美國(guó)政治的根本問(wèn)題是什么（二）

Pascal Morimacil
The goal of US politics is to make people cry, ideally at least half the country.
When that happens, it’s celebrated!
Sure, maybe all you got was a nice big mug of neoliberal capitalism.
But close your eyes, pinch your nose, and drink up while it’s still warm!
Think about all those com...sts/white supremacists, and how they are all forced to drink the same shit as you!
Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
There is a first past the post voting system, that inevitably devolves into 2 big parties.
Voting third party has no real impact.
The 2 big parties don’t actually stand for anything, their goal is just to win.
They know that they can’t really win by having a coherent position.

美國(guó)政治的目標(biāo)是讓人們哭泣，理想情況下至少讓一半的美國(guó)人哭泣。
當(dāng)這種情況發(fā)生時(shí)，人們會(huì)慶祝！
當(dāng)然，也許你得到的只是一個(gè)新自由主義資本主義的大杯子。
但是閉上你的眼睛，捏住你的鼻子，在它還熱的時(shí)候喝掉它!
想想那些共產(chǎn)主義者/白人至上主義者，他們是如何被迫和你一樣喝這些無(wú)用之物的!
這難道不會(huì)讓你內(nèi)心感到溫暖和舒適嗎?
“先過(guò)終點(diǎn)制”的投票制度，不可避免地會(huì)演變成兩個(gè)大黨。
投票給第三黨沒(méi)有實(shí)際影響。
這兩個(gè)大黨實(shí)際上并不代表任何東西，他們的目標(biāo)只是贏得選舉。
他們知道，如果立場(chǎng)一致，他們就無(wú)法真正獲勝。

They need to try and rally half the country behind them, and having a coherent position would be a disadvantage.
Instead, they try to remain as vague as possible concerning their own positions with empty slogans like “Change”, “MAGA”, or “build back better”, letting people project whatever they want in there.
Actually having a campaign platform is fully optional.
What is not optional, however, is fearmongering and ad hominem attacks.
You cannot really get people to rally around something.
It would be dangerous to the status quo.
But you can get people to rally against something. Or someone.
Presidents split their time between doing things by executive order and undoing the previous president’s executive orders, senators consider filibustering their main job, and everyone is on board with things like packing the courts or gerrymandering
Tax cuts and bailout for the big corporations are the only thing that both parties agree on, so that kind of thing gets passed while barely getting mentioned in the media, before it’s back to slinging shit at each other.
Corruption continues, lobbying continues, shitty media continues.
50% of the country is even less happy about this than you are.
So call them names and dance on their graves! The status quo won again!

他們需要爭(zhēng)取全國(guó)一半的人支持他們，而立場(chǎng)一致將是一個(gè)劣勢(shì)。
相反，他們?cè)噲D用“改變”、“讓美國(guó)再次偉大”或“重建得更好”等空洞的口號(hào)，盡可能模糊地表達(dá)自己的立場(chǎng)，讓人們想投射什么就投射什么。
實(shí)際上，是否有競(jìng)選平臺(tái)完全是可選的。
然而，不可選擇的是散布恐懼和人身攻擊。
你不可能真正讓人們團(tuán)結(jié)在一起。
這對(duì)現(xiàn)狀是危險(xiǎn)的。
但你可以讓人們團(tuán)結(jié)起來(lái)反對(duì)某些事情或者反對(duì)某人。
總統(tǒng)們?cè)趫?zhí)行行政命令和撤銷(xiāo)前任總統(tǒng)的行政命令之間分配時(shí)間，參議員們考慮阻撓他們的主要工作，每個(gè)人都在做一些事情，比如塞滿法庭或不公正地劃分選區(qū)。
減稅和救助大公司是兩黨唯一達(dá)成一致的事情，所以這種事情在媒體上幾乎沒(méi)有被提及的情況下就被通過(guò)了，然后又開(kāi)始互相指責(zé)。
腐敗還在繼續(xù)，游說(shuō)還在繼續(xù)，垃圾媒體還在繼續(xù)。
全國(guó)50%的人對(duì)此甚至比你更不高興。
那就罵他們，在他們的墳?zāi)股咸璋?現(xiàn)狀又贏了!

Marc Bodnick
Here's a summary of what many of us think about politics today:
The root problem in American politics is that we can't actually sext the government that most people in America actually want.

以下是我們對(duì)當(dāng)今政治看法的總結(jié):
美國(guó)政治的根本問(wèn)題是，我們實(shí)際上無(wú)法選擇大多數(shù)美國(guó)人真正想要的政府。

In other words,
1. In the US today, there is a strong centrist (or maybe center-right) plurality that favors a reasonable combination of:
Social liberalism / libertarianism - i.e., the government should stay out of our personal lives.
Free market-centric solutions to economic and social problems - low taxes, low regulation, market based incentives wherever possible

換句話說(shuō)，
在今天的美國(guó)，有一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的中間派(或者可能是中右翼)多數(shù)派傾向于以下合理組合:
社會(huì)自由主義/自由主義——即政府應(yīng)該不介入我們的個(gè)人生活。
以自由市場(chǎng)為中心解決經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)問(wèn)題——低稅收，低監(jiān)管，盡可能制定以市場(chǎng)為基礎(chǔ)的激勵(lì)機(jī)制

2. Various constraints and incentives in American politics prevent this centrist outcome from happening, with two parties that are highly influenced and often controlled by the forces at the right and left poles.
As a result:
We have an impossible time cutting government spending, programs, and regulation when they don't make sense.
Natural social progress often takes way too long to happen. For example, it's exasperating how long it's taking America to legalize gay marriage despite the fact that a majority of Americans support it and it's obvious that this outcome is both morally imperative and historically inevitable.
We can't settle on market-based solutions, even when they make tons of sense, because entrenched economic forces exert disproportionate control of outcomes.
The extremists at each pole relentlessly use "wedge" social issues to distract Americans from important problems.

美國(guó)政治中的各種限制和激勵(lì)因素阻止了這種中間派結(jié)果，因?yàn)閮牲h都受到左右兩極勢(shì)力的高度影響和控制。
因此：
當(dāng)政府開(kāi)支、項(xiàng)目和監(jiān)管沒(méi)有意義時(shí)，我們不可能削減它們。
自然的社會(huì)進(jìn)步往往需要很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間才能實(shí)現(xiàn)。例如，令人惱火的是，盡管大多數(shù)美國(guó)人支持同性婚姻合法化，但美國(guó)花了這么長(zhǎng)時(shí)間才將其合法化，很明顯，這一結(jié)果在道德上是必要的，在歷史上是不可避免的。
我們不能滿足于基于市場(chǎng)的解決方案，即使它們很有意義，因?yàn)楦畹俟痰慕?jīng)濟(jì)力量在對(duì)結(jié)果的控制方面是不成比例的。
兩極的極端分子無(wú)情地利用“楔子”社會(huì)問(wèn)題來(lái)分散美國(guó)人對(duì)重要問(wèn)題的注意力。

Henry R. Greenfield
Having looked into this a great deal as an expat American, I have been shocked at how polarized the US has become. Once you look at it though, the roots, the causes, the social media, it all makes sense.
I would like everyone to challenge me on what I am about to write and I don’t need any charts to prove it.
The best way is via a timeline of some key events so we all can understand more clearly:

作為一名外籍美國(guó)人，我對(duì)這件事進(jìn)行了大量研究，我對(duì)美國(guó)的兩極分化感到震驚。然而，一旦你看到它的根源、原因、社交媒體，一切都說(shuō)得通。
我希望每個(gè)人都能對(duì)我將要寫(xiě)的東西提出質(zhì)疑，我不需要任何圖表來(lái)證明。
最好的方法是通過(guò)一些關(guān)鍵事件的時(shí)間表，這樣我們都可以更清楚地理解：

1950’s
Postwar boom, unx membership up, US is the only country making anything. Massive infrastructure like national highway program. Taxes at 91% of income for highest earners.
Summary: Consensus everyone agrees that change is needed in the south and everyone is making money, moms are mostly at home. Building boom.

20世紀(jì)50年代
戰(zhàn)后的繁榮，工會(huì)會(huì)員增加，美國(guó)是唯一能制造東西的國(guó)家。大規(guī)模的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，如國(guó)家高速公路項(xiàng)目，對(duì)高收入者征收91%的稅收。
總結(jié)：大家一致認(rèn)為，南方需要變革，每個(gè)人都在賺錢(qián)，媽媽們大多在家、建筑熱潮。

1960’s
All assumptions change country focuses on civil rights and vietnam war, however in the late 50’s the republicans realize they have to change as they were already a minority party. They develop the strategy that they have refined over 60 years.
Grab the ‘christian’ ground, oppose socialism and Com...ism(from the 50’s onward), begin to demonize the left.
Nixon- a big breakthrough, southern strategy and welcoming the racists who left the Democratic party. Now the Republicans had a real strategy.
1970s
Last of the great days for american workers, slack performance by everyone including the workers who collected a lot of money and low QC on products. Importing begins big time but offshoring/outsourcing not yet.

20世紀(jì)60年代
所有改變國(guó)家的假設(shè)都集中在民權(quán)和越南戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)上，然而在50年代末，共和黨人意識(shí)到他們必須改變，因?yàn)樗麄円呀?jīng)是一個(gè)少數(shù)黨了。他們制定了60多年來(lái)不斷完善的戰(zhàn)略。
抓住“基督教”的立場(chǎng)，反對(duì)社會(huì)主義和共產(chǎn)主義(從50年代開(kāi)始)，開(kāi)始妖魔化左派。
尼克松：來(lái)了一個(gè)重大突破，南方戰(zhàn)略和歡迎那些離開(kāi)民主黨的種族主義者；現(xiàn)在共和黨人有了真正的策略。
20世紀(jì)70年代
美國(guó)工人的好日子已經(jīng)過(guò)去了，每個(gè)人的表現(xiàn)都很差，包括那些賺了很多錢(qián)的工人，產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量也很低。開(kāi)始進(jìn)口了，但離岸/外包方面的工作還沒(méi)有興起。

1980’S
Reagan, Lee Attwater, demonizing the left. Willie Horton ads, blacks coming to get you. Socialism bad, strong on the christian right, beginning of christian coalition. Reagan era ends USSR but not Com...ism, outsourcing begins in earnest. Japan the big threat, unxs begin to shrink rapidly.
1990’s
Democrats blx and Clinton adopts corporate strategy .
Republicans have the formula, working men angst, anger, christianity, Democrats go corporate and lose touch with their base. The divide becomes massive.
2000s
Bush takes the election to SCOTUS, 9/11, 2 wars, trillions in debt, economy collapses no more cooperation at all. They decide, THE ONLY SOLUTION IS DESTROY the Democrats with no cooperation.

20世紀(jì)80年代
里根，李·阿特沃特，妖魔化左派。威利·霍頓的廣告，黑人來(lái)抓你。社會(huì)主義不好，基督教右翼勢(shì)力強(qiáng)大，基督教聯(lián)盟的開(kāi)始。里根時(shí)代結(jié)束了蘇聯(lián)，但沒(méi)有結(jié)束共產(chǎn)主義，外包正式開(kāi)始。日本是最大的威脅，工會(huì)開(kāi)始迅速萎縮。
20世紀(jì)90年代
民主黨人眨眼了，克林頓采取企業(yè)戰(zhàn)略。
共和黨人有自己的套路，工人們焦慮、憤怒、信奉基督教，民主黨人走向企業(yè)化，失去了與選民基礎(chǔ)的聯(lián)系。分歧變得巨大。
2000年代
布什將選舉帶到最高法院，9/11，兩次戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，數(shù)萬(wàn)億債務(wù)，經(jīng)濟(jì)崩潰，根本沒(méi)有合作。他們決定，唯一的解決辦法就是在不合作的情況下摧毀民主黨。

Up to 2016
Obama struggles, Democrats lose the plot, Republicans smash them in 2010, roots of anger now the way forward for Republicans, social media kicks in
2017-Present
Republicans have refined the formula, Democrats for years and years battle it out between ‘moderates’ with their corporate leanings and progressives who do not have a clue at how to run things.
TODAY
Democrats are lost, they do not get it. Republicans have perfected the plan, Trump will be sacrificed but in the end they have the upper hand as now asians, black men and latinos are voting for them.
The goal is the neutering or delegitmizing the Democrats.

截至2016年
奧巴馬舉步維艱，民主黨人輸了，共和黨人在2010年擊敗了他們，憤怒的根源現(xiàn)在成了共和黨人前進(jìn)的方向，社交媒體開(kāi)始介入
2017年至今
共和黨人已經(jīng)完善了這個(gè)方案，民主黨人多年來(lái)一直在具有企業(yè)傾向的“溫和派”和不知道如何運(yùn)作的進(jìn)步派之間進(jìn)行斗爭(zhēng)。
今天
民主黨人輸了，他們不明白。共和黨人已經(jīng)完善了計(jì)劃，特朗普將被犧牲，但最終他們占了上風(fēng)，因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)在亞洲人、黑人和拉丁裔都在給他們投票。
其目標(biāo)是使民主黨失去權(quán)力。

Simply LISAble
Stupidity can't be fixed. Unfortunately, I believe that America will always be divided.
I think the biggest reason for this situation sits in the biased propaganda.
I think a lot of people (on both sides) just don't have the maturity to question what they see, hear or smell… they just believe everything.
a country where minorities are victims of a political system that wants to suppress diversities; a country that wants to kill the Earth and doesn't care about the future of our grandchildren; a country that loves guns and trusts a violent police system; a country that lives by the survival law of the strongest…
or a country that is constantly banding backward to accommodate citizens that don't respect the American Constitution; a country that accepts mediocracy and doesn't strive to reach the highest ambitions; a country that wants to be lazy expecting a Government handout; a country that allows immigrants to jump over the border and have access to the same rights; a country that prioritizes buying a latte from Starbucks over having a retirement plan…
But, both situations above have one thing in common: there is one evil side, an ENEMY:

愚蠢是無(wú)法修復(fù)的。不幸的是，我相信美國(guó)將永遠(yuǎn)處于分裂狀態(tài)。
我認(rèn)為造成這種情況的最大原因在于有偏見(jiàn)的宣傳。
我認(rèn)為很多人(雙方)都沒(méi)有成熟到質(zhì)疑他們所看到、聽(tīng)到或聞到的東西，他們只是相信一切。
在這個(gè)國(guó)家，少數(shù)民族是壓制多樣性的政治制度的受害者；這是一個(gè)想要?dú)绲厍?，卻不關(guān)心我們子孫后代未來(lái)的國(guó)家、一個(gè)熱愛(ài)槍支并信任暴力警察系統(tǒng)的國(guó)家、一個(gè)遵循強(qiáng)者生存法則的國(guó)家。
或者說(shuō)這是一個(gè)不斷倒退以容納不尊重美國(guó)憲法的公民的國(guó)家、一個(gè)接受平庸而不追求最高目標(biāo)的國(guó)家、一個(gè)懶惰地期待政府施舍的國(guó)家、一個(gè)允許移民越過(guò)邊境并享有同樣權(quán)利的國(guó)家、一個(gè)優(yōu)先考慮從星巴克買(mǎi)拿鐵而沒(méi)有退休計(jì)劃的國(guó)家。
但是，上述兩種情況都有一個(gè)共同點(diǎn):它們都有一個(gè)邪惡的一面，一個(gè)敵人。

In the first scenario, the enemies are the “bad guys”. Stuck-up closed-minded patriots that have a gun in their truck, and a Confederate flag outside their front door.
In the second scenario, the enemy is a generation that believes in unicorns, free healthcare, and higher education at “no-cost”. The same people who want to “save the world” from violence, while rioting in honor of their beliefs.
Like I said at the beginning, I don't think this situation can be easily doused.
Hypothetically, perhaps America should start this transition by banning fake media (left and right). Also, it would be great to learn to listen, compromising where possible. Last but not least, all Americans should honor the ones who sacrificed their lives for this Country.
In other words, I think all Americans should stand on a COMMON GROUND and grow from there; using diversities to improve, rather than destroy.

在第一個(gè)場(chǎng)景中，敵人是“壞人”。頑固封閉的愛(ài)國(guó)者在他們的卡車(chē)?yán)锓胖鴺專(zhuān)谒麄兊那伴T(mén)掛著聯(lián)邦旗幟。
在第二種情況下，敵人是相信獨(dú)角獸、免費(fèi)醫(yī)療和“免費(fèi)”高等教育的一代人。這些人想要從暴力中“拯救世界”，同時(shí)為了他們的信仰而暴動(dòng)。
正如我一開(kāi)始所說(shuō)，我認(rèn)為這種情況不容易平息。
假設(shè)，也許美國(guó)應(yīng)該通過(guò)禁止假媒體(左派和右派)來(lái)開(kāi)始這種轉(zhuǎn)變。此外，學(xué)會(huì)傾聽(tīng)，在可能的地方妥協(xié)是很好的。最后但并非最不重要的是，所有美國(guó)人都應(yīng)該尊重那些為這個(gè)國(guó)家犧牲生命的人。
換句話說(shuō)，我認(rèn)為所有美國(guó)人都應(yīng)該站在共同的立場(chǎng)上，并在此基礎(chǔ)上成長(zhǎng);利用多樣性來(lái)改善，而不是破壞。

Charles Tips
We are not creating wealth. Instead we are creating massive debt.
Wealth is poorly understood. It is denominated in terms of money but is not synonymous with money. It is produced by making fixed assets productive but is distinct from those assets. Most of what is produced in terms of goods and services is not wealth, but some is.
Wealth is certainly found in for-profit corporations, those that are operating well anyway. It is also produced by non-profit corporations (which do not pay tax on it in most instances because they have agreed to socialize it and not let it accumulate to the benefit of individuals). Finally, the public sector, government at all levels, can harbor wealth.

我們不是在創(chuàng)造財(cái)富。相反，我們正在制造巨額債務(wù)。
人們對(duì)財(cái)富知之甚少。它以貨幣計(jì)價(jià)，但不是貨幣的同義詞。它是通過(guò)使固定資產(chǎn)具有生產(chǎn)力而產(chǎn)生的，但與固定資產(chǎn)不同。以商品和服務(wù)的形式生產(chǎn)出來(lái)的大多數(shù)東西不是財(cái)富，但有些是財(cái)富。
財(cái)富當(dāng)然存在于那些經(jīng)營(yíng)良好的營(yíng)利性公司。它也由非營(yíng)利性公司生產(chǎn)(在大多數(shù)情況下，這些公司不納稅，因?yàn)樗麄兺鈱⑵渖鐣?huì)化，而不是讓它積累到個(gè)人的利益中)。最后，公共部門(mén)，各級(jí)政府，都可以擁有財(cái)富。

As Adam Smith described wealth
It is resources available for all discretionary purposes - profound or frivolous - consumption or investment - private or government. It is a measure of economic power - either in terms of money or in its labor and commodity equivalents - that is available without diminishing the productive capacity of the nation.
Back in the sixties, we had wealth in government. We had an interstate highway program, a space program, an arms race, rampant school building to accommodate us Boomers, a war halfway around the world and the Great Society War on Poverty. All of this lavish spending with low usage of debt was possible because we had very few people in government, and the ones we had were relatively low-paid.

正如亞當(dāng)·斯密所描述的財(cái)富
它是可用于所有自由裁量目的的資源——深?yuàn)W的或瑣碎的——消費(fèi)或投資——私人的或政府的。它是一種衡量經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——無(wú)論是以貨幣還是以勞動(dòng)和商品等價(jià)物來(lái)衡量——在不削弱一個(gè)國(guó)家的生產(chǎn)能力的情況下，它是可用的。
早在60年代，我們?cè)谡袚碛胸?cái)富。我們有州際高速公路計(jì)劃、太空計(jì)劃、軍備競(jìng)賽、為了容納我們這些嬰兒潮一代而瘋狂修建學(xué)校、一場(chǎng)橫跨半個(gè)地球的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，以及“向貧困宣戰(zhàn)的偉大社會(huì)”。所有這些奢侈的消費(fèi)都很少使用債務(wù)，這能實(shí)現(xiàn)是因?yàn)槲覀冋械娜撕苌?，而我們的人收入相?duì)較低。

Lately we have one person in five paid off the public dime (30 million workers out of 150 million total in 2009), and on average they earn more than a private worker (now approaching half again more). The thing is, though they feel the tax bite, public workers do not pay taxes in the real sense as their pay comes from tax revenues--no new money enters the system.
Even that optimistic approach means that the total taxes of three out of five taxpayers are needed to pay for the labor component of government, leaving two out of five to pay for everything else government is supposed to do. That is impossible. Even the most labor-intensive service companies struggle mightily past forty-percent labor costs. Back in the sixties, fewer than one worker in ten worked for the government, which allowed the accumulation of wealth to put toward ambitious programs.
At the same time, we have saddled business with so much regulation and so many social obligations that businesses are sitting on their hands and we've had the greatest decrease in new business formation ever.
"Oh, but the stock market is booming," you counter. Yes, but only because investment in small and start-up business is considered far too risky while the safest investments in bonds and treasuries pay so little. The fact that the stock market alone is consequently soaring should be regarded as a huge warning flag.

最近，我們有五分之一的人拿政府工資（2009年，1.5億工人中有3000萬(wàn)人是公務(wù)員），平均而言，他們比私人企業(yè)的工人掙得多（現(xiàn)在又接近一半了）。問(wèn)題是，盡管公共工作人員感受到了稅收的影響，但他們并沒(méi)有真正意義上的納稅，因?yàn)樗麄兊墓べY來(lái)自稅收——沒(méi)有新的資金進(jìn)入系統(tǒng)。
即使是這種樂(lè)觀的方法也意味著，需要五分之三的納稅人的總稅收支付政府的公務(wù)員工資，需要五分之二的納稅人繳納的稅收支付政府應(yīng)該做的一切事情上的花費(fèi)。這是不可能的，即使是最勞動(dòng)密集型的服務(wù)公司也在努力克服40%的勞動(dòng)力成本。早在60年代，只有不到十分之一的工人為政府工作，這使得積累的財(cái)富能夠用于雄心勃勃的項(xiàng)目。
與此同時(shí)，我們給企業(yè)施加了太多的監(jiān)管和社會(huì)責(zé)任，以至于企業(yè)無(wú)所作為，新企業(yè)的數(shù)量出現(xiàn)了有史以來(lái)最大的下降。
你反駁道：“哦，但股市正在繁榮。”。是的，但這只是因?yàn)橥顿Y小企業(yè)和初創(chuàng)企業(yè)被認(rèn)為風(fēng)險(xiǎn)太大，而最安全的債券和國(guó)債投資回報(bào)如此之低。因此，僅股市就在飆升，這一事實(shí)應(yīng)被視為一個(gè)巨大的警告信號(hào)。