評論
打印
Books & arts
文藝板塊
Book Review
書評
American politics
美國政治學
Orange warning
橙色警告
Surviving Autocracy.
《幸存的獨裁統治》
By Masha Gessen.
作者：瑪莎·格森
Two days after Donald Trump was elected, Masha Gessen argued in the New York Review of Books that he was “the first candidate in memory who ran not for president, but for autocrat—and won.” The piece offered advice, such as “Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.”
唐納德·特朗普當選兩天后，瑪莎·格森在《紐約書評》中表示，“記憶中，特朗普是第一位不是要競選總統，而是要當選獨裁者的候選人，而且他也獲勝了?！边@篇文章中提出了一些建議，比如“不要被一些正常的小跡象所迷惑。”
The years since have testified to Mr Trump’s autocratic instincts. He has been more hostile to oversight and dissent, and more demanding of personal loyalty and displays of adulation, than any American president in memory. He has spurned allies and fawned over dictators. In a pithy but overstated new book, Gessen (who prefers to be referred to that way) updates and expands on that early warning. Mr Trump, Gessen writes, is qualitatively different from any of his predecessors, given as he is to “ignoring and destroying all institutions of accountability”.
此后的幾年證明了特朗普的專制本性。相較于記憶中的任何一位美國總統，特朗普都要更加敵視疏忽和異議，更加要求個人忠誠和炫耀奉承。他摒棄盟友，奉承獨裁者。在一本簡練但言過其實的新書中，格森（他更喜歡這樣稱呼）對那條早期提出的警告進行更新和擴展。格森寫道，特朗普與所有前任總統都有質的不同，因為他“無視并破壞所有的問責制度”。
The author, who was born in the Soviet Union and has written acutely about Vladimir Putin’s Russia, chronicles Mr Trump’s tussles with those institutions. The determination of the press to appear objective and balanced, Gessen argues, as well as its weakness for hope, have prevented it from accurately describing Mr Trump’s predations— even as it hyped his normal-seeming moments. Pillars of the state, such as the Office of Government Ethics, were accustomed to compliance from the White House and ill-equipped to counter open defiance. Congress was riven and cowed.
作者出生于蘇聯，曾經文筆尖銳地描寫過弗拉基米爾·普京統治的俄羅斯，他記述了特朗普與這些機構的爭斗。格森認為，新聞界想要表現出客觀和平衡的決心，以及對希望的向往，使其無法準確描述特朗普的掠奪行徑——即使它大肆宣傳特朗普似乎很正常的時刻。美國聯邦政府道德辦公室等政府支柱機構，習慣于服從白宮的指示，而且也沒有準備好反擊公開的挑釁。國會受到了猛烈的抨擊和恐嚇。
Civil society and the judiciary have each mounted resistance where they can; but, Gessen maintains, they “function on the assumption that they are partners in an ongoing negotiation”, whereas Mr Trump “sees any attempt at negotiation as an affront to his power—something that needs to be quashed at any cost.”On this view, Democrats have too often let him dictate the terms of political battle. For instance, Gessen derides Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, for saying he had a “policy difference” with Mr Trump over the border wall, rather than straightforwardly calling the scheme “immoral”.
民間社會和司法機構在力所能及的情況下進行抵抗；但是，格森堅持認為，他們“假定自己是正在進行的一場談判中的合作伙伴，并基于這樣的情況進行運作”，而特朗普“認為任何談判企圖都是對其權力的侮辱，需要不惜任何代價予以制止?！痹谶@種觀點下，民主黨人經常讓他決定政治斗爭的條件。例如，格森嘲笑參議院少數派領袖查克·舒默，因為他表示，自己與特朗普在邊境墻問題上存在“政策分歧”，而沒有直截了當地稱該計劃“不道德”。
譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
