【评论篇】美国一直努力传播民主，为什么不被某些国家看做“好人”？ [美国媒体]

Why does some of the world not recognize the United States as the "good guys" in most situations, when they have been consistently trying to spread democracy around the world?

美国努力传播民主，为什么并不被某些国家看做“好人”？（评论篇）



Marcos Sheldon Padilla
32 upvotes
The problem I have, or,something I wish the US citizenry could DO, is to understand the Eisenhowerreport (which I think is completely true), find out (for real) whether you andI, the average Joe, is better off for those policies (not Mobil orHalliburton), and THEN make a decision whether these things are a good idea ornot. It’s the ignorance of the 2nd and 3rd of your paragraphs - the city on ahill thing - that is the violence the government does to the US public.
But we don’t have thatinformation, do we?

我关注的是，或者说我希望美国公民能做的是，去理解埃森豪尔报告（个人认为完全真实），想清楚（真心地）对于你我这样的普通人（而不是美孚公司或者哈里伯顿公司，*译者注：前者为世界第一大石油公司，后者为世界主要能源服务公司之一），这些政策是否真的有利，然后做出决断他们到底是不是好事。（美国公众）对于你第二和第三段内容的无知——“山巅之城”这玩意儿——是美国政府向美国公众施加的暴力。
但是我们无从得到这些信息，有什么办法？

John MacIntosh
42 upvotes
Your answer bring up a lot ofdeep problems with modern Western society. I think it appears fairly clear, atleast on first blush, that the policies Eisenhower and Bush II’s planners hadidentified have not benefitted the citizenry either of the countries that theWest dominates (causing repression, loss of economic benefits accruing fromtheir resources, etc.) nor the population at home (growing ill-will toward the‘masters of the world’ leading to terrorism, economic stagnation for the massof people owing to off-shoring of production, etc.). I think we have enoughinformation about that to make a judgment as to whether or not neoconservativepolitical and neoliberal economic policies have benefitted us average Joes ornot—they haven’t. They’ve decreased security and increased economic hardshipsboth at home and abroad. Only the corporate mandarins, hedge fund managers andthe stockholding classes have benefitted.

你的评论引出了很多现代西方社会的深层问题。我认为，至少表面看事实是很清晰的，埃森豪尔和小布什顾问们的决策，既没有给西方支配的国家（产生很多压迫镇压，剥削资源以搜刮经济利益的现象）带来好处，也没有给西方自身的民众（对“世界主人”恶意的上升激起恐怖活动，产业转移海外导致国内经济停滞等等）带来益处。我觉得我们拥有足够的信息判断新保守主义政治和新自由主义经济政策是否给我们这样的普通人带来好处——没有。这些政策无论在国内还是海外都损害了社会治安和加剧了经济困境。只有公司高层，对冲基金经理以及股东们盆满钵盈。

So, even if we know that, whatcan be done? Elections cost so much, they are basically bought and go to thehighest bidder. Analyses of public policy show that government decisions alignonly with the interests of the wealthiest citizens (typically the top 10%), andthe bottom 70% on the income scale are basically disenfranchised (see important work by Gilens and Page, or ThomasFerguson).

可即便我们看清了现实，又能做什么呢？选举如此昂贵，几乎像是拍卖会一般卖官鬻爵，价高者得。公共政策的分析告诉我们，政府决策只与最富有公民（一般顶部10%）的利益一致，收入底层70%的人民的公民权/选举权几乎被架空了（参考Gilens和Page，或者Thomas Ferguson的重要发表。）
*译者注：Gilens和Page都是美国政治科学家，他们合作的研究曾得出结论：大多数美国人对美国政府政策影响力微乎其微。Thomas Ferguson以他着名的政党博弈的投资理论广为人知，代表作有《黄金法则：政党博弈的投资理论和金钱驱动的政治系统逻辑》，出版于1995年。

Working through the politicalprocess seems almost pointless…perhaps not, but almost. The Democrats areessentially what would have been called Moderate Republicans just 40 years ago,and the Republicans are basically insane. Both are so far to the right of U.S.public opinion, as polls regularly show, that neither can truly be trusted todeliver the goods. Hence the current popularity of the two politicalpolar-opposites: Sanders and Trump.

遵循现有政治进程企图产生变革几乎是没有意义的…也许不是完全没有，但也差不多了。民主党在40年前基本可以叫做温和派共和党，而共和党已经失去理智了。民调表明两党都属于美国社会舆论中的极右翼，两者都不能被信任，无法为公众带来真正的变革。这就解释了目前两极化的政治风潮：桑德斯和特朗普。

All we can do is educateourselves as best we can, educate others around us, and push for change. Wealso need to make political allies with those we might not consider allies,joining forces on issues of common interest, e.g., nuclear disarmament, thefight against global warming, and reducing economic inequality. That might meanvoting, or it might mean getting out into the streets (pitchforks, anyone?),but either way, I don’t believe cynicism and defeatism are the answers. Nothinggood was ever won that way, and most of the good things that our forebearsgained were won by organizing and implementing sustained actions in the face ofgreat odds, often seemingly hopeless ones. Stay curious and don’t give up.

我们能做的就是尽可能地自我教育，传播知识，推动改变。我们也需要化敌为友，在公共利益上团结一致，比如去核化，对抗全球变暖，削减经济不平等。这就意味着投票，甚至可能意味着走上街头（举起你们手中的草耙！），不管怎样，我不认为犬儒主义和投降主义是答案。没有任何好事是靠这两种心态赢得的，我们先辈获得的大多数利益，都是通过持续地组织和实施行动得以达成，哪怕困难重重、希望渺茫。保持好奇，永不放弃！

Shane Gericke
60upvotes
Sadly, John, as a lifelong American, I cannot disagreewith anything you said. Can we do better? Of course, and we should. Will we dobetter? Not until citizens are fed up and change our government, which isdeeply corrupt and dedicated to juicing the profits of the corporations thatown and operate our Congress. But Americans have a long history of looking theother way as long as we have jobs and money. That is the real problem withbeing the only superpower—there is no check and balance on us.

很悲伤，作为一名终生美国公民，我赞同你说的每一点。我们能做得更好吗？当然，我们也应该做的更好。我们会做得更好吗？至少在美国公民倍感厌倦，下决心要彻底改变这个极端腐败、致力于为赞助国会的大公司们谋取利益的政府之前，无望。我们美国人只要有工作和钱，向来对问题避而不谈、睁一只眼闭一只眼，此类行为历史悠久。这才是作为世界霸权的真正疴疾——没有任何制约与平衡。

John MacIntosh
14upvotes
Thanks for the kind words, Shane. I wishI could’ve written something different, but there it is.
I have a deep respect forAmerica, its people and the idealistic notions that it was founded upon. Yet,the government (both Dems and Reps) doesn’t seem to give a damn about the concernsof its own citizens—never mind the rest of the world—just the concerns of itscorporate donor-class.
Iforget who it was who said (something like), ‘The real problem after a war isnot the defeated, but the victor. They think they’ve just proved the virtue ofusing violence to achieve their ends, and there is no one else left to showthem otherwise.’
Myonly hope is that the citizenry of the U.S. shows their leaders “otherwise”, ratherthan someone else in the world (Russia? China? More terrorists?) feeling theneed to do so. Would go down a whole lot better that way.

谢谢你的肯定，Shane。我倒是希望能写出不同的现实，但事与愿违。
我对美国、它的人民和其赖以建国的理想主义观念有深挚的尊重。但是，其政府（包括两党）并没有表现出对其人民丝毫的关心——更别提其他国家——只关切能提供政治捐助的大公司阶级。
我忘了是谁说的（大概意思），“战争之后的问题不是战败者，而是征服者。因为他们认为自己证明了以暴力强行推行其意志、达到目的的正当性，而此时已无人可以反驳他们。”
我唯一的希望就是美国公民能够“反驳”他们的领导者，而不是等到其他国家（俄罗斯？中国？更多的恐怖主义？）觉得有必要行动。前者带来的结局会好很多。

Andrew Ritter
4upvotes
checks and balances are a built inpart of our govt. we cant allow people like trump and mcconnell and so on torun shadow games and bully tactics in our own govt.
Doubt anyone wants the solution coming from another superpower‘checking’ us.

制约与平衡使我们政府与生俱来的一部分，我们不能允许特朗普和麦康奈尔之流利用我们的政府搞影子游戏和霸凌战术。
我毫无怀疑没人会喜欢让另外一个超级大国制衡我们的选项。

Shane Gericke
Amen to that, Andrew. We need to do our own housecleaning andtake back our government.

你说的太对了，Andrew。我们需要自己清理屋子，夺回我们的政府。

Guy Caulfield-Kerney
21 upvotes
Ironically the US takes most of the blame for what we are allguilty of. The UK and most of europe depend on that oil, and are directlyinvolved in the constant US’s military activities.

讽刺的是，明明我们都有责任，全是美国首当其冲地承受苛责。英国和大部分欧洲国家依赖石油资源，也都直接参与了以美国为首的频繁军事行动。

John MacIntosh
9 upvotes
Yes, Guy, I agree with you, and manyother Western nations, too. I might’ve mentioned them but the question wasspecifically about the U.S., so I stuck with that. But point well made, sir.Thanks for your comment.

是的，Guy。我同意你的说法，还有很多西方国家（都有责任）。我本会提及他们，但这个问题是聚焦美国的，所以我就事论事。但是你说得很对，先生，谢谢你的评论。

Charles Cairns
13 upvotes
Well said! Thanks for this piece. Note that the American pressworks very hard to shield our populace from these realities. It is in thissense (and this sense alone) that Trump is right about the NYT, WashingtonPost, Boston Globe, etc. are all “fake news.”

说得好！感谢你写这篇文章。要点明的是，美国媒体一直殚精竭虑地掩盖事实，欺骗人民。特朗普这点（也只有这点）说对了，纽约时报、华盛顿时报、波士顿环球报等等都是“假新闻”。

John MacIntosh
2 upvotes
Sadly true. These are the thingsOrwell wrote (in his unpublished introduction to Animal Farm) that “it justwould not do to be said”, nor even to be thought. Thanks for your kind words,Charles.

非常遗憾这是真的。这被奥威尔（在《动物庄园》未出版的序言中提及）形容为“根本不能说”，也不能想的事。谢谢你的肯定，Charles。
*译者注：乔治奥威尔是英国着名小说家和社会评论者，着有《动物庄园》和《1984》，是反乌托邦、反极权主义流派的经典代表。“由于历史上东西方的对峙，乔治·奥威尔的作品经常被视为反苏和反共的代名词，因而在苏联、东欧等一些社会主义国家遭到封杀。而根据2007年9月4日英国国家档案馆解密的资料，因被怀疑是共产主义者的关系，奥威尔被军情五处和伦敦警察厅特别科自1929年起一直严密监视至1950年一月，因患肺病去世，年仅47岁”。
（来自百度百科）

Martin Andrews
1 upvote
In other words a sort of censorship…

换言之，其实就是一种审查制度…

Michael Moldenhauer
In other words, a lot of people likewhat America claims to stand for, but they don’t like the fact that a) they arebeing denied their agency as to whether or not, how, and when and on what termsthose “good things” are to be obtained and b) they do not like the fact thatAmerica has shown itself to be rather hypocritical in its way of going aboutits purported “goals” and that this conduct seems to belie something else asbeing the real motivation.

也就是说，很多人赞同美国所声称的价值观，但是他们不喜欢的是：
a）被剥夺了是否、如何、什么时候、什么条件下获取这些“好的东西”的自主权；
b）美国的行为证明其所声称标榜的“目标”是虚伪的，并掩盖了真实动机。

John MacIntosh
Precisely, Michael.

一语中的，Michael。

Barbara Brutsch
3 upvotes
Awoman told me about how her son had different business dealings, representing aCanadian country. Once people found out he was American, their attitudechilled. The only two places where that didn’t happen was Saudi Arabia andDubia.
“Theothers must be jealous of our free enterprise system,” she surmised.

一位女性告诉我，她儿子有五花八门的业务来往。一旦人们发现他是美国人，他们的态度立刻就冷淡了。唯一例外的地方是沙特阿拉伯和迪拜。
“其他人一定是对我们的商业体制感到嫉妒，”她推断。

Rich Linch
4 upvotes
That'swhy there's such a problem with bullying in the US, it's our way of life.Everyone knows “might makes right".
Thebullying problem sometimes gets some lip service, but it's not ever going to beseriously addressed, and we're going to keep right on bullying the rest of theworld. trump was either too dumb, or belligerent to play ball when they toldhim not to be so blatant about it.

这也是为什么在美国国内，霸凌是个大问题，这是我们的生活方式。每个人都知道“强大即正义”。
霸凌问题有些时候会被口头宣传，但口惠而实不至，没有得到真正的重视和解决，而我们也将继续欺压其他国家。特朗普如此不配合不是太蠢，就是太好斗，明明他们都告诉他不要这么直白露骨了。