FT社評(píng)：美國(guó)政治如何約束商人總統(tǒng)？

“The law is totally on my side ... the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” Donald Trump’s comment, in an interview last week, will not reassure Americans worried about having a president who also owns a big global business. The echo of an earlier assertion of presidential prerogative — Richard Nixon’s claim that “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal” — was impossible to miss.

“法律完全站在我這邊……總統(tǒng)不能有利益沖突。”唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)上周接受采訪時(shí)發(fā)表的言論，無(wú)法打消美國(guó)人對(duì)于選出一位擁有大型跨國(guó)企業(yè)的總統(tǒng)的擔(dān)憂。這讓人不由得回想起理查德•尼克松(Richard Nixon)關(guān)于總統(tǒng)特權(quán)的論斷：“總統(tǒng)做一件事，就意味著這件事不是非法的。”

The parallel is imperfect. Nixon was looking back at his presidency, and referring to national security issues specifically. And Mr Trump’s comment is, unlike Nixon’s, true — in one important sense. The rules forbidding officials’ involvement in matters where they have a financial interest do not apply to the president. The law reflects the great reach of the office under the constitution. Avoiding all conflicts would make the job impossible.

這種類比并不十分準(zhǔn)確。尼克松說(shuō)這話時(shí)是在回顧他的總統(tǒng)任期，并且特指國(guó)家安全問(wèn)題。還有，不同于尼克松，特朗普這句話是正確的——從一個(gè)重要的層面來(lái)說(shuō)。有關(guān)官員不得參與本人在其中擁有經(jīng)濟(jì)利益的事務(wù)的規(guī)則并不適用于總統(tǒng)。這條法律反映總統(tǒng)在憲法下?lián)碛械木薮舐殭?quán)。如果要避免一切沖突，這總統(tǒng)就沒(méi)法當(dāng)了。

That does not mean that Mr Trump can mix the nation’s business and his own without restraint. There is, to start, a distinction between what the law requires and what a leader should do. Flouting ethical standards corrodes the ability to govern, as President Bill Clinton, for example, discovered.

這并不意味著特朗普可以毫無(wú)限制地把國(guó)家事務(wù)與個(gè)人事務(wù)混為一談。首先，法律規(guī)定的責(zé)任和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人應(yīng)該做的事之間是有區(qū)別的。藐視道德標(biāo)準(zhǔn)會(huì)損害執(zhí)政能力，正如前總統(tǒng)比爾•克林頓(Bill Clinton)所發(fā)現(xiàn)的那樣。

Mr Trump has already pushed limits. Breaking with the decades-old and honourable practice of releasing tax returns was the first step. The idea that giving his children control of his business does anything to reduce potential conflicts is risible. This was underlined when his daughter Ivanka attended Mr Trump’s meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan. Minimally, the president would put his businesses in the hands of an independent board; ideally, he would instruct that board to liquidate. Mr Trump will do neither.

特朗普已經(jīng)挑戰(zhàn)了界限。第一步是打破了一項(xiàng)延續(xù)幾十年、值得尊重的慣例——公開納稅申報(bào)單。認(rèn)為把企業(yè)管理權(quán)交給子女就能減少潛在利益沖突的觀點(diǎn)十分可笑。特朗普的女兒伊萬(wàn)卡(Ivanka)陪同他會(huì)晤日本首相安倍晉三(Shinzo Abe)，更是突顯了這一點(diǎn)。最起碼，總統(tǒng)會(huì)把自己的企業(yè)交給獨(dú)立董事會(huì);在理想情況下，他會(huì)指示董事會(huì)將企業(yè)清盤。特朗普兩種方式都不會(huì)選。

Since the election, Americans have been given a taste of the sticky situations the Trump administration will force them to contemplate. The president-elect has met with his Indian business partners. He has encouraged the interim leader of the UK Independence party, Nigel Farage, to campaign against wind farms, which he thinks blight his Scottish golf courses. Days after Mr Trump spoke to Argentina’s president, it was announced that a Trump tower project in Buenos Aires would proceed.

自從選舉以來(lái)，美國(guó)人就體會(huì)到了情況的不妙，這是特朗普政府將迫使他們慢慢品嘗的滋味。這位當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)會(huì)見了他的印度商業(yè)伙伴。他鼓勵(lì)英國(guó)獨(dú)立黨(UKIP)過(guò)渡期領(lǐng)袖奈杰爾•法拉奇(Nigel Farage)發(fā)起抵制風(fēng)力發(fā)電廠的活動(dòng)——特朗普認(rèn)為風(fēng)力發(fā)電廠妨礙了他在蘇格蘭的高爾夫球場(chǎng)。在特朗普與阿根廷總統(tǒng)通話幾天后，布宜諾斯艾利斯就宣布推進(jìn)特朗普大廈項(xiàng)目。

While the law protects the president on conflicts of interest narrowly understood, the constitution emphatically forbids the use of the presidency for profit. The emolument clause forbids the president from taking anything of value from foreign powers, and the impeachment clause singles out bribery as a high crime meriting removal from office.

盡管法律在狹義層面的利益沖突上保護(hù)總統(tǒng)，但是憲法明確禁止利用總統(tǒng)職權(quán)謀利。報(bào)酬條款禁止總統(tǒng)從外國(guó)勢(shì)力獲取任何有價(jià)值的東西，彈劾條款把賄賂列為可以罷黜總統(tǒng)的重罪。

But Mr Trump’s supporters need not worry, and his opponents should not hope, that he will cross a bright line, promptly triggering an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives and a trial in the Senate. Mr Trump is no fool and there is room for years of legal wrangling over the constitution’s broad language about executive power.

但是特朗普的支持者不必?fù)?dān)心他會(huì)跨越明顯的界限、立即觸發(fā)眾議院的彈劾投票和參議院的審判，他的反對(duì)者也不應(yīng)該抱著這種指望。特朗普不是傻子，而且圍繞憲法對(duì)行政權(quán)力的寬泛解釋還可以展開歷時(shí)多年的法律爭(zhēng)執(zhí)。

What will restrain Mr Trump is Congress. When he crosses boundaries, it can replace co-operation with investigation, especially in the finely balanced Senate. Both parties will have to be at their best. Democrats must not turn the fact that Mr Trump’s businesses will profit from his office into an excuse for obstructing the basic business of government. And Republicans must follow conscience, not party allegiance.

能夠約束住特朗普的是國(guó)會(huì)。一旦他跨過(guò)界限，國(guó)會(huì)可以不再采取合作態(tài)度，而是展開調(diào)查，特別是在兩黨勢(shì)力接近的參議院。兩黨都不得不拿出最佳狀態(tài)。民主黨人不能以特朗普的企業(yè)受益于總統(tǒng)權(quán)力為借口，阻礙政府行使基本職能。而共和黨人必須憑良知行事，不能死忠于本黨。

Executive power and privilege have caused controversy since the constitution was drafted. Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court; George W Bush asserted broad executive security powers after 9/11. In those cases and more, the other branches of government refused to be pushed aside. May that tradition continue.

自美國(guó)憲法起草以來(lái)，有關(guān)行政權(quán)力和特權(quán)的話題一直存在爭(zhēng)議。富蘭克林•羅斯福(Franklin Roosevelt)試圖在最高法院安插親信;小布什(George W Bush)在9•11事件后主張?jiān)诎踩聞?wù)上總統(tǒng)有廣泛行政權(quán)力。在上述情況(以及更多情況)下，政府的其他分支部門拒絕被排擠在外。希望這種傳統(tǒng)可以延續(xù)下去。