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:2017-8-25 10:26:41 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

Why Are American Liberals So Afraid of Russia?

There is something mystifying about the American obsession with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. The Kremlin’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula, its military involvement in Syria and its meddling in elections abroad may help explain some of America’s sense of alarm. But they fail to explain why liberals in the United States are so much more vexed by Russia than they are by, say, the growing economic power of China, or the global ideological challenge of radical Islam or the sheer craziness of a nuclear-armed North Korea.

美国人一直执着于弗拉基米尔·普京(Vladimir Putin)领导下的俄罗斯,而这有些令人百思不得其解。克里姆林宫吞并克里米亚半岛、武力干涉叙利亚、干扰他国大选——这些也许可以帮助解释美国人对俄罗斯感到警惕的部分原因。但不能解释为什么美国的自由派更为俄罗斯感到恼火,而非中国日益增长的经济实力,或者激进伊斯兰教徒的全球意识形态挑战,又或者拥有核武器的朝鲜的疯狂表现。

Russia suffers from demographic decline and arrested modernization. Its economy is overdependent on exporting natural resources. Its population has one of the highest percentages of university-educated people but the lowest labor productivity in the industrialized world. And although Mr. Putin is a strong and ruthless leader who enjoys popular support at home and celebrity status abroad, Russia’s institutions are corrupt and dysfunctional: Russian bureaucrats spend much of their energy fighting one another over money and power and have no time to cooperate. And Russia’s future after Mr. Putin — whenever that may come — is anybody’s guess.


Was it not just two years ago that President Barack Obama called Russia a “regional power”? And is it not true that even today most experts concur that while Moscow is an aggressive military power interested in counterbalancing America’s influence in the world, it is no traditional “rising power”? As the eminent American historian Stephen Kotkin wrote last year in Foreign Affairs, “For half a millennium Russian foreign policy has been characterized by soaring ambitions that have exceeded the country’s capabilities.” It is no different today.

难道不是仅在两年前,贝拉克·奥巴马总统称俄罗斯是“地区大国”?难道不是甚至在今天,大部分专家都认为,虽然俄罗斯是一个具有侵略性的军事强国,有意制衡美国在全球的影响力,但它不是传统意义上的“崛起大国”?正如美国著名史学家斯蒂芬·科特金(Stephen Kotkin)去年在《外交》(Foreign Affairs)杂志上写的,“五百年来,俄罗斯外交政策的特点就是超过该国实力范畴的雄心大志。”现在依然如此。

And yet despite all of this, Americans are mesmerized and terrified by Russia. Is it simply that for liberal America, “Russia” is a code name for “Donald Trump”?


As for many of the great questions of our times, an explanation can be found in Russian classical literature. In this case, Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novella “The Double.” It is the story of a government clerk who winds up in the madhouse after meeting his doppelgänger — a man who looks like him and speaks like him, but who displays all the charm and self-confidence that the tortured protagonist lacks. The doppelgänger in Dostoyevsky’s story does not drive the protagonist insane just because they look alike but because he makes the protagonist realize what it is he doesn’t like about himself. And such it is with the United States and Russia today.

和这个时代面临的很多重大问题一样,我们可以从俄罗斯的古典文学中找出解释。比如,费奥多尔·陀思妥耶夫斯基(Fyodor Dostoyevsky)的小说《双重人格》(The Double)。小说讲述了一个政府职员在遇到自己的幽灵——一个长相和言谈都和他相似,但却表现出了备受煎熬的主人公所没有的魅力和自信的人——后,最终住进了精神病院的故事。在这个故事中,幽灵把主人公逼疯不仅仅是因为他们外貌相近,还因为他让主人公意识到不喜欢自己的什么地方。今天的美国和俄罗斯就是这样。

The Soviet Union terrorized the West for most of the 20th century in part because it was so radically different. There was ostensibly no God, no private property and no political pluralism. America could be Sovietized only by losing the war against Communism. Mr. Putin’s Russia, by contrast, frightens Americans because they know that the United States and Russia should be very different, but many of the pathologies present in Russia can also be found in the United States. What disturbs liberal America is not that Russia will run the world — far from it. Rather, the fear, whether liberals fully recognize it or not, is that the United States has started to resemble Russia.


It was the Kremlin that for the past two decades tried to explain away its problems and failures by blaming foreign meddling. Now America is doing the same. Everything that liberal Americans dislike — Mr. Trump’s electoral victory, the reverse of the process of democratization in the world and the decline of American power — are viewed as the results of Mr. Putin’s plottings.


For liberal Americans, Russia is — rightfully — a frightening example of how authoritarian rule can function within the institutional framework of a democracy. Russia’s “managed democracy” provides a vivid illustration of how institutions and practices that originally emancipated citizens from the whim of unaccountable rulers can be refashioned to effectively disenfranchise citizens (even while allowing them to vote).

对美国的自由派来说,俄罗斯是威权主义统治在民主国家的体制框架内正常运转的骇人案例。这种想法是合理的。俄罗斯的“可控民主”(managed democracy)生动地表明,可以重新设计起初是把公民从不负责任的统治者的冲动中解放出来的制度和做法,以便有效地剥夺公民的权利(甚至是在允许他们选举的同时)。

Russia also embodies what politics can look like when the elites are completely divorced from the people. It is not only a highly unequal society but also one in which rising inequality is normal, and a handful of very rich and politically unaccountable rulers have managed to stay on top without having to use much violence. The privileged few do not need to dominate or control their fellow citizens; they can simply ignore them like an irrelevant nuisance.


It may take a while before working-class Americans start to realize that while the American economy is dramatically different from that of Russia, the technological revolution led by Silicon Valley could in time tilt Western societies toward authoritarian politics in the same way that an abundance of natural resources has made Mr. Putin’s regime possible. Robots — not unlike post-Soviet citizens — are not that interested in democracy.


For many years, Americans were able to look at Russia and its social and political problems and see a country stuck in the past, perhaps someday to develop into a modern country like the United States. But that’s no longer the prevailing attitude. Now, whether they realize it or not, many Americans fear that when they look at Russia they are looking at the future. What is most disturbing is that it could be their future, too.