Do We Need a New Cromwell or Napoleon?

Trump was somewhat in the mold, but certainly was neither.

Increasingly I have seen people on social media suggest that the nation is so far gone we need a radical realignment such as occurred under Oliver Cromwell in England or Napoleon Bonaparte in France. It’s worth a look at those to periods to see if such a person could fit in America.

Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) was a leading Puritan and general in the army of Parliament. He supported the execution of King Charles I in 1649 when Charles refused to accede to a new Constitutional Monarchy. He was elevated to the position of “Lord Protector” of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland in 1653.

Cromwell was neither a part of the monarchy nor, truly, a revolutionary republic. Ne was neither fish nor fowl, merely a placeholder as his title “Lord Protector” suggested. And he ruled with an iron fist. He had the support of the army, but had some limitations on his power. He carried out minor reforms, ended a war, but did not attempt an overhaul of the social order: aristocrats and nobles remained. Many of his reforms occurred in the area of the Church of England.

When offered the crown, he rejected it (after some serious consideration). As he saw it, his purpose was to restore order, both politically and morally. He died in 1658 of natural causes and his son, Richard, took over. Disaffected members of the New Model Army, unhappy with Richard, marched on London and overthrew Richard, who escaped to the Continent. The Army had previously agreed to let the exiled Charles II come back and set up a restored monarchy. (Richard lived out his days, but Cromwell’s body was dug up, given an “execution,” and his head displayed before the public.

Napoleon’s history is a little better known: after the French Revolutionaries had executed Louis XVI, the Revolutionaries battled among themselves with the Jacobins winning at first, executing thousands. Ultimately, the pendulum swung and Robespierre, head of the Jacobin faction, was himself guillotined. During this time, as a military officer, Napoleon Bonaparte was making a reputation for himself. Eventually he appeared as the savior to the National Assembly who gave him control over the army. He had no need for the Assembly after that.

The key aspect of Napoleon is that he was not a member of royalty or even, truly, and aristocrat, but the son of a mid-level bureaucrat. But neither was he a revolutionary, though he played one! Napoleon harnessed the populist revolutionary impetus of the French while quietly restoring the nobles’ lands. Few questioned his legitimacy when he named himself Emperor in 1804. Like Cromwell, he was not a king, nor was he a revolutionary leader.

Each man marched onto a scene of chaos when the established laws had failed. Each took advantage of a popular revolution without embracing all the (necessary) elements of such a populist government. Each refused to be seen as a monarch, even while acting as one.

Certainly the political, legal, and structural breakdown of the United States is similar to that of France under Louis or England under Charles. Certainly the popular forces are getting to be so powerful they cannot be appeased by crumbs or meaningless elections. Certainly something serious and bloody will happen when these popular forces are ignored one too many times.

America has no history of monarchs or dynastic rule; nor does it have a history of a man on a white horse riding in to save the day. Perhaps the closest we ever came before was when Gen. Douglas MacArthur spoke directly to Congress in what could have been considered treason or outside the chain of command, as he technically had not resigned yet. In any case, the conditions for the rise of a Napoleon or Cromwell are dangerously close today—-and no, Donald Trump is no such person.

First, Trump does not have the support of the Army, which today has become a pathetic, sick, woke force of social engineering, not a military branch committed to the Constitution. Without the military, such a “Protector” is impossible. Second, America has use for dynasties, especially today after the Kennedys and the Bushes. Third, there has been no greater respecter of the Constitution and federalism since George Washington than Donald Trump. Repeatedly he sought government action but demanded it go through Congress or the states, whichever was Constitutionally empowered to handle it. Only when they didn’t did he use executive orders.

But it is intriguing to ponder: the American political system is nearly dead, rife with noticeable fraud, entrenched by gerrymandering so that people such as Maxine (James Brown) Waters or Sheila (We Landed on Mars) Lee get reelected without a smidgen or opposition. Our two tiered justice system—-which sees the Patriot Day (J6) martyrs rot while the evil spoogechicken spawn of the Demented Rutabaga runs free—-is increasingly obvious to everyone. Finally, the lawlessness of the Demented Pervert’s regime is pushing people to a strong, perhaps violent, reaction. Trump is the only democratic (small “d”) figure still with the ability to reinstate some measure of trust in the system, especially after the recent elections in Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia. But he certainly can’t do it alone, and questions remain as to whether he has the ability or the connections to surround himself with the kinds of cutthroat advisers (modern Lee Atwaters) who can truly dismantle some, if not much, of the Deep State.

If not, don’t look for a Man on a White Horse to save you unless it’s the Lord Jesus Himself. And if it’s Him, many of you won’t want to hear what He has to say.

Larry Schweikart

Rock drummer

Film maker

NYTimes #1 bestselling author

Political pundit

Check the Wild World of History for my upcoming Christmas Special: A Master Class in U.S. or World History in video form, taught by me!

www.wildworldofhistory.com