前沿 | Perspectives on Politics（政治透视）2019.03
让每一个人自由地理解政治
让世界各地的学人成果互联互通
让政治学人的核心关切得到传播
让每位闪烁的政治学人共享这片充满思考和情怀的天空
政治学人始终在路上
本期国际化部为大家带来了《政治透视》2019年第3期文章编译。
编译属国际化部译者志愿提供，如有不妥欢迎指正；如对我们的工作有什么建议，欢迎到后台留言；如有转载请注明出处。学术公益是一条很长的路，我们诚邀您同行，欢迎留言您希望编译的政治学期刊，感谢您的支持。
PART
一
期刊简介
Perspectives on Politics（《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)。
PART
二
期刊目录
Special Section: Causes
The Hillary Hypotheses: Testing Candidate Views of Loss
“希拉里假说”:检验候选人对败选的看法
How Unusual Was 2016? Flipping Counties, Flipping Voters, and the Education–Party Correlation since 1952
2016年有多不寻常？摇摆县、摇摆选民与1952年以来的教育-政党关系
The Role of Whiteness in the 2016 Presidential Primaries
白人群体在2016年总统初选中的角色
Searching for Bright Lines in the Trump Presidency
在特朗普总统任期内寻找“明线”
Conservatism in the Era of Trump
特朗普时代的保守主义
Trump-ing Foreign Affairs: Status Threat and Foreign Policy Preferences on the Right
正在进行中的特朗普外交:地位威胁与右翼的外交政策偏好
Adversaries or Allies? Donald Trump’s Republican Support in Congress
对手还是盟友？唐纳德·特朗普在国会中的共和党支持者
Collision with Collusion: Partisan Reaction to the Trump-Russia Scandal
冲突与共谋:党派对特朗普“通俄门”的反应
Reflection
Comparing America: Reflections on Democracy across Subfields
美国比较:跨领域的民主思考
PART
三
精选编译
01 在特朗普总统任期内寻找“明线”
【题目】
Searching for Bright Lines in the Trump Presidency
【作者】
John M. Carey, 达特茅斯学院
Gretchen Helmke,罗切斯特大学
Brendan Nyhan, 密歇根大学
Mitchell Sanders,“明线观察”
Susan Stokes，芝加哥大学
【摘要】
美国民主受到威胁了吗?在当前的政治辩论之中，这一问题比以往任何时候都更加显著。然而，这种说法也太过轻率；人们普遍认识到，民主具有多个面向，而民主衰退往往是零碎发生的。为了解决这些问题，我们进行了一项针对政治学专家和公众的调查并提供了原始数据，这些数据衡量了他们在特朗普总统任期的第一年半内从多个面向感知到的美国民主的重要性与表现。我们利用了关于政客可能会如何越过施加在他们的权力及进行自我约束的条件上的限制权力的理论，并将这一理论与我们的调查数据联系起来，以确定专家和公众在最重要的民主原则以及这些原则是否被违反方面可能存在共识的领域（或“明线”）。在对具体民主原则重要性的看法方面，公众和专家的认知往往不同。此外，尽管我们的专家认为民主受到了严重的侵蚀，尤其是在有关制衡领域，但特朗普的支持者和反对者之间的两极分化却损害了任何承认对民主的侵害的社会共识。
Is American democracy under threat? The question is more prominent in political debate now than at any time in recent memory. However, it is also too blunt; there is widespread recognition that democracy is multifaceted and that backsliding, when it occurs, tends to be piecemeal. To address these concerns, we provide original data from surveys of political science experts and the public measuring the perceived importance and performance of U.S. democracy on a number of dimensions during the first year-and-a-half of the Trump presidency. We draw on a theory of how politicians may transgress limits on their authority and the conditions under which constraints are self-enforcing. We connect this theory to our survey data in an effort to identify potential areas of agreement—bright lines—among experts and the public about the most important democratic principles and whether they have been violated. Public and expert perceptions often differ on the importance of specific democratic principles. In addition, though our experts perceive substantial democratic erosion, particularly in areas related to checks and balances, polarization between Trump supporters and opponents undermines any social consensus recognizing these violations.
02 冲突与共谋:党派对特朗普“通俄门”的反应
【题目】
Collision with Collusion: Partisan Reaction to the Trump-Russia Scandal
【作者】
Joshua P. Darr,路易斯安那州立大学
Nathan P. Kalmoe, 路易斯安那州立大学
Kathleen Searles, 路易斯安那州立大学
Mingxiao Sui, 费鲁姆学院
Raymond J. Pingree, 路易斯安那州立大学
Brian K. Watson, 路易斯安那州立大学
Kirill Bryanov, 路易斯安那州立大学
Martina Santia，路易斯安那州立大学
【摘要】
唐纳德·特朗普总统上任之初就面临大量丑闻报道。这些关于特朗普总统争议事件的报道会改变其共和党同僚的观点吗?抑或说，新闻媒体向党派人士报道突出问题的努力是徒劳的?由于自我报道的媒体使用与单发实验处理（single-shot experimental treatment )，以往关于党派对重大政治丑闻反应的研究问题重重。我们以一种独特的、重复曝光的实验设计解决了这些问题：在2017年6月的一周时间内，或是随机向参与者提供有关特朗普通俄门的新闻，或是将其中大部分报道从他们的视野中剔除。该实验模拟了媒体对于政治丑闻的持续关注，并在一个高度选择的媒体环境下将媒体报道的效果与选择分离。我们发现被随机分配接触更多特朗普通俄门新闻的共和党人比民主党人或独立人士的反应更负面，他们对特朗普的表现评价更低也表露了更多的负面情绪。共和党人对媒体偏见的看法并未受到特朗普通俄门报道的影响，其效果也并非取决于阅读相关文章。通过调整新闻标题的平衡，媒体对某一事件的高度关注可以改变党派对其政客的评价。
President Donald Trump faced substantial scandal coverage early in his presidency. Can these stories about presidential controversies change the opinions of Trump’s fellow Republicans, or are the efforts of the news media to inform partisans about prominent issues futile? Past research on partisan reactions to major political scandals were confounded by problems with self-reported media use and single-shot experimental treatments. We address these concerns using a unique, repeated-exposure experimental design that either randomly supplied participants with news about the Trump-Russia scandal, or removed most of those stories from view, over the course of one week in June 2017. This design mimics sustained media attention to a political scandal and disentangles the effects of media coverage from selection in the context of a high-choice media environment. We find that Republicans randomly assigned to see more Trump-Russia headlines reacted more negatively than Democrats or Independents, rating Trump’s performance lower and expressing more negative emotions about him. Republicans’ perceptions of media bias were not affected by Trump-Russia stories, and effects were not contingent upon clicking the articles. Intense media focus on a story can alter partisans’ evaluations of politicians by shifting the balance of headlines.
03 “希拉里假说”:检验候选人对败选的看法
【题目】
The Hillary Hypotheses: Testing Candidate Views of Loss
【作者】
Michael S. Lewis-Beck,爱荷华大学
Stephen Quinlan，格西斯莱布尼茨社会科学研究所
【摘要】
唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)出人意料的当选要求我们全面评估这一问题:是什么原因促使选民选择了一位有争议的政治素人，而非一位令人愤怒但却经验丰富的政治老手。我们的研究以败选的希拉里•克林顿为镜像，对特朗普的胜选进行了一次全新的探索。败选者的认知通常不会受到学术分析的影响。尽管如此，但由于他们往往在政党中拥有很大的影响力，理解他们对败选的看法是至关重要的，尤其是在一个政党败选后重组之际。基于希拉里在其回忆录《发生了什么》中对败选的解释，我们提出了“希拉里假说”。利用2016年美国全国选举研究的数据，我们对败选者的败选解释进行了首次系统性检验。我们发现，“希拉里假说”往往在结果中得到支持。然而，我们发现几乎没有证据支持希拉里最重要的断言:电子邮件丑闻，特别是詹姆斯·科米在选举日前10天的干预使她与总统大位失之交臂。我们的发现对理解唐纳德·特朗普为什么会赢得选举有所启示。但在更广泛的层面上，本文还探索了选举研究中一个未被充分研究的方面——败选者对于失败的印象。
The surprising election of Donald Trump to the presidency calls for a comprehensive assessment of what motivated voters to opt for a controversial political novice rather than a provocative but experienced political veteran. Our study provides a novel exploration of the Trump victory through the prism of the defeated candidate—Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC). Losing candidates’ perceptions are usually not subject to academic analyses. Nevertheless, these people often hold substantial sway in their parties and thus understanding their views on the loss is essential, especially as a party regroups after defeat. Using HRC’s memoir What Happened, we devise the Hillary Hypotheses, her rationale for her electoral defeat. Using the 2016 American National Election Study (ANES), we provide the first systematic test of a losing candidate’s rationale for their defeat. We show that more often than not, HRC’s assumptions are supported. However, we find little evidence to support HRC’s most crucial assertion, namely that the e-mail scandal and specifically James Comey’s intervention ten days before Election Day cost her the presidency. Our findings have implications for understanding why Donald Trump won, but more broadly the contribution explores an understudied aspect of elections—a defeated candidate’s impression of their loss.
04 特朗普时代的保守主义
【题目】
Conservatism in the Era of Trump
【作者】
Michael Barber，杨百翰大学
Jeremy C. Pope，杨百翰大学
【摘要】
唐纳德·特朗普的崛起和当选对保守主义的未来意味着什么?尽管许多共和党人似乎满足于由特朗普形塑这一老牌保守主义政党的议题、方向与品牌，但共和党精英们仍在争论他对保守主义的改变究竟是利是弊。我们通过象征型、操作型和概念型三种不同类型的意识形态，对不同共和党选民群体的意识形态特征进行了研究。我们发现一贯支持特朗普的共和党人，与只在大选中支持特朗普以及从未支持过特朗普的群体之间存在着明显差异。从未支持特朗普的阵营虽然在象征型与操作型意识形态上不那么保守，但也更能明晰地阐释何为保守派。而特朗普的核心支持者则恰恰相反。这些结果表明，当代共和党在保守派的应有之义这个问题上远远没有达成一致。
What does the rise and election of Donald J. Trump as president mean for the future of conservatism? Republican elites continue to argue about whether Trump is changing the definition of conservatism for better or worse, although many Republicans seem content to let him shape the issues, direction, and brand of the traditional party of conservatism. We examine the ideological characteristics of different groups of Republican voters across three types of ideology: symbolic, operational, and conceptual. We find distinct differences between Republicans who consistently supported Trump and other groups that either supported him in the general election only and those who never supported him. The Never Trump camp stands out as a group that is less symbolically and operationally conservative but also better able to articulate what it means to be a conservative than do Trump’s core supporters, who look very much the opposite. These results suggest a contemporary Republican Party that is far from unified in what it means to be a conservative.
05 正在进行中的特朗普外交：地位威胁与右翼的外交政策偏好
【题目】
Trump-ing Foreign Affairs: Status Threat and Foreign Policy Preferences on the Right
【作者】
Rachel Marie Blum,迈阿密大学牛津分校
Christopher Sebastian Parker，华盛顿大学
【摘要】
特朗普总统与保守派在众多议题上往往意见不一，尤其是外交政策。然而，我们尚不清楚支持“特朗普主义”是否等同于背离传统保守主义立场的连续性外交政策。我们评估了特朗普的支持者—涵盖了投票群体与积极分子—对于外交政策的观点与其他共和党人是否有差异。通过用2016美国全国选举研究的数据检验共和党主要选民，并用最新的2016年共和党州代表大会研究评估积极分子，我们揭示了特朗普支持者与老派保守派在外交政策偏好上的系统性差异。研究证明，地位-威胁模型（status-threat model）可以突破国内政治领域，拓展到政治权利意义上的外交政策偏好——本研究中特朗普支持者的偏好。此外，我们发现有证据表明地位威胁可能导致了共和党分裂。
President Trump is often at odds with the conservative establishment over a range of issues, not least of which is foreign policy. Yet it remains unclear whether supporting “Trumpism” is commensurate with coherent foreign policy views that are distinct from conventionally conservative positions. We evaluate whether the foreign policy views of Trump’s supporters, both in the voting public and among activists, differ from those of other Republicans. We use the 2016 ANES to examine Republican primary voters and the new 2016 State Convention Delegate Study to assess Republican activists. In doing so, we reveal systematic differences in foreign policy preferences between Trump supporters and more establishment conservatives. We demonstrate that the status-threat model need not be confined to domestic politics. Indeed, it may be extended to explain foreign policy preferences on the political right, that of Trump’s supporters in the present case. In doing so, we also find evidence that status threat may well be the source of fracture in the Republican Party.
编 译：俞驰韬
审 校：陈佳林
相关阅读：
编辑：欧阳星
一审：郑 静
二审：宋 婷
点击“阅读原文”，输入“ifct”，可免费获取本期英文原文哦~