谢选骏：川普是美国的最后希望？
作者：谢选骏
（一）
奥巴马12月6日突然在白宫椭圆形办公室罕见发表全国反恐讲话，强调“美国将摧毁伊斯兰国”，但是他却说“伊斯兰国不代表全部穆斯林”。奇怪，伊斯兰国不 代表伊斯兰，谁代表伊斯兰？就在共和党人及国内电视、报纸等媒介聚焦奥巴马这次讲话，批评其不足时，共和党总统参选人川普（Donald Trump）再次语出惊人！
12月7日，川普在南卡州竞选集会上高调发表“必须全面且彻底禁止穆斯林入境”的言论，引发国内外舆论高潮。
本来国际社会（尤其是获得国内立法授权的英法德俄）讨论美国应以多大力度和认真态度打击伊斯兰之际，美国国内的舆论重心主要围绕奥巴马“反恐战略”利弊展开，但川普借“禁止穆斯林入境”的言论再次成为了舆论的焦点。
他先是在奥巴马全国反恐讲话的第2天在竞选网站发表200多字的声明，其中提到：“川普呼吁完全禁止穆斯林进入美国，直到美国国会议员们搞清楚正在发生什 么情况”。随后，在当天南卡州竞选集会，川普拿着一份事先准备好的纸张，再次以“声明”的方式宣读了自己的这一立场。他说：“在我们能够确定并明白问题和 危险威胁之前，美国不能再受害于那些以‘圣战’为名、毫不尊重生命的人的骇人袭击。”
从联合国、白宫、五角大楼、国会到欧洲盟邦以及整个阿拉伯世界，川普的言论都遭到批评和谴责。川普不但成为共和党初选的威胁，甚至成为了美国选举政治肌理、文化熔炉、国家安全的威胁。
当然，川普这一言论并不令人意外，因为他此前在非法移民、女性权益就发表过类似歧视性言论，而且立场都会反复无常。比如，他将墨西哥人比作“强奸犯”，将 纳粹党卫军形象当做美军军人搬上竞选广告。就在9月份，他还曾高调喊出“我爱穆斯林，我有很多穆斯林朋友”的言论。很多竞选分析人士或媒体观察者都将特朗 普这种极端表现归咎于“选举策略”，但是，从他表面上的“直言不讳”或“信口开河”判断，他的那种偏执和种族主义色彩是他人无法比拟的。在美国选举史上， 美国各大媒体也很难找到同类型的人。
表面上看，川普的确很疯狂，但他这样做也表现出了自己作为商人的精明和投机特质。他发表这一声明5天前，加州遭受恐怖袭击；发表这一声明1天前，美国官方 断定这一袭击为恐怖袭击，奥巴马发表全国反恐讲话；同时，当时有民调显示，川普在艾奥瓦州的支持率优势呈下降趋势。另外，美欧遭受伊斯兰恐怖袭击和难民潮 问题，也为川普“激情竞选”提供了时机。法国遭受恐怖袭击半月后，法国极右翼政党国民阵线（Front National）就利用民众的恐慌和对安全的担忧在地方选举中取得大胜。川普或许在其中看到了一些端倪和希望。
但是，和法国不同，当前的美国两党政治，尤其是共和党内部，裂化趋势严重。川普借移民及反恐问题发表极端言论，可能伤害共和党声誉及竞选前景。共和党建制 派及党内精英第一时间站出来批评了川普这一立场。共和党党委会（RNC）主席普里巴斯（Reince Priebus）、前总统切尼（Dick Cheney）、参选人杰布（Jeb Bush）和卢比奥（Marco Rubio）都批评川普这一言论不符合美国价值观，甚至是反美的（un-American）。
毋庸置疑，排除以独立候选人参选以来，川普的表现的确令共和党人既尴尬又无奈。虽然共和党高层希望能有杰布、卢比奥这样符合党内主流的参选人获得提名，但 当前的社会及媒体舆情，完全迎合了川普。川普也在通过自己的浮夸表演满足媒体的胃口。如果此次川普能够侥幸度过这一关，他距离初选成功或许又会更近一步。 但是，如果他获得提名，正如很多党内声音担忧的那样，“川普赢得初选”无异于“希拉里赢得大选”。
这种党内焦虑从瑞恩的表现就可以看出。他12月8日支持川普时采用了“不具名”方式，口吻针对“反穆斯林言论”，甚至在批评前提到：“无论谁获得提名，自 己都会支持。但这（禁止穆斯林入境美国）不是保守主义···”。在11月份，瑞恩还曾说，共和党参选人无论谁获得提名，都远比希拉里（Hillary Clinton）强。
值得注意的是，川普发表“禁止穆斯林入境美国”言论前，有一项民调显示，川普在艾奥瓦州的支持率不敌克鲁兹（Ted Cruz），低5个百分点。克鲁兹是另外一名“非主流”参选人，如果川普因此番针对穆斯林的言论“元气大伤”，克鲁兹或许是直接受益者之一。党内外，就属 克鲁兹最不愿意批评川普，因为他希望能够增加川普粉丝中的“认同感”，以便川普退出后，自己能够争取到这部分票仓。这样，共和党初选“山中无老虎，猴子称 大王”的闹剧仍将上演。当然，这种闹剧形势在明年大选年或逐渐明朗。
现在，距离艾州党团会议初选还有2个月时间，美国真正理性的那部分选民将逐步浮现，检验谁能够真正代表共和党角逐白宫大权。虽然川普参选凸显了美国选举、 辩论政治的严重极化，但能将一位“非洲裔总统”两次送进白宫的美国选民(选举人），难道真会选择一位反其道而行之的新人入主白宫？
（二）
川普的巨大成功，还体现在白宫的过激反应上面：
12月8日白宫表示，共和党总统参选人川普呼吁美国禁止穆斯林入境，已失去成为总统的资格，并呼吁共和党人立即摒弃川普。声明并指川普为“戴着假发”的“嘉年华小丑”。无疑明白宫的这种做法是相当歇斯底里的，说明白宫明确感觉到了川普的巨大威胁性。
白宫发言人厄尼思特表示，川普的选战具有“垃圾箱历史”的特性，他的言论不仅令人反感，也有害。他表示，誓言支持最终赢得党内初选参选人的其他共和党总统 参选人，应该“立即”拒绝接受川普。白宫现在的主人不惜以损害甚至牺牲言论自由的的方式，来攻击一位白宫未来主人的候选人，这一情况极为罕见，说明现在确 实是美国的关键时刻。
厄尼斯特在记者会上表示，川普已没有资格成为美国总统，共和党不应该支持他成为总统候选人。他在事先准备的声明中说：“他的竞选过程是历史上最垃圾的。几个月来，川普的竞选，从空洞的口号和到连篇鬼话，再到他的假发，整个就像一个嘉年华狂欢节上的小丑。”
他指责川普的禁止穆斯林入境的计画违反了美国宪法支持的价值观。但是他忘记了，他自己的这一做法也同样违反了美国宪法支持的价值观。
某些共和党人为了平衡，也降低川普言论的火力。共和党籍众院议长莱恩表示，川普的观点不是共和党的立场，也不是美国的立场。国内安全部长强生拒绝评论川普 的言论，但敦促美国民众切勿诋毁穆斯林或是一竿子打翻一船人。强生也呼吁穆斯林社区：“海外的恐怖组织锁定你们的社区，企图让年轻人沦入暴力极端主义的陷 阱。请协助我们来帮助你们阻止这类情况。”
（三）
事实上，自川普7月民调开始领先以来，评论家普遍认为，离初选投票日还很远，所以民调不能作准。不看好川普的人，一直期待他的民调下跌。不过他出奇地不但 支持度不跌，还继续领先，所以舆论开始分裂，一派意见是，到2月初选开始时，选民想清楚后，将不会把票投给川普；另一派意见则开始重新对川普作评估，不少 媒体开始正视他的“行情”，派出记者全程追踪，看他在集会中说些什么，探讨他的支持者到底是些什么人。
最新形势是，迄今为止，还是难料定川普在共和党初选中的胜负，但选民已开始出现一些变化：过去数月，川普曾多次民调下跌，不少选民因此离开川普，但最后还 是回到他身边，成为死忠支持者。为什么会这样？因为选民发现，没有其他候选人值得自己支持，而川普是他们认为唯一敢说话的人。
川普24日到南卡州美特尔滩，出席支持者集会，会场挤满数千人；一名侍应生拿给川普一杯水，川普一开始就说：“他（指那名侍应生）不是来自叙利亚，我们已 叫叙利亚难民滚蛋！”数千群众立即起哄，高叫喝采，有人大吹口哨。他接着说：“最近发生太多不好的事；巴黎有不少地区，连警察都不敢去，比利时整个国家都 要关闭。我们不能让这些事情在美国发生。”群众叫好声于是更热烈。
已经五个月了，川普挑动民众恐惧和愤怒的策略依然奏效，而且“巴黎恐惧”后，他的话更趋“黑暗”。评论家认为，巴黎恐袭会暴露川普外交知识浅薄，但是他反 而利用恐袭，进一步诱发群众恐惧和愤怒。纽约九一一恐袭发生后，川普已经说谎，称新泽西州有“数以千计”穆斯林目睹世贸大厦倒塌，上街大肆庆祝；巴黎恐袭 后，他又说美国要设数据库，要全美所有穆斯林登记，有在场记者提醒他，这不是与纳粹对付犹太人的手段相同吗？
川普的支持者是些什么人？美特尔滩一名67岁工厂管工是其中之一。他说，长久以来，政客都没有为美国做事，川普是唯一敢向敌人说不的人。这位管工胸前系了一枚胸章，章上写着：“川普2016：终于有一个有睾丸的人。”
有一名42岁的家庭主妇，她说：“我觉得不安全，他们可以从边境进入美国。我们不知道他们从何而来。”一名63岁退休木匠教师说：“我记得九一一后，看到 全球都有穆斯林在庆祝。”那么，如果事情不是发生于新泽西，而是在中东，那又怎么样？这名教师说：“本质上都是一样的，他们在庆祝，不是吗？”
在川普的支持者中，听到最多的反伊斯兰难民说法是：“他们看起来都像18至30多岁，都是年轻人，身体没有问题，可以做工。”这些川普支持者不能理解，为什么难民不去找工作。因为川普和克鲁兹都反移民，所以有不少支持者认为，川普和克鲁兹可以搭档选总统。
一名小学女教师说：“我们不能到他们的国家设立教堂，为什么他们可以在我们国家设清真寺？川普是唯一敢说出这个事实的人。”一名33岁的前县警则说：“不值得让他们来美国，我们厌倦了为他们埋单。”这名县警也有一枚胸章，上面写着：“川普为美国工人阶层发声。”
距2月1日共和党第一个初选投票州爱阿华州投票只剩两个月，但两个月可以发生很多事。对那些认为川普成功抵抗美国政治道德崩溃、而且越来越感到绝望的选民 来说，著名选情分析家西尔瓦（Nate Silver，曾准确预测上两届总统选举）的看法，或许是一大安慰。他说，现阶段的民调都不能作准，最多只能算是“小部分人的可能倾向”而已。
如果最后共和党多数选民选川普，而对手“克林顿夫人”真能背负二十年来的历史包袱，与川普决一雌雄并战胜美国的最后希望吗？
不论我们对美国的现状及其希望如何评价，但川普确实就是不同于现在美国的一个出路、一个希望。
不想给美国新的希望，就会给川普反对票。
而想给美国新的希望，就会给川普支持票。
事到如今，支持不支持川普，这似乎已经不再是对川普个人的态度问题，而是关于“美国向何处去”的关键问题了。
Donald Trump represents the end of the end of history
The great working class stagnation and the rise of Trumpism around the world
By Matt O'Brien February 11 at 8:07 AM
At least he's a leader.
That's what—time to get used to these words—Republican frontrunner Donald Trump said about Vladimir Putin when he was reminded that the Russian president's critics in the press have a nasty habit of turning up dead. It was the sort of thing you might have heard in the 1930s about fascists who "knew how to get things done." Or in the 1970s about communists who seemed to be whipping us at the same time that we couldn't even figure out how to whip inflation.
In other words, it's not new for our democracy to go through a crisis of confidence—just don't call it a malaise—when our economy does. What is new, though, is the kind of crisis our economy is in today. Now, things aren't as bad as they were during the Great Depression or even the Great Inflation, but they aren't as easy to turn around, either. Back then, fixing the economy meant fixing big-picture policies that had failed. It was, as economist John Maynard Keynes put it, a simple matter of "magneto trouble:" our economic engine would work just fine if we replaced a part here and pulled a lever there.
But that's not true anymore, at least not for blue-collar workers. More and more people feel like they're falling further and further behind even during the "good times." They're mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore, which is just another way of saying that they're looking for scapegoats. And that's why even if Trump isn't long for the political stage—although who wants to bet on that after his New Hampshire win?—Trumpism is. The only question is whether it will completely capture the Republican Party or remain a quadrennial curiosity, you know, like the Winter Olympics.
This isn't just an American problem. It's an everywhere problem. All across the rich world, a new type of nationalist is either taking power or getting close to it. They often display signs of chauvinism, a sympathy for authoritarianism, and skepticism of, if not active hostility to, globalization. On that last point, a lot of them are, put more simply, anti-trade and anti-immigrant. Putin's Russia was really the first, but it's been followed by plenty of others: Erdogan's Turkey, Orbán's Hungary, and, just in the last few months, Kaczynski's Poland. There are even hints of it in Abe's Japan. And those are just the countries where the new nationalists have already won. Among the ones that haven't, France's National Front and Britain's UKIP have also made big gains.
It's the end of the end of history. That, of course, was Francis Fukuyama's idea that capitalism and liberal democracy didn't and couldn't have any ideological competitors after they vanquished communism. They had won now and forever—which turned out to be for 15 years. What happened? Well, global capitalism has undermined national democracy. The fact is that the working-class in rich countries have stagnated since the Berlin Wall came down and they faced increasing competition from the billions of new workers entering the global economy. You can see that in the chart below from economist Branko Milanovic, in particular the red area I've highlighted. It shows how much inflation-adjusted incomes have increased—or not—for the whole world between 1988 and 2008.
It's not exactly a surprise, then, that the people who have been hurt the most by globalization don't like it. Indeed, the working class in countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and France have actually seen their inflation-adjusted incomes fall the past 30 years at the same time that hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indian, and Indonesian workers have been lifted out of extreme poverty. It's true that these rich-world workers are still, well, richer than people in the rest of the world, but that's not much of a consolation for them. That's because the things they need just to tread water—housing, healthcare, and higher education—keep going up in price while their wages do not. That adds up to a financial future where their kids could very well end up worse off than they are, something 60 percent of Americans and 85 percent of French people are afraid will happen.
If that's not depressing enough, there's more. Think about this: Economics 101 teaches us that free trade works when you redistribute (through government policy) the gains from the winners to the losers, so you'd hope that the countries that do, in fact, redistribute more would have less of a backlash against globalization. The only problem is that sure doesn't seem to be the case. Right-wing populists, after all, are just as popular in tax-and-spend France as they are in tax-and-spend-a-lot-less America. Now, maybe that's because of anti-immigrant hysteria rather than anti-trade anger. And maybe a stronger safety net is enough to get people to support a more open economy. But I doubt it. Why? Well, it goes against Psychology 1o1: people prefer jobs to welfare. Jobs give them pride, give them purpose, give them a future. You can't make up for that with just a check—although that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can. It just means that we shouldn't expect this to make people who have had their jobs offshored say that it was worth it since they can now buy things for less at Walmart.
That leaves us in a rather dark place. On the one hand, a lot of working-class people feel like our elites have sold them out, but on the other, our elites feel like those people want things that go against basic human decency. They both have a point. The bigger problem, though, is that it's hard to do anything about this and harder still to convince people that the things we can do are enough. Trump voters don't want to hear that we need a president who will strengthen the safety net or a central banker who will weaken the dollar. They want a strongman who will stick it to their enemies at home and overseas—Putin with a New York accent.
So does that mean we're doomed for some kind of democratic breakdown? No, not if we can stall for time. That's because even though it's true that free trade has cost us a lot of jobs, it's also true that there's only one China. That means the worst of what happened the past 15 years shouldn't happen again. You see, it turns out that adding a billion people to the global labor market makes labor worth a lot less. Economists David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson estimate that China alone made us lose 1.5 million manufacturing jobs between 1990 and 2007, and, in the hardest-hit areas, pushed down non-manufacturing wages too. But, after 30 years of its one-child policy, China's labor glut is almost over now—and there's nothing to replace it. As a result, wages should start rising in China, in the U.S., and everywhere else for that matter. That won't stop people from being xenophobic, but it should stop them from thinking xenophobia will solve their problems since they won't have as many.
It's just a matter of making it till then. That will take a real leader.
Matt O'Brien is a reporter for Wonkblog covering economic affairs. He was previously a senior associate editor at The Atlantic.
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
