评论
打印
Books & arts
文艺板块
Book Review
书评
American politics
美国政治学
Orange warning
橙色警告
Surviving Autocracy.
《幸存的独裁统治》
By Masha Gessen.
作者：玛莎·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.”
唐纳德·特朗普当选两天后，玛莎·格森在《纽约书评》中表示，“记忆中，特朗普是第一位不是要竞选总统，而是要当选独裁者的候选人，而且他也获胜了。”这篇文章中提出了一些建议，比如“不要被一些正常的小迹象所迷惑。”
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”.
此后的几年证明了特朗普的专制本性。相较于记忆中的任何一位美国总统，特朗普都要更加敌视疏忽和异议，更加要求个人忠诚和炫耀奉承。他摒弃盟友，奉承独裁者。在一本简练但言过其实的新书中，格森（他更喜欢这样称呼）对那条早期提出的警告进行更新和扩展。格森写道，特朗普与所有前任总统都有质的不同，因为他“无视并破坏所有的问责制度”。
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.
作者出生于苏联，曾经文笔尖锐地描写过弗拉基米尔·普京统治的俄罗斯，他记述了特朗普与这些机构的争斗。格森认为，新闻界想要表现出客观和平衡的决心，以及对希望的向往，使其无法准确描述特朗普的掠夺行径——即使它大肆宣传特朗普似乎很正常的时刻。美国联邦政府道德办公室等政府支柱机构，习惯于服从白宫的指示，而且也没有准备好反击公开的挑衅。国会受到了猛烈的抨击和恐吓。
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”.
民间社会和司法机构在力所能及的情况下进行抵抗；但是，格森坚持认为，他们“假定自己是正在进行的一场谈判中的合作伙伴，并基于这样的情况进行运作”，而特朗普“认为任何谈判企图都是对其权力的侮辱，需要不惜任何代价予以制止。”在这种观点下，民主党人经常让他决定政治斗争的条件。例如，格森嘲笑参议院少数派领袖查克·舒默，因为他表示，自己与特朗普在边境墙问题上存在“政策分歧”，而没有直截了当地称该计划“不道德”。
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
