The President Has His Nero Fiddling Moment

Saturday’s “Hands Off” protests were largely a success. By some counts, as many as 3.5 million people were involved across all 50 states, and several thousand more participated in the UK and other foreign countries. The protests were important in showing members of this financially egalitarian administration the degree to which people across the entire country, including traditionally ‘red’ states, are deeply concerned about the direction the country is going, the application of tariffs, the cutting of federal jobs, and ending the flow of federal grants for critical programs.

The ultimate test of whether a protest was successful is how the government responds. Does it capitulate to any degree, or does it defiantly defend its actions? The President has frequently taken to social media to attack his critics. But if someone is looking for an acidic response from the White House, they get … silence. No comments have been made since the President left the White House on Friday, while the stock market was in its second day of severe decline, so that he could go golfing.

The President golfed more yesterday, ignoring the protests. The President’s schedule shows him golfing more today, despite the number of states who are currently experiencing severe flooding. Sure, there are times when former Presidents have gotten work done while on the golf course, but there’s no sign that is happening with this current President. He’s out there hitting balls, congratulating himself, and appearing blissfully unaware, without the slightest care, that the people he governs are hurting.

There has never been a US President like Felonious Punk. He has built a strong base through populist rhetoric, large rallies, direct communication (via social media), and positioning himself as an outsider fighting against political elites, the media (“fake news”), and the “establishment” or “deep state.” He leveraged his background in reality television, focusing on media presence, large rallies with a performative element, and dramatic announcements. His style often prioritizes showmanship and dominating the news cycle.

The President also frequently challenges and criticizes established institutions, including the judiciary, intelligence agencies, the press, long-standing alliances (like NATO), and traditional norms of presidential behavior and rhetoric. His attitude gives the impression that he doesn’t care who or what he tears down as long as he gets his way.

Is there more? Of course, there is.

This President placed a high premium on personal loyalty from advisors, appointees, and party members, often expressing frustration or anger with those perceived as insufficiently loyal or critical. High turnover rates in his administration are often linked to loyalty issues. Just this past week, he angered many in his own party when he fired the general heading the National Security Administration (NSA) because he was “Someone we don’t like.”

Punk frequently and publicly lashes out at critics in the media, politics, and elsewhere, using aggressive rhetoric, personal insults and demanding retractions or apologies. His nicknames for political opponents have a grade school bullying feel to them. He often employs scapegoating tactics, blaming various problems on immigrants, China, political opponents, or the media. As a result, many critics, commentators, and mental health professionals (though diagnosing without in-person inspection is controversial) have described Punk’s public persona and behavior using terms associated with narcissistic traits.

How can one person be so incredibly flawed, despised, and disruptive and still be President of the United States? Certainly, there is no one in the past 250 years of American history that corresponds to this level of insufficiency. Even President Grant (1869-1977), as drunk and abusive as he was, doesn’t come close to matching Punk’s unfitness for the job.

We know a lot of people have compared Punk with Hitler and other 20th-century problem makers, and many of those comparisons are frighteningly accurate. But to find someone who fully embraces all the horrid qualities that Punk possesses, we had to go back nearly two millennia to find someone this disgusting: Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

Nero was the final emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and is blamed by many historians for the complete and utter disassembly of the Roman empire. Nero came from an incredibly corrupt family, his mother having murdered her second husband to marry her uncle, the Emperor Claudius. Being raised in corruption, he knew well how to skirt around the law in order to get his way. Many of his traits and tactics are disturbingly similar to those of the US President.

While the emperor, Nero sometimes cultivated popularity with the common people of Rome through lavish games, spectacles, and distributions, often positioning himself against the traditional senatorial aristocracy, whom he frequently clashed with and distrusted. He had a deep interest in the arts, performing publicly as a musician, actor, and charioteer. He invested heavily in public spectacles and grand building projects (like the Domus Aurea), blurring the lines between emperor and entertainer, using performance to bolster his image.

Emperor Nero increasingly disregarded and undermined the authority of the Roman Senate, relying more on personal favorites and exercising autocratic power. He broke numerous traditional Roman norms. Along with that, he became increasingly paranoid and demanded absolute loyalty, executing or forcing the suicide of those he suspected of disloyalty, including former advisors and family members. He was notoriously sensitive to criticism and satire, often responding with ruthless persecution against perceived enemies and critics.

One of the most famous moments of Nero’s reign was the burning of Rome. Many of the stories attributing the fire and his fiddling during it are likely false. Yet, they fit his personality and are likely not too far from the truth. Ancient historians describe behaviors consistent with modern interpretations of narcissism: vanity, excessive need for admiration, grandiosity, lack of empathy, and rage when challenged.

See how it all plays out so similarly? Even if he didn’t start the fire, Nero’s response was to blame the Christians, setting them up for severe persecution. The concept of Nero fiddling has become an idiom representing a leader who is irresponsible, out of touch, negligent, or callously indifferent while a serious crisis unfolds. It implies the leader is focused on personal, trivial pursuits instead of addressing the disaster and leading their people. It symbolizes dereliction of duty in the face of suffering.

By comparison, a tumbling stock market signifies economic distress, potential loss of wealth for citizens (especially those with retirement funds), and broader economic anxiety. It’s generally seen as a serious issue requiring presidential attention, communication, and leadership. But while Nero’s activities are likely more legend than truth, we have absolute documentation that Punk was indeed out golfing while the stock market went plunging toward Bear territory.

The core of the analogy lies in the perception that the leader is demonstrating indifference to the crisis, is detached from the concerns or suffering of the people, and is neglecting their responsibilities to focus on personal enjoyment or trivialities. It implies misplaced priorities during a critical time. Of course, one might argue that Punk’s priorities are misplaced all the time, not just during this crisis.

The biggest difference between Nero and Punk is that Nero’s government was autocratic when he got there. The entire empire was built around the personality of a single person. The United States was still, by and large, democratic when Punk took office, but by any intelligent account, he is pushing us toward autocracy as fast as he possibly can. Where Nero had the power to have his enemies executed, the best Punk can do is fire those he can, deport innocents as a show of power, and attempt to discredit those who challenge him.

The people of Rome were beaten down and weary by the time Nero became emperor. A protest, peaceful or otherwise, would have been practically impossible. Americans still have that power and displayed that power brilliantly yesterday despite disagreeable weather in many locations.

President Punk is doing his best to pretend that nothing has happened. He puts his head down and whacks a tee shot into the rough, yet somehow it shows up on the green by the time he and his party arrive there. Tomorrow, he will meet with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and likely make some proclamation that forces news of the protests off the front page and out of the news cycle.

For protests in America to have any real power, they must in a more direct way challenge the power of the status quo. To some degree, it doesn’t matter how many millions of people march if their presence doesn’t disrupt the government itself.

The people of Rome set fire to the city. Perhaps there’s a lesson for Americans to learn there.