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


更新时间:2016-12-11 9:56:25 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

Trump: Madman of the Year

So, Time magazine, ever in search of buzz, this week named Donald Trump Person of the Year. But they did so with a headline that read, “President of the Divided States of America.”

永远在搜寻热点话题的《时代》(Time)杂志确实在本周将年度风云人物的称号授予了唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)。但他们的标题写着“美利坚分众国总统”。

The demi-fascist of Fifth Avenue wasn’t flattered by that wording.


In an interview with the “Today” show, Trump huffed, “When you say divided states of America, I didn’t divide them. They’re divided now.” He added later, “I think putting divided is snarky, but again, it’s divided. I’m not president yet. So I didn’t do anything to divide.”


Donald, thy name is division. You and your campaign of toxicity and intolerance have not only divided this country but also ripped it to tatters.


This comports with an extremely disturbing tendency of Trump’s: Denying responsibility for things of which he is fully culpable, while claiming full praise for things in which he was only partly involved.


As my mother used to say: Don’t try to throw a rock and hide your hand. Own your odiousness.


But Trump delivered the lie with an ease and innocuousness that bespoke a childish innocence and naïveté. In fact, his words disguised cold calculation.


That is the thing about demagogy: It can be charming, even dazzling, and that is what makes it all the more dangerous.


Demagogues can flatter and whisper and chuckle. They can remind us of the good in the world because they have an acute awareness of the ways of the world. They can also love and be loved. They can reflect our own humanity because they are human, but their ambitions do not bend toward the good.


Their ultimate end is distraction, which allows domination, which leads to destruction.


Trump is running two post-campaign campaigns: one high and one low, one of frivolity and one of enormous consequence.


One is a campaign of bread and circuses — tweets, rallies, bombast about random issues of the moment, all meant to distract and excite — and the other is the constant assemblage of a cabinet full of fat cats and “mad dog” generals, a virtual aviary of vultures and hawks.


On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that Trump had “settled on Gen. John F. Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general whose son was killed in combat in Afghanistan, as his choice for secretary of Homeland Security.”

据《纽约时报》周三报道,特朗普已经“选定儿子在阿富汗战争中殉职的海军陆战队退役四星上将约翰·F·凯利(John F. Kelly)担任他的国土安全部长”。

They also pointed out that Kelly had “dismissed one argument cited by those who advocate closing the military prison at Guantánamo, saying it had not proved to be an inspiration for militants.” The prison fell under his command.


Make no mistake: the prison at Guantánamo is one of the most glaring and enduring moral blights remaining from our humanitarianism-be-damned reaction to the attacks of 9/11.


Trump said of the prison last month:


“This morning, I watched President Obama talking about Gitmo, right, Guantánamo Bay, which by the way, which by the way, we are keeping open. Which we are keeping open ... and we’re gonna load it up with some bad dudes, believe me, we’re gonna load it up.”


The Times also said that Kelly “questioned the Obama administration’s plans to open all combat jobs to women, saying the military would have to lower its physical standards to bring women into some roles.”


This is disturbing, but Kelly isn’t the only one of Trump’s military picks who has a disturbing attitude toward women.


Last month, The Daily Beast reported that the office of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s pick for national security adviser, “told women to wear makeup, heels, and skirts.” These directives to women were presented in a “January 2013 presentation, entitled ‘Dress for Success,’” which was obtained by a Freedom of Information request by MuckRock. The presentation reportedly made sweeping patriarchal declarations — “makeup helps women look more attractive” — and gave granular detail — “Wear just enough to accentuate your features.” According to the presentation, “Do not advocate the ‘Plain Jane’ look.”

据Daily Beast网站上月报道,被特朗普选中担任国家安全顾问的陆军中将迈克尔·T·弗林(Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn)的办公室“要求女性化妆、穿高跟鞋和裙子”。这些向女性发出的命令出现在2013年1月一份“题为《穿出成功》(Dress for Success)的PPT文件中,它是由MuckRock依照《信息自由法》提出申请后获得的。据报道,这份文件做出了富有男权意味的一刀切宣言——“化妆能让女性看起来更吸引人”——还提出了大致的要求——“穿着要恰到好处地突显你的特征。”文中还表示,“不要倡导朴实无华的外观。”

So, in other words, while G.I. Joe is in camouflage, G.I. Jane should be in concealer. Got it. Indeed, on Wednesday, my colleague Susan Chira pondered in these pages: “Is Donald Trump’s Cabinet Anti-Woman?” She went through a litany of anti-woman positions taken and policies advanced by Trump appointees, leaving this reader with the clear conclusion that yes, it is. She closed with this: “One of the few bright spots that women’s advocates see in a Trump administration are proposals championed by Ivanka Trump to require paid maternity leave and offer expanded tax credits for child care.” But, as she notes, there is legitimate criticism that even that is patriarchal because it doesn’t cover paternal leave.

换句话说就是大兵乔(G.I. Joe)要有迷彩,大兵简(G.I. Jane)要用遮瑕霜。明白了。事实上,我的同事苏珊·希拉(Susan Chira)周三在评论版发文,思考了这样一个问题:“唐纳德·特朗普的内阁是反女性的吗?”她梳理了被特朗普任命的人持有和支持的一长串反女性立场和政策,让我这个读者在看完后只能得出这样一个清晰的结论:没错,是的。她以这样的话作结:“女性权利倡导者在一个特朗普政府看到的为数不多亮点之一,是由伊万卡·特朗普(Ivanka Trump)支持的提议,即要求提供母亲带薪产假和为儿童看护提供更多税额减免。”但即便这个都有人合理指出是男权的表现,因为其中不包括父亲带薪产假。

The question hanging in the air, the issue that we must vigilantly monitor, is whether the emerging shoots of egalitarianism in this country will be stomped out by the jackboot of revitalized authoritarianism.


I feel like America is being flashed by a giant neuralyzer, à la “Men In Black.” We are in danger of forgetting what has happened and losing sight, in the fog of confusion and concealment, of the profundity of the menace taking shape right before us.

我感觉美国正被一根巨大的失忆棒扫过,就是电影《黑衣人》(Men In Black)里那种。我们面临危险,有可能在混淆和隐瞒的迷雾中遗忘已经发生的事,看不到面前正在形成的威胁的严重程度。

That is our challenge: To see clearly what this deceiver wants to obscure; to be resolute about that to which he wants us to be resigned; to understand that Time’s man of the year is, by words and deeds, more of a madman of the year.