as many people are pointing out, republicans now trying to distance themselves from donald trump need to explain why the tape was a breaking point, when so many previous incidents weren<u+2019>t. on saturday, explaining why he was withdrawing his endorsement, senator john mccain cited <u+201c>comments on prisoners of war, the khan gold star family, judge curiel and earlier inappropriate comments about women<u+201d> <u+2014> and that leaves out mexicans as rapists, calls for a muslim ban, and much more. so, senator mccain, what took you so long? one excuse we<u+2019>re now hearing is that the new revelations are qualitatively different <u+2014> that disrespect for women is one thing, but boasting about sexual assault brings it to another level. it<u+2019>s a weak defense, since mr. trump has in effect been promising violence against minorities all along. his insistence last week that the central park five, who were exonerated by dna evidence, were guilty and should have been executed was even worse than the tape, but drew hardly any denunciations from his party. and even if you consider sexual predation somehow uniquely unacceptable, you have to ask where all these pearl-clutching republicans were back in august, when roger ailes <u+2014> freshly fired from fox news over horrifying evidence that he used his position to force women into sexual relationships <u+2014> joined the trump campaign as a senior adviser. were there any protests at all from senior g.o.p. figures? of course, we know the answer: the latest scandal upset republicans, when previous scandals didn<u+2019>t, because the candidate<u+2019>s campaign was already in free fall. you can even see it in the numbers: the probability of a house republican jumping off the trump train is strongly related to the obama share of a district<u+2019>s vote in 2012. that is, republicans in competitive districts are outraged by mr. trump<u+2019>s behavior; those in safe seats seem oddly indifferent. meanwhile, the trump-ailes axis of abuse raises another question: is sexual predation by senior political figures <u+2014> which mr. ailes certainly was, even if he pretended to be in the journalism business <u+2014> a partisan phenomenon? just to be clear, i<u+2019>m not talking about bad behavior in general, which occurs among politicians (and people) of all political leanings. yes, bill clinton had affairs; but there<u+2019>s a world of difference between consensual sex, however inappropriate, and abuse of power to force those less powerful to accept your urges. that<u+2019>s infinitely worse <u+2014> and it happens more than we<u+2019>d like to think. take, for example, what we now know about what was happening politically in 2006, a year that nate cohn, the times<u+2019>s polling expert, suggests offers some lessons for this year. as mr. cohn points out, as late as september of that year it looked as if republicans might retain control of congress despite public revulsion at the bush administration. but then came the foley scandal : a member of congress, representative mark foley, had been sending sexually explicit messages to pages, and his party had failed to take any action despite warnings. as mr. cohn points out , the scandal seems to have broken the dam, and led to a democratic wave. but think about how much bigger that wave might have been if voters had known what we know now: that dennis hastert , who had been speaker of the house since 1999, himself had a long history of molesting teenage boys. why do all these stories involve republicans? one answer may be structural. the g.o.p. is, or was until this election, a monolithic, hierarchical institution, in which powerful men could cover up their sins much better than they could in the far looser democratic coalition. there is also, i<u+2019>d suggest, an underlying cynicism that pervades the republican elite. we<u+2019>re talking about a party that has long exploited white backlash to mobilize working-class voters, while enacting policies that actually hurt those voters but benefit the wealthy. anyone participating in that scam <u+2014> which is what it is <u+2014> has to have the sense that politics is a sphere in which you can get away with a lot if you have the right connections. so in a way it<u+2019>s not surprising if a disproportionate number of major players feel empowered to abuse their position. which brings us back to the man almost all senior republicans were supporting for president until a day or two ago. assuming that mr. trump loses, many republicans will try to pretend that he was a complete outlier, unrepresentative of the party. but he isn<u+2019>t. he won the nomination fair and square, chosen by voters who had a pretty good idea of who he was. he had solid establishment support until very late in the game. and his vices are, dare we say, very much in line with his party<u+2019>s recent tradition. mr. trump, in other words, isn<u+2019>t so much an anomaly as he is a pure distillation of his party<u+2019>s modern essence. charles blow is off today. read my blog, the conscience of a liberal , and follow me on twitter, @paulkrugman. follow the new york times opinion section on facebook and twitter (@nytopinion) , and sign up for the opinion today newsletter . a version of this op-ed appears in print on october 10, 2016, on page a21 of the new york edition with the headline: predators in  arms. today's paper | subscribe
predators in arms
noauthor