Paul Krugman's "Senate America": does the white working class have an unfair political advantage?

Earlier this month, New York Times' Paul Krugman published what I would consider to be a somewhat controversial opinion titled Real America Versus Senate America. According to the Nobel Prize-winning economist, there should be a major distinction between largely metropolitan "real America" and primarily rural "Senate America."

I find it helpful to contrast the real America, the place we actually live, with what I think of as “Senate America,” the hypothetical nation implied by a simple average across states, which is what the Senate in effect represents.

As I said, real America [while it contains small towns] is mainly metropolitan; Senate America is still largely rural.

Real America is racially and culturally diverse; Senate America is still very white.

Real America includes large numbers of highly educated adults; Senate America, which underweights the dynamic metropolitan areas that attract highly educated workers, has a higher proportion of non-college people, and especially non-college whites.

Krugman points out that the Senate gives Wyoming—a state with 600,000 residents—the same representation as California—a state with 4 million residents—resulting in a drastic overweight of rural areas and underweight of metropolitan areas where most of us live. This underrepresentation of American reality is allegedly to blame for the Democrats' recent Senate losses—which disproportionately occurred in states Donald Trump won in 2016. According to Krugman, the Administration's nationalist message of hatred and fear towards darker people, anti-intellectualism and anti-Semitism resonates with a minority of Americans. These Americans are, "of course white," and are likely to reside outside of large racially diverse metropolitan areas because:

Racial animosity and fear of immigration always seem to be strongest in places where there are few nonwhites and hardly any immigrants.

And according to Krugman's theory, it is precisely these places that have a disproportionate role in choosing senators.

Even though real (metropolitan) America contains large numbers of highly educated people and attracts dynamic industries such as Amazon with its existing "deep pool of talent," and (rural) Senate America attracts non-educated racist white nationalists, do not worry—Krugman clarifies that his assessment is not meant to offend white working-class voters!

None of this is meant to denigrate rural, non-college, white voters. We’re all Americans, and we all deserve an equal voice in shaping our national destiny.

Yet, his brash approach appears to deepen the already existing divide between rural white voters and liberal Democrats (see here and here). So, does Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist and distinguished professor, have a point? Well, his theory does explain why Trump lost the popular vote by an astounding 2.8 million votes but was nonetheless elected by the electoral college. It also explains why most media outlets, which cater to the majority of the population, speak unfavorably of (and are sometimes perplexed by) the white-working-class. But the reality is that this is the state of our democracy and short of changing the Constitution—not a small feat—will remain as such. I therefore question whether Krugman's tactics are proper, and so did other readers.

Chris Perkins from Bonne Terre, Missouri writes in a letter to the editor:

As a resident of “Senate America,” I shouldn’t be surprised by Mr. Krugman’s column. It’s simply more confirmation that when results don’t go the way the leftist elites want, they start talking about unconstitutional desires. The Senate was designed to prevent the very thing Mr. Krugman wants: large population centers (like New York, California and Illinois) being able to ignore the wishes of the rest of the nation. 

[...] 

My suggestion to liberal elites like Mr. Krugman would be this: Quit whining about how stupid the voters are and work harder to convince us in flyover country that your policy beliefs are the best way forward for our nation. I promise that I will work harder to convince you that your policy beliefs are wrong.

Similarly, Leonard Breslow from Chevy Chase, Maryland writes:

[U]ntil the Constitution is amended, [this] is the reality we have to live with. Rather than bemoaning the influence of rural America, Mr. Krugman might consider deploying his exemplary expertise as a Nobel Prize-winning economist to address the problems facing rural America. By treating rural Americans as fellow Americans, rather than as adversaries, Mr. Krugman might come to convince them of the wisdom of his political perspective.

Even Rob Merges, law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, comments how unlikely changing the Constitution is.

The very divisions necessitating amendments would surely show themselves, probably more fiercely, during the amendment process.

He suggests that instead, Democrats should become strong "states rights advocates" to win back the support of the white-working-class.

I like Professor Merges approach. Like he suggests, a change in policy

sure sounds like a better way to go than screaming at each other for the next 50 years.

See, a related post on More conflation of the rural-urban divide with the racial divide--and more divisive language about what constitutes the "real" America.