大西洋雜誌：美國例外主義的餿敗

全文翻譯自大西洋雜誌7月3日文章

原題：The Souring of American Exceptionalism

作者：David Frum

譯者：冬天毛

冬天毛導讀：

對選舉人團系統有興趣的可以參考《雜談2 老爺贏大選系列（1） 關於田忌賽馬》。

最近公眾號開放了預設推送，冬天毛就可以克服時區（和不良作息習慣）給讀者姥爺們偶爾來個晚間推送了。本文將嘗試性地在北京時間7月4日晚7點自動推送，以後原則上信息類的、篇幅較短的會在早間推送，分析類的、篇幅較長的會在晚間推送，以符合讀者的閱讀時段需要。

另外，這陣子朗讀總感覺一口氣提不上來，這次正好大國慶的，就放首美國國歌當伴讀音樂聽吧（笑）。

大西洋雜誌（The Atlantic）是美國一本經典雜誌，於1857年創刊，是獲得美國國家雜誌獎（National Magazine Awards，自1966年開始每年頒發）次數最多的月刊。

（維基百科）

《星光燦爛的旗幟》：

正文：

Commitment to liberalism once distinguished the United States. Now it stands apart for the disregard of its elites for the troubles of so many of their fellow-citizens.

對自由主義的不離不棄曾一度使美國鶴立雞群，但如今使它與眾不同的，卻是國家精英對他們同胞公民困境的不管不顧。

Tomorrow, the Fourth of July, Americans will celebrate their independence, the birth of a free nation. Leading the celebrations will be a president mysteriously dependent on a foreign power—a president who lavishly praises dictators and publicly despises the institutions of freedom, not only the free press but also an independent judiciary and other constitutional restraints on his will.

明天就是獨立日，美國人將慶祝的是他們的獨立，以及一個自由國家的誕生。帶領人們歡慶節日的，是一位與外國勢力有著說不清道不明的關聯的總統——這位總統對獨裁者不吝讚美之詞，公開表達對自由制度的鄙薄，而且他厭惡的不光是媒體自由，也包括獨立的司法體系等等對他個人意願的法律約束。

This is a Fourth tinged with sad ironies. Can we put the occasion to any good use? Near the end of a much more terrible national ordeal, Abraham Lincoln urged Americans: "Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from.」 Good advice. We should try.

這是一次具有悲哀諷刺意義的國慶節。那我們能不能讓它起點正面作用呢？就在歷史上的另一場遠比今日更加可怕的國難（冬天毛註：指南北戰爭）臨近末尾時，亞伯拉罕·林肯曾這樣敦促美國人們：「故而，就讓我們探究這一次的事件，一如從哲學當中汲取智慧。」這建議不錯，我們應該試試。

A traditional theme of the rhetoric of the Fourth is the celebration of 「American exceptionalism.」 That phrase has acquired a boastful overtone, which is why President Obama famously handled it so diffidently. "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

在有關國慶節的論調中，對「美國例外主義」的讚美是一個傳統主題。人們在使用這個說法時，漸漸帶有了一股子自豪感，這也是為什麼奧巴馬總統的那句著名的發言要採用那麼靦腆的說法：「我相信美國例外主義，一如我懷疑英國人並不相信英國例外主義、希臘人並不相信希臘例外主義。」

「American exceptionalism" began its career, however, not as a boast, but as a question.

然而，「美國例外主義」最初並不是一種讚美，而是一種質疑。

「Why is there no socialism in the United States?」 asked a Marxist German in 1906. According to Marxist ideology, the United States—as the most highly developed capitalist nation—should have led the way toward proletarian class-consciousness. When that did not happen, Marxists squirmed to explain the deficiency away. Non-Marxists took up the inquiry after World War II. With a Labor government nationalizing railways and steelworks in Britain—Germany shattered by Nazism—and communism holding Russia, China, and half of Europe in its grip, the United States stood out as a lonely beacon of liberalism. Again America seemed a special case that needed explaining. This time the explanations came from fellow-liberals who admired the American exception, which is how the phrase acquired its secondary and more positive meaning.

一位德國的馬克思主義者（冬天毛註：維爾納·桑巴特，德國社會學家、思想家、經濟學家）曾在1906年提出這樣一個問題：「為什麼美國沒有社會主義？」根據馬克思主義的觀念，作為最發達的資本主義國家，美國本應帶頭孕育無產階級的階級意識。而當現實與理論產生出入時，馬克思主義者們為理論缺陷提供了牽強附會的解釋；二戰結束後，非馬克思主義者們接手了這個問題的研究。當工黨政府統治的英國將鐵路和鋼廠收歸國有（冬天毛註：1945-1951，克萊門特·艾德禮政府），德國毀於納粹主義，共產主義掌控了俄羅斯、中國以及半個歐洲時，美國卻鶴立雞群，成了一座自由主義的孤獨燈塔。美國似乎再次成了需要解讀的特例。這一次，對此給出解釋的是崇尚美國特例的自由主義者們，而「美國例外」這個說法也自此帶有了第二層、也是更加正面的含義。

Over the next decades, however, as both democracy and market economics became accepted facts across the developed world, the question changed form. Even pre-Trump, it was hard to argue that the United States was a consistently more liberal society than Germany or Britain, let alone Denmark or Canada. In some ways, yes: Free speech is more protected in the United States than other places. In some ways, no: The right to vote is better protected almost everywhere else in the democratic world than in the United States.

然而，在接下來幾十年里，隨著其他發達國家們漸漸接受了民主政體和市場經濟，並將它們視為常識，問題本身卻改變了形式。即便在特朗普時代之前，美國也很難說是一個處處都比德國或英國更青睞自由主義的社會，更別提丹麥或加拿大了。在某些方面，美國確實更加自由主義：美國對言論自由的保障是勝於其他國家的；在其他某些方面則並非如此：幾乎其他所有民主國家對投票權的保障都做得比美國更好。

But most of the compliments Americans paid themselves half a century ago ring hollow in the 21st century. In 2010, as a rising star in the Tea Party movement, Marco Rubio delivered the keynote address at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. He told his own inspiring personal story and credited it to the unique opportunities of the United States. "The result is an America where—which is the only place in the world where it doesn t matter who your parents were or where you came from. You can be anything you are willing to work hard to be. The result is the only economy in the world where poor people with a better idea and a strong work ethic can compete and succeed against rich people in the marketplace and competition.」 None of that is true, and in important ways it is the opposite of the truth. Who your parents were and where you came from matters probably more in the United States than in most other advanced economies, at least if statistics on upward mobility are to be believed.

然而，半個世紀前美國人們對自己的大部分讚美，在21世紀的今天都成了空洞之辭。2010年，作為茶黨運動中（冬天毛註：美國共和黨的一場政治運動，旨在要求政府減低開支以及減稅）一顆冉冉升起的政治新星，馬可·盧比奧在一年一度於華盛頓召開的保守政治行動會議上進行了主題演講。他講述了自己的勵志人生故事，並將其歸功於美國所提供的獨特機遇。「……結果就是產生了美國——美國是世界上唯一不看血統和出身的國家，只要肯努力，你就無所不能；結果就是產生了這個世界上唯一窮人可以依靠更優秀的理念和堅實的職業道德在市場和競爭中贏過富人的經濟體。」這當中沒一句是事實，而且它在要緊的方面與事實恰恰相反：如果上升流動性的相關數據確實無誤的話，美國恐怕要比其他大部分發達國家都更加看重血統和出身。

America』s uniqueness, even pre-Trump, was expressed as much through negative indicators than positive. It is more violent than other comparable societies, both one-on-one and in the gun massacres to which the country has become so habituated. It has worse health outcomes than comparably wealthy countries, and some of the most important of them are deteriorating further even as they improve almost everywhere else. America』s average levels of academic achievement lag those of other advanced countries. Fewer Americans vote—and in no other democracy does organized money count for so much in political life. A century ago, H.L. Mencken observed the American 「national genius for corruption,」 and (again pre-Trump) Transparency International』s corruption perceptions index ranks the U.S. in 18th place, behind Hong Kong, Belgium, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany—never mind first-place finishers Denmark and New Zealand.

即便在特朗普時代之前，美國的獨特性也更多地是由負面現象，而非正面現象來體現的。無論是直接對比還是單從那些日漸成為慣例的持槍殺戮事件來看，美國都比其他有可比性的國家更加暴力；美國的醫療健康成果比不上其他有可比性的富裕國家，並且其中最要緊的一些領域還在進一步惡化，而其他幾乎每一個國家在這些方面都在不斷改善；美國的人均學歷也落後於其他先進國家；美國人的投票率更低，而且組織資金（冬天毛註：小羅斯福使用的一個說法，泛指企業等為政治活動提供的資金，帶有強烈的負面意味）在美國政治生活中的重要性之大，其他任何民主國家都無法與之相提並論。一個世紀以前，H.L.孟肯（冬天毛註：知名記者、作者、文化評論家）就發現了美國人「貪腐的民族天賦」，而（也是在特朗普就職之前）透明國際的清廉印象指數將美國排在了全世界第18位，排在香港、比利時、澳大利亞、加拿大、荷蘭、英國和德國後面——更別說奪得頭名的丹麥和紐西蘭了。

As I said: pre-Trump. Now the United States has elected a president who seems much more aligned with—and comfortable in the company of—the rulers of Turkey, Hungary, Uzbekistan, and the Philippines than his counterparts in other highly developed countries.

我說了：這都是在特朗普上任前。比起其他高度發達國家的領袖，現在美國選的這個總統似乎和土耳其、匈牙利、烏茲別克和菲律賓的統治者是一類人，也更願意跟他們為伍。

That result forces a reshaping of the question of American exceptionalism.

這一結果也導致了美國例外主義問題本身的變形。

「Why was the United States vulnerable to such a person when other democracies have done so much better?」 Part of the answer is a technical one: The Electoral College, designed to protect the country from demagogues, instead elected one. But then we have to ask: How did Trump even get so far that the Electoral College entered into the matter one way or another?

「為什麼美國會讓這麼一個人有機可乘，而其他民主國家的表現卻比美國好這麼多？」答案的一部分是技術性的：美國的選舉人團制度原本是用來保護國家不受煽動政治家危害的，但這次它卻選了一個煽動政治家。但我們還是得再問一句：不管選舉人團制度對結果產生了什麼樣的影響，特朗普首先怎麼會得以走到讓選舉人團定勝負的那一步？

Thinking about that question forces an encounter with American exceptionalism in its most somber form. If, as I believe, Donald Trump arose because of the disregard of the American political and economic elite for the troubles of so many of their fellow-citizens, it has to be asked again: How could the leaders of a democratic country imagine they could get away with such disregard?

如果要思考這個問題，就不得不觸及美國例外主義的最灰暗形式。我相信，如果唐納德·特朗普的崛起是源於美國的政治經濟精英對他們身處困境的廣大公民同胞的棄之不顧的話，那麼我們就不得不再次提問：一個民主國家的領袖們怎麼能想像，他們採取的冷漠態度不會招致任何後果？

Nor has that elite learned its lessons. Look at the progress of the Republican health-care bill through the House and Senate. The authors of the bill are acutely aware of how despised it is, how much more despised it will be once it goes into effect: That』s precisely why they have broken through all normal legislative processes, why they do not hold hearings, why they conceal its elements, why they outright lie about its effect. Even so, only fewer than one in five Americans support what they wish to do. Rather than make any attempt to build consensus—never mind to make adjustments that could gain broader consent—a small leadership group is pushing through. Some of those leaders are dogmatically sure that they are correct, no matter what anybody else thinks. Others are heedless of consequences for anyone but their supporters and donors. Still others feel cynically certain that if they can prevail now against the numbers, they can use the inertia of the American system to prevent the large majority who opposed them from reversing their actions.

精英階層至今沒有學到教訓，看看共和黨醫療法案在參眾兩院的推進情況就知道了。這份法案的起草者們很清楚它有多招人恨，也知道它一旦生效會招來多少新的厭惡：也正是因為如此，他們才強行跳過了一切常規立法程序，不舉辦聽證會，掩蓋法案的要素，還在法案效果問題上公然撒謊。即便如此，也只有不到五分之一的美國人支持他們的目標計劃。沒有人試圖達成任何共識，更別說通過調整方案來贏得更廣泛的同意了，有的只是一個小小的領袖團體在強行推動法案通過。這些領袖中有的人是武斷地相信，不管他人怎麼想，自己都是正確的，也有人是對除了支持者和政治捐款人以外任何人面臨的結果都不管不顧，還有人是偏激地認為，只要現在能在數目上取勝，他們就能利用美國系統的慣性，防止那些反對他們的多數人將他們的行動成果一筆勾銷。

Only in America, as the saying goes. This Fourth of July, however, it is harder to say with pride.

就像人們說的，「唯有美利堅如此」。然而在這個七·四，這話很難自豪地說出口。

全文到此結束

聲明

冬天毛的一己之見是一個非盈利性微信公眾號，不接受任何形式的商業合作，務請見諒。

冬天毛譯文系列歡迎所有讀者留言；為了給讀者提供相對寬鬆的評論環境，任何不涉嫌影響公眾號運作的留言一律予以顯示。

冬天毛原則上不對譯文內容相關的留言發表評論，但歡迎讀者就辭彙用語提出疑問，冬天毛會盡量快速解答。

喜歡這篇文章嗎？立刻分享出去讓更多人知道吧！