美國(guó)民主不是電視真人秀
顯而易見，為什么這么多美國(guó)人動(dòng)了心。正如奧普拉•溫弗瑞(Oprah Winfrey)在金球獎(jiǎng)(Golden Globes)典禮上發(fā)表的演講體現(xiàn)出來的，她具備一切唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)不具備的特質(zhì)。
Unlike Mr Trump, Ms Winfrey is a certified billionaire. She made her name by marketing empathy as opposed to saying “you’re fired”. She donates to charitable causes rather than pretending to do so. And she is self-made while Mr Trump was born in a feathered nest. But they share a disqualifying trait: they are celebrities with no experience in politics. If Ms Winfrey is the answer to Mr Trump, what was the question?
和特朗普不同，溫弗瑞是一個(gè)合格的億萬富翁。她依靠營(yíng)銷共鳴出名，而不是靠說“你被解雇了”。她向慈善事業(yè)捐款，而不是假裝做慈善。溫弗瑞是白手起家，而特朗普出生于富貴之家。但兩人都有一個(gè)不夠格的特質(zhì)：他們都是沒有政治經(jīng)驗(yàn)的名人。如果溫弗瑞是解決特朗普問題的答案，那問題又是什么呢?
I mean no disrespect to famous people. America invented the celebrity and nobody does it as well. But America also came up with modern democracy. The problem is that celebrity culture is taking over politics, which is a dead loss for governing. If politics were a popularity contest, Ms Winfrey would deserve to win. Against Mr Trump, she would merit a North Korean-style 100 per cent turnout. But there is nothing in Ms Winfrey’s background that would equip her to tackle the future of work, or the rise of China. All a Winfrey administration would bring is personal brand destruction.
我無意冒犯名人。“名人”的概念誕生在美國(guó)，在這一點(diǎn)上美國(guó)無出其右。但美國(guó)也是現(xiàn)代民主的發(fā)源地。問題在于，名人文化正逐漸凌駕于政治之上，而這種文化對(duì)國(guó)家治理毫無用處。如果政治比拼的是人氣，溫弗瑞理應(yīng)獲勝。如果對(duì)戰(zhàn)特朗普，她的得票率會(huì)達(dá)到朝鮮式的百分之百。但看一看溫弗瑞的資歷，其中并沒有什么東西讓她有能力應(yīng)對(duì)就業(yè)的未來，或者中國(guó)的崛起。溫弗瑞入主白宮只能導(dǎo)致她個(gè)人名譽(yù)掃地。
What is at stake is America’s ability to govern itself sensibly. The US constitution was designed to exclude mob rule. The people should have their say — but with safeguards. It was set up precisely to stop someone like Mr Trump from taking over. The fact that many Americans do not know this underlines the point. The popular view is that the US was founded as a democracy. In fact, it was born as a constitutional republic. There is a big difference. America’s founding fathers feared the demagogue. Their system worked until 2016. Now it is in jeopardy.
真正處于生死存亡關(guān)頭的是美國(guó)理性治理的能力。美國(guó)憲法的設(shè)計(jì)初衷是為了避免暴民統(tǒng)治。人民理應(yīng)有發(fā)言權(quán)——但是要配上保護(hù)手段。美國(guó)憲法的目的就是為了防止特朗普這樣的人掌權(quán)。很多美國(guó)人并不知道這一點(diǎn)，這就愈發(fā)凸顯出其重要性。大眾普遍認(rèn)為，美國(guó)是作為一個(gè)民主國(guó)家建立起來的。實(shí)際上，美國(guó)是作為一個(gè)憲政共和國(guó)誕生的。二者截然不同。美國(guó)國(guó)父?jìng)儞?dān)心的就是蠱惑人心和煽動(dòng)民眾的政客。他們創(chuàng)造的體系直到2016年之前都行之有效。如今卻岌岌可危。
Ms Winfrey’s ascent would seal America’s fate as a country that no longer takes politics seriously. If the answer to Mr Trump is to fight celebrity with celebrity, the idea of public service would die. For all her virtues, Ms Winfrey is no readier for power than Mr Trump. By contrast, Ronald Reagan, who was twice elected as governor of California and had once before run for the nomination, was qualified for high office. He began life as an actor but he did not reach the White House because of that. A life in politics taught Mr Reagan the art of compromise. Politics is about spending capital to achieve messy results. Being a celebrity is about protecting your brand.
溫弗瑞如果上位，將決定美國(guó)的命運(yùn)，使美國(guó)成為一個(gè)不再認(rèn)真對(duì)待政治的國(guó)家。如果特朗普問題的答案是讓名人對(duì)戰(zhàn)名人，公共服務(wù)的理念將蕩然無存。盡管溫弗瑞有種種優(yōu)點(diǎn)，她卻不比特朗普有更充分的準(zhǔn)備接掌權(quán)力。相比之下，羅納德•里根(Ronald Reagan)兩度當(dāng)選加利福尼亞州州長(zhǎng)，并曾參加過總統(tǒng)候選人提名的角逐，他是有資格當(dāng)總統(tǒng)的。里根雖出身演員，但入主白宮卻不是靠演員的名頭。政治生涯教會(huì)里根妥協(xié)的藝術(shù)。政治就像是花錢卻得到亂糟糟的結(jié)果。當(dāng)名人則是要維護(hù)自己的聲譽(yù)。
Perhaps America is too far gone to stop the celebrity takeover. Other democracies offer warning signs. In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi is staging a comeback. The octogenarian is in with another chance of power in Italy’s next election a few weeks from now. Having elected him on previous occasions, Italy’s standards are permanently lowered. The Roman pantomime has become normal. In Germany, by contrast, politics is still safely boring. Because of its history, Germany is better inoculated than most to the siren song of celebrity. In the past, western democracies built walls between church and state. The wall we need today is one that would separate entertainment from governing.
美國(guó)也許已經(jīng)深陷名人文化之中，無力阻止名人當(dāng)政。然而其它民主國(guó)家也出現(xiàn)了危險(xiǎn)的跡象。在意大利，西爾維奧•貝盧斯科尼(Silvio Berlusconi)正卷土重來。在意大利未來幾周舉行的下一屆選舉中，這位八旬老翁有機(jī)會(huì)再次掌權(quán)。貝盧斯科尼之前已經(jīng)當(dāng)選了幾次，導(dǎo)致意大利對(duì)掌權(quán)者的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)永久性降低。在羅馬，人們對(duì)鬧劇已司空見慣。相比之下，德國(guó)政治依舊令人乏味但穩(wěn)妥。由于歷史原因，德國(guó)比大多數(shù)國(guó)家更能抵抗名人危險(xiǎn)的誘惑力。過去，西方民主國(guó)家建立了隔開宗教與政府的墻。如今我們需要一堵隔開娛樂與國(guó)家治理的墻。
But let us suppose that is impossible. What would happen in a 2020 face off between Mr Trump and Ms Winfrey? The first casualty would be the Democratic party. By nominating Ms Winfrey, it would have conceded the argument that democracy is a reality television show. Today there is still one party that values expertise. Tomorrow there may be none.
假設(shè)我們無法建立這樣一堵墻。如果特朗普和溫弗瑞在2020年對(duì)決，會(huì)發(fā)生什么呢?民主黨將成為第一個(gè)受害者。提名溫弗瑞為總統(tǒng)候選人就意味著民主黨承認(rèn)民主是一場(chǎng)電視真人秀。今天還有一個(gè)政黨是重視專業(yè)技能的。明天可能就一個(gè)也不剩了。
The second casualty would be Ms Winfrey. The Trump machine would scour her biography for any mud that would stick. In a contest between brands, Mr Trump would relish the prospect of taking on a rich, black liberal woman. He might well win. Even if Ms Winfrey won, the contest would entrench culture war as the dominant mode of US politics. Culture wars are a zero-sum game. Even when you win, you are losing.
溫弗瑞將是第二個(gè)受害者。特朗普將動(dòng)用一切力量從溫弗瑞的生平里搜尋她難以洗脫的污點(diǎn)。在一場(chǎng)名人品牌之戰(zhàn)中，特朗普將享受與一個(gè)自由主義的富有黑人女性較量的場(chǎng)景。他還是有可能勝出。就算溫弗瑞贏了，這場(chǎng)較量將使文化之戰(zhàn)成為美國(guó)政治根深蒂固的主要模式。文化之戰(zhàn)是零和游戲。就算你贏了，你其實(shí)也輸了。
The only time Ms Winfrey dabbled in politics was when she endorsed Barack Obama in 2008. I was at that New Hampshire event. “You are the one,” said Ms Winfrey of Mr Obama. It was an electrifying moment. Mr Obama was also accused of lacking experience. Compared to Ms Winfrey, he was a veteran. Ten years on, Mr Obama would be a good sounding board for Ms Winfrey. If his advice is wrong, she should listen to Nancy Pelosi, the most seasoned Democratic legislator. “One of the arguments for Oprah is 45,” she said — in reference to Mr Trump as America’s 45th president. “One of the arguments against Oprah is 45.” Which was Ms Pelosi’s way of saying: “Stick to your day job.” That was smart advice.
此前溫弗瑞唯一一次涉足政治還是在2008年她支持奧巴馬的時(shí)候。他們?cè)谛潞辈际矤栔菖e辦活動(dòng)的時(shí)候我就在場(chǎng)。當(dāng)時(shí)溫弗瑞稱贊奧巴馬：“您就是被選中的人。”那是一個(gè)激動(dòng)人心的時(shí)刻。奧巴馬也曾被指責(zé)缺乏經(jīng)驗(yàn)，但與溫弗瑞比，他已經(jīng)算政治老手了。十年過去了，奧巴馬可以為溫弗瑞當(dāng)個(gè)好顧問。如果他的建議不對(duì)，溫弗瑞應(yīng)該聽取最資深的民主黨議員南希•佩洛西(Nancy Pelosi)的意見。“45是支持奧普拉的理由之一，”她說(特朗普是第45任美國(guó)總統(tǒng))，“45也是反對(duì)奧普拉的理由之一。”佩洛西是在用她的方式表達(dá)：“做好自己的本職工作吧。”多睿智的建議啊。
