影響美國民主的深層次轉變
The deeper shiftsaffecting democracy in America
影響美國民主的深層次轉變
The Trump train特朗普號列車
Print edition |Books and arts
Jan 25th 2018
Two books look at the changes that Donald Trumphas wrought. That narrow view risks missing the larger picture
FRENCH railway crossings bear warning signsthat writers of books about Donald Trump shouldheed. 「One Train Can Hide Another」 their neatenamelplaques declare. The risks ofTrump-distraction are great, because the 45th president is such a spectacle—atooting, puffing, brass-and-steam-whistle commotion liable to draw all gazes,all the time. But a narrow focus on the man risks a potentially grave mistake:paying too little attention to large, slow-rolling yet remorseless politicalforces that were in motion long before Mr Trump chugged into view.
法國鐵路過境點設有警告標誌，撰寫有關唐納德·特朗普書的作者應該注意到這一點。在排列整齊的搪瓷牌匾上清楚地寫著「一列火車可以隱藏另一列」。特朗普分心的風險是巨大的，畢竟第45任總統很是出人意料——吹毛求疵的騷動也總是吸引所有的注視。但對這個人的狹隘關注可能會帶來一個潛在的嚴重錯誤：在特朗普進入視野之前，對大規模、緩慢而又無情的政治力量的關注太少。
Two new books about the president flirt withjust such an accident. For they share the same distracting aim: to prove thatMr Trump has already shown himself to be a proto-despot.
兩本關於總統的新書也只是為了這樣一個意外事件。因為他們有著相同的分散性目的：證明了特朗普已經顯示出了他作為一個原始霸主的形象。
The first, 「Trumpocracy」 by David Frum,devotes long pages to cataloguing alarming, deceitful and plain unseemly actsand statements by Mr Trump, his cronies and enablers. Mr Frum, a centristconservative who worked as a White House speechwriter for President George W.Bush, has a crisp way with words. 「A rule-of-law state can withstand a certainamount of officialcorruption. Whatit cannot withstand is a culture of impunity,」 he observes at one point, as hereminds readers that Mr Trump is the first president since Gerald Ford not torelease his tax returns in full, and the first ever to merge political andbusiness interests so unblushingly. The clear prose style is just as well, for「Trumpocracy」, which draws heavily on quotes from published news reports, canresemble a first draft of articles of impeachment.
第一本是大衛·弗拉姆的《特朗普式民主》，這本書用大段篇幅記錄了特朗普和他的親信及推動者之間令人震驚的、虛偽的和不得體的行為和言論。弗拉姆是一名中間保守派人士，並在喬治·布希總統在任期間擔任白宮自由撰稿人。他用犀利的言辭寫道：「法治國家可以承受一定數量的官員腐敗。但它無法抵擋的是有罪不罰的文化。」他在書中提醒讀者，特朗普是自傑拉爾德·福特以來第一位不能全面公開他的納稅申報的總統，也是第一個如此大膽的將政治和商業利益融合到一起的總統。
Grander, more didactic ambitions underpin asecond book, 「How Democracies Die」, by two Harvard professors, Steven Levitskyand Daniel Ziblatt. The pair are experts on populism, demagoguery andautocracy, notably in Europe and Latin America in the 19th and 20th centuries.Their aim is to warn Americans, in particular, that their republic—for all itsvaunted checks and balances—is not immune to the pathologies which, over theyears, have infected and diseased other democracies.
第二本書《民主如何消亡》更加宏偉且具有說教性，作者是哈佛大學教授史蒂文·列維茨基和丹尼爾·齊布拉特。兩位都是民粹主義，煽動和獨裁的專家，特別是在19世紀和20世紀的歐洲和拉丁美洲。他們的目的是警告美國人，共和黨人吹噓的制衡並不能免疫於那些多年來感染和患病的其他民主國家的病態。
Like Mr Frum, the professors correctly stressthe importance of unwritten norms that buttress the formal protections that areset out in America』s constitution and legal codes. Independent courts andagencies like the FBI have done much to defend the rule of law, they note. Buta surprisingly thin 「tissue of convention」, according to Aziz Huq and TomGinsburg, two constitutional scholars Mr Frum quotes, together with the courageof political leaders and members of Congress, are all that stand in the way ofa bad president who is determined to pack courts with loyal judges, or toappoint crooks to run nominally independent agencies.
和弗拉姆一樣，兩位教授也強調了不成文規範的重要性，這些規範支持了美國憲法和法律中規定的正式保護。他們指出，類似FBI的獨立法庭和機構為捍衛法製做了很多工作。但根據弗拉姆引述的兩位憲政學者阿齊茲·胡克和湯姆·金斯伯格的觀點，但令人驚訝的是薄「公約組織」與政治領導人的勇氣和國會議員，都阻礙了總統決心包法院與法官的忠誠，或者任命騙子名義上獨立的機構。
Mr Levitsky and Mr Ziblatt go beyond anxiousscanning for danger. They declare that, on the evidence, Mr Trump has probablycrossed the line from rough-around-the-edges populist to would-be strongman. MrFrum considers what is already known about Russian meddling in the election of2016, and bluntly concludes: 「A president beholden to Russia had been installedin the Oval Office.」
萊維特斯基和齊布拉特超越了對危險的擔憂。他們宣稱，有證據表明，特朗普很可能已經越過了從民粹主義到未來強人的界限。弗拉姆認為，俄羅斯對2016年大選的干預已經為人所知，並坦率地總結道：「橢圓辦公室里實際上是設置了一名依賴俄羅斯的總統。」
The professors take a more scholarlyapproach. They offer a neat table, setting out 「Four Key Indicators ofAuthoritarian Behaviour」 to help readers decide whether Mr Trump is anautocrat. The table is enough to make Trump-sceptics leap from their armchairsin happy vindication. Under the first heading, 「Rejection of (or weakcommitment to) democratic rules of the game」, readers find not just blatantdictator-conduct (backing military coups, cancelling elections) but a moresubtle last test, 「Do they attempt to undermine the legitimacy of elections,for example, by refusing to accept credible electoral results?」 Mr Trump hasrepeatedly and falsely suggested that he would have beaten Hillary Clinton in alandslide, had millions not illegally voted. Then there are Mr Trump』s attackson the press, and his snarling promises to tighten libel laws against what hecalls 「fake news」. Such statements trigger the professors』 fourth indicator:「Readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents, including media」.
教授們採取了更學術的方法。他們提供了一個簡潔的表格，列出了「四項威權行為的關鍵指標」，以幫助讀者判斷特朗普是否是個獨裁者。這張表格足以讓特朗普懷疑論者從他們的扶手椅上一躍而起，為自己辯護。在第一個標題「拒絕(或無力承擔)民主規則」下，讀者不僅發現了公然的獨裁行為(支持軍事政變，取消選舉)，還發現了一個更微妙的測試：「他們是否試圖破壞選舉的合法性，比如拒絕接受可信的選舉結果？」特朗普多次錯誤地暗示，他將以壓倒性優勢擊敗希拉里?柯林頓，造成數百萬人沒有非法投票。此外，還有特朗普對媒體的攻擊，他咆哮著承諾將加強反誹謗法，反對他所謂的「假新聞」。這樣的言論觸發了教授們的第四個指標：「準備削減包括媒體在內的反對者的公民自由」。
Alas, these catalogues and checklists aremore emotionally satisfying for Trump opponents (see, he is a tyrant, they canexclaim) than genuinely illuminating. Mr Trump says horrible, shameful thingsall too frequently. But he has not actually locked up opponents or sent thugsto smash printing presses. That makes for a puzzle. Is the president anautocrat, or does he just play one on TV? The puzzle is not solved by craftingpseudoscientific tests for autocracy that give equal weight to harsh words andmalign acts.
這些目錄和清單更能讓特朗普的反對者感到滿意，而不是真正的啟發。特朗普表示，可怕的、可恥的事情太頻繁了。但實際上他並沒有把對手鎖起來，也沒有派暴徒去砸印刷機。這就造成了一個難題。總統真的是一名獨裁者，還是他只是在電視上表現出這樣的形象？這一難題並沒有通過對專制的偽科學測試來解決，因為專制制度賦予了嚴厲的言辭和邪惡的行為同等的份量。
Both books are at their strongest whenexamining how Mr Trump flouts norms with impunity. Both ascribe the president』ssuccess to the similar insight that modern politics resembles a form of tribalwarfare. What a leader does matters less than whom he is for, and above all,whom he is against.
這兩本書都是在研究特朗普如何藐視規範而不受懲罰的時候表現得最為強勁。兩者都將總統的成功歸因於類似的見解，即現代政治類似於一種部落戰爭。重要的不是一個領導者所做的事情是為了誰，重要的是，他反對誰。
For much of the 20th century, the professorswrite, politics worked because most practitioners subscribed to two vitalnorms. First, mutual tolerance, or the understanding that competing partiesaccept one another as legitimate. Second, forbearance, or the idea thatelection-winners exercise some restraint when wielding power, rather thantreating politics like war.
教授寫道，在20世紀的大部分時間裡，政治運作是因為大多數實踐者都贊同兩個重要的規範。首先，相互容忍，或相互理解，相互競爭的各方都認為對方是合法的。第二，寬容，或者認為選舉贏家在行使權力時行使一定的剋制，而不是像對待戰爭一樣對待政治。
Not Mr Trump. Mr Frum describes the presidentin near-animal terms, as sniffing out his opponents』 weaknesses—「low energy」,「little」, 「crooked」—in the same way that he instinctively sensed the weak pointin modern politics: 「that Americans resent each other』s differences more thanthey cherish their shared democracy」.
不是特朗普。弗拉姆從類似動物的角度描述這名總統，他能捕捉到對手的弱點，低能量，小而扭曲，就像他本能地意識到到現代政治中的弱點一樣：「美國人對彼此的不同感到憤恨，而不是他們珍視他們共同的民主。」
Neither book flinches from tracing the rolethat race, class, education and culture play in what are ostensibly politicalarguments. Mr Levitsky and Mr Ziblatt offer the troubling thought that thenorms of civility and compromise seen in Washington between the end ofReconstruction and the 1980s rested, uncomfortably, on racial exclusion.Southern whites did such an effective job of disenfranchising freed slaves soonafter the civil war that black turnout in South Carolina plunged from 96% in1876 to 11% in 1898, as voting curbs bit. As a result, many southern statesendured what amounted to decades of authoritarian single-party rule. As theprofessors bluntly put it: 「It was only after 1965 that the United States fullydemocratised.」 The parties have been sorting themselves along racial and classlines ever since.
兩本書都沒有追溯種族、階級、教育和文化在表面上的政治爭論中所扮演的角色。萊維茨基和齊布拉特提出了這樣一個令人不安的想法，即在重建和1980年代結束之間，華盛頓所看到的文明和妥協規範令人不安地停留在種族排斥上。在南北戰爭中，南方白人的黑人投票率從1876年的96％下降到1898年的11％，這是南方白人在南北戰爭中解放了被剝奪奴隸的有效工作。結果，許多南方國家忍受了數十年獨裁式的單一政黨統治。教授們直言不諱地說：「直到1965年，美國才完全民主化」。自那以後，各方一直在按照種族和階級界限進行分類。
Neither book blames all American ills onracism—they are more nuanced than that. But the authors of both do argue, ineffect, that America has never tried to maintain democratic norms in a demos asdiverse as today』s. Unless that can be fixed, it is a grave threat to therepublic. Keep it in sight, even as the Trump Express flashes dangerously past.
這兩本書都沒有把所有的美國的弊病歸咎於種族主義——它們比這更微妙。但兩位作者都認為，實際上，美國從來沒有試圖在像今天這樣多樣化的演示中維護民主規範。除非這個問題能夠解決，否則這對共和國是一個嚴重的威脅。即使在特朗普號快車閃過危險之後，也要將其保持在視線之內。
【Vocabulary】
heed:
verb[VN]
? (formal) to pay careful attention to sb"s advice or warning
?留心,注意,聽從(勸告或警告)
【SYN】take notice of
enamel:
noun
1. [U, C] a substance that is melted onto metal, pots, etc. and forms a hardshiny surface to protect or decorate them; an object made from enamel
?搪瓷；琺琅；搪瓷製品:
?a chipped enamel bowl
脫落搪瓷的碗
?an exhibition of enamels and jewellery
搪瓷藝術品和珠寶首飾展覽
2. [U] the hard white outer layer of a tooth
? (牙齒的)琺琅質,釉質
3. (alsoe7namel"paint)[U, C] a type of paint that dries to leave a hard shiny surface
?瓷漆；瓷釉
corruption：
noun
1. [U] dishonest or illegal behaviour, especially of people in authority
?腐敗；貪污；賄賂；受賄:
?allegations ofbribery and corruption
對賄賂與貪污的指控
?The new district attorney has promised to fight police corruption.
新上任的地方檢察官承諾要與司法腐敗作鬥爭。
2. [U] the act or effect of making sb change from moral to immoral standards ofbehaviour
?使墮落；腐蝕:
?He claimed that sex and violence on TV led to the corruption of young people.
他斷言電視中所宣揚的色情與暴力誘使青少年墮落。
翻譯：紙糊糯米團
TAG:英語佳苑 |