作者：马丁•沃尔夫  来源：FT中文网

　　纵身一跃，美国总统唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)就自由了。赤裸裸的党派之争在意料之中，参议院共和党人（除了米特•罗姆尼(Mitt Romney)）放弃了宪法赋予他们作为法官审判特朗普涉嫌滥用权力的职责。他们将这个决定交给选民推迟到11月总统大选时再做。特朗普将拥有许多优势：热情的支持者；一个团结的政党；总统选举团；还有一个健康的经济。他的连任似乎是有可能的。
　　特朗普可能赢得连任最明显的原因是经济。即使以他的标准来说，上周的国情咨文(State of the Union)演说也是充满夸张的夸大其词。正如诺贝尔经济学奖得主约瑟夫•斯蒂格利茨(Joseph Stiglitz)指出的那样，以其他国家的标准衡量，美国的表现在一些重要方面依然很差，尤其是在预期寿命、就业率和不平等方面。此外，产出、就业、失业和实际工资在很大程度上只不过是在延续危机后的趋势。考虑到财政刺激的规模——它带来了巨大且持久的结构性财政赤字，这不是什么了不起的成就。尽管如此，许多美国人将感觉经济正在改善。这肯定会在未来的选举中发挥巨大作用。
　　如果特朗普连任，那么这次胜利很可能比他的第一次胜利更加重要。美国人民两次选择一名典型的煽动者不能被当作一场意外。这将是一个决定性的时刻。
　　特朗普获胜最明显的影响将在于美国的自由民主。总统认为，他在任时所做的一切都凌驾于对法律或者国会的责任之上。他认为自己只对选民负责（或者说，只对他的选民负责）。他还认为，他的政府的任命成员、公务员以及他所在政党的民选官员都应该忠于他本人，而不是任何更高的事业。
　　美国开国元勋们害怕的就是这样的人。亚历山大•汉密尔顿(Alexander Hamilton)在《联邦党人文集》(Federalist Papers)的第一篇中写道：“在颠覆共和自由的那帮人当中，大多数人是靠讨好人民发家的，他们以煽动人心发家，以专制统治收场。”在这一点上，他追随了柏拉图(Plato)，柏拉图曾写道，作为人民的守护者获得权力的人可能变成“一只狼——一个暴君”。乔治•华盛顿(George Washington)1796年在其告别演说中表示，“（党派之争）导致的混乱和痛苦，会逐渐使人们倾向于寻求个人绝对权力下的安全和平静。”党派之争在当今的美国显然是非常普遍的。
　　我们不知道特朗普想走多远，也不知道这个共和国的制度会让他走多远。然而，除了失去选民的忠诚，特朗普还能做什么来说服参议院多数党领袖米奇•麦康奈尔(Mitch McConnell)背叛他呢？重要的不是制度，而是为制度服务的人。
　　即使这个伟大的共和国基本上安然无恙地渡过了这次审判（这是乐观的看法），这个人——一个煽动者、民族主义者、无法自制的说谎者和暴君崇拜者——再次当选也将对全世界产生重要影响。
　　专制者将特朗普视为志趣相投的人。自由民主党人会感到更加被抛弃。西方是一个有道德基础的联盟的观念将会消失。它充其量只是一个寻求保持其全球地位的富裕国家集团。作为一名民族主义者，他将继续不喜欢和鄙视欧盟，因为欧盟既是对抗美国的理想力量，也是与美国抗衡的经济力量。
　　美国国防部代理助理部长大卫•海尔维(David Helvey)最近写道，中国和俄罗斯对“基于规则的秩序”怀有敌意。这个理想的确很重要。遗憾的是，“基于规则的秩序”最强大的敌人现在是他自己的国家，因为它一直依赖美国的远见和能量。凭借其重商主义和双边主义，特朗普将知识和道德导弹瞄准了全球贸易体系。他甚至把自己的国家视为美国所塑造秩序的最大受害者。因此，问题不在于特朗普什么都不相信，而在于他所相信的往往是错误的。
　　更广泛地说，他的短期交易主义和动用所有美国权力工具的意愿，不仅给各国政府，也给各个企业造成了一个不稳定和不可预测的世界。这种不确定性也可能在特朗普第二任期变得更糟。任何形式的国际法治能否继续存在是一个未知数。
　　我们需要应对巨大的实际挑战。一是美国与中国复杂而令人担忧的关系。然而，在这一点上，特朗普远非最鹰派的美国人。他有实用主义的倾向。他喜欢做交易，不管交易有多不成熟。
　　也许最重要的问题（如果撇开避免核战争不谈）是全球公域的管理——首先是大气层和海洋。关键问题是气候和生物多样性。没有多少时间来应对两者受到的威胁了。敌视这些事业和全球合作理念的新一届特朗普政府，将使必要的行动变得不可能。很多时候，本届政府似乎甚至不承认公共产品是一类值得关注的挑战。
　　我们正经历着历史上的一个关键时刻。世界需要异常智慧和有合作精神的全球领导。我们目前还没有。期待它可能是愚蠢的。但特朗普的连任很可能标志着决定性的失败。注意：2020年很关键。

来源时间：2020/2/14   发布时间：2020/2/12

旧文章ID：20711

作者：从余启  来源：我与我们的世界

　　本期导读：2020年美国总统选举于2020年11月3日举行，此次是美国第59届总统选举，同时众议院全部435个席位及参议院33个议席也会进行改选以产生美国第117届国会。
　　民主党之前参选的希拉里·克林顿（曾参选2016年美国总统选举，但在选举人票败于唐纳德·特朗普）后来已表态不参选。另一位潜在参选人是星巴克咖啡的董事长和执行长霍华德·舒尔茨，但他还没正式参选便已遭受示威者当面破口大骂而被传媒广泛报导。
　　截至2019年5月中旬，5个民主党人的支持度较其余的党友为高：乔·拜登、伯尼·桑德斯、伊丽莎白·华伦、贺锦丽、皮特·布塔朱吉，贝托·欧洛克的支持度下跌至低于5%。截至6月初，布塔朱吉的支持度升至第3，但亦有报导指华伦（15%）的支持度比布塔朱吉（14%）略高。

　　2019年8月有报导指拜登支持度下跌，桑德斯支持度平稳，华伦支持度上升，贺锦丽（8%）返回第4[11]，甚至有报导指拜登被华伦超前了[12]。截至11月中旬，以下5人支持度较高：拜登（20%）、华伦（16%）、布塔朱吉（15%）、桑德斯（14%）、加巴德（6%），贺锦丽下跌至3%。12月中旬，布塔朱吉支持度明显下跌，支持度顺序是拜登、桑德斯、华伦。

　　2020年2月初的艾奥瓦州初选由于技术问题还没有决定谁胜，只显示这些人输了：华伦(18%)、拜登(15%)、克罗布彻(12%)。

　　The Democratic primaries will be a contest between radicals and repairers. The repairers have the better case.
　　美国大选民主党初选选战，将是“激进派”与“修复派”之间的对决，且“修复派”前景看好。

It was a devastating contrast. As the Iowa caucus turned into a fiasco (Democrats blamed the software), President Donald Trump hailed an “American comeback” in the state-of-the-union message and basked in his acquittal by the Senate over impeachment. 

With the economy roaring and his approval ratings ticking up, Mr Trump looks likelier than ever to triumph in November. Compare that with the Democrats after Iowa, in which no candidate won the backing of much more than a quarter of caucusers.

Democrats agree that ending Mr Trump’s bombastic tenure is their priority. But their champions, now trudging round New Hampshire eking out votes before next week’s primary, are starkly divided over what to offer Americans in his place. The left argues that America has stopped working for most people and thus needs fundamental restructuring. Moderates recommend running repairs. A lot rests on which side prevails—the radicals or the repairers.

Any of the front-runners could yet end up as the nominee: the radicals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren; or the repairers, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden (despite his bad day in Iowa). So at a pinch could Michael Bloomberg, another repairer, who is spending gargantuan sums before Super Tuesday next month. But on every count the repairers have the better of the argument. They are more likely to beat Mr Trump, to achieve things and, most important, to do what America needs.

It is striking that all of the plausible nominees are campaigning to the left of President Barack Obama in 2012 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. They all have ambitious plans on climate change; and, with the exception of Mr Bloomberg, are sceptical of free trade. Nevertheless, Mr Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist, and Ms Warren, a capitalist, are distinctly more militant in both style and substance.

This is partly a matter of degree, as health policy shows. All Democrats want the number of Americans without health insurance, which has risen from 27m to 30m under Mr Trump, to be reduced, ideally to zero. The repairers would expand Obamacare’s market-based system until everyone was covered. Mr Sanders and Ms Warren, by contrast, would nationalise health insurance, revolutionising health care, a $3.8trn business accounting for 18% of GDP and which employs 16.6m people.

There is also a fundamental difference about the role of government. Take labour rights, for instance. All Democrats evoke a mythical golden age when people were rewarded fairly for a day’s work. The reformers would increase minimum wages to, say, $15 an hour and spend more on education and retraining. The radicals would force any largish firm to put workers on its board—Ms Warren would give their representatives 40% of the seats, Mr Sanders 45%. Mr Sanders would require firms to transfer 20% of their equity to workers’ trusts. 

Both would create a system of federal charters to oblige firms to operate in the interests of all stakeholders, including workers, customers and the local community as well as shareholders. Such a government-mandated shift in corporate power has never occurred in the United States.

This radicalism is based on three misconceptions. The first is that Mr Trump showed in 2016 that you win elections through the fervour of your base rather than making a coalition. That is unlikely to work for Democrats in 2020. 

Presidential elections tend not to be kind to candidates who pitch their camp far from the political centre（中庸之道乃正道）. Voters perceived Hillary Clinton as more extreme than Donald Trump in 2016, and it did not end well for her. In a 50:50 country, marginal handicaps matter.

Mr Trump would have fun with Mr Sanders, who wishes to double federal spending overnight and, perhaps more important to the president, honeymooned in the Soviet Union. It was no accident that in his state-of-the-union message Mr Trump pointed to Juan Guaidó, the Venezuelan opposition leader who was his guest for the evening, and reminded Congress that “socialism destroys nations”. 

Few voters are hankering to own the means of production in suburban Philadelphia or Milwaukee, where the presidential election will probably be decided.

Another misconception is that a radical who did get into the Oval Office would accomplish much. Some Democrats say that the intransigence of the Republican Party means an approach built around compromise is worthless. The pursuit of incremental change, they reckon, is an admission of defeat at the outset. 

They are right that the two parties in Congress have forgotten how to work together. Today’s Senate is likely to accomplish less than any other in the past half-century. Their idea is to take on Mr Trump’s reality-TV populism with red-blooded economic populism. 

That might thrill activists and terrify Wall Street, but it would be both unproductive and self-defeating. Democrats believe in the role of government. They are condemned to try to make it work, not demonstrate that it cannot.

The last misconception, and the most important, concerns the substance of what the radicals would like to achieve. Ms Warren takes her faith in government to extremes. If she had her way, the state would break up, abolish or impose fresh regulations on about half of the firms owned by shareholders or private-equity groups. 

Mr Sanders would go even further. Both candidates treat private capital as if it operates with sinister intent, even as they embrace the state as if it were benign, capable and efficient. That is naive. Just as thriving businesses at their best invigorate and enrich, so government at its worst can be capable of heartless cruelty and indifference.

There are moments when the United States has required something like a revolution—before the civil war, say, or in the years running up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. This is not one of them. Unemployment is as low as it has been since the mid-1960s. Nominal wages in the lowest quartile of the income scale are growing by 4.6%. Americans are more optimistic about their own finances than they have been since 1999.

Instead America needs repairing—lowering the cost of housing and health care; moving to a low-carbon economy; finding a voting system that rewards consensus, not partisanship. For that, national politics needs to become boring again, not to be an exhausting, outrage-spewing fight between Mr Trump and the most extreme candidate the Democratic Party can muster. 

来源时间：2020/2/12   发布时间：2020/2/12

旧文章ID：20702