What Makes a Good Politician? Let’s Ask the Ancient Romans.
Statue of Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus in Cincinnati, Ohio (public domain)

In the age of Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, and other unconventional world leaders, the public seems to be redefining what sorts of personal characteristics make a politician desirable. In a 1983 New York Times poll, Americans listed honesty, compassion, and intelligence as their top three qualities to look for in a president. Overall, they focused much more on personal attributes, not political skills. These are not necessarily traits that Americans associate with the current Commander in Chief. Some have argued that, in this reality-television, social-media age, different skills are necessary for politicians to get the attention and respect of the public.

In Ancient Rome, expectations for politicians changed over time, as well. Just as the United States has, Rome grew from a minor power into an imperial behemoth. Its culture and politics changed, causing its expectations for politics and politicians to adjust, as well. The Roman Republic was formed as a sort of hybrid between Athenian-style direct democracy (represented by the citizens’ assemblies in the Roman government), Spartan-style oligarchy (represented by the Senate), and Etruscan-style monarchy (represented by the consuls). This hybrid system was intentionally complex in order to prevent any one person from gaining too much power. In order to rise to great power (the consulship was usually considered the peak of power and influence), a politician had to appeal to many different constituencies in Roman life.

During the first few centuries of the Roman Republic, the most significant social distinction was between patricians (the old hereditary elites of Rome) and the plebeians (everybody else). Patricians were the upper crust, the old money, and they were expected to act like it. They weren’t necessarily richer than the richest plebeians, but they were from noble families, and most of the major offices in the government were reserved for them. A respectable patrician was expected to represent the old Roman values of hard work, discipline, and humility. Perhaps the best examples of these early standards are the stories told about Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus (519–430 BCE). Cincinnatus was a fierce opponent of change in Rome, working hard to prevent plebeians from gaining more rights in Roman society. After a career as a prominent politician, he retired to work on his farm. According to Livy, Rome was invaded by the Aequi (a people to the east of the city of Rome). The Senate decided that Cincinnatus needed to be called back into action to lead the militayr effort. Messengers from the Senate came to tell Cincinnatus that he had been appointed dictator — a position of almost complete power. A man of few words, he left his plow in the field, said goodbye to his wife, and went off to serve the Republic. He defeated the enemy in a little over two weeks, then resigned the dictatorship and went back to his farm. He was revered by later Romans for his reluctance to seek power, his humility, and his no-nonsense attitude. These qualities have been emulated by many American politicians, as well. George Washington and other Founders very consciously emulated him as an example of someone who was

“moderate in his Desires of a Continual Power,” as Samuel Adams described him.

Cincinnatus nobly refused to aggrandize himself or hold power for a second longer than necessary, but, in truth, the amount of power on offer in the 450s BCE was miniscule compared to what would tempt later Roman leaders. By the time of Marcus Portius Cato the Elder (234–149 BCE), Rome was the dominant power in the Mediterranean, and its society was changing rapidly. During Cato’s lifetime, Rome had taken Spain and parts of North Africa from Carthage, and then moved on to conquer the old and wealthy cities of Greece. By Cato’s time, it was possible (if not entirely uncontroversial) for plebeians rise to the top of Roman politics — in fact, Cato himself was from an old and respected plebeian family. Despite the fact that he was not from the nobility, Cato’s outlook on Roman politics and power was deeply conservative. The historian Plutarch indicates that as a young man, he only cared for the glory that he could gain in warfare — the traditional way for a Roman man to prove his worth. Moreover, he was humble and hardworking, in line with the old Roman values: he “was contented with a cold breakfast, a frugal dinner, simple raiment, and a humble dwelling.” His self-discipline was legendary and, despite the fact that he was quite wealthy, he never put on airs or indulged in luxuries. His main political asset was his exceptional persuasive skill, a sign of an excellent education and the ability to construct elegant arguments. But a man like Cato did not seek out attention; he waited until he had earned it from those in power.

Perhaps Cato felt the need to be so old-fashioned because he was not from the traditional aristocracy. By the mid-100s, men like Cato were throwbacks. One of Cato’s most bitter enemies in Roman politics was Scipio Africanus, the winner of the Second Punic War, who Cato saw as far too flashy and, well, Greek. Scipio shaved his face like the Greeks, and often spoke and wrote in Greek. He loved to show off his learnedness in flashy speeches, and his promiscuous love life was widely known. Men like Cato saw this lifestyle as antithetical to the old Roman values, but it was quickly becoming more mainstream. Cato was one of the last of an old breed.

After another century, the old style of politics that Cincinnatus and Cato had represented was almost entirely gone. Rome was far richer than it had ever been, and the wealth that had rolled into the empire had not been distributed equally. The wealth in Rome would have been unimaginable to a men like Cincinnatus or Cato. The richest people in Rome in the 50s BCE were worth perhaps 200 million sesterces; in Cato’s time, the richest Romans had been worth maybe 50 times less. The 200 million sestercius man — one of the richest people in human history up to that time — was Marcus Licinius Crassus. Crassus had come from a fairly ordinary family and made a name for himself through ruthless and clever business maneuvers. As a commander in the army, he had kept most of the spoils of his victory for himself (unlike Cato, who had famously given up his share of the spoils to his soldiers), earning complaints from his troops. He then became a real estate investor, profiting off of ordinary people’s misfortunes by buying up properties in the wake of devastating fires. Unlike the standoffish, disciplined Cato, Crassus was a man of the people. He was a skilled orator like Cato had been, but mingled with ordinary people far more often, opening his house for big parties. Plutarch says that he was “very eager to be hospitable to strangers; he kept open house, and to his friends he would lend money without interest.”

Head of Crassus (public domain)

The increasing size of the Roman electorate and the adoption of the secret ballot in the late 100s meant that politicians now needed to sway the masses with generosity rather than persuade (or intimidate) voters one by one. Wealth like Crassus’ was becoming a prerequisite for political office. Crassus threw his immense wealth around in showy ways that would have mortified Cato or Cincinnatus. This was an increasingly popular tactic for Roman politicians. Roman citizens expected political candidates to hand out free food and throw big parties. Politicians went deep into debt (often to Crassus himself) in order to throw these festivals, expecting to recoup their expenditure once in office. Many handed out souvenir wine cups with campaign slogans at the bottom.

Campaign cups for the campaigns of Catilina and Cato the Younger (great-grandson of Cato the Elder), 63 BCE. CC 1.0

It no longer mattered much whether a politician was from the patrician class. It was no longer beneficial for a politician to act like an aristocrat of old, either. The voters loved new-style politicians like Crassus, no matter how tacky they would have seemed a century earlier. Despite his massive wealth, Crassus counted himself a member of the “Populares,” an informal faction in Roman politics that appealed to the common people of Rome and promised to fight for their interests. They wanted a politician to whom they could relate, a politician who promised to make their lives better, and it didn’t hurt if that politician was throwing free money and food around. Crassus eventually used his immense wealth to rig the Roman political system in favor of the first triumvirate, of which he was a member. Together, he and two other rich and ambitious politicians, Pompey and Julius Caesar, used their money and sway with the ordinary people of Rome to weaken the norms of the Roman Republic, which would eventually crumble under the weight of this style of politics.

So what can we conclude from the careers of these three Roman politicians? We can see how politics in Rome went from being a staid affair for stoic, honorable men from the aristocracy to an activity characterized by folksy oratory and flashy wealth. Behavior that would have been unseemly in the early days of the Republic became a marker of populist politics and endeared politicians to voters — perhaps it seemed more “authentic.” Roman politics was dominated by wealthy men for the entire history of the Republic, but the ways in which those men spent and displayed their wealth and privilege definitely changed. Meanwhile, inequality and instability in the Republic grew in tandem. Perhaps these twin factors accounted for some of the changes in the behavior of politicians. Of course, the Roman Republic is not a perfect analogue for the United States, but as we live through turbulent political times, it’s important to see that changes in political styles often reflect changes in the social fabric of a society.
['Historical Insights']
['Politics', 'Rome', '2020 Presidential Race', 'History', 'Politicians']