This is how republics fall - By Paul Krugman

Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------------

There are so many problems with this it's hard to know where to begin. I'll give it my best shot.
-----------------------

The sickness of U.S. politics didn’t begin with Donald Trump, any more than the sickness of the Roman Republic began with Caesar. The erosion of democratic foundations has been under way for decades. (Problems start with the teaser line. We don't have "democratic foundations" in America, since we are not a democracy. Our foundations are predicated on rights that descend from God, politic power arises from the people, limited government restrained by the Constitution, and private property, all in the context of liberty.

Regarding democracy, the founders abhorred it. John Adams, for example, wrote: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.” James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” 

We therefore have no democratic foundations.)

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. (The author makes no attempt to back up this astounding assertion. Fascism? Really?)

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. (The fall of the Roman empire was due to a complex set of factors. It is puerile to suggest that there is any sort of comparison that can be drawn to our current political situation.) 

Here’s what I learned: Republican (How is the word "Republican" being used here? Is he talking about the Republican party, or the institutions of our republic?)

institutions don’t protect against tyranny when powerful people start defying political norms. (What are "political norms?" What principles do we operate under that would place value on "political norms?" And why would violating "political norms" lead to tyranny?)

And tyranny, when it comes, can flourish even while maintaining a republican facade. (Again, the author's use of the word "republican" is unclear.)

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.”

The United States used to be like that, with prominent senators declaring that we must stop “partisan politics at the water’s edge.” (A gentleman's rule first abandoned by Obama, who seemed to make a habit of going oversees and criticizing his opponents.)

But now we have a president-elect who openly asked Russia to help smear his opponent, (Whaaa? When did this happen? I suppose the author is talking about this, but it is clear he is targeting Hillary and being humorous, not seriously asking for Russian help. Of course, the Left lacks any sense of humor, and are quite happy to make hay out of anything and everything that they can, regardless of the issue at hand.)

and all indications are that the bulk of his party was and is just fine with that. (They are just fine with Trump skewering the political Left and Hillary, and laughing at their idiocy and humorlessness.) 

(A new poll shows that Republican approval of Vladimir Putin has surged (Having an admiration of the man is much different than agreeing with him. And note that the author supplies no documentation of this claim, nor any context for the word "surge.")

even though — or, more likely, precisely because — it has become clear that Russian intervention played an important role in the U.S. election.) (Another undocumented claim.)

Winning domestic political struggles is all that matters, the good of the republic be damned. (The author's errant conclusion based on errant assumptions.)

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 under way. (The author interchanges "republic" with "democratic" at will, not recognizing the substantial difference between the two.

But more to the point, the author raises these dire warnings about the eeevil before us, but never supplies anything other than hysterical suppositions and unmade logical connections. He is content to take his irrational fear (Trump-phobia) and construct a preposterous epic scenario about the destruction of our institutions and a coming tyranny presided over by Trump, without supplying us with a single bit of evidence.)

Consider what just happened in North Carolina. (The author brings in an irrelevant tangent.)

The voters made a clear choice, electing a Democratic governor. The Republican legislature didn’t openly overturn the result — not this time, anyway — but it effectively stripped the governor’s office of power, ensuring that the will of the voters wouldn’t actually matter. (Did they act illegally? Did they do something so substantial that it would justify the author's outrage? Well, no. But it serves the author's purpose to create his crisis scenario. 

Also, it is worth noting that the author is actually troubled by Republicans using the tools of the Left. That's the real problem here.)

Combine this sort of thing with continuing efforts to disenfranchise or at least discourage voting by minority groups, (Another diversion. No one is disenfranchising anyone. The Constitution enumerates the rights of citizens to vote. Therefore it is incumbent upon government to determine the identity of those who intend to vote. This is a perfectly reasonable standard applied to everyone equally. People who cannot identify themselves are not eligible to vote, therefore definitionally they cannot be disenfranchised.)

and you have the potential making of a de facto one-party state: one that maintains the fiction of democracy, but has rigged the game so that the other side can never win. (Ironic. This has been the modus operandi of the political Left for decades. Ever hear of the Chicago machine?)

Why is this happening? (I'll wager he doesn't know, but thinks he does.)

I’m not asking why white working-class voters support politicians whose policies will hurt them — I’ll be coming back to that issue in future columns. My question, instead, is why one party’s politicians and officials no longer seem to care about what we used to think were essential U.S. values. (Unsupported assertion. And might we ask, what exactly are "U.S. values? How is it possible for 320,000,000 people share the exact same values? And why should these supposed values be encoded in government? Who gets to decide what they are? The whole idea is offensive to me.)

And let’s be clear: This is a Republican story, not a case of “both sides do it.” (Unsupported, and a preposterous assertion.)

So what’s driving this story? I don’t think it’s truly ideological. Supposedly free-market politicians are already discovering that crony capitalism is fine as long as it involves the right cronies. (It isn't possible for a "free market" anybody to support crony capitalism. It is the antithesis of the free market to do so, which indicates to me that this Pulitzer prize winning economist either doesn't understand the free market, or is willfully subjugating his understanding to his political ideology.

And of course, the author conveniently leaves out the crony capitalism of the non-free-market types who love the sweetheart deals and cocktail parties of corporate interests.)

It does have to do with class warfare (Ah, yes, no leftist diatribe would be complete without mentioning the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeois.)

— redistribution from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy is a consistent theme of all modern Republican policies. (Now the author appears to have shifted the use of the word "republican" to the party and not the system of governance. 

It's worth pointing out that the wages of the middle class have stagnated since the late seventies, which includes Democratic as well as Republican leadership, culminating in the Obama administration. So why, exactly, has Obama failed, even when he had a Democratic congress his first two years?

And can we ask, how does one redistribute money from the poor, who have no money?)

But what directly drives the attack on democracy, (Now he calls us a democracy. Which is it, Mr. Krugman?)

I’d argue, is simple careerism on the part of people who are apparatchiks within a system insulated from outside pressures by gerrymandered districts, unshakable partisan loyalty, and lots and lots of plutocratic financial support. (Yes, I agree. But we know that he isn't talking about politics in general, since we know Democrats have done this for decades. No, he's only talking about Republicans.)

For such people, toeing the party line and defending the party’s rule are all that matters. (Looking in a mirror, sir?)

And if they sometimes seem consumed with rage at anyone who challenges their actions, well, that’s how hacks always respond when called on their hackery. (Whaaa? Are we talking about Black Lives Matter? Occupy? The reaction of the snowflakes who can't stop crying because of the Trump victory? The protesters clogging the streets and lighting cars on fire? Or maybe the harassment of members of the Electoral College? 

No, Mr. Krugman, it is the Left who is consumed with rage, as is their wont.)

One thing all of this makes clear is that the sickness of U.S. politics didn’t begin with Donald Trump, any more than the sickness of the Roman Republic began with Caesar. The erosion of democratic foundations (Again, do we have republican foundations as he previously asserted, or democratic ones?)

has been under way for decades, (Yes, since FDR.)

and there’s no guarantee that we will ever be able to recover. (True dat. Mostly because the Left is the defenders of the status quo. It is the Left who protects the profligate, bloated, overreaching government they have created. It is the Left who loves to control peoples' speech, choices, and behaviors. It is the Left who tells us what we are allowed to believe, what we can listen to, what websites we can visit, and what information we are allowed to consume. 

Given this, it is indeed true that it will be difficult to recover our individual liberty in the face of an ever more hysterical bunch of name calling, liberty curtailing, hateful tyrants known as the political left.)

But if there is any hope of redemption, it will have to begin with a clear recognition of how bad things are. U.S. democracy is very much on the edge. (Indeed, we know how bad things are, despite the rosy media accounts, and that's one reason Hillary lost. Trump represents change, the real change that "hope and change" Obama was either unwilling or unable to accomplish. 

Not only did you lose, Mr. Krugman, you lost big. Your antiquated ideas were rejected wholesale by the American people, who are wise enough to recognize that you leftists had your chance and couldn't deliver, even after decades of trying.)