您现在的位置: 纽约时报中英文网 >> 纽约时报中英文版 >> 观点 >> 正文

识破美国大选中的骗子

更新时间:2016-9-7 18:34:34 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

Hillary Clinton Gets Gored
识破美国大选中的骗子

Americans of a certain age who follow politics and policy closely still have vivid memories of the 2000 election — bad memories, and not just because the man who lost the popular vote somehow ended up in office. For the campaign leading up to that end game was nightmarish too.

紧跟政治与政策话题的美国人,只要年岁够了,自然对2000年的大选还有着鲜活的记忆——是糟糕的记忆,不光因为在普选票中失利的家伙最终入主了白宫。还因为,落得这一结局之前的竞选活动也噩梦连连。

You see, one candidate, George W. Bush, was dishonest in a way that was unprecedented in U.S. politics. Most notably, he proposed big tax cuts for the rich while insisting, in raw denial of arithmetic, that they were targeted for the middle class. These campaign lies presaged what would happen during his administration — an administration that, let us not forget, took America to war on false pretenses.

大家知道,其中一名候选人的欺诈程度在美国政坛上史无前例,他就是乔治·W·布什(George W. Bush)。尤其是,他提出的计划会给富人大幅减税,同时却又罔顾数据,坚称它针对的是中产阶级。这些在竞选阶段撒下的谎言预示了布什政府接下来的作为——不要忘记,正是该届政府用虚假的借口将美国拖入了战争。

Yet throughout the campaign most media coverage gave the impression that Mr. Bush was a bluff, straightforward guy, while portraying Al Gore — whose policy proposals added up, and whose critiques of the Bush plan were completely accurate — as slippery and dishonest. Mr. Gore’s mendacity was supposedly demonstrated by trivial anecdotes, none significant, some of them simply false. No, he never claimed to have invented the internet. But the image stuck.

然而,在整个竞选过程中,多数媒体报道给人呈现的印象却是,布什是个直接坦率的家伙。阿尔·戈尔(Al Gore)则圆滑狡诈,尽管后者提出的政策合情合理,他对布什计划的批评也准确无误。据称可以证明戈尔虚伪的都不过是微不足道的小事,没有一件谈得上重要,其中一些根本为不实之辞。不,他从未宣称是自己发明了互联网。然而,这种形象定位却挥之不去。

And right now I and many others have the sick, sinking feeling that it’s happening again.

今天,我和许多人一样,生发出一种很不愉快的糟糕感受:往事再次上演了。

True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.

诚然,并没有多少假装唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)是诚信典范的言行存在。然而,我们也很难不得出一种印象:舆论对他的评判建立在与过去相比的基础之上。只要他能老老实实照提词屏念稿,不自我发挥,那他就是拥有总统气概了。只要他看起来没有明确表示自己会马上把1100万无证件移民通通赶走,那他就是在往主流靠拢。他的身上丑闻迭出,比如看起来明显是收买了州检察长而换取对方不调查特朗普大学,但其中不少却非同寻常地并未获取多少关注。

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

与此同时,只要是希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)做出的任何事情,我们都认定必然是腐败的。有关克林顿基金会的报道越来越荒谬,最为醒目地证明了这一点。

Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating — better than the American Red Cross.

让我们暂且退后一步,想一想这个基金是怎么回事。比尔·克林顿(Bill Clinton)卸任总统时,是个招人喜欢的人物,在全球范围内广受尊重。他该如何利用自己的声誉呢?募集大笔善款,救贫困儿童于水火,似乎是相当合理而又彰显道德的行动方案。此外,根据各方面的说法,克林顿基金是一支让世界变得更美好的重要力量。例如,独立监察组织慈善观察(Charity Watch)给它的评级是“A”,比给美国红十字会的还高。

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation “raises questions.”

现在,任何募集并支出数十亿美元的机构,都会制造潜在的利益冲突。你可以假设克林顿夫妇把该基金当成贿赂基金,酬谢朋友;也可以假设希拉里·克林顿利用她的公职,报答捐赠者。因此,调查该基金的运营情况,看看有没有任何不正当的权钱交易,是正确而又恰当的做法。就像记者们喜欢说的那样,光是该基金的庞大规模,就足以“引发质疑”。

But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, “no.”

对这些质疑的回答显然是“No”,不过似乎没人愿意接受。

Consider the big Associated Press report suggesting that Mrs. Clinton’s meetings with foundation donors while secretary of state indicate “her possible ethics challenges if elected president.” Given the tone of the report, you might have expected to read about meetings with, say, brutal foreign dictators or corporate fat cats facing indictment, followed by questionable actions on their behalf.

来看美联社的一篇重磅报道。报道称,希拉里·克林顿担任国务卿期间与该基金一些捐赠者的会面,预示着“她如果当选总统,可能面临道德上的挑战”。鉴于该报道的腔调,你或许期待在里面看到她会见残暴的外国独裁者或者面临起诉的企业大亨的内容,然后是她为这些人代言的可疑举动。

But the prime example The A.P. actually offered was of Mrs. Clinton meeting with Muhammad Yunus, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who also happens to be a longtime personal friend. If that was the best the investigation could come up with, there was nothing there.

但美联社给出的主要例证,竟然是希拉里·克林顿曾和诺贝尔和平奖得主穆罕默德·尤努斯(Muhammad Yunus)会面,而他们碰巧也是有多年私交的朋友。如果这是调查所能找到的最重磅证据,就意味着这其中没有任何问题。

So I would urge journalists to ask whether they are reporting facts or simply engaging in innuendo, and urge the public to read with a critical eye. If reports about a candidate talk about how something “raises questions,” creates “shadows,” or anything similar, be aware that these are all too often weasel words used to create the impression of wrongdoing out of thin air.

所以我想请记者们扪心自问,他们到底是在报道事实,还是说仅仅在含沙射影,并敦促公众以批判的眼光看待这一切。如果关于总统候选人的报道谈的是某些东西如何“引发质疑”、投下“阴影”之类的,请注意,一些人常常利用这些含糊其辞的说法,凭空让公众产生某人有不当行为的印象。

And here’s a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate’s character are to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she is proposing. Mr. Trump’s record of bilking students, stiffing contractors and more is a good indicator of how he’d act as president; Mrs. Clinton’s speaking style and body language aren’t. George W. Bush’s policy lies gave me a much better handle on who he was than all the up-close-and-personal reporting of 2000, and the contrast between Mr. Trump’s policy incoherence and Mrs. Clinton’s carefulness speaks volumes today.

另外,说一个小窍门:评判候选人人品的最佳方式,是看他或她实际做了什么,看其提议推行哪些政策。特朗普曾欺骗学生,赖承包商的帐,凡此种种完全可以预示,他当选总统后将如何行事。希拉里·克林顿的说话风格和肢体语言则并不具有预示性。乔治·W·布什(George W. Bush)的政策谎言远比2000年那些详尽的个人报道更能让我了解他是什么样的人;如今,把特朗普所提政策建议的不连贯与希拉里·克林顿的严谨细致两相对照,便可说明一切。

In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can’t afford another election tipped by innuendo.

换句话说就是着眼于事实。美国和世界无力承担又一场被含沙射影搅乱的选举。

“全文请访问纽约时报中文网,本文发表于纽约时报中文网(http://cn.nytimes.com),版权归纽约时报公司所有。任何单位及个人未经许可,不得擅自转载或翻译。订阅纽约时报中文网新闻电邮:http://nytcn.me/subscription/”

相关文章列表