美國(guó)兩黨制已名存實(shí)亡

Politicians rise and fall but some cannot quit the stage. “There were plenty of people hoping that I, too, would disappear,” writes Hillary Clinton. “But here I am.” Mrs Clinton’s three-month global book tour is her bid at redemption. But her “autopsy tour” on what happened to her 2016 campaign will only deepen the split between the Democratic party’s pragmatic wing and those trying to reinvent it as a European-style socialist party. Mrs Clinton versus Bernie Sanders. Haven’t we seen this drama already?

政客來了又去，但有些政客就是無法離開舞臺(tái)。“一些人希望我也消失，”希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)寫道，“但我還在這。”希拉里為期3個(gè)月的全球簽售之旅就是在試圖東山再起。但她對(duì)2016年總統(tǒng)大選經(jīng)歷的“剖析之旅”，只會(huì)加深民主黨的務(wù)實(shí)派和那些試圖把民主黨重新打造為歐洲式社會(huì)主義政黨的人之間的分歧。希拉里對(duì)伯尼•桑德斯(Bernie Sanders)。我們不是已經(jīng)看過這場(chǎng)戲了嗎?

Yes, but this is season two. We are also deep into the plot of the Republican civil war between the nativist populists, who are led by Stephen Bannon, Donald Trump’s former chief strategist, and its establishment, whose agenda is tax cuts. Partisans might ask whose side Mr Trump is on. They will never find out. Sometimes he will throw a bone to the alt-right. At others he will sound like a business chamber Republican. In reality, Mr Trump supports a brand of one. Those in search of his philosophical core should start with the Bermuda Triangle.

沒錯(cuò)，但這是第二季。共和黨內(nèi)戰(zhàn)這場(chǎng)戲也已進(jìn)入第二階段——共和黨本土主義民粹主義者對(duì)建制派，前者以唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)前首席戰(zhàn)略師史蒂夫•班農(nóng)(StephenBannon)為首，后者的首要議程是減稅。已經(jīng)選邊站的人們可能會(huì)問，特朗普站住哪一邊。他們永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)找到答案的。有時(shí)特朗普會(huì)賞另類右翼一塊糖。有時(shí)他又會(huì)站在代表商界利益的共和黨人立場(chǎng)上說話。事實(shí)上，特朗普自成一派。那些想知道特朗普的核心哲學(xué)的人，還不如先去研究百慕大三角(Bermuda Triangle)。

There was a time when the US had two functioning parties. That is no longer the case. I can now count four. Since Mr Trump has no fixed membership, the tally has risen temporarily to five. In last year’s primaries, the right populist and left populist candidates, Mr Trump and Mr Sanders, took more than half of the votes between them. If that were translated into seats, America’s traditional two parties would be in a minority. The picture would be closer to Emmanuel Macron’s France, where the Gaullists and Socialists are on the sidelines.

曾幾何時(shí)，美國(guó)有兩個(gè)正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)的政黨。這種情況已經(jīng)一去不復(fù)返了。我現(xiàn)在可以數(shù)出四個(gè)政黨。由于特朗普不固定屬于其中任何一個(gè)，這個(gè)數(shù)字已暫時(shí)升為五。在去年初選時(shí)，右翼民粹主義候選人特朗普和左翼民粹主義候選人桑德斯總共拿下了超過一半的選票。如果把選票轉(zhuǎn)化為席位，美國(guó)兩大傳統(tǒng)政黨會(huì)成為少數(shù)黨派。情況會(huì)更像埃馬紐埃爾•馬克龍(Emmanuel Macron)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的法國(guó)——如今戴高樂主義派(Gaullist)和社會(huì)黨(Socialist)被撇在一邊。

But American politics is doomed to limp on with the shell of two parties. Their contempt for each other is exceeded only by their antagonisms within. Neither of each party’s warring factions is strong enough to claim the whole. But they have enough clout to stop their rivals from doing so. Mrs Clinton’s return to the stage has brought the Democratic fissure into the open.

但是美國(guó)政治注定要背著兩黨制的外殼蹣跚前行。唯一超過兩黨對(duì)彼此的蔑視的東西，就是兩黨內(nèi)部不同派系的相互敵視。兩黨內(nèi)部相互打仗的派系，沒有一支能夠收服全黨。但它們有足夠的力量來阻止對(duì)手派系收服全黨。希拉里回歸政治舞臺(tái)，挑明了民主黨內(nèi)的分歧。

“I am not done with politics because I literally believe that our country’s future is at stake,” she said on Sunday. Mr Sanders retorted: “Our job now is really not to go backwards.”

“我沒有放棄政治，因?yàn)槲掖_實(shí)認(rèn)為我們國(guó)家的未來危在旦夕。”她上周日表示。桑德斯反駁道：“我們現(xiàn)在真的不應(yīng)該開倒車。”

Mr Sanders begins this week with his bill to have “Medicare for all” — a single payer healthcare system along the lines of those in France and Switzerland. The bill stands zero chance of being passed in a Republican-controlled Congress. But it serves as a perfect device for presidential hopefuls to signal to the party’s base which way they are heading.

桑德斯本周提出了他的“全民醫(yī)保”法案——和法國(guó)與瑞士的醫(yī)保體系類似的單一付費(fèi)者醫(yī)保體系。在目前由共和黨控制的國(guó)會(huì)，該法案通過的可能性為零。但有望當(dāng)上總統(tǒng)的人可以完美利用該法案向黨內(nèi)基礎(chǔ)選民表明，他們將朝哪個(gè)方向前進(jìn)。

Four other 2020 aspirants, including Elizabeth Warren, the senator from Massachusetts, are co-sponsoring the legislation. To Democratic centrists, such as Mrs Clinton, “Medicare for all” is the epitome of the gesture politics they despise. Mr Sanders has said nothing about how he would pay for the reform. Economists say it would require a huge tax increase.

其他四位有志于角逐2020年大選的人士——其中包括馬薩諸塞州參議員伊麗莎白•沃倫(Elizabeth Warren)——也支持該法案。對(duì)于希拉里這樣的民主黨中間派來說，“全民醫(yī)保法”是他們所鄙視的姿態(tài)政治的典型代表。桑德斯對(duì)這項(xiàng)改革的資金將來自哪里只字不提。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家表示這需要大幅增稅。

The gulf between “progressives who get things done”, as Mrs Clinton puts it, and those who pontificate but achieve little, is visible across the board. Sanders Democrats are closer to Mr Trump’s America First supporters on foreign policy than to Mrs Clinton’s mainstream globalism. Sanders Democrats dislike overseas entanglements to the point of having little opinion on foreign policy at all. Likewise, there is a growing schism on whether to treat Silicon Valley as friend or foe. Mrs Warren, who is vying with Mr Sanders to be the leader of the socialist Democrats, wants to break up big data titans like Facebook, Apple, Google and Amazon. Democratic centrists view such trust-busting with horror. Silicon Valley, after all, is their largest financial donor.

“干實(shí)事的進(jìn)步派”(用希拉里話來說)與高談闊論但一事無成者之間的分歧是全方位的。在外交政策上，桑德斯派民主黨人的觀點(diǎn)更貼近特朗普“美國(guó)優(yōu)先”(America First)主義支持者，而非希拉里的主流全球主義。桑德斯派民主黨人絲毫不愿摻和海外事務(wù)，以至于他們對(duì)外交政策幾乎沒有看法。同樣，在把硅谷當(dāng)作朋友還是敵人的問題上，民主黨內(nèi)部的分歧也日益加深。與桑德斯?fàn)帄Z民主黨社會(huì)主義派領(lǐng)袖之位的沃倫，希望分拆Facebook、蘋果(Apple)、谷歌(Google)和亞馬遜(Amazon)等大數(shù)據(jù)巨頭。民主黨中間派以恐懼的心態(tài)看待此類打破壟斷的打算。畢竟，硅谷是他們最大的金主。

Money is also splitting the Republicans. Mr Bannon’s jihad against the Republican establishment is funded by Robert Mercer, the hedge fund billionaire. They believe the party’s leaders have “nullified” Mr Trump’s America First agenda, and are busy funding populist challengers to Republican incumbents. In reality, each faction is competing for Mr Trump’s soul. The one point on which they agree is that he should not do deals with Democrats. On this they are at one with the Sanders wing of the Democratic party. Any Democrat who hands Mr Trump a win is likely to face similar insurgencies from the left.

金錢也在共和黨內(nèi)制造了裂痕。班農(nóng)對(duì)共和黨建制派的討伐，由對(duì)沖基金億萬(wàn)富翁羅伯特•默瑟(Robert Mercer)提供資金。班農(nóng)一派認(rèn)為，共和黨領(lǐng)袖已使特朗普的“美國(guó)優(yōu)先”議程變得“空洞無物”，這一派正忙于資助挑戰(zhàn)在任共和黨人的民粹主義者。實(shí)際上，兩個(gè)派系都在爭(zhēng)奪特朗普的心。他們都認(rèn)同的一點(diǎn)是，特朗普不應(yīng)該和民主黨達(dá)成交易。在這一點(diǎn)上，他們與民主黨桑德斯派的意見一致。任何讓特朗普勝一局的民主黨人，都可能會(huì)面臨來自左翼的類似暴動(dòng)。

If Mr Trump were another person, he could orchestrate this chaos to his ends. No president has inherited better conditions to realign US politics. But Mr Trump has the attention span of a goldfish. Mrs Clinton, meanwhile, has the memory of an elephant. She has launched a funding vehicle called “Onward together”. It sounds suspiciously like the “Stronger together” slogan she ran on last year. To put it mildly, the outlook for togetherness is not fair.

如果特朗普是另一個(gè)人，他或許能夠讓這場(chǎng)混亂為自己服務(wù)。再?zèng)]有別的總統(tǒng)享有這樣的絕好條件去再造美國(guó)政治了。但特朗普保持注意力的時(shí)間之短堪比金魚。與此同時(shí)，希拉里的記性之好堪比大象。她推出了名為“一起前進(jìn)”(Onward together)的籌資工具。這名字跟她去年的競(jìng)選口號(hào)“在一起更強(qiáng)大”(Stronger Together)極為相像，讓人感覺不妙。保守地說，“一起”事業(yè)的前景不算光明。