There's an old saying, often attributed to Mark Twain, but who knows - anyway, that saying goes, "History may not always repeat, but it frequently rhymes." Being something of a student of ancient Rome, I've said and written a lot over the years about the parallels between the United States and the Roman Republic, and later, the Roman Empire; the similarities in matters of fiscal and monetary policy, in social policy, in matters military and commercial.
The United States, today, holds a place in the world that's very similar to that of the late Roman Republic: An overwhelming dominance of military might, and a government run out of control. One of the greatest comparisons is in the realm of welfare. Today, here in the USA, that takes the form of various federal and state programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In Rome, it was the corn dole. (Note: In Rome, in those days, "corn" was used to mean any cereal grain, not just maize, which was unknown in the Old World at the time. Henceforth, I'll use "grain" in the place of "corn.")
In a great piece over at The Daily Sceptic, historian and writer Guy de la Bédoyère has given us a great, detailed look at the progression and eventual failure of Rome's grain dole. Let's take a look at that and compare it to our situation today in the United States.
First, Mr de la Bédoyère describes the situation in the late Republic era:
Displaced peasants thus added to the hordes heading for Rome in search of work and a better life. The city offered work, places to live and security. There was the prospect of the grain dole, free public entertainment on an unprecedented scale and other handouts. Triumphant generals had booty to disperse and those bent on political careers in the senate had votes to win.
It wasn’t all bad. Slaves could be, and were, freed on a vast scale. Freedmen and women dominated everyday commerce. Their freeborn sons were eligible for political office and could, and did, reach the upper echelons of Roman society.
Nonetheless, grain was the most contentious food issue in Late Republican Rome and continued to be. The ordinary poor in the city were dependent on the grain dole. They were prone to erupt into violence if the supply was disrupted either by pirates, incompetent storage or corrupt officials. In 188 BC grain dealers were fined for hoarding grain in the hope that prices would rise so that they could cash in.
Does that sound familiar? Substitute "illegal immigrants" for "displaced peasants," and "welfare benefits" for "the grain dole," and even toss in some free entertainment in the form of government-issued smartphones and internet access, and you've got an alarming parallel. What's more alarming is the increasing propensity for rioting that we are seeing here, now, in our nation's major cities.
But it was the Gracchi brothers who made the grain dole officially a responsibility of the Roman government. Things went downhill from there.
The tribune Gaius Gracchus (brother of the above-mentioned Tiberius) introduced the monthly distribution of grain to each citizen at a fixed price subsidised by the state in 123–122 BC. “Thus, he quickly gained the leadership of the people,” said the Roman historian Appian. The grain dole had become a political weapon.
Four decades later, the dictator Sulla attempted to end grain distribution by repealing the law, but this experiment backfired and the system had to be restored.
Once grain distribution had been taken on as a state obligation, any plan to end it or problems with the supply meant the state was held responsible in the form of anyone deemed to represent the state at that point. Consequently, for example, when grain shortages became intolerable in 75 BC a mob chased the consuls to the house of one of them (Gaius Aurelius Cotta).
Note that line about Gaius Gracchus, after the grain dole was made an official function; a "right" of the people, as it were, to the grain dole. Gaius Gracchus "quickly gained the leadership of the people." This has a remarkable parallel to American politicians today, especially (but not exclusively) Democrats, who run political campaigns by playing Santa Claus. The favored pols of the left are often the pols who offer the voters more and more of other people's stuff - their wealth, their income, their property. It's subsidizing poverty at the expense of the productive, and we're doing it here, in the United States, right now.
Read More: In the UK With Three Wives? No Worries, the British Taxpayers Will Now Pay You Extra
There is a fair-sized book to be written about everything surrounding this issue; dealing with pirates in the Mediterranean who were disrupting grain shipments from Egypt was key to the rise to power of Pompey Magnus, who was a close ally to Julius Caesar until Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
As time went on, and the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire, things got worse. The never-ending expense of the grain dole (among other things) eventually led to the debasement of Roman currency and the inflation that went with that.
Providing free food for the population of Rome remained a permanent part of the emperor’s responsibilities and thus a charge on the state. A special type of ticket (tessera frumentaria) was distributed so that those entitled among the masses could present one to collect their share.
In 190, during the reign of Commodus, Rome was hit by a grain shortage that the prefect of the corn dole had the wit to blame on the emperor’s chamberlain Cleander. Cleander set the Praetorian Guard on protesters, but the prefect of Rome ordered the night watch troops to confront the Praetorians. In the confusion, Cleander fled to Commodus while a mob trailed after him screaming for his head. Commodus, who never showed loyalty to his staff, abandoned Cleander and had him executed, after which Cleander’s head was carried round the city on a pole.
The state’s self-ruining obligations continued to increase. Septimius Severus (193–211) later added olive oil to the free handouts, and Aurelian (270–5) was said to have introduced a pork allowance to the population of Rome.
These kinds of benefits programs always expand. Give people free Schiff, and they will want more free Schiff. T'was ever thus; it worked that way in Rome, and it works that way here, too, today, in the United States. Various Emperors tried to deal with the problem in ways that will sound familiar. Diocletian tried wage and price controls. Those didn't work in Rome, and they didn't work here in the Nixon/Carter era. Various emperors started reducing the amount of actual silver that was in the primary Roman currency, the denarius, leading to the debasement of the currency. It's not as easy to debase a currency based on specie as it is a fiat currency like ours, but the Roman emperors managed.
In Rome, the grain dole continued right up to the collapse of the city and the empire. It grew more and more expensive; it grew more and more a drag on Rome's economy. The fall of the Western Empire was due to many things, including the replacement of Roman citizens in the army with foreign-born mercenaries, some of whom later turned on Rome. In the reign of Justinian, the entire system collapsed, the city collapsed, and the few thousand remaining residents of the city saw their grain dole collapse.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Guy de la Bédoyère, in concluding his excellent article, cautions us:
This article is entirely about the Roman Empire. However, the author would nevertheless like to make clear that any resemblance in this article to any modern politicians, whether living or dead, their decisions, self-serving vote-seeking, economic ignorance, folly, stupid suggestions and the mess they might have contributed to getting us into, is entirely coincidental.
Indeed.
We fail to learn from history at our peril. The history of the Roman grain dole could present our government and our citizens with some valuable lessons about today's social welfare systems and how they are managed. The question is this: Is anyone paying attention to those lessons?
