关注本公众号
由于“读新书”曾因《经济学人》杂志被暂停15天，故目前仅做单篇文章试读推荐，暂不提供全本杂志试读。
免费全文试读分享：
选译
“读新书”译
Next week tens of millions of Americans will vote for Donald Trump.Some will do so out of grievance, because they think Kamala Harris is aradical Marxist who will destroy their country. Some are fired up by nationalpride, because Mr Trump inspires in them the belief that, with him in theWhite House, America will stand tall. Yet some will coolly opt to vote Trump asa calculated risk.
This last group of voters, which includes many readers of The Economist, maynot see Mr Trump as a person they would want to do business with, or any kindof role model for their children. But they probably think that when he waspresident he did more good than bad. They may also believe the case againsthim is wildly overblown. Central to this calculation is the idea that Mr Trump’sworst instincts would be constrained: by his staff, the bureaucracy, Congressand the courts.
This newspaper sees that argument as recklessly complacent. America maywell breeze through four more years of Mr Trump, as it has the presidencies ofother flawed men from both parties. The country may even thrive. But votersclaiming to be hard-headed are overlooking the tail risk of a Trump presidency.By making Mr Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gamblingwith the economy, the rule of law and international peace. We cannot quantifythe chance that something will go badly wrong: nobody can. But we believevoters who minimise it are deluding themselves.
Some will dismiss this as alarmism. It is true that our worst fears about MrTrump’s first term did not come to pass. At home, he cut taxes and deregulatedthe economy, which has grown faster than any of its rich-world counterparts.His administration deserves credit for funding vaccines for covid-19, even if herefused to urge Americans to get vaccinated. Abroad, he projected strength,shifting the consensus towards a confrontational posture on China. He helpedbroker the Abraham accords, which formalised relations between Israel andsome of its neighbours—a peace that has so far survived a regional war. Heprodded some of America’s allies to increase their defence spending. Evenwhen Mr Trump behaved abominably by fomenting an attack on the Capitol totry to stop the transfer of power on January 6th 2021, America’s institutionsheld firm.
If The Economist failed to foresee so much in 2016, why heed our warning now?The answer is that today the risks are larger. And that is because Mr Trump’spolicies are worse, the world is more perilous and many of the sober,responsible people who reined in his worst instincts during his first term havebeen replaced by true believers, toadies and chancers.
Make America grate again
The case against Mr Trump begins with his policies. In 2016 the Republicanplatform was still caught between the Mitt Romney party and the Trump party.Today’s version is more extreme. Mr Trump favours a 20% tariff on all importsand has talked of charging over 200% or even 500% on cars from Mexico. Heproposes to deport millions of irregular immigrants, many with jobs andAmerican children. He would extend tax cuts even though the budget deficit isat a level usually seen only during war or recession, suggesting a blitheindifference to sound fiscal management.
These policies would be inflationary, potentially setting up a conflict with theFederal Reserve. They would risk igniting a trade war that would ultimatelyimpoverish America. The combination of inflation, out-of-control deficits andinstitutional decay would bring forward the day when foreigners worry about lending the us Treasury unlimited money.
America’s economy is the envy of the world, but that rests on it being an openmarket which embraces creative destruction, innovation and competition.Sometimes it seems as if Mr Trump wants to return to the 19th century, usingtariffs and tax breaks to reward his friends and punish his enemies, as well asto finance the state and minimise trade deficits. Politics could yet wreck thefoundations of America’s prosperity.
Another reason to fear a second Trump term is that the world has changed. In2017-21 it was largely at peace. Mr Trump’s supporters chalk that up to hisunpredictability and willingness to take strong and unconventional action, acombination that can indeed keep awkward countries in line. When theforeign-policy elite warned of dire consequences after the assassination ofQassem Suleimani, one of Iran’s main generals, Mr Trump was vindicated. Butas the next president takes office, two wars will be endangering America’ssecurity. In Ukraine Russia has the upper hand, putting Vladimir Putin in aposition to threaten further aggression in Europe. In the Middle East a regionalwar creeping towards Iran could yet suck in the United States.
These conflagrations would test Mr Trump in a way that his first term did not.His glib promises to bring peace to Ukraine in a day, and his open-endedencouragement of Israel’s offensives, are not reassuring. Even worse is hiscontempt for alliances. Although these are America’s greatest geopoliticalstrength, Mr Trump sees them as scams that let weak countries scrounge off itsmilitary power. Bluster and threats may see Mr Trump through, but they couldequally destroynato. China will be watching as it weighs up how aggressive tobe against Taiwan. Asian allies may calculate they can no longer trust America’snuclear guarantee.
The risks for domestic and foreign policy are amplified by the last bigdifference between Mr Trump’s first term and a possible second one: he wouldbe less constrained. The president who mused about firing missiles at druglabs in Mexico was held back by the people and institutions around him. Sincethen the Republican Party has organised itself around fealty to Mr Trump.Friendly think-tanks have vetted lists of loyal people to serve in the nextadministration. The Supreme Court has weakened the checks on presidents byruling that they cannot be prosecuted for official acts.
If external constraints are looser, much more will depend on Mr Trump’scharacter. Given his unrepentant contempt for the constitution after losing theelection in 2020, it is hard to be optimistic. Half his former cabinet membershave refused to endorse him. The most senior Republican senator describeshim as a “despicable human being”. Both his former chief-of-staff and formerhead of the joint chiefs call him a fascist. If you were interviewing a jobapplicant, you would not brush off such character references.
Good presidents unite the country. Mr Trump’s political genius is for turningpeople against each other. After the death of George Floyd, he suggested thearmy shoot protesters in the leg. America’s prosperity depends on the idea thatpeople are treated fairly, regardless of their politics; Mr Trump has threatenedto turn the Justice Department on his political enemies.
