The New York Times
Paul Krugman
DEC. 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.
Consider what just happened in North Carolina. 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.
Combine this sort of thing with continuing efforts to
disenfranchise or at least discourage voting by minority groups, 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.
Why is this happening? 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 American values. And let’s be clear: This is a
Republican story, not a case of “both sides do it.”
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 does have
to do with class warfare — redistribution from the poor and the middle class to
the wealthy is a consistent theme of all modern Republican policies. But what
directly drives the attack on democracy, 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…
To access the complete news,
Para acceder a la noticia en ESPAÑOL en el diario EL PAÍS,
Los principales medios de comunicación en Estados Unidos (New York Time, Washington Post, entre ellos) han mentido tanto y ha publicado tantas falsa noticias en favor de la elite, que ella solita se ha ganado el nombre de "presstitute", contracción de press (prensa) y "prostitute".....Si a esto añadimos que en Estados Unidos existe el dicho de que "el principal requisito que se exige a un periodista que quiera hacer carrera en un gran medio de comunicación es tener un desprecio absoluto por la verdad", tenemos la razón por la que estos medios han perdido toda credibilidad y por la que la única prensa libre solo se encuentra en la prensa alternativa (digital), Estos es así en Estados Unidos y, desgraciadamente, también en Europa.
ResponderEliminar