奥巴马踏上危险道路

当前位置：首页 > 英语笔译

奥巴马踏上危险道路

天之聪教育 2013-04-11 天之聪教育 258次

奥巴马踏上危险道路

Dangers lurk in Obama’s permanent campaign

“Well then, if the president does it, it’s legal,” Richard Nixon once said. No one would accuse President Barack Obama of being Nixonian. Mr Obama tends to follow the law, would never approve of burgling the opposition and bears no vengeful traits. Yet he has done more than anyone to bury the campaign reforms that were brought in after Watergate. The latest step may be something Mr Obama will come to regret.

理查德•尼克松(Richard Nixon)曾言：“嗯，如果总统做了，那就是合法的。”没有人会指责巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)总统是尼克松式的人物。奥巴马倾向于依法办事，不会批准窃听对手，也没有报复心理。然而他在埋葬水门事件(Watergate)后出台的竞选筹款改革方面比谁都积极。也许未来奥巴马会为最近的举措懊悔。

Last week he spoke at a fundraising dinner in Washington. The low-key event was the founders’ summit of Organizing for Action – the 2012 Obama election campaign that has been reborn as the de facto fund-raising arm of the White House. The dinner, which included Eric Schmidt, chief executive of Google, did not appear on most of the evening news shows.

最近，奥巴马在华盛顿举行的一场筹款晚宴上发表了一番演说。这起低调的活动是“行动组织”(OFA)的创始人峰会。OFA曾负责2012年奥巴马的总统竞选活动，如今已经化身为白宫事实上的筹款部门。晚宴的与会者包括谷歌(Google)董事长埃里克•施密特(Eric Schmidt)，但多数夜间新闻节目都没有报道这场宴会。

Yet it marks the moment that America’s permanent campaign was institutionalised. Tickets went for $50,000 a head. Those giving $500,000 or more will get to attend a quarterly meeting with Mr Obama. Not even George W. Bush was this audacious. To govern is to choose, went the saying. Now to campaign is to govern.

然而，这一刻标志着，美国的“永久性竞选”(permanent campaign)已经体制化了。晚宴门票每个人头5万美元。出价50万美元以上的将有资格每季度与奥巴马会见一次。即便是乔治•W•布什(George W. Bush)都没这么大胆。有句话说，治国就是选择。现在呢，竞选就是治国。

In Mr Obama’s defence, Democrats point out that he is doing far less than what corporate groups have done – and are planning to do – to defeat his agenda. Since the 2010 Citizens United ruling, in which the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to corporations by defining them as persons, liberals have worried about a tsunami of special interest money.

民主党在为奥巴马辩护时指出，奥巴马所做的，远远少于企业集团为了挫败他的议程而已经——以及正在计划——做的。自2010年联合公民(Citizens United)案判决（美国最高法院裁定企业具有人格，言论自由权利由此涵盖企业）后，自由派人士就一直担心出现特殊利益资金的“海啸”。

So-called “super-pacs” are likely to spend millions in the coming months to defeat Mr Obama’s gun control proposals, any steps to curb global warming and even immigration reform (though most of America’s billionaires tend to be in favour of it). They will also hit the airwaves in opposition to any plan to close tax loopholes for the wealthy. It is only natural that Mr Obama would want to create a level playing field, say OFA’s apologists. In the real world, that takes money.

未来几个月，所谓的“超级政治行动委员会”(super-pac)很可能花费数百万美元来挫败奥巴马的枪支控制提案、遏制全球变暖的任何措施，甚至移民改革（尽管美国多数亿万富翁倾向于支持移民改革）。他们还会在媒体上大举造势，反对任何堵塞富人纳税漏洞的计划。OFA辩护者称，奥巴马想要打造公平竞争的环境，这是再正常不过的了。在现实世界，这需要金钱。

Unlike Karl Rove, Mr Bush’s former electoral maestro, who runs Crossroads GPS, another “non-partisan” group, Mr Obama also promises a degree of transparency. Following an outcry by Washington’s bedraggled army of campaign finance reform groups, OFA now says it will disclose the names of anyone giving more than $250. It has also banned corporate donations. Moreover, there is scant prospect of an end to Mr Obama’s stand-off with Republicans before next year’s midterm elections. Mr Obama can give as many prime time speeches – and invite Republicans to as many dinners – as he likes. But the White House bully pulpit is not what it was. Putting pressure on lawmakers requires a far wieldier tool.

与卡尔•罗夫(Karl Rove)不同，奥巴马也承诺一定程度的透明度；罗夫曾是布什的竞选策略大师，经营着另一家“无党派”组织Crossroads GPS。在华盛顿狼狈的竞选筹款改革组织大军发出强烈抗议后，OFA现在表示，它将披露所有捐款超过250美元人士的姓名。该组织还禁止了企业捐赠。此外，在明年中期选举之前，奥巴马与共和党人结束对峙的前景渺茫。只要奥巴马愿意，他想发表多少场黄金时间演说都可以，想邀请共和党人吃多少顿晚餐都可以。但白宫的天字第一号讲坛已经今非昔比。向立法者施压需要更加强大易用的工具。

All of which may look compelling at this point. But OFA’s defenders also underestimate its costs. The first is the lasting damage to Mr Obama’s credibility. The journey from idealist to insider is now complete. Mr Obama started out as an underdog in 2007 railing against the “cynics and special interests who have turned our government into a game”. Many succumbed to Obamamania because of his promise to tear up the Washington playbook.

眼前这一切看起来都令人信服。但OFA的捍卫者也低估了其代价。首先是奥巴马的可信度受到永久损害。从理想主义者到圈内人的演变到此完成。2007年奥巴马以弱势者的身份向白宫进发，他指责“把我们的政府变成一场游戏的装腔作势者和特殊利益”。很多人被“奥巴马狂热”吸引，因为他承诺撕碎华盛顿的剧本。

The young senator pledged to forswear private money in the general election if his opponent did likewise. John McCain, the Republican nominee, accepted the offer. But by then conditions had changed. Mr Obama went on to outspend his opponent by more than two to one. Thus died the post-Nixon era of public financing. In spite of Mr Obama’s promise to replace it, the new has yet to be born.

这名年轻的参议员当时承诺，如果他的对手在总统大选中承诺放弃私人捐助，他也会照做。共和党总统候选人约翰•麦凯恩(John McCain)接受了这一挑战。但那时情况已经发生了变化。结果奥巴马的支出比对手高出一倍多。就这样，后尼克松时代的公共竞选资金制度消亡了。尽管奥巴马承诺要取代公共竞选资金，但新安排尚未出台。

Not even Mr Obama’s opponents expect him to use OFA as a crude “pay for play” in which donors win lucrative contracts – like Halliburton, the oil services group, did during the Bush years. But he is taking a big risk with appearances of conflict. Things will look worse if Mr Obama appoints Penny Pritzker, his former campaign finance chairwoman, as the next US commerce secretary – as is likely. Ms Pritzker is a billionaire whose immense Rolodex helped raise $750m for Mr Obama in 2008.

即便奥巴马的竞争对手也未曾预期他竟然把OFA用作拙劣的“花钱买资格”工具，让捐款人赢得利润丰厚的合同——就像石油服务集团哈里伯顿(Halliburton)在布什主政期间所得到的待遇那样。但是明显的利益冲突给他带来很大的风险。如果奥巴马委任他的前竞选筹款主席潘妮•普里茨克(Penny Pritzker)担任下一任美国商务部长（可能性很大），事情看起来会更糟糕。普里茨克是位亿万富婆，她深广的人脉在2008年帮助为奥巴马筹集了7.5亿美元。

Second, Mr Obama now routinely deploys the kind of sophistry he built his brand on opposing. Headed by Jim Messina, who ran the 2012 campaign, it has been set up as a “social welfare” organisation that will be strictly “non-partisan” and unable to co-ordinate with the White House, say officials. In practice, it is registered as a charity to escape ceilings on individual campaign donations.

其次，奥巴马现在常常使出诡辩招术，尽管他是靠反对此类诡辩打造自己的品牌的。官员称，在2012竞选团队负责人吉姆•麦西纳(Jim Messina)的带领下，OFA被设为“社会福利”组织，严格保持“无党派”，不能与白宫配合。实际上，OFA注册为慈善机构是为了避开对个人竞选捐献上限的限制。

If a hedge fund manager wanted to give $10m there would be nothing to stop it. “As I understand it, as I’ve read about it, it [OFA] will not take a position in elections,” Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, recently told reporters. Mr Carney could have checked with Michelle Obama, who made a video to accompany its launch in January. The group would be a way of “bringing ordinary people into politics”, she said.

如果一名对冲基金经理人想要捐赠1000万美元，谁也不能阻止。白宫发言人杰伊•卡尼(Jay Carney)最近向记者表示：“按照我的理解，也正如我所读到的材料一样，OFA不会在选举中采取立场。”卡尼本来可以与米歇尔•奥巴马(Michelle Obama)对一对口径。今年1月份米歇尔制作了一段配合OFA成立的视频。她表示，该组织将成为“普通人进入政界”的渠道。

But OFA’s biggest cost is still hidden. It sets a new threshold for elected US officials. If the president can raise unlimited private funds for his “social welfare” causes so can any governor or mayor, let alone the next president. Mr Obama’s ends may be laudable. It is hard to condemn any initiative that aims to counter the might of the gun lobby. However, the means are for keeps. Democrats will find it hard to complain when President Marco Rubio taps, say, defence industry money for his own charitable causes in 2016. “Yes he can,” will be the response.

但OFA最大的代价依然隐藏着。它为当选的美国官员树立了新门槛。如果总统可为他的“社会福利”事业募集上不封顶的私人资金，那么任何一位州长或者市长都可以这么做，更不要说下一任总统了。奥巴马的目的或许值得赞赏。人们很难谴责任何旨在反对枪支游说力量的举措。然而，这些手段是会一直存在下去的。假如下一任总统马可•鲁比奥(Marco Rubio)在2016年为自己的慈善事业利用国防工业资金时，民主党将难以抱怨。如果他们抱怨，回应将是：“是的，他能用。”