原文链接：https://medium.com/@giorgioprovinciali/is-there-a-red-line-to-non-voters-0c9e7dde88a0?sk=a662d9f0aa8ffa281cb5e10746548fb1
Is There A Red-Line To Non-Voters?
By: Giorgio Provinciali
Live from Ukraine
Donald Trump is the first criminal President of the United States, convictedon 34 charges. Despite this being widely known, along with suspicions of his shady ties to some of the most serious criminals on earth, some still voted for him. Worse, some ignored the warning signs and did nothing to stop their country from falling into the hands of a criminal.
The recent suspicions that he might manipulate the upcoming midterm elections, or even prevent them at all, were made clear by The Guardian in an article published a few hours ago, which explains how Trump and his administration could exploit a series of interconnected national emergencies as excuses to avoid holding regular elections. This would deny not only his supporters the chance to repent but also those who abstained from voting in the last election the right to vote in order to help correct the previous disaster they helped create.
With a declining approval rating – most polls place him at 36% – Donald Trump continues to fall in prominence, challenging the most unpopular presidents in U.S. history, such as George W. Bush at the end of his term and Harry Truman, who even fell below 30%.
All this makes the behavior of many Americans in the last elections even more serious.
In the latest episode of History in the Making: The War in Ukraine, host Mark McNamee did something rare and valuable. He turned to his own brother, Dave McNamee – a successful, college-educated, middle-aged Trump voter from the suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio – and a panel of six similar Trump supporters, to answer a flood of questions from bewildered Europeans. The episode, titled “Is There a Red Line for Trump Voters?”, dives deep into January 6th, the erosion of democratic norms, immigration enforcement, foreign policy, and above all else: what it would take for these voters to finally walk away.
As one of the Europeans whose questions were included in that conversation, I listened carefully.
I am not angry with those who voted for Trump.
I know that might sound surprising coming from someone who has spent years observing what wars look like when American foreign policy loses its backbone – when weapons shipments slow down, when alliances are viewed as liabilities, and when the phrase “America First” lands on a frontline like a kind of sentence.
But no, my anger is not directed at Trump voters.
They are, after all, roughly one in four Americans—twenty-five percent of the population. A minority—indeed, a significant one—but still a minority. Incomprehensible to my standards, formed in a different political culture, shaped by a different kind of history. I may find them incomprehensible, yet I can still recognize the math: they are not the majority.
They did not decide this alone.
What truly poisons my experience – and I think about it every single day, from wherever I happen to be standing when the news comes in – is the other number. The one that doesn’t get talked about with the same urgency. One in two Americans did not vote. Fifty percent. Double the Trump electorate. People who looked at the ballot, looked at the stakes, and decided their absence was an option they could afford.
It wasn’t.
I want to be precise about this, because precision matters when you’re talking about consequences that extend far beyond any single country’s borders.
The decision not to vote in the United States is not a private act. It is not a form of protest that stays contained within the political system that produced it. It radiates outward. It determines, in ways both direct and structural, what happens to people who never had a vote to cast in the first place – people who are nonetheless living inside the consequences of that non-decision every day.
Those people exist. I’ve met them. Some of them are fighting. Some of them are not fighting anymore.
Staying home, or treating the ballot as a luxury protest – a way to show dissatisfaction with the available options – is a position that only makes sense if you believe the outcome is someone else’s problem.
Americans, of all people, cannot believe that.
The United States is not a country whose internal politics stay internal. The economy they influence, the military power they hold, the alliances they honor or abandon – these are not just domestic issues. Thanks to American influence, they are global concerns.
For Americans, voting is not only a right. Under certain historical conditions, it becomes a duty.
A non-vote in the United States never stops at the water’s edge. It does not remain confined to the price of groceries, the noise of television pundits, or the emotional fatigue of yet another election cycle. Its effects reach battlefields, alliances, sanctions regimes, military deliveries, diplomatic choices, and the survival chances of people fighting every day to stay alive and free.
To know this—and everyone who stayed home knew it because they had already experienced one Trump term—and still view abstention as a form of political expression: that, to me, is unforgivable.
Not strategically unforgivable. Morally unforgivable. The kind of unforgivable that doesn’t soften over time because the consequences don’t soften either.
This message, then, is not primarily aimed at the minority who actively supported Trump.
To them, I have just two questions—and since I am an engineer, I will frame them in technical terms. If we think of a political system as a structure with defined margins of tolerance, observing the inertia of non-voters makes it necessary to test the viability of the supporting structure itself. Two questions directly address this test: one about tolerance, and one about the breaking point.
? What aspect of Donald Trump makes you most uncomfortable, yet you are still willing to tolerate?
? What would it take – what specific event, policy, or line crossed – for you to stop supporting him?
These questions — one of which appears in the title of that podcast episode— are aimed at those who, with some level of awareness, have deliberately chosen to support this direction. That takes a kind of commitment. I want to understand its limits.
But the central message here is addressed to the much larger number of Americans who, by staying home, helped decide the outcome anyway. Not because they loved him. Not because they defended him. But because they behaved as though the consequences of their absence would fall on no one.
They fall on soldiers. They fall on civilians. They fall on countries that rely on American consistency and instead encounter American indifference. They fall on those who do not have the privilege of treating politics as mere mood, posture, or performance. They fall on those who bear the consequences in rubble, blood, occupation, bombardment, and the slow wear of democratic neglect.
Too often, American political culture treats voting as a form of personal expression. From a distance – where history hits not as debate but as a shockwave – it appears different. It looks like power. And power that avoids responsibility is one of the most dangerous forces in the world.
When you live in the most powerful nation on earth, not choosing is still a choice. It has global consequences, and others may pay for it with their future, safety, or lives.
You might call it disillusionment. You might call it a protest. You might call it exhaustion. But the world still has to deal with the consequences.
Democracies don't fail just because some people choose the dangerous candidate. They also fail because too many others persuade themselves that standing aside is innocence.
It is not innocence.
It is participation by absence.
And when the consequences are this large, this foreseeable, and this global, that absence becomes unforgivable.
We are doing our best to provide genuine, first-hand reports from zones where almost no press dares to go. This means living constantly in a kill zone. We take the risk, but without your invaluable support, our voices would remain unheard and silent. Without brave people sharing our articles from afar, they would remain unread. Our reports would go unseen, and our efforts would be lost. There’s still a lot of work to do here, as the people around us are also in no better situation.
We’re renewing our fundraising campaign and thanking everyone who joins us in helping to restore what Russia is destroying. Moving forward with only a small reimbursement for each article from a brave newspaper that believes in us is extremely challenging. That’s why we are grateful to all the kind people who support us and trust in our mission.
Even a small donation helps.
We’ll keep you updated on developments.
Thank you all, dear friends
不投票者有无红线？
作者：Giorgio Provinciali
翻译：旺财球球
乌克兰前线报道
唐纳德·川普是美国首位被定罪的总统，共34项罪名成立。尽管这一事实众所周知，而且他与地球上一些最严重的犯罪分子有可疑关联一并广为人知，仍有人投票支持他。更糟的是，有些人无视明显的警示，未采取任何行动阻止他们的国家落入一个罪犯之手。
《卫报》数小时前发表的一篇文章清楚指出：川普可能操纵即将到来的中期选举，甚至彻底阻止选举的猜测并非空穴来风。文章解释了川普及其政府如何可能利用一系列相互关联的国家紧急状态作为借口，避免按常规举行选举。这不仅剥夺了其支持者悔改的机会，也剥夺了上次选举中弃权者重新投票、以纠正他们所促成灾难的权利。
在持续下滑的支持率中——大多数民调显示他仅为36%——唐纳德·川普的声望持续下降，与美国历史上最不受欢迎的总统比肩，例如任期末的乔治·W·布什和甚至跌破30%的哈里·杜鲁门。
所有这些都使得许多美国人在上次选举中的行为更显严重。
（图：我在乌克兰顿涅茨克州顿巴斯一个叫泽莱尼的小村庄报道——版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
在最新一集《历史的形成：乌克兰战争》中，主持人马克·麦克纳米做了一件罕见而有价值的事：他找来自己的兄弟戴夫·麦克纳米——一位居住在俄亥俄州克利夫兰郊区、受过大学教育且事业有成的中年川普支持者——以及六位类似背景的川普支持者，来回答一众困惑的欧洲人提出的问题。该集名为“川普选民有无红线？”，深入讨论了1月6日、民主规范的侵蚀、移民执法、外交政策，以及最重要的：这些选民要怎样才会最终放弃支持川普。
作为其中一位提问的欧洲人，我认真听了整期节目。
（图：本文中提到的《正在形成的历史：乌克兰战争》这一集的链接）
我并不愤怒于那些投票给川普的人。
这也许听来令人惊讶，尤其是来自一个多年亲眼目睹当美国外交政策失去脊梁时战争模样的人：当武器供应放缓、同盟被视为负担、“美国优先”口号像判决一样砸在前线上的人。
然而，我的愤怒并不针对川普的选民。
毕竟，他们大约占美国人口的四分之一——25%。是少数派，确实是重要的少数，但终究是少数。对我而言他们或许难以理解，源于我们生活于不同的政治文化中、受不同的历史经验塑造。我可以认为他们难以理解，但数学是清楚的：他们不是多数。
结果并非只由他们决定。
（图：我与 Alla 在从赫尔松州到进入尼古拉斯护城河报道，2022年俄军曾被乌克兰守军阻止在那里——版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
真正让我痛心的，是另一个数字——我每天都会思考这一点，无论正在何处采访。那个未被以同等紧迫性讨论的数字：每两名美国人中就有一人没有投票。50%。是川普选民人数的两倍。那些人看着选票、看着事态的风险，却决定缺席的人，认为他们可以承担不投票的代价。
事实并非如此。
我要说的精确一些，因为在谈论影响远超一个国家边界的后果时，精确至关重要。
在美国，不投票并非私事。它不是一种局限在产生它的政治体系内的抗议形式。它向外辐射，以直接和结构性的方式决定那些无投票权但每天却要承受该不作为后果的人们的命运。
那些人确实存在，我遇见过他们。有的人还在战斗，有的人再也无法战斗。
待在家中，或把选票视为一种奢侈的抗议——用来表达对候选人不满的一种方式——只有在你相信结果将由他人承担时才说的通。
美国人，尤其不能这样想。
美国不是一个内政只留在国内的国家。美国影响的经济、他们掌握的军事力量、以及支持或背弃的同盟——这些都不是国内问题。由于美国的影响力，它们也是全球性问题。
对美国人而言，投票不仅是一项权利。在特定历史条件下，它更成为一种责任。
在美国，不投票的影响从不会止步于海岸线。它的影响不局限于食品价格、电视政论的喧嚣，或另一次选举周期带来的情绪疲惫。其影响延伸至战场、联盟、制裁制度、军备交付、外交选择，以及那些每天为生存与自由而战的人们的生存几率。
那些选择不去投票的人都知道这一点，因为他们已经经历过一个川普任期；但他们却仍将弃权视为一种政治表达：对我来说，这是不可原谅的。
不是从战略上不可原谅，而是从道德上不可原谅。这种不可原谅不会随时间而软化，因为后果也不会软化。
（图：在切尔尼希夫州 尼日恩拍摄的前线影像——版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
因此，这篇文章并非主要针对积极支持川普的少数人。
对他们，我只有两个问题。既然我是工程师，我就用技术术语来表述：如果我们把政治体系视为一个具有明确容限的结构，观察不投票者的惯性就有必要去测试该支撑结构本身的活性。两个问题直接指向这一测试：一个关于容忍度，另一个关于断裂点。
- 川普的哪个方面最让你不安，但你仍愿意容忍？
- 要发生什么——什么具体事件、政策或越线行为——才能让你停止支持他？
这些问题（其中一题也出现在那期播客标题中）针对的是那些在某种程度上心知肚明却仍选择支持的人。那是一种承诺。我想了解这承诺的极限。
（图：Alla 与我在尼古拉耶夫一座已成为杀伤区的村庄报道。拍下照片后数秒，一架 FPV 无人机开始追击我们。乌克兰沿着第聂伯河的防线就在我们面前——版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
但这里的核心信息是写给数量更庞大的那部分美国人的，他们通过不去投票而实际上参与了决定。不是因为他们热爱他，不是因为他们为他辩护，而是因为他们的表现的好似他们缺席不会有任何后果。
后果落在士兵身上。落在平民身上。落在那些依赖美国一贯性的国家身上，却遭遇美国无视。落在那些无法把政治当作情绪、姿态或表演的人身上。落在那些承受着废墟、鲜血、占领、轰炸以及民主被忽视带来的渐进消耗的人身上。
美国政治文化常常把投票视为一种个人表达。从远处看——历史以冲击波而非辩论的形式到来时——情形不同。它看起来像权力。而回避责任的权力是世界上最危险的力量之一。
当你生活在世界上最强大的国家时，不作选择仍然是选择。它具有全球影响，别人可能会用他们的未来、安全或生命为此买单。
你或许称之为幻灭，或称之为抗议，或称之为疲惫。但世界仍需承担其后果。
民主之所以失败，不仅因为一些人选择了危险的候选人，还因为太多人自欺欺人的认为“置身事外即是无辜”。
但那不是无辜。
那是以缺席参与。
而当后果如此重大、如此可预见、如此全球化时，这种缺席便变得不可原谅。
（图：Alla 与我在乌克兰赫尔松行政大楼废墟中报道我们都向上看，害怕上方盘旋的无人机会发现我们——版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
***
我们尽最大努力从几乎没有媒体敢进入的地带进行真实的一手报道，这意味着我们长期生活在“杀伤区”。我们承担风险，但若没有你们宝贵的支持，我们的声音将无从传出。若没有远方的勇敢的人们转发分享我们的文章，它们将无人问津。我们的报道会被忽视，我们的努力将付诸流水。这里还有大量工作要做，周围的人们境况同样艰难。
我们正在更新筹款活动，感谢每一位加入我们、帮助修复俄罗斯破坏的人们。仅靠一家勇敢的报纸为我们每篇文章支付微薄稿酬以维持前线报道极为困难。因此，我们感激所有支持并信任我们使命的善良人们。
哪怕是小小的捐助也有助益。
我们会持续为你们更新事态进展。
谢谢大家，亲爱的朋友们
如果你认可我们的工作，请支持我们
在过去三年里，自乌克兰大规模战争爆发以来，作为自由撰稿人，我们一直在乌克兰战争的所有前线进行报道…
Paypal捐款链接：https://www.paypal.com/pools/c/9nxoMcbYLF
