奧巴馬如何應(yīng)對(duì)繼任者？

There are two obvious literary models for late-period Barack Obama to choose from. One is Samson Agonistes, the other is Achilles in his tent.

對(duì)于處于總統(tǒng)任期最后階段的巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)，有兩個(gè)明顯的文學(xué)人物榜樣可供選擇。一個(gè)是力士參孫(Samson Agonistes)，另一個(gè)是退居帳篷里的阿喀琉斯(Achilles)。

The first, from Milton, is the hero brought low who, in defeat, offers a final act of defiance: he brings the whole temple down, wiping out the Philistines even as he perishes himself. The other, from Homer, is the great sulker who — pride bruised — retreats to his tent and sits out the game.

第一個(gè)人物是約翰•彌爾頓(John Milton)筆下意志消沉的英雄，他在失敗后表現(xiàn)出最后的英勇行為：推倒整座廟宇，與腓力斯人同歸于盡。另一個(gè)人物出自荷馬(Homer)筆下，他在自尊心受損后賭氣退居帳篷、遠(yuǎn)離紛爭(zhēng)。

The latter is, at least at first, the route taken by Hillary Clinton, who did not concede publicly until hours after the election was called. President Obama has taken neither. Rather, he has made a gracious — if laborious — show of offering support to the man he had said, not long before, was not fit to hold office.

后者，至少在開(kāi)始時(shí)，是希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)采取的路線，直到大選結(jié)果出來(lái)數(shù)小時(shí)后，她才公開(kāi)承認(rèn)敗選。奧巴馬總統(tǒng)兩條路都沒(méi)選。相反，他大度地(即便也是艱難地)對(duì)那個(gè)他曾在不久前說(shuō)過(guò)不合適擔(dān)任總統(tǒng)的人表示支持。

As he resignedly apostrophised Donald Trump at their post-election meeting: “Mr President-elect [ . . . ] we now are going to want to do everything we can to help you succeed — because if you succeed, then the country succeeds.”

大選后二人會(huì)面時(shí)，奧巴馬無(wú)奈而順從地對(duì)唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)表態(tài)道：“當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)先生，現(xiàn)在我們希望不遺余力地幫助你成功——因?yàn)槿绻愠晒α耍@個(gè)國(guó)家就成功了。”

That sounds noble. And, with Mr Trump responding with generous noises and offering a stay of execution to Obamacare, it also seems to have worked on its immediate audience. But there is also something in it for Mr Obama. Presidents as they leave tend to think about their legacies. In making nice with Mr Trump, Mr Obama looks generous. He looks statesmanlike. And he gains the chance, perhaps, to influence his impressionable successor to be more so.

這聽(tīng)起來(lái)很高尚。同時(shí)，鑒于特朗普也說(shuō)出大度的話語(yǔ)作為回應(yīng)，并提出不會(huì)馬上廢止奧巴馬醫(yī)改(Obamacare)，這似乎也能打動(dòng)直接受眾。但這么做對(duì)奧巴馬也有好處。美國(guó)總統(tǒng)在離任時(shí)往往會(huì)考慮自己的政治遺產(chǎn)。向特朗普表達(dá)善意使奧巴馬看起來(lái)寬宏大量，有政治家風(fēng)范。同時(shí)，他或許有機(jī)會(huì)讓那位易受影響的繼任者也表現(xiàn)得更像政治家。

Still, that legacy. It is not the prospective wreck of his legislative programme that is the thing, exactly; or not the whole of it. In the election of Mr Trump, Mr Obama has seen the overthrow of something bigger. The wind has changed. The media have changed. His whole rhetorical approach has been repudiated. Here was a man whose appeal to the electorate was to say we’re all one, to reach across the aisle: “We have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America.”

但話說(shuō)回來(lái)，那是一份怎樣的政治遺產(chǎn)啊。問(wèn)題不只是他的立法議程可能被推翻。特朗普當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)使奧巴馬看到一些更重要的事情被推翻。風(fēng)向變了，媒體也變了。他的整個(gè)敘述手法被否定。過(guò)去，他對(duì)選民的吸引力在于高喊我們是一體的，應(yīng)該跨越兩黨分歧：“我們從來(lái)都不僅僅是個(gè)體的集合或是紅州與藍(lán)州的集合。我們現(xiàn)在是、也將永遠(yuǎn)是美利堅(jiān)合眾國(guó)。”

He gives way to a man whose line of attack is about mobilising an in-group against an out-group. Mr Obama’s ethos appeal was about calmness, optimism and apparent expertise; his opponent was about naked emotion, anger and outsider can-do.

在擔(dān)任總統(tǒng)期間，他演變成了一個(gè)動(dòng)員局內(nèi)人群體對(duì)抗局外人群體、以此作為主攻方向的人。奧巴馬氣質(zhì)上的吸引力在于冷靜、樂(lè)觀和明顯的專業(yè)素養(yǎng);他的對(duì)手的吸引力則在于毫不掩飾的情緒、憤怒和局外人敢闖敢拼的精神。

Mr Obama had done his homework so you didn’t have to. Mr Trump had fed his homework to the dog. The outgoing president put it pretty starkly to the New Yorker’s editor David Remnick: “Trump understands the new ecosystem, in which facts and truth don’t matter. You attract attention, rouse emotions and then move on. You can surf those emotions. I’ve said it before, but if I watched Fox I wouldn’t vote for me!”

奧巴馬做足了功課，所以你不用做了。而特朗普把他的作業(yè)喂狗了。即將離任的總統(tǒng)相當(dāng)直白地向《紐約客》(New Yorker)主編大衛(wèi)•雷姆尼克(David Remnick)表示：“特朗普懂得新的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，在這個(gè)系統(tǒng)中，事實(shí)和真相不重要。你吸引關(guān)注，煽動(dòng)情緒，然后翻開(kāi)新的一頁(yè)。你可以駕馭那些情緒。就像我之前說(shuō)過(guò)的，如果我看了?？怂?Fox)頻道，我也不會(huì)投票給我!”

And yet, acknowledging the president-elect’s victory, he did not talk about a new ecosystem, but an old one. This could be a version of what philosopher Herbert Marcuse called “repressive tolerance”. He was at pains to frame Mr Trump’s victory not as a reversal of his view of the US, but — oddly — as an endorsement of it, as a defeat on the chessboard rather than a repudiation of the rules of chess.

不過(guò)，在承認(rèn)當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)的勝利時(shí)，奧巴馬并未談?wù)撔碌纳鷳B(tài)系統(tǒng)，而是在談?wù)撘环N舊的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。這可能是哲學(xué)家赫伯特•馬爾庫(kù)塞(Herbert Marcuse)所說(shuō)的“壓抑性寬容”的一種表現(xiàn)。他煞費(fèi)苦心地把特朗普的勝利(有點(diǎn)怪異地)框定為對(duì)他對(duì)美國(guó)看法的認(rèn)可，而不是對(duì)這種看法的否定;把特朗普的勝利定性為棋盤上的失敗，而非下棋的規(guī)則被推翻。

“Now, everybody is sad when their side loses an election,” he said in his Rose Garden statement on November 9. “But the day after, we have to remember that we’re actually all on one team. This is an intramural scrimmage. We’re not Democrats first. We’re not Republicans first. We are Americans first. We’re patriots first.” That is a direct, and perhaps deliberate, echo of his red-state-blue-state line so many years before.

“每個(gè)人都會(huì)為了自己的一方敗選而傷心，”11月9日奧巴馬在玫瑰園發(fā)表聲明時(shí)表示，“但在選舉后的一天，我們要記住我們實(shí)際上是一個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)的。這是一場(chǎng)內(nèi)部混戰(zhàn)。我們的第一身份不是民主黨，也不是共和黨。我們首先是美國(guó)人，是愛(ài)國(guó)者。”這是對(duì)他多年前紅州與藍(lán)州說(shuō)法的直接呼應(yīng)，可能是刻意這么說(shuō)的。

And yet the tone of voice has unmistakably changed.

不過(guò)，語(yǔ)氣已經(jīng)明顯改變。

In a press conference in Peru, his optimism went only so far as to say: “I can’t guarantee that the president-elect won’t pursue some of the positions that he’s taken. But what I can guarantee . . . is that reality will force him to adjust how he approaches many of these issues. That’s just the way this office works.”

在秘魯?shù)囊粋€(gè)記者會(huì)上，奧巴馬的樂(lè)觀有些勉強(qiáng)：“我不能保證當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)不會(huì)追求他已經(jīng)表明的一些立場(chǎng)。但是我可以保證的是……現(xiàn)實(shí)會(huì)迫使他調(diào)整他處理很多問(wèn)題的方式。這是身為總統(tǒng)不得不采取的工作方式。”

That — eight years on — is a long way from “yes we can”. A third model suggests itself: Oedipus at Colonus.

這與八年前的“是的，我們可以”相距甚遠(yuǎn)。第三個(gè)文學(xué)形象浮現(xiàn)出來(lái)：在科羅諾斯的俄狄浦斯(Oedipus)。