Wednesday, December 21, 2016

How Republics end by Paul Krugman

"A new poll shows that Republican approval of Vladimir Putin has surged even though — or, more likely, precisely because — it has become clear that Russian intervention played an important role in the U.S. election." — Paul Krugman, American economist, Distinguished Professor of Economics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, New York Times columnist and Nobel Memorial Prize winner for Economic Science

SHOULD WE be worried . . . very, very, very worried? Yes, we should. I've been thinking ever since the November 8 election that I may very well live to see the disintegration of our American republic. 


But don't listen to me. After all, I'm just me. Below, however, is what Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman had to say recently in The New York Times


FYI: In addition to his current teaching position, Mr. Krugman was a professor of economics at MIT and at Princeton University. He's also Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics and was President of the Eastern Economic Association
He has written over 20 books, including textbooks, and has published more than 200 scholarly articles in professional journals and edited volumes. He's also written several hundred columns on economic and political issues for The New York TimesFortune and Slate
In 2016 Research Papers in Economics ranked him as the world's 24th most influential economist.


The smart money is on Mr. Krugman.





How Republics End


By Paul Krugman 

December 19, 2016

Many people are reacting to the rise of Trumpism and nativist movements in Europe by reading history — specifically, the history of the 1930s. And they are right to do so. It takes willful blindness not to see the parallels between the rise of fascism and our current political nightmare.


But the ’30s isn’t the only era with lessons to teach us. Lately I’ve been reading a lot about the ancient world. Initially, I have to admit, I was doing it for entertainment and as a refuge from news that gets worse with each passing day. But I couldn’t help noticing the contemporary resonances of some Roman history — specifically, the tale of how the Roman Republic fell.


Here’s what I learned: Republican institutions don’t protect against tyranny when powerful people start defying political norms. And tyranny, when it comes, can flourish even while maintaining a republican facade.


On the first point: Roman politics involved fierce competition among ambitious men. But for centuries that competition was constrained by some seemingly unbreakable rules. Here’s what Adrian Goldsworthy’s “In the Name of Rome” says: “However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his and his family’s reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic … no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power.”


America used to be like that, with prominent senators declaring that we must stop “partisan politics at the water’s edge.” But now we have a president-elect who openly asked Russia to help smear his opponent, and all indications are that the bulk of his party was and is just fine with that. (A new poll shows that Republican approval of Vladimir Putin has surged even though — or, more likely, precisely because — it has become clear that Russian intervention played an important role in the U.S. election.) Winning domestic political struggles is all that matters, the good of the republic be damned.


And what happens to the republic as a result? Famously, on paper the transformation of Rome from republic to empire never happened. Officially, imperial Rome was still ruled by a Senate that just happened to defer to the emperor, whose title originally just meant “commander,” on everything that mattered. We may not go down exactly the same route — although are we even sure of that? — but the process of destroying democratic substance while preserving forms is already underway.


Click here to read the entire article.



Subscribe to The New York Times

1 comment: