书评 | Standoff（僵持：美国如何变得无法管理）

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《僵持：美国如何变得无法管理》（Standoff：How America Became Ungovernable by Bill Schneider）的书评编译。

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

书评作者

KRISTEN COOPIE，Duquesne University政治学系助理教授。她的研究和教学领域包括美国政府机构、利益群体、媒体和政治、宪法以及选举活动。本篇书评摘自Political Science Quarterly2019年第3期。

PART
二

书评译文

In this book, former CNN analyst and current George Mason University professor Bill Schneider offers his take on the causes and implications of the growing partisan divide in the United States. Conflict exists between the “New America,” a product of the 1960s that “celebrates diversity in age, race, sexual orientation, and lifestyles” (p. 11), and the “Old America,” consisting of the “mostly white, mostly male, mostly older, mostly conservative, and mostly religious, and mostly nonurban,” (p. 2) which longs for the days when “the country was whiter, men were in charge, government was smaller, and religion was more influential” (p. 117). This rift is reflected in the parties and politics of the nation (it is easy to see how the “New America” is representative of the Democratic coalition and the “Old America” of the Republican Party), ultimately leading to the populist backlash that elected Donald Trump in 2016. 

美国党派分化日益明显，在这本书中，前CNN分析员、现乔治梅森大学教授，Bill Schneider，提出了他对这个现象的原因及后果的看法。“新美国”和“旧美国”之间存在冲突。“新美国”是1960年代的产物，那个年代“崇尚年龄、种族、性取向和生活方式的多样性”（第11页）；“旧美国”包含了“最多的白种、男性、年长、保守、信教、非城镇的的人”，他们怀念那些“美国白人更多、男人说了算、政府更小，宗教影响力更大”的日子（第117页）。这道观念上的裂缝反映在国家政党和政治上（我们很容易看出“新美国”如何代表了民主联盟[1]，“旧美国”代表了共和党），最终导致了一场民粹的反攻，令唐纳德·特朗普获得2016年大选的胜利。

The early chapters of the book evoke Schneider’s time as an analyst, offering his musings on topics such as populism, polarization, and political separation. In the chapter on populism, Schneider traces the political claim of social and cultural populist interests by the Republican Party, starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s to the abundant loyalty of NASCAR nation to George W. Bush in 2004. Over time, voters have come to replace self‐interested voting with values voting on social issues, culminating with Trump’s “white working‐class followers” supporting his “show of defiance toward Washington, the media, the Republican establishment, and received wisdom” (p. 50). Social issues such as gun rights, immigration, civil rights, and abortion tend to be most divisive, which has led the Republican Party to become a “resistance movement ... [resisting] the rise of the New America and its attempt to impose political correctness on our culture” (p. 118). When opinions are loud enough, and strong enough, they may lead to shifts in party power in the country or to the election of a populist leader who, despite breaking “all the rules for a presidential candidate,” can ride the wave of discontent to electoral victory. It is not the merit of an opinion that matters, but rather the intensity: loud opinions simply matter more to politicians. 

本书的前几章令人想起作者当分析员的岁月，展示了作者对民粹主义、（政治）极化和政治分裂等话题的深思熟虑。在探讨民粹主义的那一章，作者追溯了共和党在社会文化方面民粹利益的政治诉求，从1930年代的富兰克林·D·罗斯福开始，一直到2004年NASCAR nation对小布什的高度忠诚。随着时间的推移，投票者不再根据自身利益，而是根据社会议题方面的价值观来投票，最终的结果就是特朗普的“白人工人阶级拥趸”支持他“违抗华盛顿[2]、媒体、共和党内的建制派，和共识”（第50页）。诸如持枪权利、移民、公民权利，和堕胎等类的社会议题往往是最能导致分化的，这就使共和党成为了一种“抵抗组织，抵抗的是新美国的崛起，和新美国将政治正确强加于美国文化的企图”（第118页）。当这类观点足够铿锵有力的时候，它们可能导致国内政党权力的洗牌，或民粹主义者成功当选（总统），尽管这个当选者打破了“所有总统候选人的应遵守的规则”，他还是可以对质疑他当选的声音不屑一顾。关键并不在于一个观点好不好，而在于它是否强烈：对政客而言，把观点叫响会更有利。

In the remaining chapters, discussion shifts to the successful and failed attempts by presidential candidates to capitalize on the growing divide in the opinions of the electorate. In Chapter 9, Schneider recalls seven campaigns that met the desires of the public at the time, ranging from John F. Kennedy in 1960 (by highlighting “youth”) to George W. Bush in 2000 (with Bush promoting the character necessary in the office of the president) to Barack Obama’s historic 2008 victory, based on the theme of unity. “Failures,” the subject of Chapter 10, include Barry Goldwater in 1964, Michael Dukakis in 1988, and Mitt Romney in 2012. 

在后面的章节中，作者转而讨论总统候选人从选民日益分化的观点中渔利的企图，这些企图有的成功了，有的失败了。在第9章里，作者以团结为主题，回顾了从1960年肯尼迪（强调“青年”）到2000年小布什，再到2008奥巴马史无前例的胜利的7次总统竞选，这7次竞选迎合了公众的期望。“失败”是第10章的主题，包括1964年巴里·戈德华特、1988年迈克尔·杜卡基斯，和2012年米特·罗姆尼的竞选失败。

While the basic premises of the later chapters are interesting, Schneider never brings enough detail or context to the reader to give more than a cursory view of his premises. This is one of the book’s most disappointing shortcomings: Schneider is a compelling writer, but he often leaves the reader wanting more. Most, if not all, of the descriptive analysis is based on Schneider’s anecdotes, as there is little factual information to support his claims. Schneider’s storytelling is well crafted, but it only seems to skim the surface of what could be discussed or analyzed. 

尽管后续章节的基础很有意思，但是作者一直没有为读者提供足够的细节和背景，所以读者只能对他的立论基础进行了解。这一点是本书最令人失望的地方：作者很令人信服，但他总让人觉得信息不够。大多数描述性分析都是以作者所知的轶事为基础的，但是缺乏准确信息来支撑他的观点。作者很会讲故事，但是在那些本该深入讨论和分析的地方，他只是浮于表面而已。

Especially frustrating is that the reader may put down this book not knowing what truly makes America “ungovernable.” The America of this book is polarized, opinionated, and stubborn, but by no means ungovernable. If Schneider is right, America has selected precisely the kind of president that reflects its desires: one who thrives on conflict, pettiness, and a sense of self‐righteousness. 

尤其令人沮丧的是，读者即使读完本书，还是没办法明白到底什么真的让美国“无法管理”了。书里的美国两极分化、武断，还固执，但绝不是无法管理的。如果作者是对的，那么美国所选的总统恰恰都能胜任：他们在冲突、斤斤计较和自以为是的环境里还能把总统当下去。

注释：

1.此处应该不是指民主党，而是Democratic Coalition against Trump，译者注。

2.亦即国家现有的的政治体制，译者注。

编  译：夏夕钦

审  校：王汉林

相关阅读：

前沿 | Journal of Politics（政治学杂志）Number 4 - October 2019（上）

前沿 | Journal of Politics（政治学杂志）Number 4 - October 2019（下）

编辑：欧阳星

一审：袁    丁

二审：袁    丁