Basic
Difference betw. Republicans & Democrats-共和、民主兩黨在外交政策上之別
Reps are from the heart; Demts are
from the head
共和黨意氣之爭；民主黨訴諸理智
“There is a wisdom of the head,” Charles Dickens
wrote, “and a wisdom of the heart.” Judging by the evidence of the last few weeks, those two
wisdoms are running against each other in the U.S. presidential election,
particularly when it comes to foreign policy.
Of course, head versus heart is a
political battle that dates back to Plato at
least. Over the
long term we know it always results in a stalemate, usually somewhere around
the jugular vein. Effective governance ultimately needs to both inspire the
population and function in reality. But in the short term, the head/heart
distinction may be the key to understanding the appeal of various candidates
and the contours of the general election.
The Brainiac 絕頂聰明者
Head wisdom seeks to persuade through
analysis and facts. Hillary Clinton’s testimony before
the House Select Committee on Benghazi was a display of head
wisdom—though also, undeniably, stamina—in
its finest form. A fair share of the media coverage pointed to her “calm demeanor,” “measured tones,” and “clear knowledge
of foreign policy questions.” Detailed
answers, impeccable logic—all wrapped in enough figures and bureaucratic jargon
(“CODEL,” ISAT process,” “QDDR,” “ARB reports,” “SVTS”) to send policy wonks
into paroxysms of joy.
And so, particularly after her
performance in the October
13 Democratic debate and
in front of the Benghazi committee, she is the clear frontrunner in the
Democratic (head) primary. But it is a safe bet that not many made it through
all 11 hours of testimony and few found inspiration in any of it.
The excitables易被激怒者
Last night’s
Republican debate was a
very different affair. Republicans—and particularly the frontrunners Donald
Trump and Ben Carson—aren’t really running on any specific policies, even if
they do allude to a few. They are seeking to appeal at a different level. The
wisdom of the heart seeks to motivate through emotion and inspiration.
But facts don’t appeal to the wisdom
of the heart. Vague anger and frustration does. So, Trump lamented, “Our
country doesn't win anymore. We used to win, we don't win anymore. We lose on
trade. We lose with ISIS. We lose with one of the worst deals I've ever seen
negotiated of any kind, that's our recent catastrophe with Iran. We don't win.”
The Republicans in general, as the
opposition party, are seeking to tap into a broad albeit inchoate sense of
anger at the political establishment. Donald Trump especially is pure heart
wisdom—his supporters struggle to even
explain in policy terms why they like him. The winner of the Republican (heart) primary will carry
that emotional banner into the general election, but whoever wins will struggle
to convince the broader electorate of his or her competence.
Internal struggle內部爭論
There wasn’t much foreign policy in
last night’s debate but it may end up being the key terrain where head and
heart conflict in the general election. Polls suggest that foreign policy
experts and the general public also tend to
disagree along head/heart (respectively)
lines. More experts than the general public tend to support increasing
immigration to the United States, for instance, and fewer experts than the
general public fear a U.S. war with Russia or China. Previous
research has shown that the
public tends to think it is “very important” for the United States to be tough
with China on the economy and trade; experts, in contrast, are much more likely
to favor building a mutually beneficial relationship with China.
President Obama has, on issue after
issue, given the public the foreign policy their heads claim to want. He has
pulled back from wars in the Middle East and sought to avoid further
entanglements there. He has privileged working with allies and using sanctions
and diplomacy with Iran and Russia. When he has used force, as against ISIS, he
has done so in a way that spared American soldiers and avoided extended
commitments. But in satisfying their heads, President Obama seems to have lost
their hearts.
The growing sense of chaos in the
world has fed a sense of insecurity, which even if not entirely rational, is
laid at the feet of the president. In their hearts, the American people crave
an overall sense of safety and security. Most of the Republican candidates have
sought to profit from the vague sense of fear. Trump explicitly blamed Obama’s
leadership for this predicament: “By the way, unlike our country where we're
totally predictable and the enemy, whether it's ISIS or anybody else, they know
exactly what we're doing because we have the wrong leadership.” Chris Christie,
taking a similarly alarmist tone, declared: “We have ISIS and al-Qaida
attacking us.” He wants to “get the government to do what they're supposed to
be doing, secure our borders, protect our people.”
At the same time, in their heads, the
public still seems to want to avoid the types of painful, costly commitments that
American leadership in promoting global stability would seem to demand. The
contradiction created will pose a challenge for both candidates of the head and
the heart.
Who will tell the people? 誰願對民眾誠實以告?
Unsurprisingly, as policy wonks, we
are head people. We get that Donald Trump isn’t the only one who doesn’t
know the difference
between the Quds and the Kurds—most Americans
don’t either, and it’s not unreasonable to fear what you don’t know. So whoever
wins the presidency will need to find a way to comfort the heart as well as to
satisfy the head. But ultimately pandering to heartfelt—rather than
brain-felt—fears can lead to rash, vague, or just bad policy prescriptions.
Real leadership involves leveling with the public about what U.S. foreign
policy can really achieve in a world that is often beyond American
control—something we have seen precious little in this campaign. In politics, the heart usually wins; in policy, the head
always does. (政治上，感情常嬴；政策上，理智獲勝。
Jeremy Shapiro was a fellow in
the Project on
International Order and Strategy and
the Center on the
United States and Europe at
Brookings. He was also the editor of the Foreign Policy program's blog Order from Chaos, a
how-to guide for managing the end of the Post-Cold War Era. Prior to re-joining
Brookings, he was a member of the U.S. State Department’s policy planning
staff, where he advised the secretary of state on U.S. policy in North Africa
and the Levant.
Justin Lai 選自網路
Comment (by Editor) : heart Vs. head
When you love someone, you could love
him/her with all your heart, not all your head. When you are in confusion, use
your head not your heart. When you apologize to someone, you say you are sorry
from the bottom of your heart instead of your head. Someone might steal your
heart, not your head. Keep your head rather than your heart when faced with a
risk. When breaks his head, he might have a concussion. You leave someone for
she breaks your heat. When someone stole your heart and cheat on you, you sang
a broken-hearted melody. He looks at the pretty lady from head to toe, not from
heart to toe. When you don’t understand something, you say you can’t make head
or tail of it.
Dear friends: head or heart? heart or
head? It’s interesting and amusing, isn’t it?
02/24/2016
沒有留言:
張貼留言