The Roman General Broke One Law and Was Met With War. The U.S. President Is Breaking Laws Left and Right—Without Major Resistance
By Michele Renee Salzman
Commentators love to compare Donald Trump’s norm-breaking ways to Julius Caesar’s momentous decision to “cross the Rubicon” in 49 B.C.E. By leading his troops over the Rubicon River and into Italy to stand for election in Rome, Caesar defied Roman law. The outrage that followed set the stage for the civil wars that led to the demise of the Roman Republic and the birth of the Roman Empire. The Rubicon comparison appeals to pundits because it recognizes the destructive impact of a populist leader who willingly breaks the law to gain power.
But the analogy ultimately falls short because Trump’s actions are more far-reaching than Caesar’s—and because they have met less resistance.
When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, his goal was specific and limited. Caesar had no desire to remake the republic nor to destroy the way Roman politics worked. He simply wanted to bring his army with him to run for election for consul, the highest executive position in the state—a position voted on yearly, and one he had served before, in 59 B.C.E. Since then, Caesar’s military feats, daring exploits, and unparalleled leadership of his legions in Gaul (now modern France), which he advertised in his Commentaries, had made him tremendously popular in Rome and very wealthy. Now, he was ready to return to Rome, triumphantly.
According to the law, he had to give up his command and disband his troops before entering Rome. This requirement was a legacy of earlier civil wars that had unfolded in the 80s B.C.E., when the popular generals Marius and Sulla marched on Rome to force the senate to grant them military commands. But Caesar’s troops, who worshipped him, were a crucial source of his strength. Without them at his side, the senate was likely to bring him up on charges for his misuse of funds and for his undertaking military actions in Gaul without senatorial permission. In such a scenario, he could have been exiled for his success.
So, Caesar found supporters in Rome: the 10 elected representatives of the people known as Tribunes of the Plebs. They put forth a law to allow him to run for office without giving up his command. Most senators opposed this request, believing such a compromise would undermine the state and greatly empower Caesar.
They were right. After Caesar learned that the Tribunes had failed, he tried once more to negotiate, offering to put down his arms if the senate took away command from the current consul, Pompey. The senate refused and declared Caesar a public enemy. They asked Pompey—a former commander himself—to raise an army to defend the state. Only then did Caesar cross the Rubicon River, entering Italy near Ravenna on January 10, 49 B.C.E. Caesar’s men followed their general, even if it meant civil war against their fellow citizens. Some may have believed Caesar’s claim that he was defending not just his honor, as the Roman biographer Suetonius tells us, but that of the tribunes and people of Rome, freeing the republic from the tyranny of the senate. But he also knew what was coming: “The die is cast,” he is alleged to have said, as he crossed the Rubicon.
The battles that embroiled the Mediterranean world for the next five years pitted Caesar and his troops against the remnants of Roman republican forces in Greece, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, and Italy.
But when he returned to Rome, first in 48 B.C.E., he had the senate name him dictator, a position that traditionally endowed temporary emergency powers. He initiated a stunning number of rapid reforms designed to “fix” the state. (Some were needed, like setting a calendar of 365 days, the same one we use today.) Ultimately, Caesar achieved victory. The senate—or at least those who survived and were granted clemency or who were newly appointed—honored Caesar in February 44 B.C.E. with a new title, dictator perpetuus or “dictator forever,” an unprecedented power. A month later, 60 senators joined in a plot to kill Caesar, stabbing him to death on the Ides of March.
Once Caesar was dead, the senate reconvened. They believed they could simply return the republic to what it had been before, but a new round of civil wars followed, ending with the emergence of Rome’s first emperor, Caesar’s great-nephew Octavian, who took the name Augustus, “Revered One.” With Augustus’ ascendance, the republic died, even as Augustus claimed to have restored it. But for historians, Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon, more than 20 years earlier, was the critical turning point.
Both Caesar and Trump were populists who spoke and behaved brashly, upending established norms and steering their followers in radically new directions. Politicians and citizens alike viewed both men as acting illegally to bring their respective, powerful republics to crisis. Caesar’s actions launched 500 years of imperial rule in the west. Trump’s actions, many argue, will herald an end to the post-World War II international order, and threaten American futures at home.
But in crucial ways, the situations are not the same—and it has as much to do with Trump as it does with his opponents in Congress and the courts. Trump has crossed the Rubicon without any attempts to negotiate with the U.S. legislature—and we don’t yet see any sustained, effective opposition to his illegal actions in the Senate or House of Representatives. In 44 B.C.E, the Roman Senate acted to uphold the law—and as a result, the senate continued to play a key role in reshaping the government of Rome in future centuries. Emperors worked with senators, relying on them to govern provinces and administer the state.
Trump’s use of executive orders is aimed at undermining the role of the Congress in government. And Congressional opposition is disorganized, internally divided, and virtually leaderless. A closer analog to the Roman Senate might be the U.S. courts, though it is not yet clear that Trump will abide by judicial decisions, nor that the courts will uphold pre-existing limits on presidential power.
Unlike Caesar’s limited goals in 49 B.C.E, Trump desires to bring widespread change to our republic—overturning everything from decades of foreign policy and lawfully constituted federal agencies to medical research, education, and the law.
To effectively preserve our republic, collective action and protest must be louder and more organized. It may not be too late for the U.S. Congress—and all of us—to stand up for the fundamentals of our democracy, the rights of federal workers and migrants, and the health of people at home and abroad. Roman senators—Pompey, Cato, Brutus, and Cassius—were willing to stand up to Caesar’s autocracy. But only future historians looking back will be able to determine if elected officials and people who actively oppose Trump today will be more successful in preserving our republic.
Michele Renee Salzman is a historian at the University of California, Riverside, and the author, most recently, of The ‘Falls’ of Rome: Crises, Resilience and Resurgence in Late Antiquity. This was written for Zócalo Public Square.
Kathleen Sgamma, President Donald Trump’s pick to head the Bureau of Land Management, sent shockwaves throughout Washington, D.C., on Thursday after withdrawing her name just hours before her confirmation hearing.
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah announced Sgamma’s withdrawal at the start of the hearing, but Politico
reported that her decision came after investigative outlet Documented published a 2021 memo where the oil and gas lobbyist
condemned Trump’s role in spreading misinformation about the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
“I am disgusted by the violence I witnessed yesterday and President Trump’s role in spreading misinformation that incited it. I’m disgusted he discredited all the good work he did reorienting the judiciary back toward respect for the rule of law and constitution by dishonoring the vote of the People and the rulings of those very same judges on his numerous challenges,” the memo quotes Sgamma saying.
Sgamma likely withdrew her nomination not because she’s still upset with Trump, but because the leak of her past comments is embarrassing for both of them. After all, she knew about the Capitol attack when she was nominated and seemed totally on board with Trump’s energy agenda at the time.
While her comments about the insurrection were out of step with today’s GOP, they reflected the outrage
that many Republicans shared in the immediate aftermath. And though Sgamma distanced herself from Trump at that time, she’s certainly no liberal—she even contributed to Project 2025
.
Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Trump has continued defending the insurrectionists, calling them “patriots
” and even pardoning them
on Day 1 of his second term. He’s since doubled down
on his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, insisting that anyone who refuses to spread his lies is the real problem. And it seems that Sgamma has now bought into Trump’s propaganda.
“Unfortunately, at this time, I need to withdraw my nomination. I will continue to support President Trump and fight for his agenda to Unleash American Energy in the private sector,” Sgamma said in her resignation statement.
While some Republican senators told Politico they weren’t given a heads-up about the withdrawal, some Trump allies, including former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, suggested that Sgamma’s resignation was inevitable.
“Individuals who know their views don’t align with the president… cause needless harm and conflict, hindering the president’s agenda,” he wrote on X
.
Sgamma’s resignation marks the third Trump Cabinet pick to either withdraw or have their nomination pulled.
Earlier, the White House backed off
nominating Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York for United Nations ambassador, fearing losing a reliable GOP vote in their razor-thin House majority. Similarly, David Weldon’s nomination
to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was pulled once it became clear he didn’t have the votes to get confirmed.
With the Bureau of Land Management overseeing energy production on federally owned lands—a key part
of Trump’s second-term priorities—it remains to be seen whether his energy agenda will take another hit following Sgamma’s withdrawal.
While her decision may have been political, it also highlights the ongoing consequences of the insurrection, raising questions about whether there’s truly a divide between Trump and those who refuse to embrace his false election claims.
A minister who headed the National Council of Churches, she was active in liberal causes in the 1990s and sought to counter the conservative Christian Coalition.
David Brooks has an essay worth reading at The Atlantic, I Should Have Seen This Coming
, wherein he talks about long-standing tension in the rightward coalition in American politics. He basically describes a more intellectual conservatism and a reactionary anti-left faction. I think he oversimplifies, but the basic contours of his description are close enough for the basis of a conversation.
The pathetic thing is that I didn’t see this coming even though I’ve been living around these people my whole adult life. I joined the conservative movement in the 1980s, when I worked in turn at National Review, The Washington Times, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page. There were two kinds of people in our movement back then, the conservatives and the reactionaries. We conservatives earnestly read Milton Friedman, James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, and Edmund Burke. The reactionaries just wanted to shock the left. We conservatives oriented our lives around writing for intellectual magazines; the reactionaries were attracted to TV and radio. We were on the political right but had many liberal friends; they had contempt for anyone not on the anti-establishment right. They were not pro-conservative—they were anti-left. I have come to appreciate that this is an important difference.
Again, this over-simplifies, but it does have the basis of the start of a conversation about where the so-called conservative movement went wrong, if anything, because it is intellectually impossible to call Trumpism “conservative” in any meaningful sense. But I would hasten to add that a lot of self-styled conservatives are directly responsible for putting the reactionary on the throne.
But this post is not about his central argument, although, again, I recommend it.
I really want to focus on one passage. In reading the piece, a singular paragraph drove me a bit crazy for a number of reasons and led to this post.
First, the full paragraph.
Of course, the left made it easy for them. The left really did purge conservatives from universities and other cultural power centers. The left really did valorize a “meritocratic” caste system that privileged the children of the affluent and screwed the working class. The left really did pontificate to their unenlightened moral inferiors on everything from gender to the environment. The left really did create a stifling orthodoxy that stamped out dissent. If you tell half the country that their voices don’t matter, then the voiceless are going to flip over the table.
Next, a general observation. I find most attempts to talk about “the left” and “the right” as if they are two monoliths as analytically lazy and generally intellectually annoying. I try not to do it, although I am sure I fall prey to the easy language of it all from time to time. But in a piece in which Brooks is talking about at least two major camps on the right (and even that is simplistic), you would think he would be cognizant of not conflating anything not of the right into one blob.
I would further note something I will continue to hammer because it is so important. We are so conditioned by a rigid two-party system that we mistake consistent voting for ideological coherence. We all (or, at least, somewhere around 95%+ of us) force all of our hopes and beliefs into one of two boxes. We have no other effective choice. As such, it is then a huge mistake to think we understand a pure “left” and “right” as a result.
But allow me to go line by line for a moment.
Of course, the left made it easy for them.
As a general matter, I am increasingly tired of victim blaming. If the reactionary wing of the American right has taken over, then maybe the fault lies with both the reactionaries themselves and others affiliated with them who didn’t try and stop them when they had the chance. I am looking at you, Mitch McConnell.
The left really did purge conservatives from universities and other cultural power centers
First, “purge”? What purge? Second, I simply don’t accept the premise. I am not surprised that artists and intellectuals might be more prone to more progressive and, hence, liberal or even leftist views. A core tenet of progressive thinking is, in a general sense, that applied knowledge can make the world a better place. Burkean conservatism suggests that we should cleave first to the established, the tried and true, with change coming only slowly and gradually,
Which vision of the way the world works is more likely to appeal to someone willing to dedicate their lives to study?
Universities are more likely to draw more liberally minded people.
But there are more conservative-minded people, as well as people who probably don’t think that much about politics on our campuses, than the “purge” narrative would suggest. There are plenty of libertarian minded types, if not conservatives, in your typical Economics Department or School of Business.
(This is a topic I need to take up separately at some point).
In regard to “cultural power centers,” I am not sure what this means. The most prominent cultural power center I can think of is Hollywood (meaning film and TV production). Again, this is a huge topic in and of itself. And while there are clear cases and example of the film an television industry being liberal, if not even leftist, it also true that the dominant message of most shows about law enforcement, as well as super-hero movies as a class, are power fantasies about how easy it is to use force to identify and round up the bad guys. That is far more a right-wing than a left-wing message.
On balance, I often find protestations about how liberals dominate universities and the culture to be less about the full dominance of the left, but rather the incomplete dominance of the right in these spheres.
I continue to marvel at the notion that liberal professors are actively “indoctrinating” their students. As my professorial colleagues will readily joke, we can’t get them to read the damn syllabus, let alone bend their minds to our collective wills. Moreover, if universities, especially the elite ones, are dominated by the left, where are all of these extremely conservative attorneys who get elected to Congress or placed on the bench coming from? If universities are indoctrination factories, can someone please explain J.D. Vance? Tom Cotton? Josh Hawley? Kevin Roberts? Russ Vought? I could make a longer list, but the point should be clear.
Indeed, Brooks himself makes a similar case later in the piece.
But although Trump may have campaigned as a MAGA populist, leveraging this working-class resentment to gain power, he governs as a Palm Beach elitist. Trump and Elon Musk are billionaires who went to the University of Pennsylvania. J. D. Vance went to Yale Law School. Pete Hegseth went to Princeton and Harvard. Vivek Ramaswamy went to Yale and Harvard. Stephen Miller went to Duke. Ted Cruz went to Princeton and Harvard. Many of Musk’s DOGE workers, according to The New York Times, come from elite institutions
—Harvard, Princeton, Morgan Stanley, McKinsey, Wharton. These are the Vineyard Vines nihilists, the spiritual descendants of the elite bad boys at the Dartmouth Review. This political moment isn’t populists versus elitists; it is, as I’ve written before, like a civil war in a prep school where the sleazy rich kids are taking on the pretentious rich kids.
Back to the pieces of the paragraph from above.
The left really did valorize a “meritocratic” caste system that privileged the children of the affluent and screwed the working class.
I think that the upper class, both left and right, played this game. And the broadly defined left was at least interested in affirmative action, which the right effectively destroyed.
The left really did pontificate to their unenlightened moral inferiors on everything from gender to the environment.
Everyone who thinks they are right pontificates in the direction of those they believe to be incorrect. This is not a trait solely of the left.
Indeed, Brooks has made a career of it himself.
Yes, the leftward side of the ledger has been more concerned about the environment and gender equality and that tends to lead to some moralizing on those topics. Does anyone think that a book called The Road to Character does not make some moral arguments?
The left really did create a stifling orthodoxy that stamped out dissent.
Does it? The whole left?
Some leftists, yes.
But also, lots of other people of varying ideological stripes.
If you tell half the country that their voices don’t matter, then the voiceless are going to flip over the table.
This is where he utterly falls into the trap of rigid bipartism and conflates it with the whole of American politics. There is no unified “left” that its telling “the right” that their voice doesn’t matter. Worse, the reality is that the right (if we mean the electoral right as represented by the Republican Party) has all the advantages in the Senate, and in the Electoral College. Again, the last time a Republican president won the absolute majority of the vote, the best metric for truly measuring support, was George W. Bush in 2004. And that was in his second term, and even then he won 50.7%. The last time a Republican presidential candidate won the majority of the vote in their first term was Bush’s father in 1988. And the last time a Republican won the majority of the vote when it was the party out of power was 1980. And, of course, the GOP won the presidency in 2000 and 2016 without winning the popular vote.
The notion that it is the “left” (again, here defined as Democratic voters) who are telling “the right” that their voice doesn’t matter is more than a little problematic.
Perhaps it is the zenith of “bothesiderism,” but the notion that we can’t just say that the Trumpest reactionaries are bad without first blaming the left feels a lot like a version of “but did you see what she was wearing!”
And quite frankly, I don’t think that the main flaw in American politics is that there are ways to critique the left. The problem is, as I have argued at this site for many, many years, the fact that our institutions are not adequately representative, nor are they responsive. Our politicians do not have to truly compete for power in many cases, or if they do, they are incentivized to cleave to extremes, not to a broader public interest. The incentives are askew, and if we don’t fix them, we are going to remain in this mess.
Indeed, to bring it back to the content of Brooks’ essay: the reason that the Burkean right and the reactionary right were in the exact same political space is because of our rigid two-party system, which is the direct result of our electoral rules. If we had a version of proportional representation, the reactionary right would have been off on their own, and unlikely to take over the whole of government with their 25%-30% of the vote.
A week after Ann Tennes declared victory in her campaign to be Skokie’s second mayor in this century, she spoke to Pioneer Press about her initial plans to lead the village of 67,000 residents.
Tennes, who worked for the village from 1998 to 2023 as the director of marketing and communication, said she aims to get more community involvement in the village’s decision making. Tennes will be sworn in as mayor at the next Village Board meeting April 21.
“My number one priority is to bring together the new (Village) Board. It’s a new day in Skokie, and we need to come together as a Board and set a tone where we all participate in a respectful, collegial manner,” Tennes said.
Tennes’ interview with Pioneer Press has been edited for length and clarity.
Q: This board is comprised of two incumbents and four new trustees, some of whom have not previously held elected office. How do you see them gelling to work together cohesively?
“That’s central to why I ran, because I envisioned that there would be individuals serving who had never served before.
“One of the first things that I think we need to do is the development of a strategic plan. Skokie does not have a strategic plan, and what a strategic plan does is bring elected officials together.
“But it also, and importantly, engages the community to talk about values, vision, priorities and, it’s a lot of listening, but at the end of the day, it focuses the elected officials on what the community wants, and from there we set our vision, our mission, our values.”
Q: What have you heard from the community so far?
“What I’m hearing is people are excited to get involved, that it truly feels like a new day in Skokie.
“We need more seats at the table, and together with my fellow newly elected or newly re-elected officials, I look forward to making space at the community table, so to speak, for anyone who wants to be involved, whether it’s through service on the Village Board or a commission. Whether it’s serving in another type of advisory capacity, whether it’s being involved with one of our nonprofits or other partners in the community.”
Q: When it comes to community involvement, there are times when a small group of people may be more vocal about a subject. How do you balance the small group voices versus what you might think is a better option for Skokie?
“We have to look at many different options for hearing from residents, not just those who can come to meetings or weigh in.
“People are busy. They have families. It’s not always convenient for people to come out to Village Board meetings.
“Being present in the community and listening and making sure that we intentionally invite community members who maybe have not been heard to the extent that they would like to be heard, inviting them in with intention to be part of these conversations.”
Ann Tennes takes the microphone at her election night party to declare victory in the race for Skokie mayor on April 1, 2025, Unofficial Cook County results showed she had captured nearly 50% of the vote in a three-way race. (Richard Requena/Pioneer Press)
Q: What economic incentives are you hoping you can dole out to businesses?
“Our resources are finite, and we have many demands on our resources: infrastructure, pensions…many things. But what I heard over and over again from residents in every corner of Skokie during the campaign, and I also heard this during my years with the village: people want more small businesses.
“People seem to understand that Westfield Old Orchard is an economic engine for Skokie… The village has done the work that needed to be done to get Old Orchard on a path to continue to grow as Skokie’s economic engine.
“What I heard is that residents are excited to have more small businesses, not just in downtown, but throughout Skokie.
“Programs such as the Storefront Enhancement Program have assisted businesses in downtown Skokie
and the Main-Crawford corridor.
“But those funds are paid to the business in arrears (after they pay out money), so it’s incumbent on the business to source the gross amount of money first do the improvements and then seek reimbursement. What I’ve heard from small business owners in Skokie, some of whom have received these funds, is that it can be hard for small businesses to front the whole amount and then wait to get paid back.
“To be clear, we have to do our due diligence. We have to have a firm process in place to make sure that when we are giving these taxpayer resources to businesses, that they have a clear plan and that they will be good partners for the village. But maybe there are ways that we can have points along the way… where if they meet certain thresholds, they get a partial reimbursement.
“I also think, and I’ve seen it time and again in different communities, successful small business breeds successful small business. I think we’re seeing that already in downtown Skokie on Lincoln Avenue. I’ve been telling people, look at where this new flower shop Botanik Culture
is. Just follow Lincoln Avenue all the way to the Skokie Theatre and you’ll see the results of successful small business drawing the attention of other entrepreneurs. So we need to extend that energy.”
Q: What is your opinion on tax increment financing?
“Skokie has a history of doing a good job with TIFs… I think they can be used as a good tool, but we have to be careful with them. There’s a lot of due diligence that needs to be done, a lot of financial reporting, and we have to make sure that the plans are clear for what will happen to that increment.
“To be clear, I’m not advocating for new TIFs. That’s nothing I’m even thinking about at this point. But I think when warranted and when carefully studied and put in place thoughtfully, they can serve a purpose.”
Q: What is your take on how the village should approach the next steps for that downtown hotel?
“During the campaign, I would say nine out of every 10 conversations I had with residents included mention of the hotel.
“I’ve pledged that within 30 days of taking office, there will be a report to the community about the hotel that will be an agenda item discussed in public session.
“We have to start with giving a report before the end of May of 2025, and continue with regular reports. I’ll work with the village manager to decide what that increment needs to be… maybe every two months, something like that.
“I think it’s important that we take a fresh look at the agreements for both the hotel and Highpoint at 8000 North. Not just the agreements, but the amount and the scope of the due diligence that was conducted on those partners, for the hotel, for the current partner for Highpoint.
“I think it’s incumbent on leadership to take a second look at this. I see this as a pattern, and I want to make sure that we break that pattern.”
Q: Do you have any concerns at all with the development at Old Orchard? Might those plans need a second look before construction even starts?
“I think it’s premature. I don’t think I could say… I want to look at that agreement because I want to make sure that Westfield is being a good partner to the village and living up to their obligations. I have no reason to think they’re not, but I want more clarity on that.”
Skokie’s Mayor-Elect Ann Tennes poses for a portrait in downtown Skokie. Tennes declared victory in the April 1, 2025 election, defeating challengers Charles Isho and David “Azi” Lifsics. (Richard Requena/Pioneer Press)
Q: Speaking to your Park Ridge days… Uptown Park Ridge is really walkable, and people seem to like that. How can you make downtown Skokie more walkable?
“In the late 90s, I served on Park Ridge’s Zoning Board. Within a year or two, I was appointed to the Uptown Task Force. There were probably 25 or 30 community members on this task force.
“If you had told me that Uptown Park Ridge was going to look and feel like it does today, we would have been thrilled, and we need that same type of focus and energy in Downtown Skokie.”
Q: What is your take on the village’s affordable housing?
“The village has the new (affordable housing) ordinance that went into effect in 2024. We need to see how that plays out.
“The balance I see is having a requirement in place that doesn’t chill development, because if the requirement is too onerous, it will chill development, and that’s contrary to what we want.
“As the new Board, we will want to take a look at the Housing Sub-Committee. Make sure that the composition of that committee has differing views, differing opinions and some experts as well.
“And I’m not saying it doesn’t. I just know that I’m going to want to take a look at it.”
Q: What do you make of the village’s affordable housing ordinance?
“I like the fact that they’ve tiered it. Without a village subsidy, there’s a lesser requirement (for affordable units). With a village subsidy, there’s a greater requirement (for affordable units). I think that’s appropriate.”
Like Shakespeare
producers of yore, who enlisted lithe lads to play Juliet and Ophelia, Netflix hotshots have decided they don’t see gender.
Or they don’t believe gender identity, when mismatched to biological sex, is real.
Take your pick.
But regardless of which scenario, it’s an insult to Jane Austen
that the latest adaptation of “Pride and Prejudice” will star an actress who identifies as nonbinary as one of the best, most complicated and insightful female characters of literature.
Emma Corrin, who played Princess Diana in “The Crown,” has been tapped to be the next Elizabeth Bennett in a new Netflix
miniseries. Corrin, who updated her pronouns on social media to “her/they” in the summer of 2021 before deciding later she was only OK with “they/them,” has previously posted photos of herself wearing chest binders, fabric designed to flatten a woman’s breasts. (The images appear to have since been deleted from her Instagram.)
“My identity and being nonbinary is an embrace of many different parts of myself, the masculine and the feminine and everything in between,” Corrin said in a glowing 2023 New York Times profile.
OK, then.
But that’s not Elizabeth Bennett.
Of course, actors are not exactly the characters they portray. But nor are they entirely not the characters they portray—and certainly the Left, with its intense focus on the race of actors and characters, has not advocated that anyone can play any character.
Sure, Corrin, who is a woman, whatever her chosen identity, is a preferable choice to a man who now identifies as a woman.
But her casting also drives home the absurd popularity of Jane Austen in the modern world.
Because while Austen defied the norms of her times, writing six beloved novels that dared to treat women’s lives and thoughts as worthy of novelistic scrutiny, she would hardly be at home among today’s leftist activists who see gender as fluid, religious dictates of centuries past as irrelevant, and the demands of family and culture as onerous and absurd.
Instead, Austen’s novels routinely extol morality, common sense, and people who uphold their obligations. Her characters aren’t off chasing dreams and finding themselves. If anything, she’s often warning of the dangers of being led exclusively by your emotions, of chasing fleeting feelings. Marianne Dashwood, a wonderful and emotional young woman featured in “Sense and Sensibility,” has a character arc that is grounded in her learning to not be overly emotional.
As she recovers from a long illness toward the end of the book, Marianne confides in her sister Elinor that now that she has had time for “serious reflection,” she has regretted how she fell for a man who was revealed to have seduced outside of marriage another young woman—an action that Austen, who seems a fustier type than her modern day disciples, clearly disapproved of.
Marianne reflects (emphasis mine):
I considered the past: I saw in my own behaviour, since the beginning of our acquaintance with him last autumn, nothing but a series of imprudence towards myself, and want of kindness to others. I saw that my own feelings had prepared my sufferings, and that my want of fortitude under them had almost led me to the grave. My illness, I well knew, had been entirely brought on by myself by such negligence of my own health, as I had felt even at the time to be wrong. Had I died,–it would have been self-destruction.
In “Pride and Prejudice” itself, a key plot line is about a man, George Wickham, seducing one of Elizabeth Bennett’s sisters, Lydia, and his initial reluctance to marry her after the seduction. Elizabeth is horrified by both Wickham and her sister’s behavior: “Elizabeth could bear it no longer. She got up and ran out of the room,” writes Austen describing the scene where Lydia and Wickham, just married after a short cohabitation, merrily greet all their family members.
Hardly an open-minded character embracing free love, that Elizabeth Bennett.
If the point of the modern world is to throw off all shackles—even the biological ones knit into our very DNA and being—it makes it even more curious how hungrily both Hollywood
and audiences are to devour Austen adaptions
, which are turned out at a brisk clip. Their faithfulness to both the text and the spirit of the originals vary, of course. But it is hard to rejigger Austen’s novels so completely that you lose entirely the sense permeating them of the demands of God and society.
“We are delighted to be sharing this beloved British classic with our global audience. Pride and Prejudice is the ultimate romantic comedy,” Netflix executive Mona Qureshi said in a statement. “[Executive producer] Dolly’s [Alderton] fierce intelligence and enormous heart, twinned with her genuine love of the Austen novel, means she is able to bring new insights, whilst celebrating all that the generations of fans hold so dear.”
But will they be celebrating what generations of fans love about “Pride and Prejudice”?
And if you believe it’s the “ultimate romantic comedy,” why cast a woman who disregards her own femininity? What drives the great romantic comedies is the tension between men and women, and the slow, satisfying path to happiness as both main characters learn to compromise and even like and admire their loved one’s unique qualities.
Jane Austen has much to teach the modern world, particularly about the joy and fulfillment that come by leaning into the obligations of your state in life. Unfortunately for us, her adaptors seem determined to not hear.
A Portage man is in custody without bond after police said they served a search warrant at his home Wednesday and found drugs, paraphernalia and a replica gun.
Portage Police have responded to the home of James C. Broadway, 43, in the 2800 block of Emerson Street six times over the past several weeks, according to a release. Police found three ordinance violations and made four arrests for various crimes including aggravated battery, battery; false informing, and a drug-related police warrant.
Portage detectives also began investigating a reported weapon violation at the home and developed probable cause for issuing a search warrant for the firearm offense, police said.
Detectives, assisted by the department’s SWAT team, executed the search warrant around 4 p.m. April 9. Police recovered “various controlled substances,” drug paraphernalia and a replica firearm, according to the release.
Broadway is charged with four Level 6 felonies, maintaining a common nuisance, unlawful possession of a syringe and two counts of drug possession; and misdemeanor counts of resisting law enforcement and possession of paraphernalia.
Broadway has not yet been scheduled for an initial hearing, according to an online court docket.
CIUDAD DE PANAMÁ (AP) — El gobierno de Panamá solicitó el jueves a Estados Unidos que actualice la versión en inglés de un comunicado conjunto sobre el Canal de Panamá, en el que se retiró la palabra “soberanía” respecto de la versión en español, tras una visita del secretario de Defensa estadounidense Pete Hegseth
al país centroamericano.
El funcionario estadounidense estuvo en Panamá entre el 7 y el 9 de abril y mantuvo reuniones con el presidente panameño, José Raúl Mulino, el administrador del Canal y los ministros del Canal y de Seguridad y participó en una conferencia regional.
Sobre la visita se emitió un comunicado conjunto. En la versión en español, el gobierno panameño afirmó que “el secretario Hegseth reconoció el liderazgo y la soberanía irrenunciable de Panamá sobre el Canal de Panamá y sus áreas adyacentes”. Pero esta parte fue eliminada del comunicado en inglés emitido desde el gobierno de Estados Unidos.
Ahora, Panamá pide al país del norte que actualice su versión para incluir la mención a la soberanía panameña respecto del Canal con el fin de mantener “la transparencia” y la “fidelidad” en el mensaje, según la carta enviada por la dirección de Política Exterior de la Cancillería a la Embajada de Estados Unidos.
La AP consultó a la legación diplomática estadounidense en Panamá sin obtener respuesta al momento.
El tema de la soberanía sobre el Canal de Panamá ha generado tensiones entre ambos países desde la llegada de Donald Trump a la Casa Blanca en enero pasado. El presidente estadounidense ha reiterado que el Canal
está siendo controlado por China y está su país está pagando un precio excesivo por el uso del Canal de Panamá. Ambos afirmaciones han sido negadas por Panamá.
En el mismo sentido, Hegseth afirmó durante su visita al país centroamericano de esta semana que la vía interoceánica panameña enfrenta constantes amenazas de China, pero que Estados Unidos y Panamá lo mantendrán seguro y disponible para todas las naciones, gracias a lo que llamó la “larga alianza de seguridad”.
También aseguró que “la presencia militar china en el hemisferio occidental es excesiva” y que “Beijing está invirtiendo y operando en esta región para obtener ventajas militares y beneficios económicos injustos”.
Cuando el secretario de Defensa fue consultado en una conferencia de prensa el miércoles sobre el comunicado en inglés y la omisión a la soberanía panameña, éste solamente respondió que “ciertamente entendemos que el Canal de Panamá está en Panamá”.
Luego añadió: “Proteger la soberanía panameña de influencias malignas es importante y es por eso que cuando el presidente Trump dice que vamos a recuperar el Canal de Panamá de la influencia china eso implica la colaboración entre Estados Unidos y Panamá”. No aclaró más sobre la discrepancia entre los comunicados en inglés y español.
Desde el Ministerio de Seguridad Pública panameña se pronunciaron el jueves en un comunicado en el que el ministro Frank Alexis Abrego afirmó “con firmeza y claridad” que Panamá no ha cedido soberanía sobre el Canal de Panamá ni sus áreas adyacentes, luego de la firma del memorándum de entendimiento con Estados Unidos.
También aclaró que no se aceptarán bases militares ni instalaciones de defensa en el territorio panameño.
The percentage of “thriving” Americans is at a 5-year low
, according to a new Gallup poll.
The poll found 48.9 percent of respondents said that they are “thriving,” staying at a 5-year low previously recorded in November 2024 and September 2023.
Since December 2020, there has not been a percentage of respondents lower than 48.2 percent that have said they are “thriving.”
The Gallup poll took place from Feb. 18 to 26, around a month into President Trump’s return to the White House.
There’s a definite shift in how people in the two political parties are feeling.
Between August and February, the percentage of Republicans who said they are “thriving” went up from 50.7 percent to 55.5 percent, while the percentage of Democrats who said they are “thriving” dropped from 57.1 percent to 46.1 percent.
In the wake of their defeats in races for the White House, Senate and House, Democrats have struggled to come together over issues like transgender rights and how much to push back against Trump.
Last month, tensions among Democrats flared after a group of senators within the party voted to advance
a Republican-crafted continuing resolution
. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez notably (D-N.Y.) went after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for saying he would vote to advance the continuing resolution.
“There is a deep sense of outrage and betrayal,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters in March, referring to Schumer’s decision. “And this is not just about progressive Democrats. This is across the board — the entire party.”
The Gallup poll featured 5,876 people and when percentages were close to 50 percent, plus or minus 1.6 percentage points as its margin of error.
