Saturday, October 10, 2026

High-Minded Words for a Low Form of Politics

By Jonah Goldberg

Friday, October 09, 2026

 

In 2023 there was that whole thing about how all men—or a lot of men—spend a shocking amount of time thinking about ancient Rome. It became such a thing that Saturday Night Live did a great bit on it.

 

I confess. I’m one of those guys. I don’t noodle Rome to the exclusion of other nerdy woolgathering (or to get closer to the spirit of things, omphaloskepsis or vigilans somniare). I also think about zombie apocalypses, Red Dawn-style invasions, and time travel way more than is productive.

 

Nick Catoggio had a typically excellent essay yesterday on Legatus Marcus Antonius Rubio’s meditations, Kimberly Guilfoyle’s grasping demand for largitonis (gifts and bribes), and the somnia quaedam vigilantium (dreaming while awake) of the “Retvrn bros.”

 

Nick writes, “Rubio’s remarks can be summarized this way: If his syncretic right-wing project was originally about trying to smuggle liberalism into postliberalism, it’s now more the other way around.”

 

I think that’s basically right. The speech, surely written by Nate Hochman, is a classic example of what is, in the Trump era, often called “turd-polishing.” Roman rhetoricians called this sort of thing “color.” Coloring wasn’t necessarily dishonest, it was more like simply putting the relevant facts in the best possible light. But when the facts were awful, coloring became a form of deception, or what we would call spin. In his Controversiae, Seneca the Elder condemned people who spun sordidly self-interested acts with lofty-sounding intellectual, often completely hypothetical, defenses. When Kellyanne Conway defended Sean Spicer’s lies about the crowd sizes at Trump’s first inauguration by invoking “alternative facts,” she was trying to provide color in this sense. The late Scott Adams was a master colorizer in this tradition.

 

Rudy Giuliani is another master of the craft. When Trump pressured Volodymyr Zelensky to find dirt on Joe Biden, or simply allege corruption, Giuliani declared on Twitter, “A President telling a Pres-elect of a well known corrupt country he better investigate corruption that affects US is doing his job. Maybe if Obama did that the Biden Family wouldn’t have bilked millions from Ukraine and billions from China; being covered up by a Corrupt Media.”

 

Not everyone can play at Rudy’s level, though. For instance, when Trump butt-tweeted “covfefe,” his praetorians rallied to the idea there was an esoteric genius behind it. David Danford, writing at American Greatness, tried valiantly to polish the turd until he saw his reflection in it, suggesting that it might have been a bastardized Arabic phrase—“I will stand up”—aimed at the Middle East and/or to goad people with Trump derangement syndrome into revealing themselves. Or something.

 

But Legatus Rubio’s speech took it to a whole other, world historic level. In Rubio’s telling, the great contribution of the Greeks that defined Western civilization ever since was combat and glory. Not physical combat per se, but combat all the same.

 

For the Greeks of antiquity, the pursuit of excellence was the very principle of man’s existence. They organized all of civic life around contest, ambition, competition: in philosophy and poetry, in sculpture and drama, in athletics and art, in war and statecraft. The classical Greek city was an arena for great men to test and prove themselves, to hone their potential through perpetual struggle—to be the best, the strongest, the most beautiful, straining to inch ever closer to perfection.

 

Now I know that to modern ears, what I just described, this way of life, may sound odd; it may even sound cruel. The ideal of many ideologies in our time has, frankly, become a world of perfect safety, devoid of risk or failure, with neither the glory of victory nor the shame of defeat. …

 

The men who made the Parthenon, they built upwards. They held that the highest and most noble aspiration in life was to surpass all others, to strive to be the best in all things. The ancient Greek city-states were filled. They were filled with intense passion and rivalry and faction and conflict. But from that constant struggle for distinction—from that came the great flowering of art and philosophy and political and intellectual energy that would transform a collective of Mediterranean cities into the birthplace of the greatest civilization in the world. [Emphasis mine]

 

John Podhoretz texted me yesterday after watching it, “The speech was half Straussian half Randian all Claremontian.” I hear a bit more Nietzsche than Rand, but the point is the same. In Rubio’s telling, the Greeks were toga-clad Übermenschen, driven by a thirst for proving themselves in perpetual contest with each other and everything. “The thumos, as the ancient Greeks called it—the fire of passion, strength, courage, pride—is the heart of great civilization,” Rubio also said. “And without it? Without it, nations lose their will to fight, the will to strive, the will to survive.”

 

Nietzsche was pithier. “Every talent must express itself in fighting,” he writes in Homer’s Wettkampf (Homer’s Contest). “In this brooding atmosphere, fighting is salvation,” he adds. And: “Thus the Greeks, the most humane people of ancient times, possess a trait of cruelty, a tigerish lust to annihilate: a trait that is also quite visible in that grotesquely magnified reflection of the Hellenes, Alexander the Great, and which must terrify us if we approach it in their entire history as in their mythology with the flabby concept of modern humanity.”

 

In Rubio’s defense, he does acknowledge that the Greeks also laid the “foundation of the Western mind: our math, our science, our medicine. Our philosophy, ethics, and religion. It paved the way for the gospel of Jesus Christ to find fertile soil in Europe and flourish into the empire of Christendom. It was the foundation of the riches of Christian theology—of Augustine and Aquinas and the whole tradition of natural law.”

 

But while he repeatedly uses words like “passion,” “courage,” “contest,” “competition,” and “glory,” he doesn’t mention “reason” (and has only a single glancing mention of “liberty”). He alludes to reason with that bit about science, but it recedes into just another expression of will.

 

Indeed, again and again, Rubio conflates different virtues and different values into themes of will and passion. “We see this in Socrates, who refused to abandon the inquiry into truth even at the cost of his own life. We see it in the legendary stand of 300 Spartans …” Sure, these are two examples of courage, but they are properly understood as very different kinds of courage. “These are the qualities that would shape the Western moral imagination. From the Christian martyr who refused to betray his faith to the patriot who gave his life for his country; from Saint Thomas More to the Battle of the Alamo.” The courage of military glory is noble and so is the courage of conscience. But they are not the same thing. When you flatten Christian virtue and military or prideful glory to expressions of the same thing, you drain the best version of Western civilization of its true greatness.

 

The Christian philosopher Edward Feser’s response to Rubio says it well:

 

It is not thumos that is the heart of the greatest civilizations, but reason. And it is not the “struggle for distinction” that made the West, but the pursuit of the true and the good. It was this Socratic pursuit, not Spartan pride, that led the Church to embrace the achievements of the Greeks. As Plato warns in the Republic, to subordinate reason to thumos and the pursuit of truth to the pursuit of honor is the mark of timocracy, the first of the four corrupt types of polity and corrupt types of soul he identifies.

 

Which brings me to Kimberly Guilfoyle, who was sitting in the front row for Rubio’s speech. Guilfoyle left her perch at Fox News for (allegedly—the editors) sharing pictures of various men’s penises and for treating staff the way Roman aristocrats treated their Thracian slaves. While Rubio was doing his swing through Greece, the Wall Street Journal reported that she had asked a Trump donor to pay her $100,000 American Express bill before she appeared at her confirmation hearing to become ambassador to Greece.

 

And that brings me back to Rome. When Guilfoyle’s nomination was announced, I joked with friends that this was just so Roman. The paramour of the emperor’s crapulent firstborn son was being sent to Greece like Julia the Elder dispatched to Pandateria. Out of sight, out of mind. Let her shake down the colonials for tribute—which she did!

 

The specific people Nick refers to as the “Retvrn bros” are the people who take their Roman Empire woolgathering too far and think we’d be better off living in Ancient Rome rather than under “globohomo” tyranny (because there were no “homos” in that would-be global empire). Like the reincarnation obsessives who always think they were kings or warriors in their retrotopian past lives, they all seem to think they’d be Roman generals rather than sex slaves or short-lived tenant farmers.

 

What I find so amusing about all of the high-minded coloring of Trumpian timocracy is the delta between the rhetoric and the reality. Trump is actually extremely Roman in his understanding of power and politics. He talks a lot about greatness, but everything is reduced to personal loyalty; if he grants a beneficium (benefit) he is owed officium (obligations). “I pardoned Democrat Henry Cuellar, but he refused to become a Republican to pay his debt to me. Very disloyal, vote him out!” Supreme Court justices should show him loyalty. “I gave them the position of a lifetime, and they vote against me often.” He told FBI Director James Comey before he decided to fire him, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” Personal loyalty is prized over expertise. Pardons are a reward for loyalty (and money). Law firms that capitulate are then offered protection, or deditio in fidem.

 

We can do this all day. Bread ($5,000 checks!) and circuses (gladiatorial games on the White House lawn).  Trump’s favorite Bible verse is an “eye for an eye.” Conquest is for glory and taking the oil. His triumphal arch and a military parade on his birthday. Even the dangling of possible executions.  His insistence that his power is derived from the people more than the Constitution, which would be too constraining. The executive branch is essentially Caesar’s household, subservient to his whims, not the law. Disagreement is treachery. And so on.

 

The difference in Trump’s mind is that his model isn’t Ancient Rome, but the weird and distorted vestige of it: the Mafia, which famously borrowed Roman styles of organization as a kind of cosplay to lend a veneer of virtuous color to criminality.

 

And that’s how I hear Legatus Rubio’s celebration of Western civilization as conquest of territory, nature, science, art, and the yearning to Make Western Civilization Glorious Again. “What is happiness?” Nietzsche asked. “The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.”

 

Rubio’s Ode to a Grecian Yearn is great color. But it’s in service to the sorts of people who think that happiness is having your Amex bill paid off by one of Caesar’s clients.

No comments: