The Impossibility of Serving Two Masters
To understand the gravity of the current moment, we have to look beyond the surface-level shouting matches on social media. The core issue at play is the ancient and immutable concept of loyalty. There is an old agricultural wisdom that says you cannot water two fields in opposite directions with the same pump. The physics simply do not work. Water flows downhill, and eventually, a choice must be made about which field gets the resources. Politics functions in much the same way.
A representative in a democratic system is elected on the premise that they will put the interests of their specific district—and by extension, the nation—first. But what happens when that representative holds a divided loyalty? What happens when they attempt to serve two different communities with diametrically opposed interests? Ilhan Omar’s actions raise this precise question. By positioning herself as a protector of a specific ethnic group against the enforcement mechanisms of the federal government she serves, she is making a choice. She is deciding which field gets the water. And in doing so, she is signaling that her loyalty may not lie where the Constitution demands it should.
The Ghost of Athens: The Alcibiades Precedent
History is littered with brilliant, charismatic figures who thought they could play both sides of the fence. Take Alcibiades of Athens, a man of immense talent and potential. When the political winds in Athens turned against him, he defected to Sparta, advising Athens’ enemies on how to defeat his own home city. When Sparta eventually grew suspicious of him, he fled to Persia, and then tried to return to Athens again.
Alcibiades believed he could serve multiple masters and switch allegiances whenever it benefited him personally. But the result was catastrophic. In the end, he was trusted by no one—not Athens, not Sparta, not Persia. He died in exile, assassinated and abandoned, because the world had realized a fundamental truth: a man with divided loyalty effectively has no loyalty to anyone but himself. When citizens cannot trust that their leaders are putting the city’s interests first, the social contract breaks. Suspicion poisons the political well, and the republic begins to die from internal distrust long before any external army conquers it.
Rome, Barbarians, and the Fatal Mistake
The parallels become even more chilling when we look at the fall of the Roman Empire. In its later years, Rome began recruiting “barbarian” generals—military leaders from Germanic tribes who were given Roman citizenship and placed in command of Roman legions. On paper, they were Romans. They wore the armor, used the tactics, and held the titles. But deep down, their identity remained tied to their birth tribes.
When the moment of crisis came, and these generals were forced to choose between the interests of Rome and the interests of their kinsmen, they invariably chose their tribe. The most infamous example is Alaric, the Visigothic general who rose through the Roman ranks only to turn around and sack the city of Rome in 410 AD. He never truly became Roman; he remained a Visigoth who happened to hold Roman citizenship. Rome learned the hard way that you can give someone paperwork and power, but you cannot legislate their identity. If their deepest loyalty remains with a separate group, they will eventually turn that power against the state that granted it.
The Trap of Identity Politics
This brings us back to the present day and the dangerous trajectory of identity politics in America. Ideally, a nation of immigrants works like a melting pot: people come from every corner of the globe, bringing their unique cultures and traditions, but ultimately forging a new, primary identity as Americans. This civic identity—this shared understanding of the “good life”—is what holds a diverse society together.
However, in recent decades, we have seen a shift away from this model. We are now told that assimilation is oppressive and that maintaining a primary loyalty to one’s ethnic or religious tribe is paramount. Ilhan Omar is not an anomaly; she is the logical conclusion of this ideology. By prioritizing the protection of her Somali constituents over the enforcement of American laws, she is acting exactly as identity politics dictates. But as history shows, this creates a fractured society where competing ethnic factions fight for resources rather than working toward a common good. It transforms a nation from a unified “city” into a mere temporary alliance—and alliances are notoriously fragile.
The Carthage Warning: Mercenaries vs. Citizens
Perhaps the most stark warning comes from the rivalry between Rome and Carthage. Carthage was a wealthy, multi-ethnic empire that relied on mercenary armies—soldiers hired from all over the Mediterranean who fought for a paycheck, not for patriotism. Rome, by contrast, relied on citizen-soldiers who fought for their homes, their families, and their way of life.
When Carthage faced existential threats, its mercenaries often mutinied or fled because they had no stake in the civilization’s survival. Rome’s soldiers, however, fought with a tenacity that money couldn’t buy because they were defending their own identity. In the end, Rome obliterated Carthage, not because they had better technology, but because they had a stronger, unified civic soul.
America today faces a similar test. We are seeing the rise of leaders and voting blocks whose political engagement is transactional and rooted in ethnic identity rather than civic duty. If we continue down this path, we risk becoming like Carthage—wealthy and powerful on the surface, but hollow and brittle at the core.
The Inevitable Fallout
So, where does this leave Ilhan Omar and the movement she represents? If historical patterns hold true, her path leads to isolation. As immigration enforcement ramps up and the political winds shift back toward national sovereignty and the rule of law, the “identity first” approach will become increasingly toxic. Politicians who cannot bridge the gap between their specific group and the broader nation eventually lose their utility. They become liabilities to their own parties, pushed to the fringes where they can no longer influence policy.
We are already seeing the cracks form. Even within the Democratic party, there is a growing realization that open borders and unchecked identity politics are losing strategies with the broader electorate. Omar may feel safe in her district for now, but her effectiveness on the national stage is waning. Like the barbarian generals of Rome, she may retain her title, but the trust required to truly govern is evaporating.
A Call to Vigilance
The lesson here is not just for politicians, but for every citizen. We must recognize that a society cannot function when its leaders serve divided masters. We must watch where our representatives place their loyalty when the pressure is on—do they stand with the law of the land, or do they side with a specific faction against it?
The unraveling of a republic is rarely a sudden explosion; it is a slow, steady erosion of trust and shared purpose. We are watching that erosion happen in real-time. The question is not whether the pattern is real—history has already proven that it is. The question is whether we will heed the warning before, like Rome and Carthage before us, we find that we have watered the wrong fields for too long.
