美国政治与特朗普专题：Perspectives on Politics Volume 17 - Issue 2
本期政治学人国际化部推介《政治透视》（Perspectives on Politics）2019年第2期的美国政治与特朗普专题编译，以飨读者。欢迎关注与评论！注意：
编译为政治学人团队原创作品，抄袭必究;
编译属志愿性质，如有不妥之处请谅解;
点击文末“阅读全文”，输入验证码“byhr”，即可获取原文。
01
期刊简介
《政治透视》是一份经同行评议的季刊，内容涵盖政治学。它成立于2003年，由剑桥大学出版社代表美国政治科学协会出版。
期刊主编为Michael Bernhard(佛罗里达大学)，副/书评编辑为Daniel I. O'Neill(佛罗里达大学)；创始编辑是詹妮弗·霍克希尔德(Jennifer Hochschild)。
02
论文索引
Media Coverage, Public Interest, and Support in the 2016 Republican Invisible Primary
The Trump Presidency and the Structure of Modern American Politics
The Differential Effects of Economic Conditions and Racial Attitudes in the Election of Donald Trump
Trumpism and the Dialectic of Neoliberal Reason
Special Section: Consequences
A Trump Effect on the EU’s Popularity? The U.S. Presidential Election as a Natural Experiment
Democratic Decline in the United States: What Can We Learn from Middle-Income Backsliding?
Is There a Trump Effect? An Experiment on Political Polarization and Audience Costs
Building a Conservative State: Partisan Polarization and the Redeployment of Administrative Power
Reflection
The Trump Presidency and American Democracy: A Historical and Comparative Analysis
03
精选译文
01 美国的民主衰败：从中等收入国家的倒退中我们能获得什么？
题目：
Democratic Decline in the United States: What Can We Learn from Middle-Income Backsliding?
作者：
Robert R. Kaufman
Stephan Haggard
摘要：
本文旨在以中等收入国家内发生的威权主义倒退现象为鉴，从而获得关于唐纳德·特朗普总统的当选对美国民主产生何种威胁的启示。通过对委内瑞拉、土耳其及匈牙利三国当选独裁者迭起的思考，我们形成了一些具有因果性的判断和一条经验性的底线观点。尽管美国的政治制度可能在专制独裁的复归上做到先发制人，我们仍可以看到一些以民主失调、（社会）两极分化、专制需求的本质以及现任独裁者操纵选举机构为形式表现出来的显著相似之处。这一系列程序可能产生的是一个弱民主体系，尽管在这之中竞争性选举得以保存，然而在政治领域内，这也导致其受到行政权力和法治制约水平的缩减。
We explore what can be learned from authoritarian backsliding in middle income countries about the threats to American democracy posed by the election of Donald Trump. We develop some causal hunches and an empirical baseline by considering the rise of elected autocrats in Venezuela, Turkey, and Hungary. Although American political institutions may forestall a reversion to electoral autocracy, we see some striking parallels in terms of democratic dysfunction, polarisation, the nature of autocratic appeals, and the processes through which autocratic incumbents sought to exploit elected office. These processes could generate a diminished democratic system in which electoral competition survives, but within a political space that is narrowed by weakened horizontal checks on.
02 建立一个保守的国家：党派分化与行政权力的重新配置
题目：
Building a Conservative State: Partisan Polarization and the Redeployment of Administrative Power
作者：
Nicholas F. Jacobs
Desmond King
Sidney M. Milkis
摘要：
将华盛顿特区的新保守主义行政（我觉得要和联邦活动划上等号…是不是行政对于活动会更好？）的到来与联邦活动的回归相等同已是老生常谈。但是，我们并不同意这一传统的观点，并且试图证明，这种保守共和主义和紧缩政策忽略了政党政治和国家权力之间关系的剧烈变动，而这种关系似乎是唐纳德·特朗普决意促成的。根据初步研究，我们认为美国的党派偏见不再是关于国家规模上的斗争；而是控制国家行政权力的竞赛。自19世纪60年代末以来，保守主义行政已经开始寻求重新部署而不是取消或击退国家权力。尽管对于重新部署，保守主义政党也维持了先前行政层面的意识形态。It is commonplace to equate the arrival of a new conservative administration in Washington, DC, with the “rolling back” of the federal activities. We disagree with this conventional perspective, and seek to demonstrate that the equation of conservative Republicanism and retrenchment elides a critical change in the relationship between party politics and State power—a relationship that Donald Trump seems determined to nurture. Drawing on primary research, we argue that partisanship in the United States is no longer a struggle over the size of the State; rather it is a contest to control national administrative power. Since the late 1960s, conservative administrations have sought to redeploy rather than dismantle or roll back state power. Through “redeployment,”conservative presidents have sustained previous levels administration’s ideology.
03 特朗普效应存在吗？一个关于政治极化和观众成本的实验
题目：
Is There a Trump Effect? An Experiment on Political Polarization and Audience Costs
作者：
Miles M. Evers
Aleksandr Fisher
Steven D. Schaaf
摘要：
特朗普总统是否因其国外政策的不一致而承担因此而成的国内成本？党派联盟和反对党是否会因唐纳德·特朗普恣意散布国际威胁而共同对其施加惩罚？尽管特朗普说他可以站在第五大道的中央射杀别人而不会因此失去选民的支持；有关资料却一致显示，不论属何党派，人们都不会认可那些为个人可信度和决心而危害国家信誉的领导人。考虑到特朗普任职期间的非典型特质和严重存在的党派对立，本文就特朗普时代受众成本的逻辑是否适用展开详细分析。本文以2016年大选期间的一个独特实验展示出共和党和民主党加诸于特朗普身上的一致的受众成本。通过改变唐纳德·特朗普、巴拉克·奥巴马的领导者身份，证实了公众在惩罚那些有失信威胁的领导者上始终坚持无党派逻辑。尽管我们也发现特朗普和奥巴马可以通过证明其支持“符合美国利益”来降低受众成本。即使是民主党，尽管他们担心唐纳德·特朗普的信誉，也接受了这一论证。本文研究成果将促进有关学者就党派线索、领导者特质和领导者声誉展开进一步探究。Does President Trump face domestic costs for foreign policy inconsistency? Will co-partisans and opposition-partisans equally punish Donald Trump for issuing flippant international threats and backing down? While the president said he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” without losing voters, the literature consistently shows that individuals, regardless of partisanship, disapprove of leaders who jeopardize the country’s reputation for credibility and resolve. Given the atypical nature of the Trump presidency, and the severe partisan polarization surrounding it, we investigate whether the logic of audience costs still applies in the Trump era. Using a unique experiment fielded during the 2016 presidential transition, we show that Republicans and Democrats impose equal audience costs on President Trump. And by varying the leader’s identity, between Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and “The President,” we demonstrate that the public adheres to a non-partisan logic in punishing leaders who renege on threats. Yet we also find Presidents Trump and Obama can reduce the magnitude of audience costs by justifying backing down as being “in America’s interest.” Even Democrats, despite their doubts of Donald Trump’s credibility, accept such justifications. Our findings encourage further exploration of partisan cues, leader-level attributes, and leader-level reputations.
04 特朗普总统和现代美国的政治结构
题目：
The Trump Presidency and the Structure of Modern American Politics
作者：
Byron E. Shafer
Regina L. Wagner
摘要：
政治在多大程度上特定于其行动者？多大程度上反映了既定的结构？这些长期以来一直为政治学者所关注，而这些问题随着唐纳德·特朗普的当选更变得尤为激烈。本文从政党平衡、意识形态两极分化、实质性内容以及战后初期的政策制定过程入手，来为政治结果的结构化而非特殊化提供一个模板。然后，本文以同样的模板跳到现代世界，在这个框架内，首先研究的是特朗普的候选人资格，其次是特朗普的总统职位。这其中呈现了一个现代的选举世界，在这里，有可能被称为非对角候选人的前景不断增加，还有一个将比尔·克林顿、乔治·布什、巴拉克·奥巴马和唐纳德·特朗普作为现代总统聚集在一起的决策过程。
How much of politics is specific to its actors and how much is the reflection of an established structure is a perennial concern of political analysts, one that becomes especially intense with the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump. In order to have a template for assigning the outcomes of politics to structure rather than idiosyncrasy, we begin with party balance, ideological polarization, substantive content, and a resulting process of policy-making drawn from the immediate postwar period. The analysis then jumps forward with that same template to the modern world, dropping first the Trump candidacy and then the Trump presidency into this framework. What emerges is a modern electoral world with increased prospects for what might be called off-diagonal candidacies and a policy-making process that gathers Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump together as the modern presidents.
05 唐纳德·特朗普选举中经济条件和种族态度的差异效应
题目：
The Differential Effects of Economic Conditions and Racial Attitudes in the Election of Donald Trump
作者：
Jon Green
Sean McElwee
摘要：
关于种族态度和经济困境在多大程度上解释了2016年大选中的投票行为的辩论往往受到范围上的局限，它主要关注的是各个因素在多大程度上解释了白人选民在两党上的投票选择。这一有限的视角掩盖了一些重要的层面，包括这些因素与其他次级种族团体选民的投票行为的联系及其最初对两党选举的参与。通过对2016年经投票验证的国会合作选举的调查，结合邮政编码和县级层面的经济数据，我们发现种族态度有力地解释了白人选民选择在两党投票上的原因，这也与有关领域的文献相一致。然而，我们还发现，地方经济困境与有色人种之间的无投票权密切相关，这使得2016年大选的种族和经济解释之间的直接比较更加复杂化，同时也警示我们不要将因果关系的重点一概而论。Debates over the extent to which racial attitudes and economic distress explain voting behavior in the 2016 election have tended to be limited in scope, focusing on the extent to which each factor explains white voters’ two-party vote choice. This limited scope obscures important ways in which these factors could have been related to voting behavior among other racial sub-groups of the electorate, as well as participation in the two-party contest in the first place. Using the vote-validated 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, merged with economic data at the ZIP code and county levels, we find that racial attitudes strongly explain two-party vote choice among white voters—in line with a growing body of literature. However, we also find that local economic distress was strongly associated with non-voting among people of color, complicating direct comparisons between racial and economic explanations of the 2016 election and cautioning against generalizations regarding causal emphasis.
翻译：徐红洪
校对：郑 亮
编辑：欧阳星
一审：郑 静
二审：宋 婷
点击“阅读原文”，输入“byhr”,可免费获取本期所有文章哦~