And yet in in Catilinam 2, delivered ad populum, Cicero praises the urban plebs for their resistance to Catiline and their maintenance of their influence in the comitia. In the de lege agraria he implores the plebs to look after their own interests and resist an agrarian bill that would have favored Pompey's troops over themselves. If he was so opposed to democratic institutions why did he suggest in the de legibus that the courts be transferred over to the comitia in order to avoid corruption and allow fairer trials? Alongside Cicero's proposal in the de legibus to eliminate the secret ballot in the elections he also defends the rights of the tribunes of the plebs to impose total vetoes and maintain sacrosanctity? What are we to make of that? Is that anti-democratic or is it pro-democratic? Which proposal overrules the other and forces us to one side or the other? What about the suggestion in the de legibus that the senate should be allowed to propose and vote on legislation but at the same time should be more strictly regulated, with expanded censorial powers and a revised cursus honorum? Is that oligarchic or not? Searching for clear-cut "leftist" or "right-wing" rhetoric in Cicero's writing is searching for contradiction, unless we simply ignore some of Cicero and only focus on what we want to look at. Parenti's book, from what I know about it, is basically polemic dressed up as a study of Caesar--it's been totally ignored by academics, and I can't even find a Bryn Mawr Classical Review article on it. Strictly classifying Roman politicians according to the left or right as we understand them today is folly. Consider Caesar himself. The argument is often made that Caesar was a populist--he did, after all, defend the rights of the tribunes of the plebs in 49. But Caesar was immensely unpopular among the plebs during his consulship in 59, when they snubbed him at the theater and applauded the line nostra miseria tu es magnus as an insult to Pompey. What are we to do with the Gracchi, who championed agrarian bills but opposed Livius Drusus' colonial foundations and limited the rights of the tribunes? Or Pompey himself, who was simultaneously Sulla's little monster, the greatest of the populares, and Scipio's son-in-law? Cato, ever seen in today's polemic as the ultra-conservative, nevertheless held the tribunate and passed a lex de frumentaria. Roman politics and society didn't work the way ours did. What we would see as changes in tack were common, as were opinions of the place of various elements of society that we might see as contradictory. The Roman politician had no obligation to establish a consistent ideological platform, and he did not. The popularis tribune of today was the oligarchic praetor of tomorrow--in Tatum's book on Clodius he identifies only two populares who maintained a popularis stance throughout their entire careers, and one of them (Caesar) is a stretch at best. Cicero valued above all things the concordia ordinum, and was willing to suggest the limitation of all sides (within what he considered reasonable limits) in order to preserve it. Cicero was an extremely thoughtful person, apparently the only one of his generation who thought enough about the preservation of Republican institutions to write treatises about how an ideal Republican state might function. He was an educated Roman, with all the snobbery that that entailed, and was not above describing the plebs as omnis faex urbis in his speeches to the senate. At the same time in his letters he disparages the senatorial class as piscinarii, which Shackleton Bailey used to translate as "fish fanciers," individuals more concerned about their fish ponds than the good of the state.

Cicero was a complicated human being in a socio-political environment that defies strict categorization according to our modern political standards. Cherry-picking particular pieces of his rhetoric--which is notoriously contradictory, depending on the audience Cicero is addressing--over others is not only bad methodology, it's simply polemic and betrays a flagrant disregard for the texts. Cicero was a novus homo who was always distrusted by the nobiles and distrusted them in turn. He was close with the equites and protected their interests more than once. He championed the provincials against the nobiles, winning great fame by defeating Hortensius in the law courts in the case against Verres. At the same time as he was trying to work his way in among the nobiles he also presented him as a popularis in 63, the same year that he presented himself as the face of a Roman society united at all levels against the Catilinarian menace. He described the Clodians as omnis faex urbis yet at the same time claimed the support of tota Italia--and won it, as the Italians were instrumental in securing his return from exile. He was wealthy and a landlord over countless insulae, which like most in the city were in various states of poor repair--still, he went to the trouble of getting to know his tenants, apparently highly unusual for someone of his status, and looked after their interests as their patron well. His political actions and celebrity status gained him enormous popularity throughout society. If modern scholars fault him for anything it's usually for being a politician. Cicero often tried to play multiple sides or was indecisive. He is often faulted for not throwing his support behind the Pompeians immediately in 49, only joining them when he ran out of time to decide--I do not think this accusation is fair, as Cicero legitimately believed that a settlement was still possible, and had by that point largely retired from politics, being forced out after Luca. Cicero failed to decisively stand against the triumvirs when he had the chance, and threw his weight against them too late, at the end of 59 (leading to his exile) and shortly after Luca. When he did act decisively it was often in poor judgement, as when he decided to violate the right of citizens to trial when ordering the execution of the Catilinarian ringleaders without trial or when he took on Antony in the Philippics without considering the possibility of Octavian's betrayal (arguably not his fault, nobody expected it). There's a lot to dislike in the man, but cherry-picking arguments is not the way to do it.