美國自由派對美國保守派有哪些主要的誤解?

Ty Doyle
Because American liberalism is entwined with concepts of caring and being compassionate, I think the single largest misconception that liberals have about conservatives is that because conservatives disagree with liberal solutions to various issues, they don't care about (or worse, hate) the things that liberalism purports to value. In other words, because liberals believe themselves to be good people in part because of their political beliefs, those who disagree with them are not just wrong, but bad people, as well.
If I disagree with Big Government solutions to poverty, it does not mean that I hate the poor. If I disagree with single payer health care, it does not mean that I hate the old and sick. If I disagree that there is a present need to spend trillions of dollars on climate change, it does not mean that I don't care about the environment. If I believe that the US should be able to enforce its immigration laws, it doesn't mean that I hate immigrants. The list goes on and on.

美國自由主義與關(guān)懷和同情緊密相連，因此自由派對保守派的一個主要誤解是：由于保守派不同意自由派處理各種問題的方法，他們就認為保守派不關(guān)心（甚至憎恨）自由主義所倡導(dǎo)的價值觀。換句話說，自由派因為他們的政治信仰而自認為是好人，所以那些持不同意見的人，在他們看來，不僅是觀點錯誤，更是品質(zhì)敗壞的人。
如果我不贊成政府大規(guī)模干預(yù)來解決貧困問題，這并不代表我討厭窮人。如果我不同意實行單一支付者的醫(yī)療制度，這并不代表我不尊重老人和病人。如果我不認同我們需要立即花費數(shù)萬億資金來應(yīng)對氣候變化，這并不意味著我對環(huán)境保護漠不關(guān)心。如果我主張美國應(yīng)該執(zhí)行其移民法律，這也不意味著我討厭移民;這樣的例子還有很多。

During my time living in San Francisco, I would often have political discussions with liberals, and while these exchanges were always civil, I frequently heard comments to the effect of "you seem like a nice person, I never would have guessed you were a Republican." This wasn't said with malice; in fact, I suspect it was something of a compliment, as though I was the rare "good" Republican, in contrast to the stereotype of the super-Christian bogeyman who hates everyone but his family (and probably hates them, too).
I love the book The Righteous Mind, and highly recommend it to everyone--some of the basic findings of the book are relevant here. Why liberals need conservatives, and vice versa . Specifically, while conservatives and moderates were pretty good at guessing how the other side views the world, liberals, especially extreme liberals, were frequently off base. For example, a majority of liberals thought that conservatives would disagree with statements to the effect that harming defenseless animals is wrong, or that justice is one of the most important elements of society. Things like that make me wonder if many liberals have ever met a conservative--if I'm too busy to attend a benefit for sea turtles, it's not because I'm at home killing puppies or working to deny others their rights.

在我住在舊金山的時候，我經(jīng)常和自由派人士進行政治討論。雖然這些討論總是很文明，但我經(jīng)常聽到人們說：“你這人看起來很不錯，我從來沒想過你是共和黨人?！边@并不是出于惡意，實際上，我猜這是一種贊美，好像我是那個罕見的“好”共和黨人，與那些極端的、只關(guān)心自己家人（甚至可能連家人都憎恨）的基督徒惡棍形象形成鮮明對比。
我非常喜歡《正義之心》這本書，強烈推薦給大家——書中的一些基本發(fā)現(xiàn)在這里非常貼切。為什么自由派需要保守派，反之亦然。特別是，保守派和溫和派在猜測對方如何看待世界方面相當(dāng)擅長，而自由派，尤其是極端自由派，常常偏離實際。
比如，許多自由派人士誤以為保守派會反對一些基本原則，比如傷害無防御能力的動物是錯誤的，或者正義是社會中最重要的組成部分。這樣的誤解讓我感到疑惑，一些自由派人士是否真的了解保守派的立場——如果我因忙碌而無法出席海龜保護的公益活動，這并不意味著我在家中虐待小狗或者試圖剝奪他人的權(quán)利。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Jeff Kesselman
Okay, here are a few I will say as an honest moderate progressive:
(1) That all conservatives are cheap and don't want to spend money on anyone else.
This is a big one. Conservatives tend to be against big government programs because they are afraid of bureaucracy and the costs thereof, but they arent *necessarily* against financially assisting others. One of the fathers of conservative economics, Milton Friedman, in fact proposed a "negative income tax" that would give every citizen of the US a basic income without any bureaucracy beyond the existing IRS.

好的，以下是我作為一個誠實的溫和進步派要說的一些話：
(1) 所有保守派都很吝嗇，不愿意在別人身上花錢。
這是一個大問題。保守派通常反對大政府項目，因為他們擔(dān)心官僚主義及其成本，但這并不意味著他們必然反對在經(jīng)濟上幫助他人。保守派經(jīng)濟學(xué)的一位重要奠基人，米爾頓·弗里德曼實際上提出了一個“負所得稅”方案，這個方案能夠在不增加現(xiàn)有美國國稅局之外的任何官僚機構(gòu)的情況下，為美國每位公民提供一份基本收入。

(2) That all conservatives are unempathic and don't care about others.
Many conservatives, right or wrong, believe that the best solution that helps everyone is a more free market, and that most of the problems come from market restriction.
(3) That all conservatives are republicans, and that the republican party represents "what it means to be a conservative." There are a lot of conservatives that have figured out that the RP has been doing as much to twist the market for their patrons as anyone, and are not happy about it.

所有保守派都缺乏同情心，不關(guān)心他人。
許多保守派人士，不論對錯，相信最佳的解決方案是更自由的市場，他們認為大多數(shù)問題源于市場的限制。
以為所有保守派都是共和黨成員，以及共和黨就能完全代表保守派的立場。實際上很多保守派人士已經(jīng)認識到，共和黨為了其金主的利益而操縱市場的行為，與其他人并無二致，他們對此感到不滿。

(4) That biggest one-- that Conservatives see the world the same way they do. There is a lot of science now showing that the cognitive biases that tend to lead someone to be liberal are very different from the ones that tend to lead one to be conservative.
(5) That conservatoires don't care about "fairness." They certainly do, they just tend to define it differently. Conservatives tend to define fair by rules, that everyone is playing by the same rules. Liberals tend to define fair by outcomes, that everyone has an equal chance for the same outcome.

最大的問題是——保守派看待世界的方式和他們一樣?，F(xiàn)在有很多科學(xué)研究表明，傾向于使人變得自由的認知偏見與傾向于使人變得保守的認知偏見是非常不同的
保守派不在乎“公平”。他們確實關(guān)心，只是他們傾向于以不同的方式定義它。保守派傾向于通過規(guī)則來定義公平，即每個人都按照相同的規(guī)則競爭。而自由派則傾向于通過結(jié)果來定義公平，即每個人都應(yīng)該有平等的機會獲得相同的結(jié)果。

Michael David Cobb Bowen
What major misconceptions do liberals have about conservatives?
I was raised as a Progressive within the 'Talented Tenth' in one of the wealthiest black communities in America. When the black sprinters for the US team were booed at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, I was shocked that the best in the world were heckled for raising the American flag. It made me reconsider what black men are expected to do and be with regard to patriotism, especially when they are successful. As part of that investigative process, I registered Republican and strove to understand and become a part of the American Right, and so I began a blog which is a journal of that passage. By becoming this 'paradox' a black American Conservative, I witnessed many myths. Here are some of them.

自由主義者對保守主義者有哪些主要的誤解?
我在美國最富有的黑人社區(qū)之一，被培養(yǎng)成了一名進步主義者。2000年悉尼奧運會上，美國黑人短跑運動員遭到噓聲，我震驚于世界頂尖運動員因高舉美國國旗而受到嘲弄。這促使我重新思考社會對黑人男性，尤其是成功人士在愛國主義方面的期望。作為這一探索過程的一部分，我注冊成為共和黨人，努力理解并成為美國右翼的一部分，我開設(shè)了博客記錄這一過程。成為這樣一個“悖論”——美國黑人保守派，我親眼見證了許多關(guān)于保守派的荒謬見解，以下是其中的一些。

The first myth is that conservatives are white, want to stay white and interpret all racial issues the same way liberals do and because of that, actively oppose Liberals based on racial or racist principles.
In fact Conservatives spend relatively little time thinking about race and in particular have not evolved ways of speaking different 'racial languages' to different racial constituencies. The myth is that Conservatives speak a 'dog whistle' language to whites. The fact is that Conservatives want to be non-racial and speak to other character traits instead of race. This appeals to people who are not concerned with racial identity as central to politics, which does in fact resonate with people who are nominally 'white'.

第一個誤解是，保守派全是白人，他們希望保持白人身份，并以與自由派相同的方式看待所有種族問題，因此基于種族或種族主義原則積極反對自由派。
實際上，保守派并沒有過多地糾結(jié)于種族問題，也沒有形成針對不同種族群體的特殊“種族話語”。流傳著一個誤區(qū)，認為保守派對白人使用一種隱晦的“狗哨”政治語言。然而，真實情況是保守派傾向于不以種族作為區(qū)分，而是關(guān)注個體的其他品質(zhì)。這種立場對于那些不將種族身份視作政治核心的人來說很有吸引力，這也確實與那些在名義上屬于“白人”群體的人產(chǎn)生了共鳴。

The second myth is that Conservatives are born and not made.
There is this idea that only if you are raised in a particular kind of Christianity, or live in the South or did not get some crucial education or some other demographic stereotype, that you are likely to be and stay Conservative. Liberals almost always ignore or discount those Americans who grew up liberal or progressive and then thought their way away from those ideologies. I don't know for certain, but I would guess that there are more Progressives who became Conservative than the other way around.

第二個誤解是，保守派是天生的，不是后天形成的。
有一種觀點認為，只有你在特定類型的基督教環(huán)境中長大，或生活在南方，或沒有接受某些關(guān)鍵教育，或符合其他某些人口統(tǒng)計學(xué)上的刻板印象，你才可能成為保守派。自由派幾乎總是忽視或貶低那些在自由派或進步派環(huán)境中長大，但后來通過思考轉(zhuǎn)變立場的美國人。我不確定，但我猜是進步派變成保守黨的人比保守黨變成進步派的人多。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

The third myth is that the American Right is just like the Right in other countries.
This is especially annoying when it comes to Germany. Liberals tend to blithely associate Conservatism with Fascism when it comes to the matter of Conservative support of military service and military engagement. Very few would stop to look at the founding principles of the Nazi Party and see why, in principle, it is a Socialist worker's party. Because of this, Liberals assume for example, that nobody who escaped Nazi Germany would become an American Conservative, but in fact there is an entire school of Conservative thought called the Straussian School.

第三個誤解是，美國右翼與其他國家的右翼相同。
特別是當(dāng)涉及到德國時，這一點尤其令人煩惱。自由派傾向于不加思索地將保守主義與法西斯主義聯(lián)系起來，尤其是在保守派支持軍事服務(wù)和軍事介入的問題上。很少有人會停下來查看納粹黨的創(chuàng)始原則，了解它在原則上為何是一個社會主義工人黨。因此，自由派可能會錯誤地假設(shè)，逃離納粹德國的人不會成為美國保守派，但實際上有一個完整的保守思想學(xué)派，叫做施特勞斯學(xué)派。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

The fourth myth is that Conservatism is monolithic.
Liberals mistake conservative political philosophies for a dictionary definition of 'conservative' like 'lack of nerve' or 'unwillingness to change'. Few people, including many if not most Republicans, bother to read books by conservative thinkers like Hayek, Oakshott, Strauss or Kirk. Just as few Liberals, including many if not most Democrats, bother to read books by Adorno, Marcuse or Rorty. I think in general this is because Liberals assume that Republicans are true exemplars of Conservative principles and that their policy positions are principled.

第四個誤解是，保守主義是單一的、一成不變的。
自由派常常將保守派的政治哲學(xué)誤解為“保守”一詞的字典定義，如“缺乏進取心”或“不愿意變革”。包括許多共和黨人在內(nèi)，很少有人會去閱讀哈耶克、奧克肖特、斯特勞斯或柯克等保守派思想家的書籍。同樣，包括許多民主黨人在內(nèi)，自由派也很少有人會去閱讀阿多諾、馬爾庫塞或羅蒂的書籍。我認為這主要是因為自由派認為共和黨人是保守派原則的真正代表，并且他們的政策立場是有原則性的。

Doug Garnett
I'm a moderate to conservative Democrat... The misconception that bothers me is that liberals refuse to discuss the extraordinary downside of bureaucracy on issues they care about. (Of course, conservatives are the same way - ridiculing bureaucracy on one hand then demanding extraordinary waste in bureaucracy to make sure "no one ever defrauds welfare"...)
We must begin talking about this - on both sides. Because there are two absolute guarantees for bureaucracy (with only the rarest exceptions):
1. Bureaucracies only grow - they don't diminish.
2. Bureaucracies tend to see preventing risk as their primary guidance. But risk is sometimes/often necessary for success. So they often stand in the way of things we need to do as a country.

我是介于溫和派和保守派之間的民主黨人。讓我感到困擾的一個誤解是，自由派往往不愿討論官僚體制在他們關(guān)心的問題上可能帶來的嚴(yán)重弊端。保守派也有同樣的問題——一方面批評官僚體制，另一方面為了杜絕福利欺詐，不惜在官僚體制中造成巨大的資源浪費。
我們需要在雙方之間就此問題進行坦誠的討論。官僚體制有兩個不可否認的普遍特征（只有極少數(shù)情況下會有所不同）：
官僚體制只會擴張，不會縮減。
官僚體制傾向于將預(yù)防風(fēng)險作為其主要目標(biāo)。但風(fēng)險有時是成功所必需的，因此它們往往成為我們國家必須采取行動的障礙。

Bureaucracy IS necessary --- but must be controlled. But try to get my liberal friends to discuss, for example, EPA mission creep or how bureaucratic management of renewable energy programs may not deliver the good benefits we thought they would. (Like wind farms whose energy isn't actually used...but we paid a lot for them to exist.)
That said, try to get a conservative to understand the wasted bureaucratic millions for government paid drug testing that uncovers 3 or 4 cases of abuse
Both sides are really bad on this.

官僚體制是必需的，但必須得到控制。然而，要讓我的自由派朋友們討論這些問題，比如環(huán)保署的職能越界，或是官僚體系管理的可再生能源項目并未如我們所愿帶來好處，這很困難。（就像那些風(fēng)力發(fā)電場，雖然我們?yōu)榱怂鼈兺度肓舜罅抠Y金，但它們產(chǎn)生的電力實際上并未被有效利用。）
即便這樣，要讓保守派人士明白，政府出資的藥物檢測項目往往耗費了數(shù)百萬美元，卻僅僅揭露了幾起濫用事件
實際上，在識別和解決這種浪費問題上，雙方都做得不夠好。

Gary Teal
What major misconceptions do liberals have about conservatives?
Liberals seem convinced that conservatives don't care about people in need, know very well that that they are working against the poor, and are happy that the poor are not being helped. To the contrary, we strongly believe that the best way to help the poor is to allow the free market to create business opportunities not only for jobs but for the poor themselves to become owners and employers.

自由派對保守派有哪些主要誤解？
自由派似乎堅信保守派不關(guān)心有需要的人，我很清楚他們是在傷害窮人，并且對窮人得不到幫助感到滿意。然而，事實恰恰相反，我們堅信幫助窮人的最佳途徑是讓自由市場創(chuàng)造商業(yè)機會，不僅是為工作，也是為了讓窮人自己成為業(yè)主和雇主。

We believe that even well-intentioned government programs often reduce the availability and value of jobs. This is not in any way a suggestion that there should not be a strong safety net for those who may never be able to care for themselves. But those who are poor and able to work need opportunities to work their way out of poverty, and government can't provide those opportunities (apart from directly employing the poor, which is a good thing and an excellent opportunity for many, as long as the jobs are necessary to the operations of the government and not created merely to employ people.)

我們認為，即使是出于良好意圖的政府計劃，也經(jīng)常削弱工作的可用性和價值。這絕不是說不應(yīng)該為那些永遠無法自給自足的人提供強大的安全網(wǎng)。但是，那些能夠工作且愿意擺脫貧困的人需要機會，而政府無法提供這些機會（除了直接雇傭窮人，這對許多人來說是好事，也是一個很好的機會，只要這些工作對政府運作是必要的，而不是僅僅為了提供就業(yè)而創(chuàng)造的）。

Large government programs, by taking money out of the private economy, can actually prevent many of the poor from escaping poverty. Where that happens, the cost outweighs the gain. This idea that money is more useful in the hands of those who made it can be attacked as trickle down economics or rising tide, etc., but it's not an idea that is discredited or refuted, just one that is fairly criticized as not being a cure-all. In many cases, this discussion turns on the question of whether one believes it's okay for rich people to get richer, as long as middle class and poor people are also getting richer.

大型政府項目通過從私營經(jīng)濟中抽走資金，實際上可能阻止了許多窮人擺脫貧困。當(dāng)這種情況發(fā)生時，代價就超過了收益。這種觀點認為，錢在創(chuàng)造財富的人手中能發(fā)揮更大作用，常被批判為“滴漏經(jīng)濟學(xué)”或潮漲效應(yīng)等。，但這不是一個被駁斥或證偽的觀點，而是一個被公平批評為不是萬能藥的觀點。在許多情況下，這場討論歸結(jié)為一個問題，即是否認為只要中產(chǎn)階級和窮人也在變得更富有，富人變得更富有就是可以接受的。

Conservatives are asking now whether the liberal solution, the so-called War on Poverty, is effective at all. We care about the poor, but don't want to merely maintain them in poverty. We want to see prosperous families that have enough income to live comfortably, make discretionary purchases, and save money both for inevitable downturns and eventual retirement. It seems clear that programs that pay people to stay poor have backfired. Conservatives do not think (as liberals honestly seem to believe) that the poor are primarily lazy or unintelligent. On the contrary, the poor are quite aware of how government programs work, and they know that if they save enough money, the result will be that they will lose their benefits.

保守派現(xiàn)在正在質(zhì)疑自由派的解決方案，即所謂的“對貧困的戰(zhàn)爭”，是否真的有效。我們關(guān)心窮人，但不想僅僅讓他們維持在貧困狀態(tài)。我們期望看到家庭興旺發(fā)達，擁有充足的收入不僅能保障舒適的生活，還能自由購買非必需品，并為經(jīng)濟不景氣時期和退休生活儲備資金。顯然，那些旨在讓人們保持貧困狀態(tài)的計劃已經(jīng)適得其反。保守派并不認為（正如自由派似乎真誠地相信的那樣）窮人主要是因為懶惰或不聰明。相反，窮人非常清楚政府計劃是如何運作的，他們知道如果他們存夠了錢，結(jié)果將是他們會失去福利待遇。

原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處