特朗普主义兴起的重要诱因：下层白人挫折加剧
美国企业研究所学者Charles Murray撰文指出，在社会上，白人工人阶层男性被社会精英们看不起，而在自己的社区中，他们作为家庭支柱、好父亲、好伴偶的角色得不到认可，他们的社区生活开始分崩离析。这一切也加剧了他们的挫折感。最重要的是，几十年来他们投票支持的政党——共和党没有做任何一件事情来帮助他们。他们怎么会不愤怒？这篇文章具有一定参考意义。
即使特朗普未能获得共和党总统候选人提名，特朗普主义也不会消失。因为这种思潮喊出了被夹在美国新的上层阶级和下层阶级中间那批白人工人阶层的心声。这批正被美国社会边缘化的人现在心中充满愤怒。
如果你对特朗普主义(Trumpism)感到沮丧，可别骗自己说如果特朗普(Donald Trump)未获得共和党总统候选人提名，特朗普主义就会逐渐消失。特朗普主义是许多美国人对美国演进轨迹所生愤怒之情的一种表达，而这种愤怒是合情合理的，特朗普主义的出现也在意料之中。特朗普主义标志着美国社会持续半个世纪的一种演化进程已经走到了最后阶段，即美国对其深具历史意义的国家认同的摒弃。
知名政治学家亨廷顿(Samuel Huntington)在其最后一部作品《我们是谁？》(Who Are We?)中写道，这种国家认同有两个重要组成部分。其中一个组成部分是美国的盎格鲁-新教传统，由于美国目前存在众多文化和宗教传统，安格鲁-新教传统无可避免会褪色。另外一个组成部分是美国理念，这是美国人独一无二的东西。正如历史学家霍夫施塔特(Richard Hofstadter)所言：“美国是一个没有意识形态的国家，它本身就是一种意识形态，这是我们的宿命。”
这种被亨廷顿称作“美国信条”的意识形态都包括什么内容呢？其核心价值观可以概括为平等主义、自由和个人主义这三点。由此衍生出久为观察人士所认同的那几条人们耳熟能详的国家信仰：法律面前人人平等，机会平等，言论和集会自由，独立自主，有限政府，自由市场经济，分权制衡。
直到1960年时，这种信仰还是全国性共识。当年角逐民主党总统候选人提名的肯尼迪(John F. Kennedy)、约翰逊(Lyndon B. Johnson)和汉弗莱(Hubert Humphrey)都真正信奉这种理念，他们与共和党人的分歧只是实现方法的不同。
如今，这个信条已不再令人信服，其实质也不复存在。为什么会这样？推动这个逆转过程的很多因素都可以在整个美国社会的发展进程中找到：比如新的上层阶级和下层阶级的出现，以及夹在两者中间的工人阶层所处的困境。
笔者2012年在《分崩离析》(Coming Apart)一书中详细讨论了这些新的阶级。新的上层阶级包括那些决定这个国家的经济、政治以及文化形态的人。新的下层阶级包括那些未能遵从美国公民文化一些最基本习俗（尤其是工作和婚姻习俗）的人。这两个新出现的阶级实际上都否定了美国信条，无论他们嘴上说得多漂亮也改变不了这个事实。特朗普主义则代表了夹在这两个阶级之间的工人阶层的声音，向世人宣告这个阶层同样也在背离这一信条。
历史上，美国例外主义最公认的方面之一是缺乏阶级意识。就连马克思和恩格斯也承认这一点。这是美国式平等主义。没错，美国有富人也有穷人，但这并不意味着富人就高人一等。
成功的美国人顽固地拒绝接受上层阶级光环，他们通常比较低调，把自己当作普通人。大多数美国富人在普通家庭、甚至贫穷家庭中长大，在变成富人之后，他们在生活中仍保持着自己青少年时期的习惯和标准。
在美国的社会群落里，社会和文化之间曾呈现出高度的异质性。法国政治社会学家托克维尔(Tocqueville)在19世纪30年代曾写道，在美国，较为富裕的民众煞费苦心地不显得高高在上。这种情况一直持续到了20世纪，甚至在美国的精英社区当中也是如此。在1960年的人口普查中，费城高级住宅区Main Line的居民收入中值仅相当于今天的9万美元。波士顿Brookline的居民收入中值为7.5万美元，纽约上东区仅为6万美元。在这些社区通常的宴会上，很多客人仅仅只有高中学历。
但自那以来，新的上层阶级发展出了独特的文化。在半个世纪的时间里，美国顶尖的大学吸引了全国各地最优秀的人才，他们彼此交往，相互通婚。聪明才智越来越受到重视。2016年，前面提到的那些精英社区中的宴会上，来宾几乎全都拥有大学学位甚至更高的教育背景。他们大体上都很富有。当前Main Line、Brookline和纽约上东区的居民家庭收入中值分别在15万、15.1万和20.3万美元左右。
这些晚宴上的谈话可能与美国主流聚会上的谈话完全不同。新兴上层阶级的成员很少被美国主流社会中最受欢迎的电影、电视剧和音乐所吸引。他们在饮食、健康保健、子女抚养、度假、读书、网站浏览和啤酒口味方面有着独特的文化。不管哪个方面，新的上层阶级都拥有其独特的行为方式。
新兴上层阶级的另一个特点是他们很容易就接受成为上层阶级成员的现实并且对普通美国人表现出一种傲慢态度，这是美国社会的一种新现象。在与受过高等教育的朋友聊天时尝试使用“乡巴佬”这个词，看看他们是否会产生听到其他种族歧视语汇时的那种紧张情绪。当你提到“飞跃之地”(flyover country)这个词而没人问你这词是什么意思时，想想这意味着什么吧。如果想不明白的话，可以跟一位在西佛吉尼亚购买了周末度假地的华盛顿朋友聊聊。他会告诉你他对新邻居们的不屑，而这些邻人他在华盛顿精英社区里已经遇到过。
美国主流群体充分意识到了这种傲慢和蔑视，自然也受到了刺激。美国平等主义已经命无多日。
新的上层阶级逐渐退出社会主流之际，新的下层阶级在白人工人阶层中出现，并在创造特朗普主义借以兴起的社会环境方面扮演了重要角色。
自美国立国时起，工作和婚姻一直是美国公民文化的核心，白人工人阶层一直秉持这一理念，直到上世纪60年代。几乎所有的成年男性都参加工作或寻求就业，他们中的绝大多数人已婚。
此后情况开始发生变化。从1968年到2015年，白人工人阶层中，30多岁、40多岁男性（这对男性来说本该是工作和供养家庭的黄金年龄段）的劳动力参与率从96%下降至79%。同一时期，白人工人阶层中，30多岁、40多岁男性的已婚率从86%下降至52%（非白人工人阶层中30多岁、40多岁男性的劳动参与率和已婚率也出现下降，只不过降幅和持续下滑程度没那么严重）。
这是令人震惊的变化，而且这种现象在美国国内很普遍。目前在普通的白人工人阶层居住社区，正值壮年时期的男性人群中，有五分之一甚至没有找工作；他们依靠女友、兄弟姐妹或父母生活，或是依靠伤残抚恤金、灰色收入、犯罪收入维持生活。近一半人没有结婚，与大量未婚男性伴随而来的全部社会问题都涌现出来。
在这些社区，大约一半的孩子是未婚女性所生，具有单亲母亲家庭孩子的所有问题，男孩的问题尤其严重。无论是在小城镇还是城市地区，吸毒都已经成为一个大问题。
想一想这些趋势对工人阶层社区每个人生活的影响，包括那些仍然遵循旧规则的人群。他们发现自己努力工作，养家糊口，但邻里之间的传统公民文化已经不复存在，社区氛围不再友好愉悦，甚至不再安全。
在美国出现这种社会阶级巨变的同时，还发生了其他重大变化，即美国社会出现了背离自由主义与个人主义的大规模意识形态变化，而这两种主义是美国信条的两大支柱。这种变化很大程度上由民权运动及女权运动引发，这两场运动都是对美国信条的典型引申，对美国在实现黑人和女性权利方面提出了合理的要求。
但是，运动的成功却很快导致与美国信条相矛盾的政策推出。平权运动要求将美国人放在不同的群体中加以考虑。保持结果的公平胜过了在法律面前人人平等的原则。基于照顾特定群体的考量而制定的政策不断增多，此类政策越来越多，而这类政策对应的特殊群体也越来越多。
到上世纪80年代初，民主党精英们绝大多数都接受了一种与传统上的自由和个人主义观念公开冲突的意识形态。这一点巩固了民主党长期以来在少数族裔、单身女性和低收入女性中的声望，然而却得罪了另一个关键的民主党选民群体：白人工人阶层。
白人工人阶层的男性是上世纪80年代初“里根民主党人”的典型代表，这个群体也常常被说成是特朗普的核心支持者。然而这个群体的愤懑却常常被误解。说他们毫无理性地攻击跟自己外表不一样的人，这是错误的。特朗普主义肯定有一些种族主义和排外的成份，我在推特(Twitter)和Facebook上写了一些批评特朗普的文字后发现了这一点。
特朗普主义作为一种现象，它的核心事实是整个美国工人阶层有正当理由对统治阶层表示不满。在过去半个世纪的经济增长过程中，工人阶层实际上没有得到任何好处。经济学家自然可以指出这一说法的局限性和不完整性，但说到底，在收入分配体系中处于下半段的那部分人，其家庭实际收入自上世纪60年代末以来从未增长过。
同一时期，美国企业将数百万个制造业工作岗位转移至海外，而这些属于劳工阶层能获得最高报酬的岗位。不管是从前还是现在，这些主要都是男性工作岗位。1968年和2015年，70%的制造业工作都由男性承担。
在过去半个世纪里，数以千万的移民（包括合法和非法的）涌入美国，给工人阶层的就业带来竞争。除了农业之外，其中许多就业岗位涉及建筑业或手工技艺。从过去到现在，这些行业的就业一直以男性为主：1968年和2015年，男性在这些行业从业人员中的占比分别为77%和84%。
经济学家仍在就这种局面给美国就业市场带来的效应争论不休。但是，某个小镇上的人因为大企业关闭当地工厂把工作岗位转移到中国而失业，或者一个屋顶工看到承包商因为非法移民成本更低廉而聘用他们，这些人产生愤怒和挫折感是合情合理的。
在社会上，白人工人阶层男性被社会精英们看不起，而在自己的社区中，他们作为家庭支柱、好父亲、好伴偶的角色得不到认可，他们的社区生活开始分崩离析。这一切也加剧了他们的挫折感。最重要的是，几十年来他们投票支持的政党——共和党没有做任何一件事情来帮助他们。他们怎么会不愤怒？
他们希望解决问题的方式一点都不保守。他们现在希望有一个中立的政府在很大程度上代表他们的利益。如果说桑德斯在移民问题上是持非常开放态度的，那么他的其他理念与特朗普主义的一致程度要超过保守主义。
在政治上，桑德斯不再坚守美国对自由和个人主义的传统理解不是什么问题。特朗普也不再坚守。白人工人阶层中的很多人都是如此。他们和其他人一样也背弃了美国信条。
谁还在继续全面地拥抱这种信条？大部分中产阶级和上中产阶级（尤其是小企业经营者），企业界、金融界的很多人士，以及共和党大部分高级领导层。他们仍然在原则上支持平等主义、自由和个人主义的理念。
别忘了还有温和派民主党人，他们是罗斯福新政(New Deal)的精神继承者。他们或许鼓吹社会民主制度，但他们对于将美国人划分为不同群体加以区别对待的政策不满，而且非常坚定地支持言论自由、个人的道德责任以及托克维尔所说的那种平等主义。这样的人依然很多，不过他们大多不敢亮明自己的政治观点。
但这些都只是大众中的一小部分，美国建国之后的175年中将美国民众凝聚在一起的全国共识已不存在。正如美国信条渐渐失去人心，它与日常生活的契合度也在缩减。我们自夸的自由如今受限于成千上万的琐碎限制，涉及我们想做的几乎所有事情，个人主义照例会因顾及群体权利而被忽视，我们还得到了一个傲慢的上层阶级。在实际操作层面和意识形态层面，美国信条都已经崩塌。
美国的民族特性并没有完全丢失。在全世界的眼中，美国人的民族特性仍是生动、独特的。在历史上，美国接纳不同种族的移民，帮助他们融入社会，使之展现出美国的民族性格，在这方面没有哪个国家比美国做得更出色。未来一段时间，美国人的特质仍清晰可辨。
具有讽刺意味的是，特朗普主义的热情很大程度上被引向了警惕移民涌入威胁到美国民族特性这一风险。然而实际上我遇到的外来移民（无论是什么种族）通常都具备典型的美国人品质——开朗、工作努力、乐观、雄心勃勃。保持美国人的民族特性似乎不足为虑。
不过，这种民族特性归根到底也是根植于美国信条中的。当对这种世俗宗教的信念只存在于一部分美国人心中时，美国很快会变成另一个国家——一个十分强大、富裕的国家，名字仍叫“美利坚合众国”。但是我们将脱离美国的基石——正是这块基石造就了历史上独一无二的美国。
本文作者: 默里 (Charles Murray) 供职于美国企业研究所 (American Enterprise Institute)，是该研究所的W.H. Brady学者。他撰写过多本书籍，例如《民治：重建自由，无须得到许可》(By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission)和《分崩离析：美国白人五十年来(1960-2010)的变化》(Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010)。
《纽约客》: 特朗普与美国三K党的历史
Donald Trump and the Ku Klux Klan: A History
February 29, 2016
By Evan Osnos
For months, as Donald Trump developed his political repertoire, he adopted an uncharacteristic reply for questions about fascism and the Ku Klux Klan: silence, or something close to it.
He used the technique as early as last August, when his opponents, and the press, still generally regarded him as a summer amusement. On August 26th, the Bloomberg Television anchor John Heilemann brought up David Duke, the former Klan Grand Wizard, who had said that Trump was “the best of the lot” in the 2016 campaign. Trump replied that he had no idea who Duke was. Heilemann asked if Trump would repudiate Duke’s endorsement. “Sure,” Trump said, “if that would make you feel better, I would certainly repudiate. I don’t know anything about him.” Changing tack, Heilemann pressed Trump about an article in this magazine, which described Trump’s broad support among neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and other members of the far right who were drawn in by his comments about Mexicans. Trump maintained a posture of indifference. “Honestly, John, I’d have to read the story. A lot of people like me.” The interview moved on to other topics.
It should be noted that Trump’s unfamiliarity with Duke is a recent condition. In 2000, Trump issued a statement that he was no longer considering a run for President with the backing of the Reform Party, partly because it “now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke.”
Throughout last fall and into the winter, Trump continued to accumulate support among white nationalists. In November, on a weekend in which he said that a black protester, at a rally in Alabama, deserved to be “roughed up,” Trump retweeted a graphic composed of false racist statistics on crime; the graphic, it was discovered, originated from a neo-Nazi account that used as its profile image a variation on the swastika. In January, he retweeted the account “@WhiteGenocideTM,” which identified its location as “Jewmerica.” Shortly before the Iowa caucuses, a pro-Trump robocall featured several white supremacists, including the author Jared Taylor, who told voters, “We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people.” Each time Trump was asked on Twitter about his white nationalist supporters, the candidate, who is ready to respond, day or night, to critics of his debating style or his golf courses, simply ignored the question.
Only under special circumstances did Trump summon a forceful response on matters of the Klan: in January, BoingBoing unearthed a newspaper report from 1927 on the arraignment of a man with the name and address of Donald Trump’s father; the story was about attendees of a Klan rally who fought with police, though it wasn’t clear from the story why the Trump in the piece was arrested. Asked about it, Donald Trump denied that his father had had any connection to a Klan rally. “It’s a completely false, ridiculous story. He was never there! It never happened. Never took place.”
But recently, as Trump’s campaign has received much belated closer scrutiny, his reliable approach to the Klan problem has faltered. On Thursday, Duke offered his strongest support for the candidate yet, telling radio listeners that a vote for one of Trump’s rivals would be “treason to your heritage.” The next day, when Trump had hoped to focus on his endorsement by Governor Chris Christie, of New Jersey, a reporter shouted a question about Duke’s embrace, and Trump said, “David Duke endorsed me? O.K., all right, I disavow. O.K.?” For the moment, it worked, and the press conference moved on. Christie, in fact, bore the brunt of the Duke association: he appeared on the front page of the Daily News on Saturday, as the “MAN WITH A KLAN,” with his picture beside a group of hooded Klansmen. In a different spirit, the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi news site that long ago endorsed Trump, awarded Christie the title “Heroic Deputy.” (Christie’s overnight evolution from trashing Trump to obeying him repulsed even the political class, a group that is usually more forgiving of self-rationalization. The technology executive Meg Whitman, who had been one of Christie’s top backers, called his alliance with Trump “an astonishing display of political opportunism,” and asked Christie’s donors and supporters “to reject the governor and Donald Trump outright.”)
Over the weekend, Trump’s purported indifference to support from white supremacists and fascists became an inescapable problem. He had retweeted a Mussolini quote from @ilduce2016 (which, it turned out, was an account created by Gawker to trap Trump)—“It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep”—and, when asked, on NBC, if he wanted to associate himself with Mussolini, he said that he wanted “to be associated with interesting quotes.” He added, “Mussolini was Mussolini. . . . What difference does it make?” On CNN, Jake Tapper pressed him about David Duke, and Trump, seeming to forget that he had given a one-line disavowal, reverted to a position of theatrical incomprehension: “Just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke, O.K.?” Tapper asked three times if Trump would denounce the Klan’s support, and each time Trump declined. “I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists,” he said. “So I don’t know. I don’t know—did he endorse me, or what’s going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists.”
By Monday, less than twenty-four hours before primary voting on Super Tuesday, his non-answers about the Klan were creating a crisis, and Trump introduced a new explanation: audio trouble. “I’m sitting in a house in Florida with a very bad earpiece that they gave me, and you could hardly hear what he was saying,” he said on the “Today” show. “But what I heard was various groups, and I don’t mind disavowing anybody, and I disavowed David Duke and I disavowed him the day before at a major news conference, which is surprising because he was at the major news conference, CNN was at the major news conference, and they heard me very easily disavow David Duke.”
There may be no better measure of the depravity of this campaign season than the realization that it’s not clear whether Trump’s overt appreciation for fascism, and his sustained salute to American racists, will have a positive or negative effect on his campaign. For now, his opponents are rejoicing. Marco Rubio, the Florida senator, pronounced him “unelectable.” Governor John Kasich, of Ohio, called Trump’s comments “just horrific.” But it is by now a truism to note that Trump has survived pratfalls that other politicians have not. A surprisingly large portion of Americans believed him when he pushed a racist campaign denying the birthplace of Barack Obama; a comparably chilling portion of Americans were attracted when he called Mexicans rapists. By the end of the day on Sunday, he had received the endorsement of Senator Jeff Sessions, of Alabama, the first sitting senator officially to line up with Trump. Sessions was not likely to be bothered by Trump’s flirtations with the Klan. In 1986, he was rejected from a federal judgeship after saying that he thought the Klan was “O.K. until I learned they smoked pot.”
In the weeks to come, Trump is virtually guaranteed to accumulate additional endorsements from politicians like Christie and Sessions, who have divined their interests in drafting behind the strongest candidate for the Republican nomination. Whether driven by fear of irrelevance or attracted by the special benefits of being an early adopter, Christie seemed compelled to do it, and now the remnant of his political reputation is going from a solid to a gas. But the true obscenity of his decision, and those of other Trumpists, may take years to be fully appreciated. In an editorial last week, the Washington Post declared that “history will not look kindly on GOP leaders who fail to do everything in their power to prevent a bullying demagogue from becoming their standard-bearer.” That’s true, but history will judge even more harshly those who stand with Trump now that it is indefensibly clear with whom they are standing.
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
