每日最新頭條.有趣資訊

白宮高官定義川普主義——“我們是美國,Bitch”

  作者:Jeffrey Goldberg

  譯者:“學術plus”公眾號

  美國《大西洋月刊》主編、曾提出“奧巴馬主義”的Jeffrey Goldberg上周發表署名文章 “白宮高官定義川普主義:‘我們是美國,Bitch’”,對川普政府的外交邏輯進行了探討。公眾號“學術plus”翻譯了這篇文章,將文中的Bitch譯為“碧池”,bitches譯為“一群碧池”,並說明此舉實屬無奈(請各抒已見)。現將譯稿轉載於此,歡迎一起探討。

  Many of Donald Trump’s critics find it difficult to ascribe to a president they consider to be both subliterate and historically insensate a foreign-policy doctrine that approaches coherence. A Trump Doctrine would require evidence of Trump Thought, and proof of such thinking, the argument goes, is scant. This view is informed in part by feelings of condescension, but it is not meritless. Barack Obama, whose foreign-policy doctrine I studied in depth, was cerebral to a fault; the man who succeeded him is perhaps the most glandular president in American history. Unlike Obama, Trump possesses no ability to explain anything resembling a foreign-policy philosophy. But this does not mean that he is without ideas.

  許多批評唐納德•川普的人都發現,很難描述川普既缺乏文化背景、又缺乏歷史延續性的外交政策。“川普主義”需要思想層面的支持,而批評者認為這種支持不夠充分。這種觀點在某種程度上是自認為高人一等的心態造成的,但也不是毫無價值。我深入研究過巴拉克•奧巴馬的外交政策,對他錯誤的評價是客觀的;接替他的川普可能是美國歷史上最高傲的總統。川普與奧巴馬不同,他無力解釋任何外交政策哲學。但這並不意味著他沒有思想。

  Over the past couple of months, I’ve asked a number of people close to the president to provide me with short descriptions of what might constitute the Trump Doctrine. I’ve been trying, as part of a larger project, to understand the revolutionary nature of Trump’s approach to world affairs. This task became even more interesting over the weekend, when Trump made his most ambitious move yet to dismantle the U.S.-led Western alliance; it becomes more interesting still as Trump launches, without preparation or baseline knowledge, a complicated nuclear negotiation with a fanatical and bizarre regime that quite possibly has his number.

  過去的幾個月,我谘詢了一些與總統關係密切的人,向我提供了關於“川普主義”的簡短描述。作為更大計劃的一個組成,我嘗試理解川普處理世界事務的方式的革命性。這一任務在上周末變得更加有趣,當時川普做出了迄今為止最雄心勃勃的舉動,他要拆除美國主導建立的西方聯盟;更有趣的是,川普在沒有任何準備或基礎知識的情況下,與一個狂熱而怪異的政權展開了一場複雜的核談判。

  Trumpian chaos is, in fact, undergirded by a comprehensible worldview, a number of experts have insisted. The Brookings Institution scholar (and frequent Atlantic contributor) Thomas Wright argued in a January 2016 essay that Trump’s views are both discernible and explicable. Wright, who published his analysis at a time when most everyone in the foreign-policy establishment considered Trump’s candidacy to be a farce, wrote that Trump loathes the liberal international order and would work against it as president; he wrote that Trump also dislikes America’s military alliances, and would work against them; he argued that Trump believes in his bones that the global economy is unfair to the U.S.; and, finally, he wrote that Trump has an innate sympathy for “authoritarian strongmen.”

  許多專家堅持認為,川普式的混亂實際上受一種可理解的世界觀支撐。布魯金斯學會學者托馬斯•賴特在2016年1月的一篇文章中指出,川普的觀點是可觀測和可解釋的。在當時,外交政策建制派的大多數人都認為川普的候選人資格是一場鬧劇。賴特認為川普不喜歡美國的軍事同盟,並會對盟友不利;川普堅信經濟全球化對美國不公平;他還認為川普對“鐵腕獨裁者”抱有天然的同情心。

  Wright was prophetic. Trump’s actions these past weeks, and my conversations with administration officials and friends and associates of Trump, suggest that the president will be acting on his beliefs in a more urgent, and focused, way than he did in the first year of his presidency, and that the pace of potentially cataclysmic disruption will quicken in the coming days. And so, understanding Trump’s foreign-policy doctrine is more urgent than ever.

  賴特的研究是有預見性的。川普在過去幾周的行動,以及與我對話的政府官員、朋友和川普的同事都表明,川普將以比他任內第一年更緊迫、更執著的方式,按照自己的信念行事。未來日子裡,發生災難性破壞的速度和可能性都將加大。因此理解川普的外交政策理念,比以往任何時候都要顯得更為緊迫。

  The third-best encapsulation of the Trump Doctrine, as outlined by a senior administration official over lunch a few weeks ago, is this: “No Friends, No Enemies.” This official explained that he was not describing a variant of the realpolitik notion that the U.S. has only shifting alliances, not permanent friends. Trump, this official said, doesn’t believe that the U.S. should be part of any alliance at all. “We have to explain to him that countries that have worked with us together in the past expect a level of loyalty from us, but he doesn’t believe that this should factor into the equation,” the official said.  

  在我了解到的這些對川普主義的描述中,獲得銅牌的是“沒有朋友,就沒有敵人。”一位官員解釋說,這不是一種現實政治觀點的變體,即美國只會切換盟友,而不會有永久的朋友。他說川普不認為美國應該成為任何聯盟的一部分:“我們不得不向他解釋,過去與我們合作過的國家希望我們能保持一定程度的忠誠,但他認為這不應納入考量。”

  The second-best self-description of the Trump Doctrine I heard was this, from a senior national-security official: “Permanent destabilization creates American advantage.” The official who described this to me said Trump believes that keeping allies and adversaries alike perpetually off-balance necessarily benefits the United States, which is still the most powerful country on Earth. When I noted that America’s adversaries seem far less destabilized by Trump than do America’s allies, this official argued for strategic patience. “They’ll see over time that it doesn’t pay to argue with us.”

  對於川普主義,次優的表達是:“永久失穩成就美國優勢。一位官員對我說,川普認為美國是世界上最強大的國家,應讓盟友和對手永遠處於失穩狀態,這樣必然有利於美國。當我指出美國的對手似乎比美國的盟友更不穩定時,這位官員強調要有戰略耐心。“隨著時間的推移,他們會發現無法負擔與我們爭執的代價。”

  The best distillation of the Trump Doctrine I heard, though, came from a senior White House official with direct access to the president and his thinking. I was talking to this person several weeks ago, and I said, by way of introduction, that I thought it might perhaps be too early to discern a definitive Trump Doctrine.

  “No,” the official said. “There’s definitely a Trump Doctrine.”

  What is it?, I asked. Here is the answer I received:

  “The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.”

  不過,我聽到的對川普主義的最佳表達,來自一位直接了解總統及其思想的白宮高級官員。幾個星期前我和這個人交談,我當時說現在就定義“川普主義”可能為時過早。

  “不,”這位官員說。“川普主義肯定存在。”

  “它是什麽?”我問到。然後我得到了這個答案:

  “川普主義是‘我們是美國,碧池’”。這就是川普主義。

  It struck me almost immediately that this was the most acute, and attitudinally honest, description of the manner in which members of Trump’s team, and Trump himself, understand their role in the world.

  我立刻意識到,這是理解川普及其團隊在世界舞台上角色定位最敏銳、最誠實的描述。

  I asked this official to explain the idea. “Obama apologized to everyone for everything. He felt bad about everything.” President Trump, this official said, “doesn’t feel like he has to apologize for anything America does.” I later asked another senior official, one who rendered the doctrine not as “We’re America, Bitch” but as “We’re America, Bitches,” whether he was aware of the 2004 movie Team America: World Police, whose theme song was “America, Fuck Yeah!”

  我請這位官員解釋這個想法。這位官員說:“奧巴馬向所有人道歉,他對一切都感到抱歉。川普總統不覺得他需要為美國做的任何事道歉。”後來我又問了另一位高級官員,他把這個信條說成不是“我們是美國,碧池”,而是“我們是美國,一群碧池!”。不知他是否記得2004年的電影《美國戰隊:世界警察》的主題曲《美國,去你媽的!》

  “Of course,” he said, laughing. “The president believes that we’re America, and people can take it or leave it.”

  “當然,”他笑著說。“總統相信我們是美國,人們要麽接受要麽離開。”

  “We’re America, Bitch” is not only a characterologically accurate collective self-appraisal—the gangster fronting, the casual misogyny, the insupportable confidence—but it is also perfectly Rorschachian. To Trump’s followers, “We’re America, Bitch” could be understood as a middle finger directed at a cold and unfair world, one that no longer respects American power and privilege. To much of the world, however, and certainly to most practitioners of foreign and national-security policy, “We’re America, Bitch” would be understood as self-isolating, and self-sabotaging.

  “我們是美國,碧池”在心理學上不僅是典型群體的自我評價(流氓頭子、厭女症),而且也是一類完美的羅夏人格測試。對於川普的追隨者來說,“我們是美國,碧池”可以被理解為對冷酷而不公平、不尊重美國的力量和特權的世界豎起中指,而對世界上大部分國家來說,“我們是美國,碧池”會被理解為自我孤立,自我崩壞。

  I’m not arguing that the attitude underlying “We’re America, Bitch” is without any utility. There are occasions—the 1979 Iran hostage crisis comes to mind—in which a blunt posture would have been useful, or at least ephemerally satisfying. President Obama himself expressed displeasure—in a rhetorically controlled way—at the failure of American allies to pay what he viewed as their fair share of common defense costs. And I don’t want to suggest that there is no place for self-confidence in foreign-policy making. The Iran nuclear deal was imperfect in part because the Obama administration seemed, at times, to let Iran drive the process. One day the Trump administration may have a lasting foreign-policy victory of some sort. It is likely that the North Korea summit will end, if not disastrously, then inconclusively. But there is a slight chance that it could mark the start of a useful round of negotiations. And I’m not one to mock Jared Kushner for his role in the Middle East peace process. There is virtually no chance of the process succeeding, but the great experts have all tried and failed, so why shouldn’t the president’s son-in-law give it a shot?

  我並不是說“我們是美國,碧池”的態度是沒有任何效用的。1979年的伊朗人質危機,強硬姿態是有用的,或者至少在短期內是令人滿意的。奧巴馬總統自己表達了自己的沮喪,對美國盟友未能支付他所認為的他們在共同國防開支中所佔的公平份額表示不滿。我不想說其外交政策制定中毫無自信。伊朗核協定並不完美,部分原因是奧巴馬政府有時似乎讓伊朗來主導這一進程,有一天川普政府可能會獲得某種形式的外交勝利,朝鮮峰會很有可能結束,即使不是災難性的也將是不穩定,這可能標誌著一輪有益的談判的開始。我不是嘲笑賈裡德·庫什納在中東和平進程中扮演的角色,這一進程幾乎不可能成功,但偉大的專家們都嘗試過且失敗了,所以為什麽不讓總統的女婿試一試呢?

  But what is mainly interesting about “We’re America, Bitch” is its delusional quality. Donald Trump is pursuing policies that undermine the Western alliance, empower Russia and China, and demoralize freedom-seeking people around the world. The United States could be made weaker—perhaps permanently—by the implementation of the Trump Doctrine.

  “我們是美國,碧池”的有趣之處在於其臆想性質。唐納德•川普推行的政策破壞了西方聯盟,賦予了俄羅斯和中國力量和權力,打擊了世界各地尋求自由的人們計程車氣,美國可能會因為川普主義的實施而衰弱,這或許是永久性。

  The administration officials, and friends of Trump, I’ve spoken with in recent days believe the opposite: that Trump is rebuilding American power after an eight-year period of willful dissipation. “People criticize [Trump] for being opposed to everything Obama did, but we’re justified in canceling out his policies,” one friend of Trump’s told me. This friend described the Trump Doctrine in the simplest way possible. “There’s the Obama Doctrine, and the ‘Fuck Obama’ Doctrine,” he said. “We’re the ‘Fuck Obama’ Doctrine.”

  最近幾天,我與川普的政府官員和朋友們談過,他們的觀點截然相反:在美國經歷了8年的肆意揮霍之後,川普正在重振美國力量。“人們批評(川普)反對奧巴馬的一切,但我們有理由取消他的政策,”川普的一位朋友告訴我。這位朋友用最直白的方式描述了川普主義。

  “有奧巴馬主義,也有‘去他媽的奧巴馬’主義,”他說,

  “我們是‘去他媽的奧巴馬’主義。”

責任編輯:張寧

獲得更多的PTT最新消息
按讚加入粉絲團