美國政治的根本問題是什么（三）

Rob Brown
The simple, straightforward way to fix the partisanship in our politics is to have a voting system that does not directly cause it. Those who think that partisanship, as we see it in the US, is simply "human nature" and therefore unsolvable are severely misguided, in my opinion. Instead, it is a direct consequence of our current voting system.
Any system that gives an advantage to those candidates that form alliances with ideological similar candidates, will result in parties forming and becoming dominant. Parties form so that similar candidates can gain strategic advantage by agreeing to put only one candidate on the ballot. Over time things tend to stabilize into two dominant parties. With even more time, the public themselves become polarized, with more falling on one side or the other . The center becomes a very lonely place.

解決我們政治中的黨派之爭最簡單直接的方法就是建立一個不會直接導致黨派之爭的投票制度。在我看來，那些認為黨派之爭（正如我們在美國看到的那樣）只是“人性”，因此認為其是無法解決的人被嚴重誤導了。相反，這是我們當前投票制度導致的直接結(jié)果。
任何給那些與意識形態(tài)相似的候選人結(jié)盟的候選人帶來優(yōu)勢的制度，都將導致政黨的形成并占據(jù)主導地位。政黨的形成使得相似的候選人可以通過同意只讓一名候選人參加投票而獲得戰(zhàn)略優(yōu)勢。隨著時間的推移，事情趨向于穩(wěn)定為兩個占主導地位的政黨。隨著時間的推移，公眾本身也變得兩極分化，越來越多的人站在一邊或另一邊。中間地帶變成了一個非常孤獨的地方。

Edit: As requested, here's some steps to fix the problem (all of which basically come down to "convince a lot of people we should make this change"):
Write amazingly persuasive prose that convinces lots of people that a relatively simple change will make a dramatic, positive change -- and post it on Quora. :)
Make beautiful and elegant videos and interactive sites to demonstrate how this happens, in a way that can be grasped in a few seconds.
Build free web services that do internet polling and elections in these better ways, letting more people warm up to the idea on things that aren't as important as real elections. Make them good enough that they get used all over the web.
Build sophisticated game theory based computer models where you can run simulations to demonstrate how this problem manifests itself, and how easy it would be to fix it. Use these models to convince the rest of the holdouts.
With the public thoroughly behind it, push representatives to change the election laws. We've already changed them here in San Francisco, and although the system here is not perfect, it is a move in the right direction.

編輯：根據(jù)要求，這里有一些解決問題的步驟(所有這些基本上都歸結(jié)為“我們應該做出這個改變以說服很多人”
寫一篇非常有說服力的文章，讓很多人相信一個相對簡單的改變會帶來戲劇性的、積極的變化——然后把它發(fā)布在Quora上。
制作出色、簡練的視頻和交互式網(wǎng)站，以一種幾秒鐘就能掌握的方式展示這種情況是如何發(fā)生的。
建立免費的網(wǎng)絡服務，以更好的方式進行網(wǎng)絡投票和選舉，讓更多的人對那些不如真正的選舉那么重要的事情感興趣。讓它們足夠好，可以在整個網(wǎng)絡上使用。
建立復雜的基于博弈論的計算機模型，在那里你可以運行模擬來展示這個問題是如何表現(xiàn)出來的，以及展示解決它有多容易，用這些模型來說服其余的反對者。
在公眾的全力支持下，推動議員們修改選舉法。我們已經(jīng)在舊金山改變了它們，盡管這里的體制并不完美，但這是朝著正確方向邁出的一步。

Matthew Bates
There’s always been a divide. It’s just gotten a lot worse in the last 20–30 years. Here’s what I think deserves the blame:
The fall of the Soviet unx and the end of the Cold War. Having a real threat beyond your borders really unites a populace that would otherwise hate each other. Once the Cold War was over and Americans realized the “Commies” weren’t going to be parachuting in anytime soon, it made it that much easier to bicker amongst ourselves.
The rise and availability of alternative media. Many people now live in echo chambers, hearing only the news that already reflects their point of view. Conservatives usually get criticized for this the most, but I know a lot of liberals that do it too. That’s because I think the mainstream media has a decidedly liberal narrative. If you watch just ABC or CBS or NBC News, you’re not getting the whole story any more than someone who watches just Fox News.
Hedonism and a rejection of culturally or legally-imposed self control. If it feels good and doesn’t hurt anyone except yourself, why shouldn’t you be able to do it, right? If there’s a law or cultural norm against it, that’s because of some old patriarchal religion or something. We don’t need that anymore. Just do it.

一直都有分歧。在過去的20-30年里，情況變得更糟了。以下是我認為應該受到指責的地方：
蘇聯(lián)的解體和冷戰(zhàn)的結(jié)束。在你的邊界之外有一個真正的威脅真的團結(jié)了一個本來會互相仇恨的民眾，一旦冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束，美國人意識到“共產(chǎn)主義者”不會很快空降進來，這讓我們之間爆發(fā)爭吵變得容易得多。
另類媒體的興起和可用性。許多人現(xiàn)在住在回聲室里，只聽得到已經(jīng)反映他們觀點的消息。保守派通常會因此受到最多的批評，但我知道很多自由派也會這樣做。這是因為我認為主流媒體有一種明顯的自由主義敘事。如果你只看ABC、CBS或NBC新聞，你不會比只看?？怂剐侣劦娜说玫礁嗟南ⅰ?br /> 享樂主義和拒絕接受文化或法律強加的自我控制。如果感覺很好，除了你自己不會傷害任何人，為什么你不能這樣做，對吧？如果有法律或文化規(guī)范反對它，那是因為一些古老的父權宗教或其他東西，我們不再需要這些了，就這么干吧。

Joshua Alexander
There is nothing new under the Sun.
We’ve always been deeply divided, but we were never really quite so ignorant to the fact until very recently. For example, A Conflict of Visions is a book by Thomas Sowell originally published in 1987. It outlines two vastly differing world views, the constrained and the unconstrained view of human nature, which sees the world through dramatically different filters.
In short, Sowell explains that, while there are many different forms under each one, there are really only two primary ways to look at human nature. He calls the first the constrained view. It is constrained because it sees human nature as permanently flawed: fixed and incapable of change. Thus, those who hold a constrained view of humanity try to make the best of things by taking the failings of our nature into account when they organize human activities. On the other hand, the unconstrained view holds that man’s nature is malleable: it can be purposely directed. In short, those holding the unconstrained view of human nature believe that man is capable of perfecting himself. For these people, there are no boundaries to what man can make himself to be. Some have even boasted that man can be and even is his own god.

太陽底下沒有什么新鮮事。
我們一直存在嚴重的分歧，但直到最近，我們才真正意識到這一點。例如，托馬斯·索威爾（Thomas Sowell ）于1987年出版的《愿景的沖突》一書——它概述了兩種截然不同的世界觀，即受約束的人性觀和不受約束的人性觀，這兩種觀點通過截然不同的過濾器看待世界。
簡而言之，托馬斯·索威爾（Thomas Sowell ）解釋說，雖然每種形式下都有許多不同的形式，但看待人性的主要方式實際上只有兩種。他稱第一個視圖為約束視圖。它之所以受到限制，是因為它認為人性是永久性的缺陷：固定的，無法改變。因此，那些對人性持限制觀點的人在組織人類活動時，試圖通過考慮到我們本性的缺點來盡量做到最好。另一方面，不受約束的觀點認為人的本性是可塑的：它可以被有意地引導。簡言之，那些持有不受約束的人性觀的人認為人有能力完善自己。對這些人來說，人能使自己成為什么樣的人是沒有界限的。有些人甚至夸口說，人可以成為上帝，甚至自己就是上帝。

It took me a while to get around too, but the logical consequences of both these visions create whole world views distinct and often mutually exclusive. Listing off the various assumptions of both visions lays out a clear roadmap for why so often the same actors appear on opposite sides of every ideological debate be it abortion, criminal justice, treatment of veterans, or private property.
This isn’t so much to say this is why conservatives are one way and liberals another. The dichotomy appears again and again, though no modern ideology is completely one or completely the other. This is true of conservatives and liberals, Labour and Tory, Com...ism vs Nazism, or even those worldviews far removed from Western tradition .
Of course, when looking at how the two align, their views on individualism, justice, liberty, and so forth, it is clear to see which side liberals (more distinctly progressives) in America are influenced by and which conservatives gravitate towards. That said, Sowell’s 1987 work clearly spells out a prediction of the conflict existing some thirty years later. It isn’t, of course, a prediction, so much as looking at mentalities defined by history. All this has happened before. It will all happen again.
But it certainly feels unique and severe at the moment, doesn’t it?

我也花了一段時間去理解，但這兩種愿景的邏輯結(jié)果創(chuàng)造了截然不同的、往往相互排斥的整個世界觀。列出這兩種觀點的各種假設，就可以清楚地說明為什么在每一場意識形態(tài)辯論中，無論是墮胎、刑事司法、退伍軍人待遇還是私有財產(chǎn)，同樣的角色總是出現(xiàn)在相反的立場上。
這并不是說這就是為什么保守派是一種方式，自由派是另一種方式。這種二分法一次又一次地出現(xiàn)，不過沒有一種現(xiàn)代意識形態(tài)完全是其中一種或完全是另一種。保守派和自由派、工黨和保守黨、共產(chǎn)主義與納粹主義，甚至那些與西方傳統(tǒng)相去甚遠的世界觀都是如此。
當然，當觀察雙方人員是如何結(jié)盟的，他們對個人主義、正義、自由等的看法時，可以清楚地看到美國的自由主義者（更明顯的是進步主義者）受到了哪一方的影響，保守主義者傾向于哪一方。也就是說，索威爾1987年的作品清楚地預測了大約30年后存在的沖突。當然，這不是一種預測，而是對歷史定義的心態(tài)的觀察。這一切以前都發(fā)生過。一切都會再次發(fā)生。
但現(xiàn)在確實感覺很獨特和嚴重，不是嗎？

You want to know why? You’re reading it. Not this piece of writing in particular, but the evolution of technology that made disseminating information so easy and so cheap, that literally anyone could do it. This had a few radical transformations, namely in that the mainstream media suffered so grossly under the competition from non-traditional sources, they had to become more efficient. Efficient at delivering ads, that is, not more efficient at delivering information. They closed many of their local offices, and local correspondents to more centralized urban headquarters. In so doing, they lost touch with rural populations, conservatives, and tens of millions of people. They no longer understood their needs, their fears, their motivations, and the reasons for why they acted as they do.

你想知道為什么嗎?你正在讀它。不是特別指這篇文章，而是指技術的發(fā)展，它使傳播信息變得如此簡單和廉價，以至于任何人都可以做到。這有一些根本性的變化，即主流媒體在非傳統(tǒng)來源的競爭下遭受了嚴重的損失，它們必須提高效率。高效的投放廣告，也就是說，不是更高效的投放信息。他們關閉了許多當?shù)剞k事處，并將當?shù)赜浾咿D(zhuǎn)移到更集中的城市總部。在這樣做的過程中，他們失去了與農(nóng)村人口、保守派和數(shù)千萬人的聯(lián)系。他們不再了解自己的需求、恐懼、動機，以及他們這樣做的原因。

That had consequences because when the media stopped listening to the rural heartland, the urbanites lost any resource to understand them too. They became mysterious and strange, As it seemed, it was easier to vilify these people than to listen to them. This is the nature of people engaged in conflict but ignorant of each other’s motives. This placed the urbane at a disadvantage, however. This isn’t a two way problem. Rural conservatives aren’t stupid. They still access to the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN. They still access to all the media that only focused on the issues concerning to a mostly urban, mostly liberal, mostly wealthy class. Yet they also had their reality to contend with, which at least served as a fact check. They knew when someone was wrong, but the media never saw it necessary to check their own sources since they were the very first to decided that those not born in cities didn’t matter. Their viewers were none the wiser.

這產(chǎn)生了后果，因為當媒體不再傾聽農(nóng)村中心地帶的聲音時，城市居民也失去了理解他們的資源。他們變得神秘而奇怪，看起來，詆毀這些人比聽他們的話更容易。這是人們卷入沖突卻不知道對方動機的本性。然而，這使溫文爾雅的人處于不利地位。這不是一個雙向的問題。農(nóng)村保守派并不愚蠢。他們?nèi)匀豢梢允湛础都~約時報》、《華盛頓郵報》和CNN。他們?nèi)匀豢梢越佑|到所有的媒體，這些媒體只關注與大多數(shù)城市，大多數(shù)自由主義，大多數(shù)富裕階層有關的問題。然而，他們也有自己的現(xiàn)實需要面對，這至少起到了核查事實的作用。當有人犯錯時他們是知道的，但媒體從不認為有必要檢查自己的消息來源，因為他們是第一個認為那些不是出生在城市的人并不重要的人。他們的觀眾對此一無所知。

This included the universities. They were trapped too, though their evolution began much sooner than blogging. While Engineering and other hard Sciences remained true to their empirical roots, History, Philosophy, English, and the Social Sciences, became horribly corrupted by a one-sided and dogmatic practice willfully and intentionally forcing out dissenting views, views necessary to provide the critical analysis on theories to make them meaningful, trustworthy, and the basis upon which others should shame culture around. So they continued on blindly ignorant that their every theory on the injustices of the world were hopelessly corrupted by a lack of critical analysis, stacking one a top the others. It all came crumbling down when there finally came a point where anyone with the curiosity and an internet connection could disprove their deepest held assumptions with the results of a few minutes of a Google search.

其中包括大學，它們也被困住了，盡管它們的進化比博客要早得多。雖然工程學和其他硬科學仍然忠于其經(jīng)驗根源，但歷史、哲學、英語和社會科學卻被單方面和教條主義的做法所嚴重腐化，這種做法任性固執(zhí)地和故意地迫使人們發(fā)表不同的觀點，這些觀點是對理論進行批判性分析所必需的，以及其他人羞辱周圍文化的基礎。因此，他們繼續(xù)盲目無知地認為，他們關于世界不公正的每一種理論都因缺乏批判性分析而被無可救藥地腐化了，一種理論凌駕于其他理論之上。任何一個有好奇心、能上互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的人都可以用幾分鐘時間上谷歌搜索，當其搜索結(jié)果推翻他們根深蒂固的假設時，一切都崩潰了。

Yet, they forced their views even further, creating a toxic environment on campuses where ideas themselves were considered violent and so anything which disagreed with the high priest’s edicts were struck down as racist, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise bigoted. All but a narrow few who granted the privilege of free speech were now guilty of hate speech, and hate speech was intolerant, so the tolerant refused to tolerate the intolerant, and thus became intolerable.

然而，他們進一步強化了自己的觀點，在校園里創(chuàng)造了一種有毒的環(huán)境，在這種環(huán)境中，思想本身就被認為是暴力的，因此，任何與大祭司的法令不一致的東西都被視為種族主義、性別歧視、伊斯蘭恐懼癥、同性戀恐懼癥、變性恐懼癥或其他偏執(zhí)的東西而被取締。除了少數(shù)給予言論自由特權的人之外，現(xiàn)在所有人都犯了仇恨言論罪，而仇恨言論是無法忍受的，所以能容忍的人拒絕容忍那些讓人無法忍受的人，因此變得無法容忍。

But as the media declined, it also transformed. It became social. Now information would not be issued out from a few sources, but from anywhere, and aggregated, vetted, and shared through balkanized tribes of like-minded individuals who hate to be told they’re wrong. They weren’t incentivized to share and educate their fellow tribesman, but instead incentivized with endorphins intoxicating the pleasure centers of our brain with “l(fā)ikes” and “shares” like a dog salivating to Pavlov’s whistle.
But… there were the bloggers and YouTubers, anyone could make a site really. Anyone could get their word out and make it known for others. More so than that, they could connect with other disparate groups, something which the rural poor have always found to their disadvantage. This made their views something undeniable. They were out there and the mainstream media couldn’t react to something they were now incapable of dealing with.

但隨著媒體的衰落，它也發(fā)生了變化，它變成了社交化?，F(xiàn)在，信息不再是從幾個來源發(fā)布，而是從任何地方被發(fā)布，并通過由志同道合的人組成的巴爾干部落進行匯總、審查和分享，這些人討厭被告知他們錯了。他們沒有被激勵去分享和教育他們的部落同胞，而是被內(nèi)啡肽激勵，用“贊”和“分享”讓我們大腦的快樂中心陶醉，就像狗對巴甫洛夫的哨子垂涎三尺一樣。
但是，還有博客和油管博主，任何人都可以創(chuàng)建網(wǎng)站，任何人都可以把他們的話傳出去，讓別人知道。更重要的是，他們可以與其他不同的群體建立聯(lián)系，而農(nóng)村的窮人總是處于不利地位。這使他們的觀點變得不可否認。他們就在那里，主流媒體無法對他們現(xiàn)在無力處理的事情做出反應。

So their frxwork based on their experiences that the world is a good place filled with nice people is challenged, broken really, by the awareness of how drastically wrong that is for most people. To top it all off, they are somehow guilty of this inequity. Mind you, this vision of the world, where they are in any way guilty, or even responsible for why the world is how it is, is based off a collection of social theories which exist in isolation from critical analysis themselves… so it’s mostly wrong, but when your entire culture, the news, your schools, and even your favorite movies and the celebrities who played in them all echo the same pernicious themes… then that is your whole reality now. And when you have literally no access to differing views, when you’re actually taught such views are evil before ever hearing them, who are you to question reality?

因此，他們基于經(jīng)驗的框架，即世界是一個充滿好人的好地方，由于意識到對大多數(shù)人來說是多么嚴重的錯誤，他們的框架受到了挑戰(zhàn)，實際上被打破了。最重要的是，他們在某種程度上對這種不平等負有責任；請注意，這種世界觀是建立在一系列社會理論的基礎上的，而這些理論與批判性分析本身是隔絕的；所以大多數(shù)情況下這是錯誤的，但是當你的整個文化，新聞，你的學校，甚至你最喜歡的電影和在其中扮演角色的名人都在重復同樣的有害主題時，那這就是你現(xiàn)在的全部現(xiàn)實。當你根本無法接觸到不同的觀點，當你在聽到這些觀點之前就被教導“這些觀點是邪惡的”，你憑什么質(zhì)疑現(xiàn)實?