(紐約時報拆穿兩黨候選人的底細)-2

She is warm; he is crazy: the Media’s Tale of two front-

runners.她是溫暖的;他是瘋了︰讓媒體細說兩位領先候選人

的故事

-(紐約時報拆穿兩黨候選人的底細)-2

  

The exchange was extra unusual considering the source. Ramos, a liberal by every measure, initially disclosed that his daughter worked for Clinton. And his ultimate boss, Univision Chairman Haim Saban, contributed $2.5 million to Priorities USA Action, a Clinton super PAC, according to the Washington Post.

鑒於新聞來源，利益互相交換是額外地不尋常。Ramos，一位澈頭澈尾的自由派媒體人，起先就發現他的女兒為希拉蕊做事。而他的頂頭上司，Univision電視台主席-哈伊姆薩班，竟曾捐贈250 萬美金給「美國優先行動」的團體-，據華盛頓郵報透露，它是希拉蕊設立的超級政治捐贈團體-PAC (Political Action Committee-(註：政治吸金組織)。

But his conflicts didn’t stop ­Ramos from going where others hadn’t, or maybe they propelled him to prove he isn’t neutered. ­Either way, his unusually tough questions to Clinton were a welcome contrast to routine media ­cravenness.

但他的衝突並沒有阻止 Ramos 去做別人所不敢做的事，或者也許它們慫恿他，以證明他並非沒有L.P. (被閹割)- 即仍有魄力。無論哪種方式，他對希拉蕊質問的異常凶悍的問題，與平常媒體溫和、膽小的問話，成了令人欣慰的對比。

The operating bias is that her probable crimes and infidelity to important truths are treated as partisan piffles, while Trump’s every word is dissected and denounced as if he is a heretic who deserves to be burned at the stake. Somehow, his words are deemed far more egregious than her deeds.

運作的偏見是，她可能的罪行，和對重要的實情的不忠實，被當作黨派雞毛蒜皮的小事，而川普的每一句話都被解剖、被譴責，好像他就是個異端份子，理應被燒死在火刑柱上。不知怎的，他的話被視為比她的行為更令人震驚。

One cartoonish New York tabloid regularly flaunts its prejudice, and did so again Friday. It treated a single punch thrown by a Trump supporter at a rally in North Carolina as the moral equivalent of World War III, devoting its cover and two full inside pages. But on a real life-and-death matter in New York the very same day, it offered only a few buried paragraphs when a shooting on a Brooklyn street left two teenagers wounded and sent scores of students scrambling for safety.

一家卡通型的紐約小報經常標榜其偏見，星期五又再來一次。它把一位川普的支持者在北卡羅萊納州一場集會中，對反對者揮了一拳的新聞，當作視為等同第三次世界大戰的道德戰爭，登在它的封面和滿滿的兩個內頁。但同一天，在紐約布魯克林區某條街上發生了槍擊案，有兩個青少年受傷和幾十位學生匆忙逃命。這是真正生死攸關的大新聞，但該報僅以不起眼的幾段，輕描淡寫地報導出來。

News? It all depends on whose ox you want to gore.

何謂新聞？這完全取決於你想攻擊誰而定。

Much media loathing of Trump is a push-back against his wealth and casual assault on political correctness. Journalism’s social-justice monitors double as Democratic enforcers, and the GOP front-runner is a willful smasher of safe spaces and a walking, talking trigger warning. He must be destroyed.

許多媒體厭惡川普，是對他財富的反彈與偶而攻擊他政治的正確性。新聞的社會正義對民主黨的執法人員，加以雙倍監視，對共和黨的領先者則是，任性地對安全空間與行走安全加以綁手綁腳，他的談話就觸發了警告。因此他必須被催毀。

Yet it’s not just gentry liberals who put a target on his back. Many equally situated conservatives are similarly appalled, and for similar reasons. They regard Trump as an all-purpose disrupter whose threat to establishment gatekeepers extends well beyond the calcified core of the Republican Party. He put a target on his back.

然而，不只是上流自由派者把目標放在他的背上。許多立場相同的保守派人士，出於類似的原因也同樣震驚。他們認為川普是位萬用的瓦解者，他的威脅範圍可以從黨團的守門人，遠遠延伸超出共和黨已經鈣化的核心。

Although the nation’s polarization is supposedly the bane of all sensible thinkers, many newspapers, think tanks, magazines and publishing houses owe their existence to the culture and class wars that polarization spawns. And many conservatives in those foxholes have no more use for Trump than do liberals.

人們以為，儘管國家的對立分裂，催毀所有明智的思想家，但許多報紙、 智庫、 雜誌和出版社，卻把他們的存在，歸功於因對立產生的文化和階級戰爭。(註：否則就沒有新聞可豋) 躲在這些散兵坑裡的許多保守派人士，對於川普而言，比自由派人士更沒有用。

That’s not to suggest they should celebrate Trump just because he is a Republican. He clearly is out of his depth on many issues and has not taken the time even for crash courses. He is surrounded by a small political team, and his record is a mash-up of personal impulse and crony capitalism.

這並不是建議他們應該慶祝川普，只是因為他是一位共和黨人。顯然在許多問題上，並非他能力所及，也沒有花時間去做惡補(臨時抱佛腳) 的工作。他被一群小的政治團隊所包圍，而他搞出來的成績是混合了，個人衝動和親蜜的資本主義。

Still, the venomous backlash against him looks out of proportion to his deficits. The rejection, centered on the fact that he has never been an orthodox conservative and refuses to become one, strikes me as a mistake for two reasons.

但，對他不利的劇烈反彈，看起來和他的赤字不成比例。拒斥他的想法乃集中於一個事實-他從來就不是正統的保守派，他也拒絕成為這樣一位的保守派。這個拒斥他的作法，給我的印象是一項錯誤，其原因有兩個。

First, the popularity of Bernie Sanders socialism among young voters is an alarming indication of how a big segment of the country is making another hard left turn. Instead of President Obama’s liberalism marking the last gasp of big government, the Sanders phenomenon suggests Dems see Obama’s commitments as a down payment. They want ever more redistribution and entitlements and Republicans must win the White House to stop them.

第一，受年輕選民歡迎的伯尼 · 桑德斯(民主黨參議員)的社會主義，是在顯示一項警告，美國一大部分正在大左轉。不是標誌著奄奄一息的大政府的歐巴馬自由主義，桑德斯的現象，表明民主黨員，把歐巴馬的承諾當作為頭期款。他們想要更多的重新分配和應享權利，而共和黨必須贏得進入白宮才能制止民主黨這樣的做法。

That leads to the second point, which is that Trump is right when he says his candidacy has sparked turnout and enthusiasm in ways the GOP hasn’t seen in a long time. Because he is the most likely nominee, and thus the only person standing between Clinton and the Oval ­Office, conservative thinkers could be rushing to help him better understand policy complexities and influence his decisions.

那會導致第二點，就是川普是對的，當他說他的候選資格，用共和黨很長時間以來沒有見過的方式，點亮了結果和熱情。因為，他是最有可能被提名的候選人，也因此是唯一能阻止希拉蕊入主白宮的人，所以保守派的思想家可能會，急於幫他更瞭解政策的複雜性和影響他的決定。

But they aren’t, instead flashing their “#NeverTrump” hashtags as badges of honor. I hope that doesn’t signal they are resigned to a President Clinton.

  

但他們並不這麼做，相反地卻閃爍其「不提名川普」的牌子作為榮譽的徽章。我希望這並不意味著他們屈服於希拉蕊-某位柯林頓總統。

Perhaps she is acceptable to some because, as a known quantity on the left, she offers no existential threat to the culture wars as they exist. Trump, on the other hand, is a newcomer and apostate to the conservative faith who must be shunned for doctrinal purity.

也許對一些人，她是可以接受的，因為在已知偏左的數量丘，她沒有提議對存在的文化戰爭有現存的威脅。川普，另一方面是新手，又背棄保守派的信仰，為顧及黨的主義的純潔，他應被迥避。

There is little doubt that he would bring upheaval and uncertainty, while Clinton’s election would tilt the apple cart without upsetting it. With her in the White House, all the gatekeepers could settle in for four more years of trench warfare, and ­laments about polarization wouldn’t miss a beat.

毫無疑問，他會帶來動盪和不確定性，而希拉蕊的選上，將會使載運蘋果的車子傾斜，但不會翻覆。她選上了，所有看管國家的人可以再待四年，躲在壕溝裡從事小戰事(沒有大的作為)，而任何一個獨家新聞的報導都不會錯過，有關兩黨對立的哀嘆，。

The only loser would be America.

唯一的失敗者將是美國。

編譯者「後記」：

希拉蕊，有個人的缺失，政治上不聰明(clumsy)，又不配合反對黨團的時刻。人們注視她與另一候選人人的競爭，並看到也許可以十分確定她勝選的結果。

其實勝利並非不可想像，一位對警告過敏、忘記真正的資訊、也完全危險的共和黨員如川普，總勝過一位選上後，把酬庸的輕鬆行政職位，全部獻給她自己的政黨(民主黨)- 希拉蕊。

                       

有人說共和黨另一候選人-克魯滋(川普之對手)是黨的災難；而川普是全國的災難。畢竟選舉是耍考量渴望和夢想，而非僅是實際。

希拉蕊最大的資產是她累積了參議員、國務卿和一位不尋常的白宮第一夫人的經驗。但歷史告訴我們，無法兼顧資歷與時勢，尤其當選民渴望求變時。

本年度希拉蕊最大的突出點，也許是結果証明她不是川普，也不是川普的對手-克魯滋，而是她自己本人。

最後，近20年來美國選舉鉅大與顯著的改變，民主黨為取回政權，不惜推出黑人，也獲選上總統，這充分證明人們求變的心理。八年來共和黨乏善可陳，推不出真正代表保守派的人選，川普趁機脫穎而出，訴說低層白人工人階級(working class) 的苦悶與無奈。在時代的改變下，黑人與少數民族的選票價值看漲，貧窮的白人卻不受重視(more ignored) ，雖然黑人仍三不五時抗議說 “Black Lives Matter」(黑人的生命值錢) 。 長久以來，美國人的財富集中在少數共和黨白人手中，缺少均富，與分配不公的事實。現在首次竟由億萬富翁出面領軍，向全體社會嗆聲、訴求，你說夠諷刺吧! (ironical or not?)

全文完

Justin Lai 編譯 

03/16/2016