Caesar Debate in San Francisco

Earlier this month, the Hamilton Society of San Francisco organized a debate on a rather unexpected topic: Does America need a Caesar?

Older generations might roll their eyes at this question, but younger Americans seem less connected to politics. Many grew up after the events of September 11 and have witnessed corruption and decline within institutions. Even the current presidential administration, which has somewhat stabilized matters, hasn’t restored the deep-seated feeling that the system is fundamentally broken.

There’s a compelling argument here: If everything appears to be in disarray, maybe looking to a leader—like a modern-day Caesar—could be worth considering.

However, bringing in a figure like Caesar isn’t simple. Critics often view this notion as mere fantasy or role-play by influential elites. People trained to theorize rather than act may come up with complex ideas that haven’t been put into practice.

The debate saw the motion for America needing a Caesar lose by a vote of 56% to 44%. Interestingly, the supporters of the idea gained ground after the discussion. Initially, I was leaning against the motion until a scheduling conflict kept me from voting.

Contemplating the Current State

You could argue today that America doesn’t actually need a Caesar. The real question is whether things will change before they worsen.

The trouble lies in two words: “Right now.”

As we speak, America is venturing into a phase of uncertainty largely due to the rise of artificial intelligence. My social media feeds are brimming with anxious comments from people deeply involved in the AI field. Their concerns underline two realities: our future is unpredictable, and our capacity for foresight seems to be deteriorating.

This issue transcends the quest for increasingly intelligent systems; it encompasses our waning ability to comprehend what’s happening as our political structure erodes.

The federal government is caught in a troubling spot. It relies, in part, on maintaining America’s strategic leadership. But as AI progresses, can Washington assert its dominance while choosing not to utilize its most powerful technologies?

Keeping this edge doesn’t just involve managing the strongest systems of today; it requires control over future advancements as well. The ultimate weapon isn’t a single entity but the capability to weaponize at all levels—from the global down to the individual.

A technocratic response might lean toward tighter governance through self-optimizing systems. Yet, we need to brace ourselves for the potential missteps that could arise.

Seeking Solutions

When governance falters, society typically looks for familiar ways out.

One avenue is withdrawal: people might retreat to the periphery, establishing self-sufficient communities outside a failing system. For some, this is indeed the right move. But a collective urge to escape can diminish resilience, leading to misplaced and ill-prepared individuals remaining in a collapsing environment.

The second route involves a search for spiritual leadership. In times rife with corruption, society often gravitates toward revered figures. However, America lacks a unifying authority. Our religious institutions are fractured, many leaders are struggling, and our constitutional framework doesn’t accommodate a theocratic rule.

This brings us to a third option: granting significant power to one individual to restore order—essentially, a Caesar. Rulers often believed they could bear the weight of enacting new laws for a faltering society.

You have to wonder: what would lead Americans to not only desire such a figure but to feel they truly need one? A general consensus would have to emerge that without him, the nation might crumble, transforming Americans into something unrecognizable.

If the American experiment stumbles, we risk not knowing what regime could replace it or even what kind of people we’ve become. In this context, an all-powerful AI might end up making choices on our behalf.

Faced with the choice between surrendering to a machine or a man who promises to protect both humanity and national identity, the idea of Caesar might start to look quite appealing.

Challenges Ahead

There’s a caveat, though. Historically, Caesars have either been pagan or Christian, and Christian rulers tend to govern empires. America, with its imperial traits, isn’t likely to yield a Christian emperor. The ideal model for an American ruler would need to diverge from traditional emperors.

This potentially points to a more plausible outcome: a pagan Caesar.

Most Americans aren’t worshiping ancient deities, but politically, the pagan god represented power across cities and states. A Caesar didn’t merely reign above them; he could embody their very essence.

Today, AI offers a dimension of control that ancient rulers couldn’t conceive. It brings a near-divine power over information, behavior, and even thought. AI might just bring back the age-old dream of a “city god.”

This concept forms the basis of my essay titled “Pagan.ai,” recently published in Frontier.

To avoid a digital collapse leading to chaos or excessive rule, America must explore paths that prevent such a scenario from arising. If there’s a Caesar out there whom we hesitate to endorse, it’s time to address the underlying issues now.

The best way to avert a Caesar is not to dismiss the question outright. It’s to strive for a nation that never needs to grapple with such dilemmas.