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

布鲁尼:民主党为何会一败涂地

更新时间:2016-11-14 18:32:17 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

The Democrats Screwed Up
布鲁尼:民主党为何会一败涂地

We geniuses in the news media spent only the last month telling you how Donald Trump was losing this election. We spent the last year telling you how the Republican Party was unraveling.

我们这些新闻媒体上的天才只是在最后一个月里说唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)将如何输掉这次大选。在过去一年里,我们一直说的是共和党将如何瓦解。

And here we are, with the Democrats in tatters. You might want to think twice about our Oscar and Super Bowl predictions.

现在的情况是,我们和民主党人都陷入了窘境。下次听我们预测奥斯卡和超级碗的赢家时,你可能要再思量一下。

Despite all the discussion of demographic forces that doomed the G.O.P., it will soon control the presidency as well as both chambers of Congress and two of every three governor’s offices. And that’s not just a function of James Comey, Julian Assange and misogyny. Democrats who believe so are dangerously mistaken.

尽管大家都说从族群力量来看,共和党注定会失败,但他们不久将会占据总统职位、国会两院,以及三分之二的州长职位。这不仅仅是詹姆斯·科米(James Comey)、朱利安·阿桑奇(JulianAssange)和厌女症在起作用。有些民主党人以为是这样,这种误解很危险。

Other factors conspired in the party’s debacle. One in particular haunts me. From the presidential race on down, Democrats adopted a strategy of inclusiveness that excluded a hefty share of Americans and consigned many to a “basket of deplorables” who aren’t all deplorable. Some are hurt. Some are confused.

还有其他因素导致了民主党的惨败。其中一个让我特别困扰。从总统竞选一开始,民主党就采取了一种不包容的战略,将大量的美国人排除在外,把很多并不太可悲的人称为是“一群可悲的人”。这让有些人感觉很受伤。有些人觉得莫名其妙。

Liberals miss this by being illiberal. They shame not just the racists and sexists who deserve it but all who disagree. A 64-year-old Southern woman not onboard with marriage equality finds herself characterized as a hateful boob. Never mind that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton weren’t themselves onboard just five short years ago.

自由主义者因为不自由而错过。他们羞辱的人不仅仅是活该被羞辱的种族主义者和性别歧视者,还有所有持不同意见的人。一个不支持婚姻平权的64岁南方女性,会被视为可恶的笨蛋。其实巴拉克·奥巴马(Barack Obama)和希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)自己在短短的五年前也没有支持婚姻平权。

Political correctness has morphed into a moral purity that may feel exhilarating but isn’t remotely tactical. It’s a handmaiden to smugness and sanctimony, undermining its own goals.

政治正确已经演变成了一种“道德纯粹”,感觉上它可能令人振奋,但非常缺乏策略。它是装模作样和虚假虔诚的仆人,破坏了它自己的目标。

I worry about my and my colleagues’ culpability along these lines. I plan to use greater care in how I talk to and about Americans more culturally conservative than I am. That’s not a surrender of principle or passion. It’s a grown-up acknowledgment that we’re a messy, imperfect species.

我担心我和我的同事们在这个方面犯了过失。我打算以后谈到文化上更保守的美国人时,以及对他们讲话时,要比现在更加谨慎一些。这不是牺牲原则,抛弃情怀。这是像一个成年人那样承认,我们是凌乱的、不完美的物种。

Donald Trump’s victory and some of the, yes, deplorable chants that accompanied it do not mean that a majority of Americans are irredeemable bigots (though too many indeed are). Plenty of Trump voters chose him, reluctantly, to be an agent of disruption, which they craved keenly enough to overlook the rest of him.

唐纳德·特朗普的胜利和一些可悲者的颂扬并不意味着大多数美国人是不可挽回的盲信者(虽然有太多人确实是)。特朗普的很多选民犹犹豫豫地选择他作为颠覆的代理人,他们对颠覆太过渴望,以至于大大忽视了特朗普的其余部分。

Democrats need to understand that, and they need to move past a complacency for which the Clintons bear considerable blame.

民主党人需要明白,他们需要消除一种自鸣得意的情绪,克林顿在这方面负有重大责任。

It’s hard to overestimate the couple’s stranglehold on the party — its think tanks, its operatives, its donors — for the last two decades. Most top Democrats had vested interests in the Clintons, and energy that went into supporting and defending them didn’t go into fresh ideas and fresh faces, who were shut out as the party cleared the decks anew for Hillary in 2016.

在过去20年里,克林顿夫妇对民主党及其智囊团、操作者、捐赠者有一种极强的锁定作用。大多数顶级民主党人都是克林顿夫妇当权的既得利益者,支持和捍卫他们的这股力量并没有接纳新的想法和新鲜面孔,当民主党2016年为希拉里再次竞争做准备的时候,这些新面孔就被刷掉了。

In thrall to the Clintons, Democrats ignored the copious, glaring signs of an electorate hankering for something new and different and instead took a next-in-line approach that stopped working awhile back. Just ask Mitt Romney and John McCain and John Kerry and Al Gore and Bob Dole. They’re the five major-party nominees before her who lost, and each was someone who, like her, was more due than dazzling.

被克林顿一家锁定之后,民主党人忽略了人们渴望新鲜、不同东西的诸多明显迹象,而是采取了“轮到下一个”的方法,这个方法已经有一段时间不灵了。只要问问米特·罗姆尼(Mitt Romney)、约翰·麦凯恩(John McCain)、约翰·克里(John Kerry)、艾尔·戈尔(Al Gore)和鲍勃·多尔(Bob Dole)就知道了。他们是在她之前输掉的五个主要提名人,而且每个人都像她一样,更加老沉而不是新鲜耀眼。

After Election Day, one Clinton-weary Democratic insider told me: “I’m obviously not happy and I hate to admit this, but a part of me feels liberated. If she’d won, we’d already be talking about Chelsea’s first campaign. Now we can do what we really need to and start over.”

在选举日之后,民主党内部一个对克林顿感到腻味的人对我说:“我显然不高兴,我讨厌承认这一点,但我也有一点解放了的感觉。如果她赢了,我们现在就已经在讨论切尔西的第一次竞选了。现在我们可以去做真正需要做的事情,重新开始。”

Obama, too, contributed to the party’s marginalization. While he threw himself into Hillary Clinton’s campaign, he was, for much of his presidency, politically selfish, devoting less thought and time to the cultivation of the party than he could — and should — have. By design, his brand was not its. Small wonder, then, that its fate diverged from his.

民主党的边缘化,奥巴马也脱不开干系。他的确深度参与了希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)的竞选,但在总统任期的大部分时间里,他在政治上很自私,他本能够、也本应在党的建设方面投入更多思想与时间。他的品牌和党的品牌是不一样的,这是有意安排的结果。那么,二者的命运分道扬镳也就不奇怪了。

He anointed Clinton over Joe Biden, though Biden had more charisma and a better connection with the white voters who ultimately supported Trump. Had Biden been the nominee, he probably would have won the Electoral College as well as the popular vote (which Clinton indeed got).

他选择克林顿作为自己的继承人,而不是乔·拜登(Joe Biden),虽然拜登人格魅力更大,和白人选民之间有更好的联系,正是这些白人选民最终选择了特朗普。如果拜登是被提名人,他有望既赢得选举人团,又赢得普选票(后者希拉里的确是赢了)。

And had Bernie Sanders been? Michael Bloomberg would almost certainly have jumped into the fray, sensing unoccupied territory in the political center, and an infinitely saner and more capable billionaire might well be our president-elect.

让伯尼·桑德斯(Bernie Sanders)来怎么样?迈克尔·布隆伯格(Michael Bloomberg)感觉到政治中心还有一块无人占据的领土,本来肯定应该加入战局,一个清醒得多也更有能力的亿万富翁可能是总统的好人选。

Democrats bungled a terrific opportunity to retake the Senate majority by ignoring the national mood as they picked their candidates. A party that prides itself on looking out for the little guy went with the biggest names it could find.

在选择候选人的同时,民主党忽视了整个国家的情绪,因此搞砸了一个夺回参议院多数席位的极好机会。一个以关照小老百姓为傲的党,选择了名气最大的候选人。

That happened in Wisconsin with Russ Feingold, in Indiana with Evan Bayh and in Ohio with Ted Strickland, all of whom were defeated by Republicans who couldn’t be tarred as insiders or as emblems of the status quo because the Democrats had just as much mileage on them.

这种情况包括威斯康星州的拉斯·费恩戈尔德(Russ Feingold)、印第安纳州的埃文·巴赫(Evan Bayh)和俄亥俄州的特德·斯特里克兰(Ted Strickland),他们被共和党候选人打败了,而这些共和党人都不能被视为内部人士或维持现状的象征,因为民主党的候选人们也相差无几。

Senator Rob Portman, the Ohio Republican, campaigned as the outsider and the underdog, and he ended up beating Strickland, the state’s former governor, by more than 20 points. Like Feingold and Bayh, Strickland could hardly claim the mantle of revolution.

俄亥俄州共和党参议员罗伯特·波特曼(Rob Portman),以局外人和弱势者的姿态参加竞选,最终以多于20点打败这个州的前州长斯特里克兰。如同费恩格尔德和巴赫一样,斯特里克兰几乎根本无法担当变革的重任。

In contrast, Democrats had success in a House district in Central Florida that didn’t initially appear to be promising turf by running Stephanie Murphy, a 37-year-old first-timer, against John Mica, 73, who had been in Congress for nearly a quarter-century. “Change” was Murphy’s mantra, and, like Trump, she used it to turn inexperience into an asset.

相比之下,民主党在佛罗里达州中部的一个最初不被看好的众议员选区内取得了成功,候选人是37岁、第一次参选的史蒂芬妮·墨菲(Stephanie Murphy),对抗73岁、在国会待了将近1/4世纪的约翰·米卡(John Mica)。“改变”是墨菲的口号,像特朗普一样,她用这个字眼把自己的缺乏经验变成一种资产。

A party that keeps the White House for eight years customarily suffers losses elsewhere, as if the electorate insists on some kind of equilibrium. That happened under Bill Clinton and again under George W. Bush — but not to the extent that it has happened under Obama.

坐镇白宫八年的政党通常会在其他地方遭受损失,好像全体选民坚持保持某种均势似的。这种情况曾经发生在比尔·克林顿(Bill Clinton)与乔治·W·布什(George W. Bush)任期结束之时――但没有奥巴马任期结束之后这样严重。

His presidency will end with Democrats in possession of 11 fewer Senate seats (depending on how you count), more than 60 fewer House seats, at least 14 fewer governorships and more than 900 fewer seats in state legislatures than when it began. That’s a staggering toll.

同上任之初相比,在他的总统任期结束之际,民主党的参议院席位将减少11个(取决于你如何计数),众议院席位将减少60多个,州长席位将减少至少14个,州议会将减少900多个。伤亡惨重。

While the 2016 race for governor in North Carolina remains undecided, the settled contests guarantee the G.O.P. the governor’s office in 33 states: its most bountiful harvest since 1922.

虽然2016年北卡罗来纳州州长的竞选结果仍然未决定,但在已结束的竞选中,共和党得到了33个州的州长:这是自1922年以来从未有过的丰收。

If Democrats don’t quickly figure out how to sturdy themselves — a process larger than the selection of the right new party chairman — they could wind up in even worse shape. They’re defending more than twice the number of Senate seats in 2018 that Republicans are, a situation that gives the G.O.P. a shot at a filibuster-proof majority.

如果民主党人不能迅速找到加强自身的办法――这是一个比选择正确的新任党主席更庞大的过程――他们可能以更糟糕的局面收场。到2018年,他们要在参议院中抵御人数是自己两倍还多的共和党,这种情况令共和党处于完全不会受到阻挠的多数。

Meantime, the perpetuation of Republican dominance at the state level through 2020 would grant the G.O.P. the upper hand in redrawing congressional districts after the next census.

同时,在州一级将保持主导地位直到2020年的共和党,在下一次人口普查后的国会选区重新规划中将抢得先手。

But new presidents typically get an electoral whupping after their first two years, and there’s every reason to believe that Trump will govern — or fail to — in a fashion that prompts one. Will Democrats respond in a way that puts them in the best possible position to deliver it?

但新总统通常在上任两年之后会被选民惩罚,并且有充分的理由相信特朗普对国家的治理(或者说无力治理)将促成这种失败。对此,民主党人能以一种令自己在反击中处于最有利位置的方式去回应吗?

That hinges on whether they can look as hard at the errors in their party as at the ugliness in America.

这取决于他们是否能够像严厉审视美国的丑陋一般,严厉地审视自身的错误。

“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