「脆弱世界，禁不起第二任川普」，《經濟學人》支持賀錦麗

财富 2024-11-05 08:33 浙江

写在前面

《經濟學人》表態在美國大選中支持賀錦麗。《經濟學人》陳述三大理由，指出今時今日風險之巨，已非昔日可比，美國體制得以制衡總統的力量被大幅削弱，那些「低估川普進白宮風險的選民，是在自欺欺人」。

精读|翻译|词组

Leaders | Our election endorsement

A second Trump term comes with unacceptable risks

If The Economist had a vote, we would cast it for Kamala Harris

EXT WEEK tens of millions of Americans will vote for Donald Trump. Some will do so out of grievance, because they think Kamala Harris is a radical Marxist who will destroy their country. Some are fired up by national pride, because Mr Trump inspires in them the belief that, with him in the White House, America will stand tall. Yet some will coolly opt to vote Trump as a calculated risk.

This last group of voters, which includes many readers of The Economist, may not see Mr Trump as a person they would want to do business with, or any kind of role model for their children. But they probably think that when he was president he did more good than bad. They may also believe the case against him is wildly overblown. Central to this calculation is the idea that Mr Trump’s worst instincts would be constrained: by his staff, the bureaucracy, Congress and the courts.

This newspaper sees that argument as recklessly complacent. America may well breeze through four more years of Mr Trump, as it has the presidencies of other flawed men from both parties. The country may even thrive. But voters claiming 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 gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace. We cannot quantify the chance that something will go badly wrong: nobody can. But we believe voters who minimise it are deluding themselves.

Some will dismiss this as alarmism. It is true that our worst fears about Mr Trump’s first term did not come to pass. At home, he cut taxes and deregulated the economy, which has grown faster than any of its rich-world counterparts. His administration deserves credit for funding vaccines for covid-19, even if he refused to urge Americans to get vaccinated. Abroad, he projected strength, shifting the consensus towards a confrontational posture on China. He helped broker the Abraham accords, which formalised relations between Israel and some of its neighbours—a peace that has so far survived a regional war. He prodded some of America’s allies to increase their defence spending. Even when Mr Trump behaved abominably by fomenting an attack on the Capitol to try to stop the transfer of power on January 6th 2021, America’s institutions held 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’s policies are worse, the world is more perilous and many of the sober, responsible people who reined in his worst instincts during his first term have been replaced by true believers, toadies and chancers.

Make America grate again

The case against Mr Trump begins with his policies. In 2016 the Republican platform 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 imports and has talked of charging over 200% or even 500% on cars from Mexico. He proposes to deport millions of irregular immigrants, many with jobs and American children. He would extend tax cuts even though the budget deficit is at a level usually seen only during war or recession, suggesting a blithe indifference to sound fiscal management.

These policies would be inflationary, potentially setting up a conflict with the Federal Reserve. They would risk igniting a trade war that would ultimately impoverish America. The combination of inflation, out-of-control deficits and institutional 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 open market which embraces creative destruction, innovation and competition. Sometimes it seems as if Mr Trump wants to return to the 19th century, using tariffs and tax breaks to reward his friends and punish his enemies, as well as to finance the state and minimise trade deficits. Politics could yet wreck the foundations of America’s prosperity.

Another reason to fear a second Trump term is that the world has changed. In 2017-21 it was largely at peace. Mr Trump’s supporters chalk that up to his unpredictability and willingness to take strong and unconventional action, a combination that can indeed keep awkward countries in line. When the foreign-policy elite warned of dire consequences after the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, one of Iran’s main generals, Mr Trump was vindicated. But as the next president takes office, two wars will be endangering America’s security. In Ukraine Russia has the upper hand, putting Vladimir Putin in a position to threaten further aggression in Europe. In the Middle East a regional war 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-ended encouragement of Israel’s offensives, are not reassuring. Even worse is his contempt for alliances. Although these are America’s greatest geopolitical strength, Mr Trump sees them as scams that let weak countries scrounge off its military power. Bluster and threats may see Mr Trump through, but they could equally destroy NATO. China will be watching as it weighs up how aggressive to be against Taiwan. Asian allies may calculate they can no longer trust America’s nuclear guarantee.

The risks for domestic and foreign policy are amplified by the last big difference between Mr Trump’s first term and a possible second one: he would be less constrained. The president who mused about firing missiles at drug labs in Mexico was held back by the people and institutions around him. Since then the Republican Party has organised itself around fealty to Mr Trump. Friendly think-tanks have vetted lists of loyal people to serve in the next administration. The Supreme Court has weakened the checks on presidents by ruling that they cannot be prosecuted for official acts.

If external constraints are looser, much more will depend on Mr Trump’s character. Given his unrepentant contempt for the constitution after losing the election in 2020, it is hard to be optimistic. Half his former cabinet members have refused to endorse him. The most senior Republican senator describes him as a “despicable human being”. Both his former chief-of-staff and former head of the joint chiefs call him a fascist. If you were interviewing a job applicant, you would not brush off such character references.

Good presidents unite the country. Mr Trump’s political genius is for turning people against each other. After the death of George Floyd, he suggested the army shoot protesters in the leg. America’s prosperity depends on the idea that people are treated fairly, regardless of their politics; Mr Trump has threatened to turn the Justice Department on his political enemies.

Next to Mr Trump, Kamala Harris stands for stability. True, she is an underwhelming machine politician. She has struggled to tell voters what she wants to do with power. She seems indecisive and unsure. However, she has abandoned the Democrats’ most left-wing ideas and is campaigning near the centre, flanked by Liz Cheney and other Republican exiles.

She has ordinary shortcomings, none of them disqualifying. Some of her policies are worse than her opponent’s, for example her taste for regulation and for further taxing wealth-creation. Some are merely less bad, on trade and the deficit, say. But some, on climate and abortion, are unambiguously better. It is hard to imagine Ms Harris being a stellar president, though people can surprise you. But you cannot imagine her bringing about a catastrophe.

Presidents do not have to be saints and we hope that a second Trump presidency would avoid disaster. But Mr Trump poses an unacceptable risk to America and the world. If The Economist had a vote, we would cast it for Ms Harris.

以下參考翻譯來自中國台媒（僅供參考）

下週，將有數千萬美國人將票投給川普。許多人是出於不滿這樣做，他們認為，賀錦麗是極端的馬克思主義者，將摧毀他們的國家。有些人因國家驕傲而熱情澎湃，因為川普先生讓他們相信，有他在的白宮，美國會站得高挺。但，也有些人是理智地評估風險後，投票給川普。

《經濟學人》指出，最後的這一群人，當中不乏《經濟學人》的讀者，他們也許不會想和川普打交道，更不覺得川普是可以當自己孩子榜樣的那種人。但他們還是認為，川普作為總統，利大於弊。他們也可能認為，針對川普的種種指控被誇大了。而如此經過評估後的決定，往往是認為他的幕僚、政府機制、國會和法院終究可以牽制他。

《經濟學人》認為，這樣的主張輕率而自滿。美國也許可以安然度過川普掌舵的另一個四年，從前美國由兩黨其他有缺陷總統統治不也沒事。美國甚至還會更繁榮。但自認冷靜的選民，往往會忽視川普帶來的極端風險。

讓川普成為自由世界的領導人，是美國人在經濟、法治和國際和平的豪賭。

「我們無法量化出現嚴重問題的機率有多高，沒有人能做到，但我們認為，那些低估這種風險的選民是在自欺欺人」，《經濟學人》指出。

有些人會駁斥這是危言聳聽。《經濟學人》指出，的確，「我們對川普第一任期最糟糕的擔憂並未成真」。在國內，他減稅並放寬經濟管制，使美國經濟成長速度超過了任何其他富裕國家。他的政府為新冠疫苗提供資金值得讚揚，儘管他拒絕呼籲美國人打疫苗。

在海外，他展現了實力，世界共識轉向對抗中國。他出力促成亞伯拉罕協議（Abraham Accords），使以色列與一些鄰國的關係正式化——這種和平迄今在中東區域戰爭中得以屹立不搖。他驅策一些美國盟友增加國防開支。即使川普惡劣地在2021年1月6日煽動攻擊國會大廈以試圖阻止權力交接，美國的制度仍然堅如磐石。

《經濟學人》自陳，「如果我們2016年錯看了這麼多事，為何如今又要提出警告」？

答案是，今時今日風險之巨，已非昔日可比。川普的政策更糟，世界變得更加危險，而且，那些第一任期中得以約束他最糟糕衝動行為的冷靜、負責任人士，已被真正的信徒、諂媚者和投機分子取代。

原因一：川普的政策

《經濟學人》反對川普的立論，首先來自政策。2016年，共和黨綱領仍在羅姆尼（Mitt Romney）派系和川普派系之間搖擺不定。如今的版本更加極端。

川普支持對所有進口商品徵收20%關稅，並曾丟出要對墨西哥進口汽車徵收超過200%，甚至500%的關稅。他提議驅逐數百萬非常規移民，其中許多人有工作或在美國養兒育女。儘管當前預算赤字處於通常只有在戰爭或經濟衰退期間才會出現的水準，他仍打算進一步減稅，顯然對健全的財政管理漠不關心。

這些政策將引發通膨，埋下與聯準會衝突的火種。這樣的政策也將再爆貿易戰，最終導致美國衰退。通膨、失控赤字與制度的衰敗，恐怕將加速讓外國投資人擔心，並開始質疑是否應繼續無限制地購買美債。

美國經濟之強盛令世界艷羨，但這根基於開放市場，包含擁抱有創意的破壞、創新以及競爭。有時候，川普更像想重回19世紀，利用關稅和稅收減免，不僅是資助國家和縮小貿易赤字，更是厚遇朋友，懲戒宿敵。

原因二：世界已不若8年前安全

另一個該懼怕川普上任的理由是，世界已然改變。2017年至2021年，世界大致和平。川普先生的支持者將此歸功於川普的變幻莫測，以及願意採取強硬的非常規行動，這些確實能約束一些棘手的國家。當川普要暗殺伊朗革命衛隊精銳聖城指揮官蘇雷曼尼（Qassem Soleimani），外交政策菁英們提醒嚴重風險，但川普的做法得到了支持。

然而，當下一任總統就任，兩場戰爭威脅著美國安全。在烏克蘭，俄羅斯已佔上風，普丁將有能力威脅在歐洲發動進一步侵略。在中東，一場逐漸蔓延至伊朗的區域衝突可能最終將美國捲入其中。

這些戰火，將用川普第一任期不曾歷經的方式，考驗著他。他輕率地承諾用一天時間為烏克蘭帶來和平，以及他對以色列進攻的無限支持，都不能令人安心。

他對盟友的蔑視更是糟糕。儘管聯盟是美國最大的地緣政治優勢，在川普眼裡，那卻是任憑弱小國家攫取美國軍事力量的騙局。虛張聲勢與恫嚇或許可以讓川普暫時度過難關，卻也可能摧毀北約根基。

原因三：制衡川普的力量已大幅減少

川普可能的第二任期將更加危險的最後一個重要因素在於，他將受到更少的約束。這位曾開玩笑說要用導彈轟炸墨西哥毒品實驗室的前總統，在第一任期時還受到周圍人員和機構的制衡。然而，自那時起，共和黨彷彿已由效忠川普的人進行組織再造。友好的智庫已經審核了一份忠貞名單，以便在下一屆政府中任職。最高法院也裁定，總統不能因公務行為而被起訴，進一步削弱對總統的制衡力量。

當外部約束鬆弛，川普個人品格將更加舉足輕重。但有鑑於他在2020年大選落敗後對憲法仍舊毫無悔意地蔑視，實在很難樂觀。川普時代的政府成員中有半數拒絕為其背書。共和黨最資深的參議員稱他為「卑鄙無恥之徒」。他的前幕僚長和前參謀長聯席會主席更直指其為法西斯分子。《經濟學人》指出，如果是你在面試一位求職者，看到這樣一份「品格推薦信」，想必無法置之不理。

好總統團結國家。川普的政治天賦在於挑撥離間。當非裔美國人佛洛伊德（George Floyd）死於警方執法過當，而引發示威，川普曾經建議軍隊朝示威者的腿部開槍。美國的繁榮建立在公平對待每個人的理念之上，不論其政治立場如何，川普卻威脅要利用司法系統打擊政敵。

相較之下，賀錦麗代表著穩定。確實，她是一位乏善可陳政黨機器政治人物。她難以向選民闡明自己的施政願景，顯得優柔寡斷、舉棋不定。然而，她已摒棄了民主黨最左翼的理念，正走在中間路線上，身邊還有共和黨籍前聯邦眾議員麗茲錢尼（Liz Cheney）以及其他共和黨流亡者相伴。

賀錦麗有著許多人都有的缺點，但無一令她失格。她的某些政策不如對手，例如她對監管的偏好和進一步對財富所得課稅。有些政策僅僅是略遜一籌，比如在貿易和赤字問題上。但在氣候和墮胎等議題上，她的立場無疑更勝一籌。很難想像賀錦麗會成為明星總統，不過驚喜有時候會發生。但是，你也無法想像她會釀成災難。

總統無須是聖人，「我們希望川普若有第二任期，能避免災難。但川普對美國和世界構成了不可承受的風險。如果《經濟學人》有一票，我們會投給賀錦麗女士」。

愿景

打造

独立思考 | 国际视野 | 英文学习

小组

01 经济学人打卡营

每周一到周六阅读经济学人

并在群里以及小鹅通内写分享

分享是文章的总结或者观点或者语音打卡

字数不少于100字，中英文都可以

群里每周免费分享最新外刊合集

点击下图，即可了解打卡营详情！

02 早起打卡营

两年以来，小编已经带着25000多人早起打卡

早起倒逼自己早睡，戒掉夜宵，戒掉手机

让你成为更好的自己，创造早睡早起的奇迹！

早起是最简单的自律！

早起打卡营

欢迎你的加入！

点击下图，即可了解打卡营详情！

http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU1MDQwNTgzMg==&mid=2247553375&idx=1&sn=1f1b5544c9d9e6c177061b8522594a1a

一天一篇经济学人

现在很多人都不知道自己热爱什么，追求什么，只是找到一个标签后就认为找到了人生的意义。我们是谁不重要，我们想成为谁很重要！当你什么都没有的时候，你想尽可能多的包装自己；当你内心充盈足够自信的时候，你只想做你自己，而且是更好的自己。