrived since the 18th century between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans north of the Mexican Gulf, aren’t all that important. Others say that they are important, but that we have learned the lessons and are innovative enough to avoid Rome’s fate. Still others agree that there are some important parallels regarding decline, but are nervous about our ability to avoid it.

I’m not sure whether I fall into the second or third camp. Modern America still has a lot of innovative spirit and is riding the crest of an applied technology revolution that started over a hundred years ago and has not yet subsided. We might still come up with techno-fixes for much of what ails us. And yet, some of the parallels between what happened to Rome between the second and fourth centuries, and what is happening in the USA today, are compelling and even creepy. I think that they need more and not less public attention and discussion.

The Roman Empire is compelling because, well, it’s our family. There were other kingdoms that expanded over many lands and encumbered many different tribes before Rome started expanding in the second century BC. But they were in relatively exotic places and cultures, e.g. China, India, Persia, Egypt, etc. Rome was the first European empire, and thus encompassed the lands from which came the people and the cultural heritage that would found the USA some 1800 years later.

As with the USA, the expansion of Rome was motivated by a mixture of greed and progressive human ideals. Both were carried out largely through military action and were cemented in place by economic forces. Both Rome and the US made a lot of people unhappy as they grew (they both relied on slaves and trampled any indigent cultures that did not wish to be subjected to their system). But both brought forth wealth and improved living conditions and opportunity (both cultural and economic), for an incredible number of people. They both eventually brought unprecedented opportunities for average people to live in relative freedom from disease, plunder and agricultural failing (e.g. drought or pest invasions), and to taste the fruits of art, education and commerce. Eventually, Rome was no longer able to do this, and life revered back to being short and brutish for the masses. The big question is, can the USA avoid a Rome-like decline?

I’m not qualified to write a comprehensive analysis on this. But I will post a couple of pros and cons regarding the future of the “American Empire”. On the “pro” side, America has a much better political leadership system than Rome has. Despite all the political wars and battles, we don’t select leaders based on armies battling it out on domestic turf (except for that nasty spat between 1861 and 65). We have a system in place that does a relatively good job of providing stable leadership. Another pro is that America did not have to conquer as many indigent cultures and leadership systems as Rome did during its expansion phase. A well-known example of the cultural/military indigestion that Rome suffered was its tumultuous relationship with the Jewish people of Palestine; however, there were other groups on Roman soil who never “got with the program”.

And then of course, America does not have armed barbarians constantly challenging its borders, as Rome did in its final two centuries. Even those who are trying to “crash the gates” today (illegal immigrants) usually take the jobs that most native Americans don’t want, and thus contribute to the economy (versus barbarians who wanted agricultural lands that could otherwise be used to feed native Romans). America never adopted a system of economic controls akin to what Diocletian and Constantine imposed on the Empire during that time, which are sometimes compared by historians to Soviet Russia’s economy (given that they had the same debilitating effect on wealth creation as did the Soviet system).

As barbarians increasingly violated Roman borders, the main overland trade routes were disrupted, causing a decline in the Roman economy. Also, as Roman currency was debased due to decreased supplies of gold and silver, merchants became more hesitant to accept money as payment for goods. America’s land and sea trade routes are just fine, and its currency is still accepted throughout the world (thus far . . . ). Trade is much more established and integrated into America’s economy than in ancient Rome, where world trade was still a novelty.

Also, as noted above, America is home to an on-going technology revolution. It has an extensive educational and research infrastructure that supports it, along with a vigorous competitive business sector that fully exploits most every advance (e.g., the internet, genetic research, semi-conductors, robotic manufacturing, neural networks, etc.). And Americans continue to progress socially, expunging our culture of irrational prejudices against racial minorities, women, homosexuals, etc. (slowly and painfully, however).

So how can anyone be worried about the long-term fate of America? Well, there are some worrisome parallels with Rome. First off, resources. One of Rome’s big problems was that it had over-used its agricultural lands and forests, and thus its food production was declining during its final two centuries. Thanks to technology, America’s food crop is doing fine (thus far . . .). However, we are still highly dependent on fossil fuels for energy, and even though there is still plenty of coal, oil and gas in the world today, it is getting more and more expensive to find and use.

There is still plenty of coal, but that fuel has the worst environmental and global warming impact; to reduce that impact costs a lot of money. Natural gas supplies and discoveries seem to have improved of late, and that will certainly help our economy (although not without some negative environmental effects) for perhaps a few decades. Nuclear energy still has the problem of what to do with all the dangerous radioactive waste; there doesn’t seem to be a cheap way of dealing with that, so the ultimate cost of nuclear power is relatively high. Hydro power is good, but there is only so much of it.

As to “green energy” such as wind and solar, they have promise, but once you factor in all the infrastructure needed to set them up and get their power output to the right places, well again . . . it ain’t cheap. And as to oil . . . same deal, there’s still plenty of it, but to get at the unused sources and account for the environmental damage (e.g., the Gulf Oil spill) will cost a lot.

So there is still plenty of energy. But the trend, despite improving technology, appears to be that energy is getting more and more expensive, and is thus giving our economy less “bang for the buck” than over the past 100 years — just as Roman farming fields and forests and mines started giving that empire less “bang for the buck” (i.e., return on effort required to get it and use it) after the first century.

Then there is the question of economic specialization, complexity and frailty. As the Roman economy developed, more and more people made their living by becoming specialists. In feudal lands and agricultural villages, most people were “jack of all trades”, able to farm, build things, cook, find energy supplies, police their villages, cure illness, make clothes, etc. As a society and economy modernizes, more and more people become specialists; e.g., doctors, lawyers, bankers, pottery workers, food preparers, weavers, accountants, etc. Today, we are extremely specialized; I myself manage to keep my job (thus far) because I know the ins and outs of government paperwork regarding project grants. Push the clock back 60 years, and there was no need for what I do.

Our career specialization means that we must fit into a system that coordinates all our efforts; and as we continue to specialize (and thus become more efficient, per the standard theories of Adam Smith), that system becomes more and more complex. This complexity increases a society’s wealth; this clearly was happening in the Roman Empire, just as it continues to happen today. Unfortunately, we are also finding that complexity has a dark side, i.e. it becomes inflexible, it cannot adapt quickly to major changes. When Rome was subject to too many changes, e.g. barbarians, declining crops and commodities, decreasing trade, etc., the complex social, economic, military and political systems that worked so well when times were good started to collapse.

Rome was also hit hard by several plagues and epidemics. America is much less vulnerable to that, given our high levels of nutrition and hygiene. But, as bird flu and the swine flu scares reminded us, we are not insulated from the possibility. And given all the specialization today, if we were hit hard by a pandemic, a lot of people who are the only ones who can do something would be ‘down for the count’. Thus, a lot of economic and governmental activities might grind to a halt, at least temporarily. Put enough of this together, and the effect could snowball until our economy is ‘down for the count’.

Standards of living on average are higher in America than most anywhere else in history. The same could once have been said for the Roman Empire. And there were side effects that sound familiar today. First, people became less patriotic in practice (despite all their flag waving). They became less enthusiastic about serving in the military and putting their lives at risk for the nation, and they started arguing against the need to pay what was once accepted as their “fair share” in taxes. At some point, increasing wealth appears to make middle-class people think that they don’t need government anymore, that they will be just fine without it (no, even better off, as they will have more money). There were signs of that in the Empire, and there are signs of it today (e.g., the Tea Party).

In order to counter such cynicism, the Empire promised more and more welfare entitlements, e.g. grain subsidies for the cities along with free entertainment spectacles (i.e. “bread and circuses”). Today we don’t have federal chariot races or gladiator combat, but we do have Medicare, Social Security and now, generalized health care entitlements. Both the ancient and modern versions were / are quite expensive.

Also, increasing middle-class wealth in the Empire appeared to inspire the public’s distrust of government leaders, a lack of interest in governing affairs (such as town council meetings), and a culture that decried political corruption while in fact tolerating and fostering it. That sounds awfully familiar today. There was more and more need for government and the military to defend Rome’s wide-spread geographic interests (repelling the Germanic and Asiatic barbarians, protecting sea trade from pirates, a never-ending war in the Middle East). So despite public anti-tax sentiment, taxes went up, causing more dissension. In America today, we are simply putting off the inevitable regarding taxes through massive borrowing (which every major economist says cannot be sustained). At the same time, our commitment to social welfare and health care is adding to the deficit fire. At some point, something will have to give, just as it gave in Rome.

Despite our sophisticated understanding of macro-economics, our economy is obviously still subject to bubbles and surprise crashes. Our response to these crashes makes the government and the economy even more complex (e.g., the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill just passed). And as to America’s great political stability compared to Rome . . . I have to wonder if we have something to worry about after all. Hopefully there won’t be any Army divisions clashing along the Beltway to control Congress or elevate the next President, nor any nefarious assignation plots aimed at high-level leaders (although that can never be completely ruled out here, despite being much rarer than in ancient Rome). But, with the 24 hour media cycle, the use of psychological consultants and rhetoric experts to manipulate public opinion, the enhancement of media impact through use of modern technology such as the internet and hand-held devices, and the worsening bias of news sources according to political agenda (e.g. NBC vs. Fox News), political campaigns are becoming ‘wars without bullets’.

Just as in a bloody war, the chief casualty of our modern political wars is reason and reasonableness, the middle ground, compromise, and ultimately, wide-spread agreement. Perhaps no one will die in American political struggles today, but we are getting the same quality of public policy decision-making that Rome experienced in its later years. That is, indecision, incoherence and avoidance; overall, a very poor quality of leadership and direction in facing critical threats (such as burgeoning deficits in Social Security and Medicare). Our current political environment would not support what Abraham Lincoln had to do to save the Union, nor what FDR had to do to defeat Hitler and Imperial Japan.

In the end, Rome was like a strong, aggressive champion boxer who had won many fights and titles, but was finally taken down by too many shots in vulnerable places. Those included: continual Middle Eastern wars, hordes of poor people streaming over the borders to get a cut of the declining wealth, extreme political infighting, indecisive leadership, political cynicism and anti-patriotic attitudes discouraging sacrifice on the part of the populace, expensive welfare commitments to counter such public disdain, declining natural resources, epidemics, and frailty to collapse due to economic specialization and governmental complexity. America today is not far from this situation. In our favor, we have our technology revolution, vigorous trade and commerce, and the ability to ponder what went wrong in the past so as to avoid it in the future.

Will we take advantage of this ability and play to our strengths in order to keep our nation standing, despite those many shots to the gut? That is THE question. It might be nice if America “fell” in a controlled, slow-motion way, becoming something more like Norway or the Netherlands. I.e., less of a world military power, no longer super-rich, less separated between rich and poor, less driven by possessions and entertainments, more appreciative of community and nature. But that ain’t gonna happen. As with Rome, we’ve climbed the ladder too high. If and when we fall, it’s going to be a long, fast trip and a very hard landing.