美國民主迎來嚴(yán)峻大考

Fair enough, there was the US civil war. Amid all the carnage the Yankees still went ahead with the 1862 and 1864 elections on schedule. Other than then, there is little in US history to compare with what is at stake on Tuesday.

的確，美國有過內(nèi)戰(zhàn)。北方佬一面殺得昏天暗地，一面仍在1862年和1864年如期舉行了選舉。除此之外，美國歷史上沒有多少危急時刻能與本周二相比。

Donald Trump, one of the possible next presidents, forecasts that the vote will be rigged. A Trump victory could still happen, which makes it so odd that he plays the sore loser before actually losing. Hillary Clinton, the other candidate, believes the US system is working fine except for the threat posed by Mr Trump. In its way, Mrs Clinton’s outlook is almost as deluded as her opponent’s. America’s system of democracy is teetering, whether or not Mr Trump wins on Tuesday.

下屆美國總統(tǒng)候選人之一唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)預(yù)言選舉將受到操控。特朗普仍可能獲勝，因此他在真的落選前擺出輸不起的樣子就顯得十分奇怪。另一位候選人希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)認(rèn)為除了特朗普構(gòu)成的威脅之外，美國的制度運作良好。希拉里的前景幾乎與她對手的一樣令人迷惑。無論周二特朗普獲勝與否，美國的民主制度都岌岌可危。

Imagine two kinds of threat: one where a bear breaks into your cabin, the other where termites eat it from within. Mr Trump is the bear. The upside to a Trump victory is that he would be unable to claim the election was stolen. Far from it. The 2016 vote count would be the cleanest in world history. America would be great again! That aside, it would be a disaster.

請想象有兩種威脅，一種是有頭熊闖入你的小屋，另一種是白蟻從內(nèi)部蛀空你的屋子。特朗普就是那頭熊。特朗普獲勝的好處是他無法宣稱此次大選有人做了手腳，相反，他會宣稱2016年大選計票是史上最干凈的。美國將再次偉大!但除此之外，他的獲勝將是一場災(zāi)難。

Many serenely predict US democracy would emerge intact from a Trump presidency. Their reassurance comes in two parts. The first is that Mr Trump would surround himself with experienced advisers who would curb his worst instincts. The second is that even if Mr Trump’s team were crackpots, the US constitution would correct any over-reach.

許多人都淡定地預(yù)測美國民主將毫發(fā)無損地渡過特朗普任期。他們的信心來自兩方面。首先是特朗普身邊將環(huán)繞著經(jīng)驗豐富的顧問，他們會遏制他那些最糟糕的本能反應(yīng)。其次是就算特朗普團(tuán)隊是群瘋子，美國憲法也會糾正任何逾矩之舉。

They are too complacent. Most of those advising Mr Trump are as unsettling as he is. First among these is Mr Trump. “My primary foreign policy adviser is myself and I have a good instinct for this stuff,” he says. Bear in mind he has questioned the point of nuclear weapons unless they are used. He has also recommended China’s neighbours acquire their own. The decision to play the nuclear card is the president’s alone. The Pentagon can only advise. Virtually every Republican with national security experience signed a letter in August warning that Mr Trump would be “the most reckless president in history”.

這些人太自滿了。給特朗普提建議的絕大部分人都跟他一樣不靠譜，而最不靠譜的就是特朗普本人。他說：“我的首席外交政策顧問就是我自己，我在這種事上有很好的天賦。”別忘了他曾質(zhì)疑核武器除非被使用，否則毫無意義。他還建議中國的諸鄰國自己去發(fā)展核武器。只有總統(tǒng)能決定要不要打核武器這張牌，五角大樓只能提出建議。幾乎每一位擁有國家安全相關(guān)經(jīng)驗的共和黨人都在八月簽署了一封公開信，警告特朗普將是“史上最魯莽的總統(tǒng)。”

Then there is his political team. We need go no further than Stephen Bannon, his campaign chief, who is former head of the hard right website, Breitbart News. Anyone who cherishes America’s first amendment rights should be very afraid. Mr Bannon would be in line to become Mr Trump’s White House’s ideological director.

再來說他的政治團(tuán)隊。我們只要看看他的競選活動執(zhí)行總裁斯蒂芬•班農(nóng)(Stephen Bannon)就夠了，此人之前是極右翼網(wǎng)站Breitbart News的負(fù)責(zé)人。所有珍視美國憲法第一修正案所賦權(quán)利的人都應(yīng)感到恐懼。特朗普若當(dāng)選，班農(nóng)將成為特朗普政府的意識形態(tài)主管。

Second, America’s system of checks and balances relies on those upholding it. Leaving aside his character, Mr Trump has no respect for constitutional boundaries. The last president to breach their limits was Richard Nixon. He was forced from office in 1974 for covering up his administration’s complicity in the burglary of the offices of the Democratic National Committee. The system worked, but it took two years.

其次，美國的制衡制度依賴于那些維護(hù)這一制度的人。且不說特朗普的個性，他還毫不尊敬憲法的邊界。上一任突破憲法邊界的總統(tǒng)是理查德•尼克松(Richard Nixon)。1974年，因在民主黨全國委員會(DNC)辦公室遭竊聽案中掩蓋他的政府參與此事，尼克松被迫辭職。制衡制度雖起了作用，但花了兩年時間。

Nixon had an expansive view of the president’s powers. “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,” he said. That is also Mr Trump’s view.

尼克松對總統(tǒng)權(quán)力抱著一種膨脹的心理。他說：“當(dāng)總統(tǒng)做一件事時，意味著這件事并不違法。”這也是特朗普的觀點。

But Nixon’s secret lawbreaking pales against what Mr Trump openly vows to do. He has publicly urged Russia to burgle Democratic databases. He has also threatened to jail Mrs Clinton, reinstate torture, cancel treaties and start a global trade war. Some of this is illegal. Some of it is legal.

但與特朗普公開發(fā)誓要做的事情相比，尼克松的秘密違法行為也相形見絀。特朗普公開敦促俄羅斯入侵民主黨數(shù)據(jù)庫。他還威脅要讓希拉里坐牢，恢復(fù)酷刑，取消種種協(xié)定，發(fā)動全球貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)爭。這里面有些是非法的，有些是合法的。

Much of what Mr Trump promises lies in between. Either way, it could take the US courts months or years to rule on his actions. By then much of the damage would be done.

特朗普的許多承諾介于兩者之間。無論合法與否，都需要美國法庭花費數(shù)月乃至數(shù)年時間才能做出裁決。屆時許多破壞已經(jīng)造成。

How could a Clinton victory possibly compare? If she won by a landslide — and the Democrats regained control of Congress — all bets would be off. But that is not going to happen. No poll has put her close to 50 per cent since the election began. The dangers of a Clinton presidency are no less troubling for their subtlety.

希拉里獲勝的結(jié)果與此怎能相比呢?如果她獲得壓倒性勝利——而且民主黨重獲國會控制權(quán)——一切都將變化莫測。但這種情況不會發(fā)生。自開始競選以來，她在所有民調(diào)中的勝選幾率從未接近50%。希拉里當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)的危險之處雖然難以名狀，卻同樣令人不安。

Before Mrs Clinton is elected, Republicans are vowing to block whatever she tries. John McCain, her closest Republican friend, says he will oppose any Supreme Court nominee she submits. Others have threatened impeachment hearings.

希拉里還沒當(dāng)選，共和黨人就已誓言要阻撓她做事。共和黨人中與希拉里關(guān)系最好的朋友約翰•麥凱恩(John McCain)表示，他將反對希拉里提名的任何最高法院法官人選。其他人則威脅要舉行彈劾聽證會。

The Republican party is hopelessly divided. It spans pro-globalisation multiculturalists and nativist protectionists. In most other democracies, it would have split into different parties. The one glue keeping Republicans together is abhorrence of Mrs Clinton.

共和黨無可救藥地陷入分裂之中。它既有支持全球化的多元文化主義者，也有奉行本土主義的保護(hù)主義者。在其他大多數(shù)民主國家里，這樣的政黨早就分裂為不同的黨派了，唯一讓共和黨人凝聚在一起的是對希拉里的厭惡。

This is without mentioning Mr Trump’s threat to cry foul if he loses. Either way, Republicans aim to make a desert of Mrs Clinton’s presidency and call it democracy. They have the means to do so. Four more years of gridlock would only deepen America’s popular frustration.

這還不算特朗普如果輸?shù)舻脑掃€要叫屈。無論哪種方式，共和黨人的目的都是要讓希拉里在總統(tǒng)任內(nèi)一事無成，并將此稱為民主。他們有辦法做到這點。再來4年的僵局只會加劇美國民眾的挫敗感。

The good thing about a bear is that you can see it coming. Termites are invisible. It is hard to pinpoint when they began to eat away at the foundations. When and why did Americans lose faith in their system? There is no consensus on this either. Some point to rising inequality. Others blame the growth of government. It does not mean Americans cannot regain the trust they have lost.

熊來了，至少你能看到。而白蟻是看不見的。很難確定它們什么時候開始侵蝕根基。美國人什么時候以及為何對他們的體制失去信心?這方面同樣沒有共識。一些人認(rèn)為是不平等現(xiàn)象日益加劇造成的。其他人則歸咎于政府角色的擴大。這并不意味著美國人無法重拾信心。

But for the time being the US is becoming steadily harder to govern. As Abraham Lincoln said, a house divided cannot stand. Though he faced far deadlier challenges, Lincoln’s observation is as true today as when he said it. The basis of US democracy is co-operation. Whatever happens after Tuesday is unlikely to fit that description.

但就目前而言，美國正變得越來越難以治理。正如亞伯拉罕•林肯(Abraham Lincoln)所言，分裂之家不能持久。盡管他當(dāng)年面臨艱巨得多的挑戰(zhàn)，但林肯的話放至今日仍有道理。美國民主的基礎(chǔ)是合作。本周二之后無論發(fā)生什么情況都不太可能符合這種描述。