标题: 2016 presidential debate

状态 离线
发表于 2016-10-3 20:49  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
2016 presidential debate

Fact Checked: The Clinton/Trump Debate


状态 离线
发表于 2016-10-22 11:23  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
MichelleObama on Hope


状态 离线
发表于 2016-10-28 17:12  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
New Yorker 花整个 The talk of the town endorse Hillary Clinton
http://www.newyorker.com/magazin ... ses-hillary-clinton


状态 离线
发表于 2016-10-28 17:13  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
November 8th, barring some astonishment, the people of the United States will, after two hundred and forty years, send a woman to the White House. The election of Hillary Clinton is an event that we will welcome for its immense historical importance, and greet with indescribable relief. It will be especially gratifying to have a woman as commander-in-chief after such a sickeningly sexist and racist campaign, one that exposed so starkly how far our society has to go. The vileness of her opponent’s rhetoric and his record has been so widely aired that we can only hope she will be able to use her office and her impressive resolve to battle prejudice wherever it may be found.

On every issue of consequence, including economic policy, the environment, and foreign affairs, Hillary Clinton is a distinctly capable candidate: experienced, serious, schooled, resilient. When the race began, Clinton, who has always been a better office-holder than a campaigner, might have anticipated a clash of ideas and personalities on the conventional scale, against, say, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Instead, the Democratic nominee has ended up playing a sometimes secondary role in a squalid American epic. If she is elected, she will have weathered a prolonged battle against a trash-talking, burn-it-to-the-ground demagogue. Unfortunately, the drama is not likely to end soon. The aftereffects of this campaign may befoul our civic life for some time to come.

If the prospect of a female President represents a departure in the history of American politics, the candidacy of Donald J. Trump, the real-estate mogul and Republican nominee, does, too—a chilling one. He is manifestly unqualified and unfit for office. Trained in the arts of real-estate promotion and reality television, he exhibits scant interest in or familiarity with policy. He favors conspiracy theory and fantasy, deriving his knowledge from the darker recesses of the Internet and “the shows.” He has never held office or otherwise served his country, never acceded to the authority of competing visions and democratic resolutions.

Worse still, he does not accept the authority of constitutional republicanism—its norms, its faiths and practices, its explicit rules and implicit understandings. That much is clear from his statements about targeting press freedoms, infringing on an independent judiciary, banning Muslim immigration, deporting undocumented immigrants without a fair hearing, reviving the practice of torture, and, in the third and final debate, his refusal to say that he will accept the outcome of the election. Trump has even threatened to prosecute and imprison his opponent. The American demagogues from the past century who most closely resemble him—Father Coughlin and Senator Joseph McCarthy among them—were dangers to the republic, but they never captured the Presidential nomination of a major political party. Father Coughlin commanded a radio show and its audience. President Trump would command the armed forces of the United States, control its nuclear codes, appoint judges, propose legislation, and conduct foreign policy. It is a convention of our quadrennial pieties to insist that this election is singularly important. But Trump really does represent something singular. The prospect of such a President—erratic, empty, cruel, intolerant, and corrupt—represents a form of national emergency.

At a time of alarming and paralyzing partisanship, this is an issue that reasonable voices in both parties can agree upon. At last count, more than a hundred and sixty Republican leaders had declared their refusal to support Trump. Fifty national-security officials who served in Republican Administrations have done the same. The Cincinnati Enquirer, the Arizona Republic, the Dallas Morning News, and the Columbus Dispatch—all conservative newspapers, which have endorsed only Republicans for between seventy-six and a hundred and twenty-six years—have endorsed Clinton. USA Today, which has never endorsed a candidate, has declared Trump “unfit for the presidency” and has also endorsed Clinton.

Trump is an old American story and a very new one—a familiar variety of charlatan blooming again in the age of social media. It wasn’t so long ago that he was a fixture of the local tabloids (“Best Sex I’ve Ever Had”), with a sideline as a cartoon tyrant on “The Apprentice.” Then, beginning in 2011, came the bigotry of his attempt to delegitimize the Obama Presidency through voluble support of the “birther” theory. Yet his propensities have long been apparent. More than forty years ago, the Justice Department filed a civil-rights case against Trump and his father for discriminatory housing practices; the Trumps hired Roy Cohn, a former aide to Joseph McCarthy, to defend them. In 1989, Trump took out a full-page ad in the News implicitly calling for the execution of the Central Park Five, four African-Americans and a Latino who were then fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen years old, and stood accused of rape and assault. They were convicted and imprisoned, and when, years later, they were exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence, Trump continued to insist on their guilt, as he did just a couple of weeks ago. That statement might have garnered more attention had he not made it a day before the disclosure of a 2005 “Access Hollywood” video, in which he spoke, in graphic terms, of his own predilection for sexual assault and the impunity that celebrity confers. It is not merely narcissism that leads him to speak about grabbing women’s genitals or to endorse the “Lock Her Up!” chants directed at his opponent. It is his temperamental authoritarianism—a trait echoed in his admiration of Vladimir Putin.

The consistencies of Trump’s character are matched by the inconsistencies of his policy positions. Every politician is allowed to change his or her mind, but Trump abuses the privilege. His reversals on issues as fundamental as first-strike nuclear policy and our obligations to nato reflect not so much a thought process as the blunderings of ignorance. He was once pro-choice; more recently, he has suggested that women who get abortions should be punished. His role models, too, change with circumstance. Ronald Reagan, he once wrote, could “con people” but couldn’t “deliver the goods.” Now Reagan heads the list of the Presidents he admires most. Asked just last year to name the best of the previous four Presidents, Trump chose Bill Clinton, having once lauded him as “a great President.” Now Clinton, like his wife, is a criminal. Three years ago, Trump remarked of Hillary Clinton’s work as Secretary of State that she was “probably above and beyond everybody else”; now, of course, her term was a “total disaster.”

The combination of free-form opportunism, heroic self-regard, blithe contempt for expertise, and an airy sense of infallibility has contributed to Trump’s profound estrangement from the truth. He said that he saw “thousands and thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey cheering the attacks of 9/11. When he was told that this never happened, he repeated the claim, mocked the disabled reporter who exposed it—a grotesque antic captured on video—and then denied having done so. He maintained that he saw a picture of Ted Cruz’s father “having breakfast with Lee Harvey Oswald”; no such picture exists. He boasted of conversations with Putin that never occurred; he said that Putin had not invaded Ukraine. He described climate change as a Chinese-perpetrated hoax, then said that he hadn’t. Day and night, Trump assembles and distributes these murky innuendos and outright lies through his Twitter account. He is particularly obsessed with the President. To Trump, Obama has many, many secrets: his birth, his faith, his loyalties. In the candidate’s conspiratorial catchphrase, “There’s something going on.”

There is something going on. If Trump is an opportunistic infection spreading throughout the body politic, what explains our susceptibility? Many answers have been offered. The mobbed but weak Republican primary field. Cable television’s propensity for broadcasting hours of Trump’s rallies. Resentment at the “browning of America,” in the era of the first African-American President. Anger over the failure to punish those Wall Street executives who helped tip the country into the worst recession since the Great Depression. The radicalization of the Republican Party leadership. A white working class that has been losing ground, and a disconnected political class, particularly within the Democratic Party, that has failed to convey any sense of empathy. Numerous writers and analysts, including George Packer, in this issue, have explored these questions in depth.

We are in the midst of a people’s revolt, a great debate concerning income inequality, the “hollowing” of the middle, globalization’s winners and losers. If the tribune whom the voters of the Republican Party have chosen is a false one, we cannot dismiss the message because we deplore the messenger. The white working-class voters who form the core of Trump’s support—and who were once a Democratic constituency—should not have their anxieties and suffering written off. Their struggle with economic abandonment and an incomplete health-care system demands airing, understanding, and political solutions.

Many Trump supporters are G.O.P. stalwarts who would support the Party’s nominee no matter what. At the same time, to deny the racist and nativist component of Trumpism is to shy from a fundamental truth about American social history. There really are Trump enthusiasts who resent President Obama because he is black, and because his being black is symbolic of all the other ethnic groups and recent arrivals who threaten their place in the social hierarchy. To follow Trump, in an effort to secure justice and respect, is to deny justice and respect to those he insults and disdains—particularly African-Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, women. In Donald Trump’s pinched and fearful vision, politics is a zero-sum game.

Hillary Clinton’s vision and temperament are the opposite of her opponent’s. She has been a pioneer throughout her life, and yet her career cannot be easily reduced to one transcendent myth: she has been an idealist and a liberal incrementalist, a glass-ceiling-smashing lawyer and a cautious establishmentarian, a wife and mother, a First Lady, a rough-and-tumble political operator, a senator, a Secretary of State. Her story is about walking through flames and emerging changed, warier and more determined. In her intelligence, in her gimlet-eyed recognition of both the limits and the possibilities of government, she’s a particular kind of inspirational figure, a pragmatist and a Democratic moderate. We wish that Clinton faced a worthy opponent: she deserves a less sullied, more substantive win. But her claim to our support goes far beyond the nihilism of the alternative. It is also notable that she has chosen as a running mate Tim Kaine, a highly capable politician with a record of genuine compassion; by contrast, the Republican Vice-Presidential choice, Mike Pence, has tried to position himself for the future on the national stage but has distinguished himself as one of the country’s most fiercely anti-gay politicians, declaring that marriage freedom would lead to “societal collapse.”

A chasm lies between a candidate’s promises and a President’s legislative accomplishments, but the ambitions must be assessed, however partial their eventual enactment. In many ways, Clinton’s campaign is the antithesis of campaigns during past times of economic uncertainty. She offers no soaring rhetoric on the order of “Morning in America,” “A Bridge to the 21st Century,” or “Yes We Can.” What she does offer is a series of thoughtful and energetic proposals that present precisely the kind of remedies that could improve the lives of many working-class and poor Americans of all races. She would simplify the tax code for small businesses and streamline their licensing requirements. She would increase health-care tax credits through the Affordable Care Act, which, in theory, would both expand coverage and reduce the burden on employers. She would also seek to expand access to Medicaid and would extend Medicare to people as young as fifty-five. She would substantially increase funding for community health centers and provide significant federal support for child care. And her college-affordability plan would help students refinance debt, and support states that subsidize tuition.

Clinton’s tax plans are also designed to promote broader-based affluence. She would increase the tax rate on short-term capital gains for high earners, with lower rates for longer-term holdings; close the “carried-interest” tax loophole that favors hedge-fund managers; and levy fees on banks with high debt levels. She would impose a four-per-cent surcharge on incomes above five million dollars a year, and adopt a minimum thirty-per-cent tax rate on incomes above a million dollars a year. She supports an “exit tax” and other fiscal adjustments that would discourage so-called corporate inversion—the offshoring of companies to tax havens like Ireland. And she proposes tax incentives for investing in towns that have faced significant losses in manufacturing jobs. To address the compounding effects of trade and technology on displaced workers, she would promote training, and include a tax credit for businesses that take on apprentices. She would allocate $275 billion over five years to infrastructure improvement, focussing on transit and water systems, which should create employment while reducing inefficiencies.

In general, Clinton’s tax plan is less advantageous to the financial industry and more conducive to jobs-intensive enterprises. Despite her reputation for being overly solicitous of Wall Street, Clinton has strong proposals to prevent large financial institutions from taking on risks that could derail the economy again. She promises to defend the Dodd-Frank reforms (which Trump, like all the Republican candidates, has pledged to overturn) and to build on them. She would impose new fees on risk; strengthen the Volcker Rule, which prevents banks from making potentially disastrous bets with government-backed deposits; and bring regulatory light into the so-called shadow banking system, where much of the 2008 financial crisis began. She would demand that hedge funds and other large financial firms provide far more information to regulators about their trading activity, and her Administration would prevent those firms from becoming so overleveraged that a faulty bet could bankrupt them and lead to widespread economic crisis.

Clinton brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to matters of foreign policy, but she is more hawkish than President Obama. She urged intervention in Libya, and our failure to coördinate a more orderly mission there has had dismal results. As Secretary of State and as a candidate, she has been among those who have pressed the President to use American military strength in Syria more extensively than he has been willing to countenance. Considering the dimensions of our failure in Iraq, we hope that Clinton has learned a greater caution from the President for whom she worked. And yet, as Secretary of State, she did an enormous amount to repair relations with foreign governments in the wake of the Bush-Cheney years and to focus greater attention on our complicated relations with China. She was also instrumental in laying the groundwork for the economic sanctions and the political approaches that led to the nuclear deal with Iran, signed after her tenure ended.

The most important reason to vote for Clinton may be the matter of the Supreme Court. For two generations, conservative Justices have dominated the Court, and they have imposed their will on several critical areas of the law. Thanks to Citizens United and related cases, the law on campaign finance is in shambles, and wealthy donors now reign over the political process. In 2013, a five-to-four majority gutted the Voting Rights Act, perhaps the most important civil-rights law in American history, and Republican state legislators have taken advantage of this shameful moment in the Court’s history to limit the franchise of those who might vote against them—that is, minorities and Democrats. Over the years, a shifting alliance of Justices has protected certain key constitutional rights—notably, a woman’s right to choose and the right of universities to consider diversity in student admissions. Clinton has a chance to lock in these gains, reverse some of the losses, and even augur a new, and very different, era on the Court.

The Republican-controlled Senate has refused even to grant a hearing to Merrick Garland, President Obama’s politically moderate and highly qualified nominee to replace Antonin Scalia, who died in February. It will be among Clinton’s first duties to renominate Garland, or choose someone else for that seat, and, since Ruth Bader Ginsburg is eighty-three, Anthony Kennedy eighty, and Stephen Breyer seventy-eight, she may have several more opportunities to reshape the Court. A progressive Supreme Court could be Clinton’s most noble legacy, but one whose realization will require strong Democratic voices in the Senate—something that voters should remember in other races to be decided on November 8th. A Court of Trump appointees could fail to check him or any future demagogue. In the notorious Korematsu decision, in 1944, the Supreme Court acceded to President Roosevelt in allowing the internment of Americans of Japanese descent, an action that Trump recently refused to denounce outright. As Justice Robert Jackson, who dissented in Korematsu, noted, a precedent like that remains a loaded gun. Clinton will not radicalize the Court; she will honor its best traditions of truly judicious scrutiny.

Despite the conspiratorial conjectures of Clinton’s opponents, her politics hide in plain sight. She is a committed progressive on many issues, including the rights of women and minorities; gun laws (she would expand background checks, close gun-show and Internet-sales loopholes, and repeal legislation that immunizes the gun industry from liability litigation); and, more recently, immigration (where she favors comprehensive reform, a pathway to citizenship, and an end to family detention).

On the existential issue of climate change, Clinton has pledged to pursue the Congress-proof path that Obama has set off on. She would carry out his so-called Clean Power Plan, a series of regulations designed to reduce carbon emissions from the electricity sector, which is currently in litigation. She has called for the installation of half a billion solar panels by 2020—producing roughly five times the amount of solar power currently generated—and, most ambitiously, she has said that she would put the U.S. on track to reduce over-all emissions eighty per cent by 2050. At the same time, Clinton has declined to support the measure that experts say would most effectively further these goals: a tax on carbon. Her reluctance here, while disappointing, is not hard to fathom; such a tax stands no chance in Congress, at least as it is currently constituted.

Like President Obama, Clinton has “evolved” on such issues as L.G.B.T.Q. rights, Wall Street regulation, and higher minimum wages. During the past year, she listened carefully to the arguments of Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign and of the Black Lives Matter movement, and, without relinquishing her essential center-left pragmatism, she came to embrace some of her party’s boldest and most progressive ideas, on college-tuition policy and criminal-justice reform. Unlike her opponent, she is capable of listening. Yes, it is political listening, but Clinton is a politician, and that is hardly a sin.

Hillary Clinton is neither saint nor prophet; she is a pragmatist of deep experience and purpose. But her toughness, her guile, and her experience—qualities that helped her patiently decimate Trump in their three debates—will be assets in future political battles. In “Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic,” Reinhold Niebuhr wrote that there was no reason “to believe that Abraham Lincoln, the statesman and opportunist, was morally inferior to William Lloyd Garrison, the prophet. The moral achievement of statesmen must be judged in terms which take account of the limitations of human society which the statesman must, and the prophet need not, consider.” In this populist moment, the attractions of continuity hold little romance. And yet Clinton not only promises to be a vastly better President than her opponent; she has every chance of building on the successes and insights of a predecessor who will leave office with a remarkable record of progressive change and, in an often ugly time, as an exemplar of Presidential temper and dignity.

Last month, in a broadcast to union representatives, Clinton remarked, “Why aren’t I fifty points ahead, you might ask.” Throughout the campaign, commentators have had much to say about her “negatives,” her “baggage.” Her greatest political problem—the reason that she is not even farther ahead in the polls—is that so many voters distrust her. She and her husband are not unique among politicians in enriching themselves on the speaking circuit and in the business world—everyone from Al Gore to Rudolph Giuliani has done so—but it is understandable that, when those fees amount to tens of millions of dollars over the years, and when Clinton speaks in such familiar tones to audiences of investment bankers, her opponents assume the worst. The Clintons are right to assert that their foundation is infinitely more worthy than Trump’s, but it is also more than fair to wish that the Clintons, knowing full well that they were not done with public life, had taken far greater care to avoid potential conflicts of interest, or even the appearance of them. There is another reason to wish for reëvaluation: Clinton’s mistrust of the media can make her guarded, stubbornly opaque—a reflex that was evident from her initial failure to come forward with her Whitewater documents, in the nineteen-nineties, to her failure a few weeks ago to disclose her pneumonia.

For the most part, however, Clinton is distrusted in ways that have little to do with her own choices, beyond the choice to be part of public life. She has been the target of twenty-five years of hatred, misogyny, and conspiracy-mongering, endlessly metamorphosing from one confected “scandal” to another—Filegate, Benghazi, the State Department e-mails. As each one has proved to be more smoke than fire, the fury has found another target. Now attention has moved to the WikiLeaks dump of her staff’s e-mail. Thanks to the tradecraft of what appears to be Putin’s hackers and his fond desire to unnerve the American political class, we now know that Clinton’s aides exchange fevered political calculations; that they say in private what they might not on television; that they make the occasional thoughtless or arrogant remark. Not since the release of the Nixon White House tapes has any political figure had private communications subjected to this degree of public scrutiny. Yet no dark alter ego has emerged. Whatever Americans think about Hillary Clinton, we cannot say that we don’t know her. We do know her. And there is a great deal to admire.

David Plouffe, who managed the Obama campaign in 2008, has called the Trump candidacy a “black-swan event”—irrational, but unique to Trump. It is unlikely, Plouffe says, that anyone will soon come along with the same capacity to overstep the traditional institutions of party, media, and big money, and tweet his way to the nomination of a major party. Yet this ignores the nativist backlash that has gripped other parts of the world. It ignores, too, the reckoning that is due in the party that nominated him, with Ted Cruz as the more primly demagogic also-ran. (Cruz also talks about patrolling Muslim neighborhoods and about Clinton’s criminality.)

Not even a sound defeat is likely to cause Trump to recede from view. Now, as he trails in the polls and declares the election “rigged,” thanks to a collusion of the media, political élites, and inner-city “communities,” he seems to be preparing the ground for an unlovely and prolonged assault on a Clinton Presidency. Even some Republican leaders who have withdrawn their support for him have adopted his maximalism. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has said that Clinton wants to strip away all color and joy from the lives of Americans. Senator John McCain has sworn that he will work in the Senate to block any Supreme Court nominations that a President Clinton might make. Neither has come to terms with the ways in which his party’s rhetoric and tactics have enabled Trump’s rise. If anything, their hope seems to be that the swell of passions he has brought together will not dissipate but propel their own ambitions.

To witness Trump’s behavior these past weeks has been to watch a man preparing the outlines of his own martyrdom. It is unclear how he will go on making his political mark. Will he run for office again? Will he fan the calls for “revolution” among his most outraged supporters? Will he build a new alt-right media platform? Or will he retreat to the Elba of Mar-a-Lago? There is no predicting the actions of a man who prides himself on his unpredictability. But, beyond Trump, there is Trumpism: a profound hostility toward political professionalism; a strong antipathy toward technocratic élites; a disenchantment with liberal values. Whether it gathers behind a Ted Cruz, or a Ben Carson, or some candidate yet unsummoned, it indicates a seam of disaffection that any successful Administration must address.

Clinton may lack Obama’s capacity for eloquence. Her task as President is, nonetheless, to find a way to communicate and connect with the public. Inspiration and persuasion are part of the job, in the office as well as on the campaign trail. She must reach the most alienated and angered members of the American electorate. Obama inherited a financial crisis when he took office. The civil crisis that Clinton will inherit is less sharply defined, but her political legacy will depend upon her ability to alleviate it.

Another legacy of hers will be assured. The election of a woman to the Presidency will have myriad reverberations in the life and the institutions of this country. President Obama’s election certainly did not end the saga of racial conflict and prejudice in the United States, but as a distinct step forward it opened up the world to countless young people. Similarly, electing a female President means imagining new possibilities: that a woman might survive that gantlet of derision to hold power with confidence, without apology, to enlarge our notions of authority and hasten an age when a female President will no longer be exceptional. Just as President Obama was able at certain moments of glaring injustice and crisis to focus the country on matters of race in a potentially lasting way, Hillary Clinton, who has emphasized in her campaign and throughout her political life such issues as early-childhood education, paid family leave, and equal pay, could also change the nation in deeply consequential ways. That’s a thrilling possibility for all Americans. ♦

This article appears in other versions of the October 31, 2016, issue, with the headline “The Choice.”


状态 离线
发表于 2016-10-28 19:00  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
President Obama Orlando FULL speech 10/28/16


状态 离线
发表于 2016-10-29 02:30  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 



更糟糕的是,他不接受宪法共和主义的权威 - 它的规范,它的信仰和做法,它的明确规则和隐含的理解。从他的声明中可以清楚地看出这一点,他的发言涉及针对新闻自由,侵犯独立的司法机构,禁止穆斯林移民,没有公正听证的驱逐无证移民,恢复酷刑的做法,并在第三次和最后辩论中,他拒绝说他将接受选举的结果。特朗普甚至威胁要起诉和监禁他的对手。过去一个世纪最类似他的美国叛乱者 - 他们中的Coughlin父亲和参议员约瑟夫·麦卡锡 - 是对共和国的危险,但他们从来没有获得一个主要政党的总统提名。 Coughlin父亲命令一个广播节目及其观众。特朗普总统将指挥美国武装部队,控制其核守则,任命法官,提出立法和执行外交政策。我们四年一次的惯例是坚持这次选举是非常重要的。但特朗普真的代表着奇异的东西。这种总统的前景 - 不稳定,空虚,残忍,不容忍和腐败 - 代表了一种国家紧急状态。

在惊alarm和瘫痪党派的时候,这是一个双方合理的声音可以商定的问题。最后,超过一百六十个共和党领导人宣布拒绝支持特朗普。在共和国行政当局任职的50名国家安全官员也这样做。辛辛那提问询者,亚利桑那州共和国,达拉斯晨报和哥伦布派遣 - 所有保守的报纸,只批准了共和党人七十六和一百二十六年,已经批准克林顿。美国今天,从来没有批准一个候选人,宣布特朗普“不适合总统”,也赞同克林顿。

特朗普是一个古老的美国故事和一个非常新的 - 一个熟悉的品种charlatan再次绽放在社交媒体的时代。不久以前,他是当地小报(“我已经有过的最好的性爱”)的夹缝,在“学徒”上作为一个卡通暴君的副业。然后,从2011年开始,偏执他试图通过对“birther”理论的挥霍支持来使奥巴马总统合并。然而他的倾向早已明显。四十多年前,司法部对特朗普及其父亲提出了一项关于歧视性住房做法的民事案件; Trumps雇了Roy Cohn,他是约瑟夫·麦卡锡的前助手,为他们辩护。 1989年,特朗普在“新闻”中发表了一个全页广告,暗示要执行中央公园五号,四名非裔美国人和一名拉丁美洲人,他们当时十四岁,十五岁和十六岁,并被指控犯有强奸和突击。他们被定罪和监禁,几年后,他们根据DNA证据被免除,特朗普继续坚持他们的内疚,就像他只是几个星期前做的。该声明可能已经获得更多的关注,如果他没有在2005年“访问好莱坞”视频披露之前的一天,他用图形方式说,他自己倾向于性侵犯和名人所赋予的有罪不罚。这不仅仅是自恋,导致他谈论抓住妇女的生殖器或支持“锁她的!”哨子针对他的对手。这是他的温和的威权主义 - 一个特点在他赞赏普京的赞扬。

特朗普的性格的一致性与他的政策立场的不一致是匹配的。每个政客都被允许改变主意,但特朗普滥用特权。他对第一阶段核政策和我们对北约的义务这样基本的问题的逆转反映的不是思想过程,而是无知的愚蠢。他一度是选择;最近,他建议应该惩罚堕胎的妇女。他的榜样,也随环境而变化。他曾经写过的罗纳德·里根(Ronald Reagan),可以“骗人”,但不能“交付货物”。现在里根领导了他最欣赏的总统名单。去年问到前四位总统的时候,特朗普选择了比尔克林顿,曾经称赞他是“一个伟大的总统”。现在克林顿和他的妻子一样,是一个犯罪分子。三年前,特朗普说希拉里·克林顿作为国务卿的工作,她“可能超越每个人”;现在,她的任期当然是“全部灾难”。

自由形式的机会主义,英勇的自我尊重,盲目的蔑视专长,和一种通畅的无懈可击的感觉的结合促成了特朗普与真相的深远的不安。他说,他看到“成千上万”的穆斯林在新泽西欢呼9/11的袭击。当他被告知这从来没有发生,他重复了这个说法,嘲笑残疾的记者暴露了它 - 一个奇怪的画面捕获在视频 - 然后否认这样做。他坚持认为他看到了特德克鲁兹的父亲“与李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德吃早饭”的照片;没有这样的图片存在。他吹嘘与普京的谈话从来没有发生;他说普京没有入侵乌克兰。他把气候变化描述为一个中国实施的骗局,然后说他没有。白天和黑夜,特朗普通过他的Twitter帐户组装和分发这些阴暗的暗示和彻头彻尾的谎言。他特别痴迷于总统。对特朗普来说,奥巴马有许多,许多秘密:他的出生,他的信仰,他的忠诚。在候选人的阴谋口号里,“有事情发生了。



许多特朗普的支持者是G.O.P.坚决支持党的提名人,无论什么。与此同时,否认种族主义和本土主义的特朗普部分是从一个关于美国社会历史的基本真理。真正的特朗普爱好者愤怒奥巴马总统,因为他是黑人,因为他的黑色象征着所有其他族群和新来者谁威胁他们在社会等级制的地方。跟随特朗普,为了确保正义和尊重,是拒绝正义和尊重他侮辱和蔑视的人 - 特别是非裔美国人,西班牙人,穆斯林,妇女。在唐纳德·特朗普的沮丧和可怕的视野中,政治是一个零和游戏。



克林顿的税收计划还旨在促进更广泛的富裕。她将提高对高收入者的短期资本收益的税率,长期持有的收益率较低;关闭有利于对冲基金经理的“持有利益”税务漏洞;以及对高债务水平的银行收取费用。她将对每年500万美元以上的收入征收4%的附加税,对每年收入超过100万美元的收入采取最低30%的税率。她支持“退出税”和其他财政调整,这将阻止所谓的公司倒置 - 公司到爱尔兰等避税地的离岸外包。她建议对在制造业工作面临重大损失的城镇进行投资的税收优惠。为了解决贸易和技术对流离失所工人的复合影响,她将促进培训,并为接受学徒的企业纳税。她将在五年内拨出2 750亿美元用于基础设施改善,重点是过境和供水系统,这应当创造就业,同时降低效率低下。

一般来说,克林顿的税收计划不利于金融业,更有利于就业密集型企业。尽管她对华尔街过分依赖,但是克林顿有强烈的建议,防止大型金融机构承担可能再次破坏经济的风险。她承诺保卫多德 - 弗兰克的改革(特朗普,像所有共和党候选人,承诺推翻),并在他们的基础上。她会对风险征收新的费用;加强“沃尔克规则”,防止银行用政府支持的存款进行潜在的灾难性赌注;并将监管光线引入所谓的影子银行系统,2008年金融危机的大部分时间开始。她会要求对冲基金和其他大型金融公司向监管机构提供关于其交易活动的更多信息,她的行政管理部门将防止这些公司变得如此过分,以至于错误的赌注可能破产并导致广泛的经济危机。

克林顿在外交政策问题上带来了丰富的知识和经验,但她比奥巴马总统更加顽固。她敦促对利比亚进行干预,我们未能在那里安排一个更有秩序的使命,结果令人沮丧。作为国务卿和作为候选人,她一直是那些敦促总统在叙利亚使用美国军事力量比他愿意宽容的人。考虑到我们在伊拉克的失败的程度,我们希望克林顿从她所工作的总统那里得到了更大的谨慎。然而,作为国务卿,她在布什 - 切尼年之后为修复与外国政府的关系做了大量工作,并更加注意我们与中国的复杂关系。她还有助于为经济制裁和导致在伊朗结束签署后与伊朗进行核交易的政治办法奠定基础。

投票支持克林顿的最重要的理由可能是最高法院的问题。两代人,保守的法官主宰了法院,他们将自己的意志强加于法律的几个关键领域。由于公民联合会和相关案件,关于竞选资金的法律是摇摇欲坠,富有的捐助者现在统治政治进程。 2013年,一个五到四个人的选举权被废除了“投票权法”,也许是美国历史上最重要的民权法,共和党立法者利用法院历史上的这个可耻的时刻来限制那些可能投票反对他们,即少数民族和民主党。多年来,治安法官不断改变的联盟保护了某些关键的宪法权利 - 特别是妇女的选择权和大学考虑学生入学多样性的权利。克林顿有机会锁定这些收益,扭转一些损失,甚至在法院上宣布一个新的,非常不同的时代。

共和党控制的参议院甚至拒绝向奥巴马总统的政治温和和高度合格的提名人梅里克·加兰(Merrick Garland)发出听证会,以取代2月去世的安东尼·斯卡利亚。这将是克林顿重申加兰的首要职责,或者选择别人为这个席位,而且自从鲁斯·巴德·金斯伯格八十三岁,安东尼·肯尼迪八十岁和斯蒂芬·布雷耶七十八岁,她可能有几个机会重塑法庭。进步的最高法院可以是克林顿最崇高的遗产,但是其实现将需要在参议院强烈民主党的声音 - 选民应该记住在11月8日决定的其他种族。特朗普法院的任命者可能无法检查他或任何未来的煽动者。在臭名昭着的Korematsu决定,1944年,最高法院加入罗斯福总统允许美国人的日本血统的拘留,特朗普最近拒绝公然拒绝的行动。正如罗伯特·杰克逊(Robert Jackson)所言,在Korematsu的不同意见中指出,这样的先例仍然是一支装枪。克林顿不会使法院激进化;她将尊重其最佳传统的真正明智的审查。

尽管克林顿的反对者的阴谋猜想,她的政治隐藏在明显的视线。她对许多问题,包括妇女和少数民族的权利, (她将扩大背景调查,关闭枪支和互联网销售漏洞,并废除使枪支免除责任诉讼的立法);以及最近的移民(她支持全面改革,通向公民权,结束家庭拘留)。

关于气候变化的存在问题,克林顿承诺要追求奥巴马掀起的大会的道路。她将执行他所谓的清洁电力计划,一系列旨在减少目前正在诉讼中的电力部门的碳排放的法规。她呼吁在2020年之前安装5亿块太阳能电池板,产量大约是当前太阳能发电量的5倍 - 最有说服力的是,她表示她会将美国推向减少80% 。与此同时,克林顿拒绝支持专家们认为最有效地推进这些目标的措施:碳税。她不情愿在这里,虽然失望,是不难想象;这样的税在国会没有机会,至少是目前的组成。


希拉里·克林顿既不是圣徒也不是先知;她是一个深厚的经验和目的的实用主义者。但她的韧性,她的狡猾和她的经验 - 帮助她耐心地收获特朗普在他们的三次辩论的质量 - 将是未来政治斗争的资产。在“被驯服的愤世嫉妒的笔记本的叶子”里,尼布尔说,没有理由相信亚伯拉罕·林肯,政治家和机会主义者在道德上不如威廉·劳埃德·驻军,先知。政治家的道德成就必须根据政治家必须考虑的人类社会的限制来判断,先知不需要考虑。“在这个民粹主义时刻,连续性的吸引力没有浪漫。然而,克林顿不仅承诺成为一个比她的对手更好的总统;她有一个机会,建立在一位前任的成功和见解,他将离开办公室有一个卓越的历史变革记录,在一个往往丑陋的时间,作为总统的脾气和尊严的典范。

上个月,在向工会代表的广播中,克林顿说:“为什么我不会提前五十分,你可能会问。”在整个运动中,评论者对她的“负面”,她的“行李”最大的政治问题 - 她在民意调查中甚至更远的原因是,这么多选民不信任她。她和她的丈夫在政治家中不是独一无二的,他们在讲话电路和商业世界中丰富自己 - 从戈尔到鲁道夫·朱利亚尼的每个人都这样做 - 但是可以理解的是,当这些费用达到数千万美元多年来,当克林顿以一种熟悉的语调对投资银行家的观众说话时,她的对手就是最糟糕的。克林顿是正确的,断言他们的基础比特朗普更有价值,但更公正的是,希望克林顿充分了解他们没有做公共生活,更加注意避免潜在的冲突感兴趣的,甚至是它们的外观。还有另一个理由希望重新评价:克林顿对媒体的不信任可以使她保守,固执地不透明 - 这是一个反射,从她最初的失败,提出她的白水文件,在十九世纪九十年代,她失败了几个几周前公布她的肺炎。

然而,在大多数情况下,克林顿不信任与她自己的选择无关,除了作为公共生活的一部分的选择。她一直是二十五年的仇恨,淫乱和阴谋猖獗的目标,从一个受到“丑闻”到另一个 - Filegate,Benghazi,国务院电子邮件的无尽变化。因为每个人都证明比火更烟,愤怒发现了另一个目标。现在注意已转移到她的工作人员的电子邮件维基解密转储。感谢普京的黑客和他渴望破坏美国政治阶层的愿望,我们现在知道克林顿的助手交易发生了政治计算;他们私下里说他们可能不在电视上;他们偶尔做出不慎或傲慢的话。自从尼克松白宫录音带发布以来,任何政治人物都没有对私人通信进行这种程度的公众监督。然而,没有黑暗的改变自我出现。无论美国人如何看待希拉里·克林顿,我们不能说我们不认识她。我们知道她。而且有很大的赞赏。

2008年管理奥巴马竞选的大卫·普洛福(David Plouffe)把特朗普的候选人称为“黑天鹅事件”,这是特鲁姆独有的。 Plouffe说,这是不可能的,任何人都很快就会有同样的能力超越传统的党,媒体和大钱的机构,并鸣叫他的方式提名的一个主要的聚会。然而,这忽视了固守世界其他地方的本土主义反弹。它也忽略了提名他的党的计算,特德克鲁兹也是最原始的煽动者。 (克鲁兹也谈到巡逻穆斯林社区和克林顿的犯罪)。




她的另一个遗产将放心。选举一名妇女担任院长会议将对该国的生活和机构产生无数的反响。奥巴马总统的选举当然没有结束在美国的种族冲突和偏见的烙印,但作为一个明显的进步,它开辟了无数年轻人的世界。同样,选举一位女总统意味着想象一下新的可能性:一个妇女可能生存下来的叛变,在没有道歉的情况下自信地掌握权力,扩大我们的权威概念,加速一个女性总统不再是例外的时代。正如奥巴马总统在某些突出的不公正和危机时刻能够以可能持久的方式将国家集中在种族问题上,希拉里·克林顿在她的运动和整个政治生活中强调了早期儿童教育,带薪家庭假和同工同酬,也可以以相应的方式改变国家。这是所有美国人的一个惊人的可能性。 ♦

本文出现在2016年10月31日的问题的其他版本中,标题为“The Choice”。


状态 离线
发表于 2016-10-30 18:49  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
The president is planning a sort of "tour de swing state." On Tuesday — exactly one week before Election Day — he will head to Ohio to campaign for Clinton at a "Get Out The Early Vote" campaign in Columbus. The next day, he'll be in North Carolina for a similar event in Raleigh. And on Thursday, Obama will travel to Florida to campaign for Clinton in Miami and in Jacksonville. The president will also attend a Clinton event on Friday, though details on that one have not been released.

That's a highly unusual move for a sitting president. Obama is the first president in nearly a century to campaign strongly for his chosen successor, as NPR's Domenico Montanaro reported.


状态 离线
发表于 2016-11-1 10:29  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
Obama predicts Clinton will face criticism for being ambitious if elected
By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL 11/01/16 10:41 AM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
President Barack Obama predicted Monday that Hillary Clinton will face conspiracies about her stamina and moods if she's elected America’s first female president next week.
In an interview on “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee,” Obama likened Clinton’s potential experience in the Oval Office to what he faced as the nation’s first black president, including the conspiracy propagated by now-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump that Obama was born in Kenya.
Story Continued Below
“I think the equivalent will be: She’s tired, she’s moody, she’s being emotional, there’s something about her,” Obama said. “When men are ambitious, it’s just taken for granted. ‘Well, of course they should be ambitious.’ When women are ambitious, ‘Why?’ That theme, I think, will continue throughout her presidency, and it’s contributed to this notion that somehow she is hiding something.”
In the spirit of their Halloween interview, the 44th president joked that he was “dressed up as what happens when young people vote.” And he limited his “spooky” Halloween story to five words to describe what could happen if not enough voters turn out: “Donald Trump could be president.”
“OK, that was very scary,” Bee said. “We’ll make it even scarier for you: Supreme Court Justice Corey Lewandowski; Speaker of the House Louis Gohmert.”
“That was pretty scary,” Obama chuckled. “I’m not sure I’m gonna sleep well tonight.”
Obama appeared on Bee’s late-night program hoping to reach millennials to encourage them to vote. “It turns out that young people actually are more interested and engaged than I think we give them credit for. Sometimes they get cynical — hard to understand why after watching this campaign,” he quipped. “But Malia, my oldest, she actually voted for the first time. The pride that she took, I think, in casting her ballot is a pride that I think a lot of young people feel, but you gotta talk to them about the things that they care about.”
Clinton, he said, has a “very specific plan” about college affordability, for example, and her opponent doesn’t. “Young people have a bigger stake in this election than anybody. I would hope that you’d be willing to take about the same amount of time that you spend just looking through cat videos on your phone to make sure that democracy’s working,” he said, as Bee joked she was “snapchatting myself as a bottlenose dolphin.”
For his part, Obama also tried to reach young voters via Snapchat on Tuesday. The president was featured on “Good Luck America” with Peter Hamby on the app’s Discover stories.
“Hold down the circle, like a video. Sasha gave me a tutorial, by the way,” Obama noted, as Hamby and another man helped him record a Snapchat video. “All right, we good? People, this is Barack Obama. If I can figure out how to Snapchat, you can figure out how to go vote.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/20 ... 30582#ixzz4Olsxw9FT
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


状态 离线
发表于 2016-11-1 21:36  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
President Obama: 'Don't Be Bamboozled' by Donald Trump At Columbus Ohio Rally FULL Speech

Published on Nov 1, 2016
President Barack Obama is telling working-class voters not to be "bamboozled" by Donald Trump. President Obama campaigned again for Hillary Clinton in Ohio today and warned that someone who disrespects the Constitution like Donald Trump does would be dangerous as president The president sent out this warning to people about the dangers of what Trump could do with actual presidential power. “If you disrespect the Constitution by threatening to shut down the press when it doesn’t say things you like or threaten to throw your opponent in jail or discriminate against people of different faiths––if you do that before you are elected, then what are you gonna do when you have actual power to do those things?” Obama is tearing into he Republican businessman's working-class credentials. Obama says Trump has "shown no regard for working people." Repeating his disbelief: "C'mon, this guy?" The Democrat says Trump "wouldn't let you into one of his hotels unless you were cleaning the room." Obama is campaigning at Capital University near Columbus, Ohio, a state he won twice by winning just enough working-class voters, while pumping up turnout among African Americans. Poll show Clinton appears to be struggling here, thanks in part to Trump's strength among working-class, white voters.


状态 离线
发表于 2016-11-1 21:39  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
Bernie Sanders Rally In Plymouth, NH FULL Speech 11/1/16


状态 离线
发表于 2016-11-2 14:48  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
Amid Email Focus, Obama Says He Has 'Absolute Confidence' In Clinton's Integrity

November 2, 20163:14 PM ET

President Obama is vouching for Hillary Clinton in his latest direct appeal to millennial voters.

Speaking to Now This News, Obama made his first public statements about the FBI's renewed focus on evidence possibly tied to Clinton's private State Department email server.

"I know her, I trust her," Obama said. "And you know, I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity and her interest in making sure that young people have a better future."

On Friday, FBI Director James Comey shook the presidential race by notifying Congress that the agency had discovered new information that may be relevant to an investigation into whether Clinton's use of a private server and private email address violated security rules and laws.

In July, after a lengthy investigation, the FBI and Department of Justice declined to pursue charges in the case. While criticizing Clinton's actions, Comey said "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case based on the evidence agents found.

But agents recently discovered emails that may be relevant to the case when examining the computer of former New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of one of Clinton's top aides, Huma Abedin.

After FBI Shakes Up Presidential Race, Candidates Try To Adjust And Capitalize
After FBI Shakes Up Presidential Race, Candidates Try To Adjust And Capitalize
Attempting to carefully walk a line between his support for Clinton and his unwillingness as president to, as he put it, "meddle" in an ongoing investigation, Obama said that, "when this was investigated thoroughly the last time, the conclusion of the FBI, the conclusion of the Justice Department, the conclusion of repeated congressional investigations was that she had made some mistakes, but there wasn't anything there that was, you know, prosecutable."

FBI agents are currently sifting through the Abedin emails found on Weiner's computer. It's unclear when the agency will provide any official updates – or when developments may next leak to media outlets.

More Surprises: FBI Releases Files On Bill Clinton's Pardon Of Marc Rich
More Surprises: FBI Releases Files On Bill Clinton's Pardon Of Marc Rich
Clinton and many Democrats are blasting Comey for revealing the latest developments so close to an election, and before the facts were clear. (Agents had not obtained a warrant to examine the new emails at the time that Comey sent his letter to Congress.)

Obama declined to join that pile-on, saying about the timing of Comey's letter:

"I've made a very deliberate effort to make sure that I don't look like I'm meddling in what are supposed to be independent processes for making these assessments," Obama said.

"I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations – we don't operate on innuendo, we don't operate on incomplete information, we don't operate on leaks. We operate based on concrete decisions that are made."

White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Wednesday that Obama wasn't trying to criticize Comey in the interivew.

Earlier this week, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the White House would neither criticize nor defend Comey and that Obama "believes that Director Comey is a man of integrity, he's a man of principle, and he's a man of good character."


状态 离线
发表于 2016-11-2 17:34  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
Full Speech: President Obama Campaigns For Hillary Clinton in Chapel Hill, North Carolina 11/2/2016



状态 离线
发表于 2016-11-2 18:09  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
Understanding how Hillary Clinton would govern



状态 离线
发表于 2016-11-2 18:46  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 


状态 离线
发表于 2016-11-8 17:51  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
No, Newsweek's Clinton cover is not proof the election is rigged
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/07/ ... surge-story-summary


状态 离线
发表于 2016-11-13 08:23  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
转发: 说的不错。


状态 离线
发表于 2016-11-13 11:30  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 



状态 离线
发表于 2016-11-13 12:09  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 


一对历史学家曼努尔夫妇( Fritzie & Frank Manuel)最近写了一本关于乌托邦理想的历史研究的书:
<<西方世界的乌托邦思想>>(Utopian thought in the Western World).

WIE杂志就此对 Fritzie Manuel 进行了采访.  把我感兴趣的段落翻译过来和大家分享

采访者:Jessica Roemischer
被访者:Fritzie Manuel

人类, 就其本性而言, 是乌托邦主义者.
在文明的最初, 我们就梦想着,希望着. 我们已经编织了一个完美生存的理想.
乌托邦的理想在各个时期都在变化着. 然而无论以什么样的形式, 乌托邦的理想一直成为人们追求更美好生活的驱动力.
的确,它所激发的各种乌托邦思想和社会实验, 其实是我们人类最具创造力的能力---人类想象力的成果.
它是人类普遍的创新的冲动的一种表达---来重新模塑我们的文化, 甚至是意识本身.


这个研究为我们提出一个重要的思考: 什么样的更新更好的存在方式使得我们人类能够驾驭二十一世纪? 面临全球性的挑战, 曼努尔所做的研究使得看清下一个乌托邦应该成为我们最大的天职和责任, 实际这是一种”时代的道德需要”.

WIE:你所说的 “乌托邦倾向”的本性和意义是什么?

FM: 对我来说, 很难想象世界上没有梦想的人, 他们对我们更愿意见到的未来世界有洞察力和远见.我也不能想象会有人说: “我门已经达到了一个完美的存在, 让我们保持其中吧”. 总是会有一些让我们难过的事, 还有可以使其更完好的事, 所以我们就想象出一些改善的方法. 这种冲动还没有消逝殆尽, 如果没有了这些冲动, 我们人类也不会仍然在地球上生存了. 我们会有另外一种形式的生活---那我还无法想象.

乌托邦倾向是一个宇宙性的冲动. 就象思考和呼吸. 如果我们失去了思维能力,完全停止了思考,那么我们就不会再梦想.
然而只要我们还有意识, 我们就会思考, 只要我们思考, 我们就不会被每日的生活所吞没. 我们不得不向前想, 我们不得不思考明天..而且我们不仅为我们自己希望的思考, 我们还作为一个社会的整体去思考.  有时候, 我们会经历一个挫折时期, 那时根本看不到进化到一个更好的社会的可能. 但那是非常黑暗的时期, 也不会持续很长时间. 然后, 我们无可避免地又要思考.

WIE: 乌托邦这个词是从哪里来? 它是什么意思?

FM:  乌托邦是一个充满好奇的词汇. 它是具有伸缩性的; 并没有固定的意义, 你可以以你自己喜欢的任何方式来使用它. 它是一个过滤的名词.它的意思在两百年前和现在大不一样. 而它两百年前的意思又和在十六世纪托马斯莫尔创造这个词汇时大不一样.当时莫尔以它为著作的名字:” 乌托邦”, 一个关于天堂岛的奇幻文学作品. 乌托邦的意思就象我们自身在逐渐改变一样而变化. 我们不能定义它, 因为它本身是在变化着的. 当社会改变时, 人们用不同的词汇来思考.
很可能乌托邦的思想如此之早地进入了我们 的进化之中, 以至于我们从来没有离开它而存在. 当直立行走的猿人离开岩洞时,他大概就想, 如果旁边有个”洞人女士”在旁边, 或者他不需要去猎取巨象该多么好. 他可能在他一出现的时候就有了他的天堂. 他可能也有他的梦想. 但那是一个完全不同的世界, 而且随着世界的变化梦想有着不同的品质, 不同的个性, 它们也在进化.
在所有这些情况下, 梦想都是从我们生活本身中滋生出来, 它一定能以我们生活的现实为依据. 梦想可以是奇怪的,五彩缤纷的甚至不同寻常的, 但它一定和已经存在的生活有关联. 我们的梦想和一个猿人的梦想一定不同----如果猿人也梦想的话. 显而易见, 如果你是一个早期美国移民者, 你所梦想的降临在世上的天堂是一个美洲土著所无法想象的, 因为你们的生活截然不同.
你的乌托邦影象是和你的生活相关联,它根本不需要有什么飞跃----尽管它也许和飞跃到月亮有关. 但那也必须首先你要能看到月亮, 这是你已经知道的存在的事.而你所想象的在那里的生活一定和你在地球上的生活有关联. 我想现在一个年轻人的乌托邦梦想一定在技术上奇异怪诞超乎我的想象., 那么今天的乌托邦梦想也一定和我们那一辈人不同, 因为世界变化太快了.

WIE: 乌托邦的愿景一定为人类思想和它随时间的进化打开了一个迷人的窗口. 那么第一个有记载的乌托邦描绘了什么呢?

FM: 最早的神话性愿景是一个地球上不存在的天堂. 这是一个死后的天堂. 它不是描绘了一个人, 而是许许多多的人在一个美丽的花园里漫步和相互交谈. 那不是一个独自的天堂, 而是一个社区. 但没有和现实的直接关联----例如, 那里已经有了永生.
这些愿景是缥缈的. 早期的乌托邦思想家不是社会革命者或社会活动家, 他们是纯粹的梦想家.

(我把vision 翻译成了"愿景", 好象是个新词)

WIE: 那么这些关于另一个世界的愿景意味着人们被迫去想象与他们实际的存在不同的东西.

FM: 是的, 从最开始, 人们以一种与日常生活不同的一个实际去思想. 这在天堂乌托邦随时间的改变而进化的本性显而易见. 我们有”伊甸园”,地上的”第一批居住者”亚当和夏娃, 这和蛇进入后的伊甸园有明显的不同. 然后, 我们有一个未来的天堂, 当弥赛亚来临时. 有一个将要来的世界和现在的世界相比较.
在十五世纪意大利艺术家Giovanni di Paolo的绘画中天堂的愿景是关于一些有学识的人---修女,神父,僧侣---他们在美丽的花园中聚集,交谈.  有自然的美丽, 当然也有高尚的言论.
然后我们有了探索时代. 是什么样的关于天堂的愿景促使哥伦布冒险寻找新世界的?当他到达南美洲的时候, 他真的觉得他到达了吗?较之古老的欧洲大陆, 一个全新的地域和全新的社会被打开了.
又是什么驱使了我们? 名誉? 金钱?. 关于天堂的想法, 我们不能得到什么普遍的概念.然而只有一点总是保留着: 在天堂和我们的每天面对的日常生活之间有明显的区别.

WIE:  尤其对我们最早的祖先来说, 他们面临着生存的挣扎和艰难, 天堂的愿景一定要在一个不测的世界为他们提供宽慰, 释放和安全.

FM: 我觉得这不仅对人类的早期是这样-----天堂的神话对今天的人们仍然是有意义的. 当人们想到将来的回报, 可以忍受极大的悲惨境遇,  你可以说那种与天堂的关系, 在某种意义上, 是反乌托邦的, 因为它会导致一种松懈无力的状态, 如此无力以至于你不会去想怎样在此时此地创建一个更好的世界.

WIE: 有没有一个转折点, 使得乌托邦的本意开始转移, 不是主要逃避到一个另外的世界中了?

FM:你可以在这里创建乌托邦的理念始于十六世纪初托马斯莫尔的著作.在这以前没有, 即使是一百年之前, 乌托邦仍然是关于另一世界的. 然而在莫尔那里, 是人, 而不是上帝开始在地球上引领生活.
乌托邦的主意是莫尔的发明, 是和他在十六世纪实际过的生活是密切相关的. 就从那里开始.他不认为他的乌托邦要在死后或你复活之后才开始. 而是专注于这个世界.

更多地是以一个社会的形式:很好的花园和融洽的人际关系, 他在书中都有详细的描述.
他想得很透彻, 他在笑, 他在享受这些思想, 然而他也是严肃的. 因为他非常清楚他生活的社会的弊端. 他在批评国王亨利八世的专制, 这是个摇摇欲坠的专制. 各种各样的事都在发生, 莫尔是个有理想, 原则和信念的人. 最后, 他由于忠于天主教会而和国王分裂, 遭到斩首, 最后他被承认, 被封为圣人.他是一个非常聪慧的人, 受过良好的教育,, 一个不仅思想在前, 也诉诸行动的人. 例如, 他让他的女儿们都受了教育. 他卓然而立于世界. 托马斯莫尔是个不同寻常的梦想家

WIE: 你前边说过乌托邦的内涵随着文化而改变. 那么在莫尔的时代和文化中, 是什么使得乌托邦的思想有了这样戏剧化的改变呢?

FM: 人们开始探索内心的生活,探索身边的丰富, 不是指黄金珠宝, 而是思想中的丰富. 他们开始对历史上他们能发现的一切感兴趣, 随着周围其他的族群的发现, 为他们打开了一个新的世界.他们发现了北美和南美的文明,而原先他们并不知道它们的存在.哥伦布在十五世纪末, 发现了新大陆, 随即,托马斯莫尔就写出了” 乌托邦”. 有许多方面的影响----在文艺界, 文学界, 地理界.丰富出现了, 就产生了新的思想, 新的梦想. 这是人文主义的产生, 当然, 宗教的影响开始被削弱.

WIE: 从你所描述的看来, 很明显十六世纪为理性时代设置了舞台, 随之而来的启蒙阶段是一个关键时期, 那时科学, 人类理性和新发现使体制化的宗教减弱了影响. 在下一个阶段, 乌托邦的理念有没有变化呢? 如果有, 是怎样变化的呢?

FM: 十七世纪的乌托邦主义者, 例如弗郎西斯培根, 完全沉浸在另一种精神中.  他们几乎所有的人都是行动的人, 而且认为他们的计划在一个可看见的未来, 而不是遥远的未来, 可以实现. 培根在1626年写了”新亚特兰蒂斯”, 不算是一个受众人瞩目的社会改革的乌托邦. 在”新亚特兰蒂斯”中, 培根把科学带入了人类的思考中,, 而且对于科学怎样被应用, 他有一个非常清晰有趣的概念. 当然, 我们在培根之前也有科学家, 比如,Copernicus. 然而培根是科学思想之父. 他设计, 运用他的想象, 然后检查他的想象, 改变, 测试.培根不仅仅在梦想, 他在用科学方法来做事. 他在发展一种实际可行的方法来得出结论, 因此他用”新亚特兰蒂斯’来帮助把科学方法引入社会, 来改变那个时代的思考. 显然他是一个想象力丰富, 聪颖智慧的人.

WIE: 托马斯莫尔和弗郎西斯培根所想象的乌托邦世界有没有被人们实行? 他们有没有意向去做?

FM:一个乌托邦的愿景要扎根并在历史上留下影响. 必须要有人群---不仅仅是几个哲学家—去实行. 乌托邦不是某些人的幻想.,一个乌托邦思想家, 在十七世纪, 是没有人来去实现他的想法. 他的处境是孤立的, 不仅仅在他的同行哲学家中, 也是在仅仅糊口度日的广大群众中孤立的, 他们并没有明白他在向往什么.
这种情况有所改变是在工业革命时期, 当时的经济和世界系统都发生了变化. 那时有一部分的人群能够思考. 人们开始寻找他们的声音. 他们开始感知到他们自己, 来明白他们是谁. 那时劳动人民和哲学家, 开始接近,这样的哲学家如鲁梭, 在讲述乌托邦的愿景. 结果思想家开始激发起一些事件发生, 这在以前是从来没有过的.法国革命导致了中产阶级的解放和出现. 这也同样在美洲的殖民地发生----独立宣言就是一个乌托邦的文件. 它不仅仅是某人的梦想 -----这时候已经有了一个群体起来, 不同阶层的人开始有主权了. 这些人成为了未来乌托邦愿景中的一部分, 乌托邦的理想开始有了血肉. 就在这个时候, 我们在思想, 愿望, 最终在乌托邦思想家的工作中看到了改变.

WIE:如果大量的人群都能直接投入乌托邦的思想并以这些愿景去做, 这样一来回怎样改变乌托邦的本质呢?

FM:在十九世纪, 一个更广阔的乌托邦的思想产生了, 它注目于建立一个全新的社会. 重要的乌托邦思想家包括法国的查尔斯傅立叶和亨利圣西门,和英国的罗伯特欧文. 他们看到的不仅仅是一个将来的梦想, 他们想要被一些群体,一些单位和一些社会所采纳---他们的确做到了,

傅立叶和欧文是十九世纪早期小社区运动的主要人物. 他们坚信在他们的组织原则下有一个成功的实验就能够说服其余人类来采纳他们的体系.

另一方面, 圣西门的主要工作不是直接地建立小的社区而是整个科学技术社会的重组.他以一个更大的区域来思考而且非常具体. 圣西门的工作是为人类未来发展做贡献—一个有秩序, 在各个方面都有无限发展能力, 一个没有痛苦, 充满了爱和亲密的世界.这个运动, 这个宗教, 就是一个新世界的模型.

WIE: 我们平常认为性别平等和人权大多是从1960年代的西方文化产生的. 但我惊讶地发现在十九世纪乌托邦思想家其实已经多么先进. 他们在人权, 性自由和平权上可称为先峰.

FM: 啊, 是的. 他们对自己的关切不仅在工作, 劳动力安排, 也在爱情上. 甚至比十九世纪更早, 乌托邦主义者就希望在性道德上看到改变. 对妇女的权利上也是如此; 早期的女权主义者一定是最具幻想力的乌托邦主义者, 因为那时候情况对于女性来说实在是非常艰难.

WIE: 我们觉得”激进的六十年代”是一个文化反叛和改变的时期, 那时很多的年轻人追求另外的生活方式. 然而, 在你的书中指出, 这些反文化的实验常常不如在一个世纪出现的公社更新颖更” 乌托邦”.

FM: 是的. 我想是这样的. 在六十年代有很多团体聚集到一起, 但我不认为他们是乌托邦主义者. 他们那时住在纽约, 住在格林威治村, 而且他们反对越战. 但从我看到的, 他们并没有热衷于建立一个更好的世界. 有些人在纽约城拿救济, 我想,”这是不对的, 那些救济应该是给有需要的穷人” . 常常这些孩子来自很富裕的家庭. 他们还得到他们父母的钱, 因此我对此很难怀疑.
在一方面, 这些团体和十九世纪中叶的公社很象----他们试图过一种和周围的社会不同的生活.但我觉得十九世纪的公社有很不同的想法. 他们想要自由, 但不是毒品带来的自由或没有责任感的自由. 而且他们并没有把自己从整体上与社会对立. 只有分离和孤立, 但没有攻击---如1960年代一样. 十九世纪的公社是想改良社会, 而不是弃绝它.这有些普遍化的说, 但还有有其合理的地方. 我不记得在1960年代有过任何形式的改良热忱.  他们反对当时的社会却又享受他们所批评的社会的豪华. 当然不是人人都这样, 但很多都是这样的.那些在西海岸的”花朵孩子”(flower kids)组建了一些社区, 他们显然是要我们这代人没有的个人自由. 我怀疑他们是不是在以社会这个整体在思考, 但我很想知道这些团体是不是仅仅想从一个看着冰冷的社会中寻找逃避 并找错了方向, 还是他们真的想改变世界.

WIE: 反观二十世纪, 人类选择了灾难和毁灭性的方向. 种族屠杀是个典型的例子. 希特勒收到欢迎, 现在看来, 是于他以在德国实现一个完美种族的理想社会的乌托邦冲动出现. 你认为纳粹主义是个乌托邦的理想吗?

FM: 那不是一个乌托邦因为它仅仅以毁灭为依据. 法西斯主义也是这样. 那是用屠杀大量的人来清洗一个旧的社会. 我的确读过”我的奋斗”, 但我没有从中学到任何东西, 我并不人为希特勒是一个思想家.他曾谈到德国的一些思想家, 如Shlegel, 但我没有觉得他们对他有什么意义. 他只是拉大旗做虎皮. 我觉得他在思考上根本不是一个乌托邦主义者, 因为他并不热衷于建立一个新的社会.

WIE: 这些日子我们常常听说”歹托邦”而不是乌托邦.

FM:二战以后, “歹托邦”的小说销售量远远大于任何乌托邦作品. 歹托邦把未来描绘成一个活的地狱.
那时有各种各样的灾难性异象: 地球上人口过度而相互竞争求生存, 核灾难, 科学实验产生出来的传播病毒的生物体等等. 然而从这些异象中, 显示出的却是乌托邦的倾向, 因为歹托邦的核心是乌托邦. 当你说:”这太糟糕了, 太可怕了,我们走错了方向” 那是因为你觉得还能够改变. 如果你根本觉得无法改变, 你不会费心去说. 赫胥厘, 反讽歹托邦作品”勇敢的新世界”的作者, 写了一个乌托邦的岛屿.在歹托邦的冲动后面实际是乌托邦.

WIE: 你在书中曾说乌托邦主义者是真正的现实主义者.

FM: 是的.至少有一件,他们知道什么对世界是有益的.而且他们知道你首先要有一个理想你才能向这个理想去努力.在这个意义上, 他们是现实主义者.那些仅仅接受现在的样子的人实际是非现实主义者, 因为他们否认世界会改变,一切都在运动.然而世界向哪个方向改变却是另一回事. 如果你没有一个你所希望的目标,没有你努力的目标, 那么你就接受了所有你不需要的糟糕的事.过去的乌托邦思想家常常远远超前于他所在的社会,知道一些关于他们的情况真是很有益处.当然,有时侯建立在他们的主义上的社会,并不是运行得很好.比如说,马克思就是这样一个例子.但那也可以及时地得到修正.

WIE: 得到新的乌托邦的修正?

FM:是的. 新的乌托邦. 因为你在生活,又在思想,那么你总会希望些什么, 即使你对最终会实现并不是很乐观.你仍然会为此努力.你想改善这个世界, 而且有感觉不仅它需要被改善而且是能够的――它进化的命运使得它最终会被改善.因此你就和与你有同样想法的人看齐, 而不是与那些已经放弃或认为世界从他们开始也从他们结束的人.我确信有成千上万的人都有我这样的感觉. 或者是不是这只是我的乌托邦思想中的一部分. 我也不知道.
我的确有很悲观的时候. 有时侯, 我想拿起纽约时报把它扔到房间那一头. 但基本上我都是这样-对我们改善世界的能力有一些怀疑主义, 而不是悲观. 我感觉总有些什么你可以做,来促使情况改善. 这个想法总在内心深处. 我想我仍然是个乌托邦主义者.

WIE: 下一个乌托邦是什么? 在二十一世纪乌托邦的未来是什么样的?

FM: 今天的生活大不相同了, 乌托邦的疆界也在改变. 人们不再担心性自由了.经济上的理想仍然推动乌托邦主义者, 但也同样推动着其他人. 曾仅仅是乌托邦主义者的问题成为了公众的问题, 它们已经被民主党人所吸收, 而不再被称为乌托邦主义者!所以乌托邦主义者真是很难说, 你不觉得是这样吗?例如, 你还称世界和平是个乌托邦的想法吗?我不再这样想.它已经成为了全世界的理想, 无论你是否觉得它能够实现.曾经只是乌托邦主义者的东西已经传播到了整个人群,它已牵涉到了全人类.
现在不需要很多的人就可以使这个星球得到毁灭, 这把乌托邦主义者放到了一个不同的位置.人们在谈人类的末日. 在十九世纪, 这种讲论简直是疯了. 然而用这些言辞谈论的人已经不是梦想家了. 乌托邦的思想是关于保存人类自身.乌托邦主义者是那些认为我们还可以保存世界的人.而那不是一个阶层或一个社会, 而是整个人类. 所以乌托邦主义者不再限于他们自己的小圈子, 受到孤立. 如果没有整个世界作他们的支持, 他们的理想就不能成为可行.我们都不得不成为乌托邦主义者, 因为我们都要相信我们能够保存世界. 如果不是这样,这样一来我们就得都现在就放弃, 走进洞中, 祈祷或仅仅是思想,花时间编织.另外的选择是灭亡. 这听起来很灰暗.

WIE:不, 很奇怪这并不灰暗. 听起来你实际上就是一个乌托邦主义者――一个现实主义者.而且它讲到了人类的最深的部分.

FM:的确是这样.全世界都很奇怪地转了向, 乌托邦主义也是这样.我不认为在我的有生之年会有什么大规模的事件发生, 但我不知道在你的有生之年会不会发生.我们在另一个世界再见的时候就知道了.如果世界毁灭了,你还有死后的生命吗?

WIE:我甚至不能想象世界的毁灭, 那太可怕了.

WIE:那本身就是乌托邦倾向, 不是吗?
FM: 是的, 那就是.



状态 离线
发表于 2016-11-19 08:41  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
奥巴马告诉纽约客的David Remnick:“我对她们说,人都是复杂的。社会和文化也很复杂……这不是数学;这是生物学和化学。这都是活着的生物体,因此会很复杂。而你作为公民,作为一个得体的人,你的工作就是持续用善良、尊重和理解来对待他人。”


状态 离线
发表于 2016-12-16 13:20  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 


New Poll uncovers Trump Supporters Alternate Reality - "They LITERALLY Think UP IS DOWN"


状态 离线
发表于 2017-1-19 16:01  资料  个人空间  个人文库  短消息  加为好友 
Many Goodbyes For Obama In Last Days Of Presidency