分裂的美國
英文部分選自經濟學人Leaders版塊
America divided
分裂的美國
註：過去一年多來，「美國優先」深重影響美國社會，中期選舉如一面鏡子映射出美國社會撕裂的現狀。
Why the mid-terms matter
為什麼中期選舉很重要
註：中期選舉很關鍵
http://world.huanqiu.com/article/2018-10/13341213.html
Politicians aremaking Americans miserable. The elections offer a chance to change
政客讓美國民眾苦不堪言，中期選舉或許會帶來轉機
註：
1.美國人不相信政客 http://world.people.com.cn/n1/2018/0129/c1002-29793025.html
2. 馬克吐溫：「政客全部是賊，只要不盯著他們準會偷東西。事實上，美國人民就是這樣做的「。而我們不但沒把政客當賊來看，而是慣於為政客歌功頌德。事實證明，凡把政客當賊的國家，那裡的人民一定會幸福；凡把政客當偉大領袖捧的國家，人民必然遭殃。一個沒有看賊制度的國家，明顯用謊言包裝也不許戳穿。
As america prepares to go to the polls on November 6th, the country is more divided and angry than it has been in decades. Campaigning for the mid-terms has been marred by politicians routinely treating each other as rogues, fools or traitors. In recent days a supporter of President Donald Trump has sent bombs to 14 of his opponents and a white supremacist has murdered 11 worshippers at a synagogue, in the worst anti-Semitic act in America’s history.
隨著美國準備在11月6日舉行投票，這個國家比過去幾十年來更加分裂和憤怒。由於政客們一貫以無賴、傻瓜或是叛徒的方式對待彼此，中期選舉遭到破壞。近日，美國總統唐納·川普(Donald Trump)的一名支持者郵寄出14份炸彈，對象均是川普的對手。一名白人至上主義者在一所猶太教堂內殺害了11名信眾，這是美國歷史上最嚴重的反猶太行為。
註：美國中期選舉之前總出么蛾子，今年也不例外
http://news.ifeng.com/a/20181103/60143114_0.shtml
Toxic federal politics is America’s great weakness. It prevents action on pressing real issues, from immigration to welfare; it erodes Americans』 faith in their government and its institutions; and it dims the beacon of American democracy abroad. The mid-term elections are a chance to begin stopping the rot—and even to start the arduous task of putting it right.
毒化的聯邦政治是美國的一大弱點。它阻止了從移民到福利等緊迫的實際問題上採取行動；它侵蝕了美國人對政府及其機構的信任；它還使美國的民主燈塔在海外黯然失色。中期選舉可以是懸崖勒馬的起點，也可以是步入正軌的良機。
註：
1.美國聯邦制的「致命弱點」
http://bbs1.people.com.cn/post/1/1/2/166959850.html
2.為什麼美國被稱為燈塔國？
https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/1303401414188246659.html
Mr Trump did not begin this abasement. But he has embraced it as enthusiastically as anyone and carried it to new depths of his own devising. All politicians stretch the truth. Mr Trump lies with abandon—over 5,000 times since he was inaugurated, according to the Washington Post. His deceit is so brazen and effective that many of his supporters take his word above any of his critics』, especially those in the media, and seemingly in the face of all the evidence. That suits Mr Trump because, once nobody is believed, he cannot be held to account. But it is disastrous for America. Once reasoned debate loses its power to win arguments, democracy cannot function.
川普不是始作俑者，但他和他人一樣滿懷熱情，並用他自己的伎倆將之帶到了一個新的深淵。所有的政治家都會言過其實。據華盛頓郵報報導，自就職以來，他曾撒謊超過5000次。他的欺騙是如此的厚顏無恥和有效，以至於他的許多支持者都把他的話凌駕於批評者之上，尤其是那些來自媒體上的批評者，似乎川普說的就是真相。這挺適合川普的，既然誰都不被信任，那麼他就不用為自己的話負責。但這對於美國來說是場災難。一旦爭論喪失理性，民主便形同虛設。
註：美國有限電視新聞網為什麼稱，川普平均每天說謊7.6次？
http://www.sohu.com/a/244875511_100128296
Mr Trump is also wilfully divisive. All politicians attack their opponents, but presidents see it as their duty to unite the country after a tragedy. Only Mr Trump would think the Tree of Life synagogue shooting a chance to hit back at the media and the Democrats for criticising him (see article). Only he would suggest that, rather than tone down his explosive rhetoric, he might just 「tone it up」. Such divisiveness matters because, when your opponents are simply bad people, the compromise that is the foundation of all healthy politics becomes hard within parties and almost impossible between them.
川普也願意看到分裂。所有的政客都攻擊他們的對手，但所有的總統都認為有責任在悲劇之後把國家團結起來。只有川普會把「生命之樹」猶太教堂內的槍擊案，當作一次機會，用來回擊批評他的媒體和民主黨（見文章）。只有他認為爆炸性言論不該偃旗息鼓，而應「振臂高呼」。分裂很重要，因為當對手全是壞人的時候，政黨內部的妥協會很艱難，政黨間的妥協更將渺茫無望。而妥協，恰恰是所有良性政治的基石。(Translator:Cece)
註：
Tone It Up with your trainers Karena and Katrina, workouts, recipes, lifestyle & community!》
https://www.toneitup.com/
Mr Trump is not the only politician to wallow in division—just the most powerful and one of the most accomplished. Before he was elected, more than half of Democrats told pollsters that they were afraid of Republicans and almost half of Republicans said the same about Democrats. After a Republican congressman was shot by an unstable gunman last summer, leading Democrats expressed 「outrage」 at the idea that their rhetoric had played any part. Yet they used the attempted bombings and the synagogue shooting to begin a debate about the precise degree of presidential responsibility for domestic terrorism.
川普並不是唯一一個沉迷於分裂的政客，他只是最有權勢、最有成就的政治家之一。在他當選前，超過半數的民主黨人告訴民意調查人員，他們害怕共和黨人，而幾乎有一半的共和黨人也針對民主黨人說過同樣的話。去年夏天，一名共和黨議員被一名情緒激動的槍手殺害後，民主黨領導人就他們的言論對該事件起到影響的說法表示「憤慨」。然而，兩黨利用未遂爆炸事件和猶太教堂射擊案，開始一場關於總統對國內恐怖主義具體需要承擔多少責任的辯論。
註：
《美槍手槍擊共和黨黨鞭 曾稱摧毀川普的時候到了》
http://www.sohu.com/a/149848521_119562
America’s democracy is robust—it was designed to be. However, one by one, its institutions are being infected with toxic polarisation. Congress caught the bug in the 1990s, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker. The media have also fallen victim to partisan scepticism—certainly among audiences, if not also among contributors. Just 11% of strong Trump supporters believe the mainstream media, whereas 91% of them trust Mr Trump, a cbs News poll found in the summer. Among Democrats those beliefs tend to be reversed. Now the Supreme Court is perceived to be partisan, too. Democrats see the recent confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the court as the ramming through of a partisan who has lied, possibly about a sexual assault, and who will be incapable of putting the law above his party. Republicans, by contrast, see it as a triumph over a monstrous Democratic conspiracy to keep a decent man down. A dishonest executive, conniving with a fawning legislature and empowered by a partisan judiciary: were it to come to that, America truly would be in grave trouble.
美國的民主是強大的——自創立起便是這樣。然而，它的機構接連遭受嚴重極化。 20世紀90年代紐特·金裡奇（Newt Gingrich）擔任眾議院議長時，國會發現了這個問題。媒體也成了黨派懷疑主義的犧牲品，當然也包括觀眾，甚至是撰稿者。今年夏天哥倫比亞廣播公司（CBS）的一項民調發現：在川普鐵粉中，只有11％相信主流媒體，而有91％相信川普本人。在民主黨人中，結果卻恰恰相反。現在，最高法院也被認為是堅定的川普支持者。民主黨人認為，近期布雷特·卡瓦諾（Brett Kavanaugh）就任大法官是在法院內強行插入了一名（共和黨）黨羽，而他可能在性侵犯問題上撒謊，且無法將法律凌駕於民主黨之上；相反，共和黨則將之視為一次勝利，粉碎了民主黨欲扳倒一位「正派人士」的邪惡陰謀。一個不誠實的總統，縱容一個諂媚的立法機構，並由黨派司法機構賦予權力：如果真的到了這種地步，美國的麻煩就大了。
What is to be done? Just as American politics did not sour overnight, so the route forward is by many small steps, beginning with next week’s elections. And the first of those steps is for the House, at a minimum, to switch to Democratic control.
該怎麼辦？正如美國的政治問題並非一夜釀就，想改變也得積跬步才能致千裡，下周的選舉就可以作為開始。第一步，至少是要將眾議院轉由民主黨控制。
This matters because Mr Trump should be subject to congressional oversight. He shows contempt for the norms that, to varying degrees, constrained past presidents—whether by refusing to release his tax returns, mixing official and private business, or bullying officials working in, say, the justice department who should be independent. Congress should hold hearings to investigate such behaviour. But House Republicans have repeatedly failed to do this, neglecting their constitutional responsibility. Faced with the judgment of the intelligence services that Russia intervened in the presidential election, for instance, they subpoenaed the officials overseeing the investigation so as to make their work harder. Their abdication of responsibility means that a continued Republican majority in the House would eventually imperil the rule of law.
這一點很重要，因為川普必須服從國會的監督。監督規則對前總統有不同程度的限制，川普對此表示輕蔑，例如他拒絕公布納稅申報單，公私事務混為一談，或是欺負原本獨立的司法部門官員。國會應該開庭審理，調查這些行為。但是白宮的共和黨人一直未能做成此事，忽視了憲法義務。舉例來說，在面對情報部門判斷俄羅斯幹預總統大選事件中，共和黨人卻傳喚了監督調查的官員，這讓調查工作更難開展。 如果國會席位仍然被共和黨人佔據多數，那他們的玩忽職守終將令法律準繩岌岌可危。
註：美前FBI局長堅稱俄國幹涉美大選，川普解僱其理由是謊言
https://www.guancha.cn/america/2017_06_09_412416.shtml
For Democrats to win control of the House would, in the long run, benefit both parties. Defeat would encourage some Republicans to start putting forward a conservative alternative to Trumpism. Defeat in the Senate, too, would turbo-charge that effort, though it looks unlikely. The status quo, by contrast, would cement Mr Trump’s takeover of the party
.
從長遠角度看，如果民主黨獲得眾議會的多數席位， 兩黨都將受益。在眾議院的失敗會鼓勵共和黨人推出保守方案，來替代川普政策。在參議院的席位之爭如果也失敗，共和黨更會加大推出保守政策的努力，雖然這不太可能。相比之下，現狀將讓川普在黨內的執政地位進一步鞏固。
The calculation for the Democrats rests on the danger of defeat. Even now, they are in the midst of an argument between the centre and the radical wing of the party (see Briefing). Another loss could send them careering leftward. If the Democrats once again won a majority of votes but ended up with only a minority of seats, the party could be tempted to build a platform on norm-busting policies, like expanding the size of the Supreme Court or impeaching justices. By contrast, a House takeover would embolden the party’s moderates.
民主黨擔心失敗的風險。目前，黨內的中立派和激進派正熱火朝天地爭論著（見簡報）。再遭失敗將讓他們走上左傾道路。如果民主黨再次獲得多數選票，而最終卻囿於只有少數席位，那該黨可能就要打破規則，另建平臺，例如擴大最高法院的規模或彈劾大法官。這樣看來，獲得眾議院的主導權無異於給民主黨內的溫和派注了一劑強心針。
Nor has divided government always led to gridlock. Even now the president and congressional Democrats agree on some things, such as building infrastructure, confronting China and fighting the opioid epidemic. Let them fight over everything else, but put aside their mutual contempt in pursuit of policies for which they can both claim credit. A single example might show there can be value and dignity in compromise.
分裂的政府不一定必入僵局。即便現在，總統和議會的民主黨在諸如基礎建設、對抗中國和打擊阿片類藥物流行病這些方面觀點還是一致的。讓他們在其他問題上爭論不休，但拋開彼此的蔑視，去追求雙方都能獲得信任的政策。僅僅需要一個事例就能證明，妥協是有價值的，值得被尊重的。
America will not mend its politics in a single election. At a minimum, progress will take more votes, a renewal of the Republican Party and a different president with a different moral compass. But the right result next week could point the way.
美國不可能僅僅通過一次選舉就能完善政策。至少，進步需要更多次選舉，一個全新的共和黨，和一個懷揣不一樣「道德指南針」的新總統。但未來的方向只能等到下周公布結果。
翻譯組：
Aileen，女，研究僧，經濟學人粉絲
Cece，女，消防工作者，CATTI三筆
Yo, 女, 種下過流星, 立志不做大鴕鳥
Eva , 女，經貿翻譯學生，經濟學粉絲
Doris，女，法律學習者，經濟學人愛好者
Charlotte，女，生材天坑，經濟學人愛好者
校核組：
Neil, 男，外貿民工，經濟學人鐵粉
Samantha，女，不吃米飯，鄧倫未婚妻