Is the U.S. Senate Obsolete?

Is the U.S. Senate obsolete? If you read Paul Krugman’s Nov. 8 column in The New York Times, it would be hard to draw any other conclusion. What he is driving at is the need to reopen the 1787 weeks-long debate which ended in the Great Compromise. The issue was how to form a nation out of both small and large states. The smaller states feared they would be overpowered by the larger ones.
Unless a way could be found to address this problem, the small states were unwilling to go beyond the weak Articles of Confederation which loosely bound them together. In order to form the nation we have today, a structure had to be found.  It was an arduous task as the big states were set against giving the small states equal representation in a national government. This conundrum was finally resolved with the structure we have today, wherein each state has representation according to its population in the House of Representatives, and each state has two senators in the U.S. Senate.
So what is Krugman’s objective? What does he hope to achieve beyond what was achieved with the Great Compromise? The small states won’t be any more willing to be subsumed today by population-only representation than they were back then.
Is Krugman’s voice so insignificant that he should simply be ignored? Perhaps, but this does have somewhat the same scent as the ongoing complaint against the Electoral College, which takes into account both the population of each state and the integrity of each state. It, in some measure, protects small states from being totally marginalized by their larger sister states. 
Unfortunately, there is a lack of knowledge, or it may be condescension, on Krugman’s part toward the small states which colors his thinking.  He refers to populous states as Real America, having “large numbers of highly-educated adults,” versus the rest as having a “higher proportion of non-college people, and especially non-college whites. …which underweights the dynamic metropolitan areas that attract highly-educated workers.”
He adds, “What Donald Trump and his party are selling increasingly boils down to white nationalism — hatred, and fear of darker people, with a hefty dose of anti-intellectualism plus anti-Semitism.”
No doubt Krugman spent his life in the city, and sees things from that perspective. I have spent my life outside of the city, and naturally see things from that point of view. He appears to believe that “highly-educated adults” possess an improved perspective over those without such education. Accordingly, the highly-educated should not be subject to a government which is overly influenced by the less educated.  To that, I would say, Yes, if the students were being educated on how to think for themselves.
While the students are being well “trained” in their narrow field of study, far too many on campuses today are being taught what to think, not how to think for themselves. This begs the question, Which is worse, the intolerance of the rural folk, or the intolerance of freedom of thought of the university? I have observed a certain arrogance of big-city people, believing that they have things figured out, and accordingly look down on the error of the country people. The fact is both are blind to what they cannot see.
Krugman would reopen the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but where would he go with it? Would he propose the small states give up their Senate guarantee against domination by the large states? That would never fly peacefully with the smaller states. Would the majority of the population living in the large states, which tends to lean to the left, then turn to coercion? This is not improbable; we are now seeing it as the left is more and more turning to intimidation, compulsion, and bullying as it increasingly is losing faith in achieving its goals via free speech?  Note, this has been a pattern on the left in every country where it has gained power.
Mr. Krugman and our brothers on the left are entering dangerous territory.