Is the US headed towards a socialist government?

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm reminded of the legacy that was Rome;

Minor point: Rome was first a monarchy. Then it became a republic (i.e., a representative democracy) with the option of being a dictatorship in times of necessity (mainly when losing a war;)). Admittedly, only the patrician class was permitted to vote at first. The expansion of the vote to the plebeian class (and the addition of those born in Roman controlled territories to that class) led to the excesses of the first century BCE. In response to those excesses, concerned people like Julius Caius Caesar (need full name because there were almost as many 'Caesar' in Roman politics as there are 'Kennedy' in American) and Pompey tried to force their solution. The result was a period of civil wars ending with the triumph of Octavius Caesar (more commonly known as 'Augustus') and his relatively long reign. Although a dictator and an emperor, Augustus was probably the best leader Rome had had in two centuries and better than all those who followed him.

The drawback to a monarchy, a dictatorship, or an empire is finding capable people to take over in each generation. From William to Victoria, the British averaged about one in three -- much better than others have. A main advantage of a democracy is that it circumvents this problem.

And, as a last non sequitor: any comparisons between Rome and the USA fall apart past the point that they were (are) both nations and were (are) both powerful. Beyond that, it is more religious propaganda and Cecil B DeMille than anything based on reason or history.

--Pete