特朗普因为修墙问题而关闭政府的做法正确吗？ [美国媒体]

Yeah, I think he is. Bear with me, I think the wall is stupid and mean. There aren’t actually a ton of emigrants coming any more, and there haven’t been since the early 00’s. It’s not a real crisis. (It never really was.)

是的，我想他是对的。请耐心点听我说，首先我认为这堵墙是愚蠢和刻薄的。事实上，现在的移民已经不多了，而且从20世纪初开始就没有多少移民了。所以移民问题并不算是一个真正的危机（它从来也不是个危机）。

And the anti-immigrant movement is based on cruelty. It was based on cruelty under Obama and Bush as well. A lot of outrages that came to light in the early Trump reign were actually things that happened under Obama. That said, Trump has, as in so many things, made it worse.

反移民运动是建立在残酷的基础上的，这也是基于奥巴马和布什任内的残酷基础，特朗普执政初期曝光的许多暴行实际上都是奥巴马执政期间发生的事情。就是说，像在很多其他事情上一样，特朗普让情况变得更糟了。

But Trump campaigned on the wall. If he had a main campaign promise, it was the wall. People voted for him, elected him, expecting him to build the wall. People should, I believe, get what they vote for. At the least they should be able to expect the people they voted for to fight for whatever they promised.

但特朗普的竞选活动就是基于那堵墙的，如果说他有一个主要的竞选承诺的话，那就是他要建一堵墙。人们投了他的票，选了他，就是希望他能建那堵墙。我相信，人们应该得到当初所为之投票的东西。至少他们应该能够期待当初他们投票支持的人为他们所承诺的一切而争取。

Trump is doing that, and I would go so far as to say he should do it. Other politicians, who promised to oppose him, should, though I fear the hypocrisy meter is pretty high on both Republicans and Democrats on this issue: many opposing him have voted for border walls in the past: there’s plenty of already existing wall.

特朗普正在这么做，甚至到现在为止，我想说他应该这么做。其他曾承诺反对他的政客也应该继续反对，尽管我担心在这个问题上，共和党和民主党的虚伪程度都相当高：许多现在反对他的人过去都曾投票支持建边境墙：因为那里已经有很多现成的墙了。

Is all this worth shutting the government down over? Not to me, not most of my readers, I’m sure. But it was Trump’s main promise, and he should fight for it.

因为所有的这些，值得让政府关门吗？我确定这个问题不是问我，也不是问我的大多数读者的。但这是特朗普当初竞选时的主要承诺，他应该为此而奋斗。

评论1：Hugh
Promises? Trump? You have got to be kidding. He also promised that Mexico would pay for the wall, to make America great again, and a middle class tax cut. Trump fights for nothing, stands for nothing, that isn’t Trump. Again don’t read into Trump what isn’t there. There is no there there.

承诺？你是说特朗普？你一定是在开玩笑吧。他还曾经承诺墨西哥要为边境墙买单、让美国再次伟大以及削减中产阶级的税收呢。特朗普没有任何他为之奋斗的事，也没有代表任何人的利益，那不是特朗普。再说一次，不要把不存在的东西当成是特朗普的，他没有。

评论2：Mandos
The problem is that one side has to capitulate, so at least one promise is going to be broken in any case. This is doubly true after the new congress is seated.

问题在于竞选必须有一方投降，所以无论如何至少有一方的承诺会被打破。在新的国会就职后，这一点就更加正确了。

评论3：Job
Trump can’t get his priorities straight, other wise the great wall idea would have in fact been paid for by Mexico as advertised by his own big mouth at the start of his failed presidency. Instead he pushed a tax cut through which was never paid for; adding billions to a tab people have finally realized will never be paid. And now he wants to add another 5 billion on top of that paid for by US because yes, he is running out of time because those pesky democrats are taking over the house and Rush and Ann gave him the stink eye…So he says he will own a government shutdown of his own choosing and then immediately afterwards puts the blame on democrats? One has to wonder if this guy has any critical thinking skills at all? Amateur hour has consequences. Being we have a house of representatives and supposing they represent US citizens and they choose no wall, you would think that would be it but no… let’s throw another temper tantrum and scold/fire/bad mouth everyone at Christmas. We have installed insanity and now live with it.

特朗普无法明确自己的优先事项，否则，边境墙的费用早就已经由墨西哥支付了，就像在他失败的总统任期开始时，他自己的大嘴巴宣称的那样。相反，他推行了一项从未实施过的减税政策， 让人们最终意识到的账单增加了数十亿，而且将永远不会被别人支付。现在，他想在美国支付的费用之外再增加50亿美元，因为 -- 是的，他的时间快用完了，因为那些讨厌的民主党人接管了众议院，拉什和安给了他摆了臭脸.... 所以他说，他将自主选择地让政府关门，然后立即把责任推到民主党人身上？你一定想知道这个人是否拥有批判性的思维能力吧？业余当政是有后果的。现在我们有一个众议院，假设他们代表美国公民，而且他们没有选择支持修建边境墙，你会认为那将是唯一的选择，但事实并不是这样...让我们只能再一次发发脾气，在圣诞节骂一骂每个人。我们已经打开了潘多拉的盒子，现在必须承担后果了。

评论4：Phil Perspective
Apparently, Trump and very few supporters of his have ever seen Patton. Kinda funny since most of them probably claim to be big supporters of the military.

显然，特朗普和他的极少数支持者见过巴顿。有点好笑，因为他们中的大多数人可能都声称自己是军方的大力支持者。

评论5：sglover
I thought he also promised that Mexico was going to foot the bill for his precious wall. So why is this an issue of U.S. government appropriations at all? And anyway, if it’s a question of meeting, some, *any* promise — didn’t he cover the swamp-draining pledge when he hired the Goldman Sachs guy at Treasury? At this point, promises kept isn’t a useful measure. It’s more a matter of how much damage can he do. And he’s still got time, and he’s still got his cult.

我想他还曾经承诺过墨西哥会为他心爱的边境墙买单。那么，现在到底为什么要美国政府拨款呢？无论如何，如果这是一个履行一些、任何承诺的问题的话，-- 当他在财政部雇佣高盛集团的人时，他不是已经兑现了那个让人精疲力竭的承诺了吗？在这一点上，信守承诺并不是一个有用的措施。更重要的是他能造成多大的伤害，而且他还有时间，仍然有很多人崇拜他。

评论6：Ian Welsh
Eh. He’s put tariffs on Mexico. I’d simply say that is Mexico paying.

嗯。他对墨西哥增加了关税，我也可以简单地说这是墨西哥在为边境墙支付费用。

评论8：Ron Wilkinson
The wall is a waste of money, it’s an ecological disaster, it’s ineffective, an insult to our neighbor. Trump is a lying piece of shit and that’s where it comes from, racist dog whistling.

这堵墙是在浪费金钱，是生态灾难，是无效的，是对我们邻国的侮辱。特朗普是一坨说谎的狗屎，这就是这堵墙的来源 -- 种族主义的狗在吹口哨而已。

评论9：Daize
*sigh* None of the responses so far have even come close to addressing the main point of Iain’s article (they are just ad hominem attacks); do we live in a democracy, or do we not, and should a president actually follow up on the promises which got him elected? We are so used to a president doing no such thing (Obama, and many who came before), that it is a shock to see a president (no matter how much of a liar, how disgusting etc. he may be) actually attempt to do so. I really do wonder where America is going, atm it seems it is headed straight for a brick wall at full speed (not to say things are much better elsewhere). IMHO, with the current state of technology, government could and should be run directly by the people through online referendums. Politicians/thought leaders would simply represent their arguments for or against one legislation or another, and the vote would occur online, not in congress. I suppose that would require a free press and for lobbying to be made illegal first though.

叹息，到目前为止，还没有一个回复能接近伊恩的文章的要点（他们只是在人身攻击而已）；我们确实是生活在一个民主制度下，难道不是吗？总统真的应该兑现他当初竞选时做出的承诺吗？我们已经习惯了一个总统不兑现他当初竞选时做出的承诺（奥巴马，以及许多前任总统们），以至于当看到一个总统他实际上开始信守承诺时，我们是多么震惊（不管他撒了多少谎，多么的恶心等等）。我真的很想知道美国将走向何方，此刻它似乎正全速奔向一堵墙（更不用说世界上其他地方的情况要好得多了）。在目前的技术状况下，政府可以也应该由人民通过网上公投直接管理。政客/思想领袖会简单地代表他们支持或反对一项或另一项立法的观点，投票将在网上进行，而不是在国会。但我认为，这需要一个自由的媒体，并要求首先将游说活动裁定为非法才可以。

评论10：Stirling Newberry
He stole the election with it.

他就是通过这个承诺偷取了选举的胜利

评论11：Ché Pasa
One of the errors in this line of thinking is the presumption that Trump was elected ‘by the people’. Note that Ian is careful not to use the wide-spread rightist trope that claims a majority of the electorate, sometimes even an overwhelming majority, elected him. That didn’t happen.

这一思路中的一个错误是，假设特朗普是"由人民"选出的。请注意，伊恩小心翼翼地避免使用广泛流传的右翼论调，这种论调声称大多数选民，有时甚至说是压倒性多数的选民，都把票投给了他，事实不是这样的。

Trump’s policies, including the marketing gimmick called The Wall, are for the most part very unpopular (if you believe the polls), and he was elected by a minority of the voters, a vanishingly small one if the many non-voters are taken into account. Whether he fights for this or that gimmick or not is irrelevant. He changes his mind whenever he wants, and his fans devotedly go along with it no matter what. What was a fight yesterday is something else tomorrow. Thus any “fight” he engages in is more likely kayfabe, something Washington and the mass media are very, very familiar with.

特朗普的政策，包括修建"边境墙"的营销噱头，在很大程度上是非常不受欢迎的（如果你相信民调结果的话），而且他是由少数选民选出的，如果把许多非选民考虑在内，这只是一个微不足道的小政策。不管他是为这个还是那个噱头而奋斗都无关紧要。他想什么时候改变主意就什么时候改变主意，不管发生什么事，他的粉丝们都会全心全意地支持他。昨天的奋斗目标到了明天又不一样了。因此，他参与的任何"奋斗"更有可能是像卡法比一样，这是华盛顿和大众媒体都非常、非常熟悉的。（译注：Kayfabe，职业摔跤中的一个词，形容业内人称其为“真实的”，其余人对此怀疑，但先暂时相信）

The unfortunate thing is that these phony fights have real outcomes and real harm can and often is done. Mr. Market isn’t happy. Not any more. The deterioration of the regime due to incompetence and its mercurial leader is undeniable. Alarms are going off, red lights flashing, and what will happen is anybody’s guess. Intervention has long been called for. So what kind of intervention do we get? Fox and Friends. Laura. Rush. We are blessed, no?

不幸的是，这些虚假的战斗是有真正的结果的，真正的伤害可以而且经常发生，市场会不高兴的，也不会再高兴起来了。由于无能及其反复无常的领导人而导致的政权的恶化是不可否认的。警报响了，红灯亮了，谁也猜不到会发生什么。长期以来人们一直要求进行干预，我们能得到什么样的干预？ 狐狸和朋友、劳拉、拉什，我们被上帝眷顾着，是吗？

Our rulers, not just Trump, have shown themselves to be empty shells, feet of clay, blah blah blah, with no clue how to do the right thing — or even what the right thing is — in a crisis. Chaos is Trump’s métier to be sure, but an open eyed observer recognizes it’s not only him or his cronies. Chaos pervades the mindless rulership class. So here we are. And a Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

我们的统治者，不仅仅是特朗普，已经证明自己是空壳、泥巴之类的东西，不知道如何在危机中做正确的事情--甚至不知道什么是正确的事情。当然，制造混乱是特朗普的强项，但一位睁大眼睛的观察者会认识到，不仅仅是他或他的亲信，混乱充斥着无知的统治阶级，所以我们才到了今天这个地步。祝大家圣诞快乐，晚安。

评论12：StewartM
Dizzie and Ian: I get the point about ‘we live in a supposed democracy’ and ‘elections have consequences’, but the point is that most Americans aren’t for the wall. Don’t their opinions count too, if we live in a supposed democracy?

我知道"我们生活在一个所谓的民主国家"和"选举有其后果"的意思，但重点是大多数美国人并不支持建边境墙啊。如果我们生活在一个所谓的民主国家，他们的意见难道不重要吗？

People cast votes in elections based a sum appraisal of what a candidate is and what he/she has to offer, not on single issues. People can and do cast votes for someone even if they support things they are against, or are against things they are for. Only 35 % of Americans, give or take, support a wall–smaller than the fraction of popular vote Trump won.

人们在选举中投票是基于对候选人是什么样的人，和他/她承诺提供什么的综合评价，而不是基于单个问题。即使候选人支持他们反对的东西，或者反对他们想要争取的东西，人们也可以而且也确实能投票给这个人。不管投不投，只有35%的美国人支持建边境墙-比特朗普赢得普选的支持比例还要小。

The way I see the way a democracy is supposed to work is that when a leader or party takes power, it is reasonable that they be able to implement the facets of their agenda they espoused that enjoy broad popular support. But it also perfectly compatible with democracy that the parts of it that aren’t popular go down in flames. They don’t willy-nilly get to implement everything, popular or unpopular, just because they won the last election. A functioning democracy should also nix the unpopular stuff, no? We don’t run things by the fuhrerprinzip.

我对民主运作方式的看法是，当一个领导人或政党掌权时，他们能够实施他们所支持的、得到广泛民众支持的议程的各个方面，这是合理的。但它也与民主完全相容，民主中不受欢迎的部分会被付之一炬。他们不会仅仅因为赢得了上次选举就随心所欲地施行所有他们想要的东西，无论受民众欢迎与否。一个运转良好的民主国家也应该抵制不受欢迎的东西，不是吗？ 毕竟我们不是在按惯例运转国家的。

Besides, Trump also promised everyone ‘great health care’, and given but tried to push through crap care (even he admitted it was). Given the popularity of a more universal health care system, I’d say this would be a far bigger betrayal of Trump voters than anything over the wall.

此外，特朗普还向每个人承诺"良好的医保"，给予但试图强推通过垃圾医保（甚至他自己也这么承认）。考虑到更普遍的医疗体系的普及，我认为这将是对特朗普选民的最大背叛。

评论13：Giles
At 25% tariff on $3 billion and 10% on $1 billion, Mexico is apparently paying on the world’s slowest layaway plan.

对30亿美元商品征收25%的关税，还有对10亿美元商品征收10%的关税，墨西哥显然正在为全球最慢的裁员计划买单。

评论14：nihil obstet
One of the major things I never forgave Obama for was that prior to the 2008 Pennsylvania primary he promised to help filibuster any bill that granted immunity to telecoms for violating privacy laws. The primary looked to be close and this was a serious issue for civil liberty types who oppose technical end-arounds (hey, it’s private, it’s not the government doing illegal spying, so the private companies who rely on business from the government can spy and pass the results on to the government!). After the primary, he returned to Washington and whipped FOR the immunity-granting bill. If we don’t hold politicians to their promises, electoral democracy means absolutely nothing.

我从未原谅奥巴马的一件大事是，在2008年宾夕法尼亚州初选之前，他承诺将帮助阻挠任何因违反隐私法而给予电信豁免权的法案的通过。初选似乎势均力敌，这对反对技术权宜之计的公民自由人士来说是个严重的问题（嘿，这是私人问题，不是政府在从事非法间谍活动，而是依赖政府业务的私营公司在从事间谍活动，并将结果传递给政府！）。初选结束后，他回到华盛顿，马上忘了豁免授权法案的事。如果我们不坚持要求政客们履行竞选承诺，那么选举民主就毫无意义。

On the other hand, there’s an issue with how far an elected official should go. Trump promised to build a wall. It was a major campaign promise. Does that require that he shut down government in pursuit of a particular part of the promise? I’d say no, but then I think the wall is an obscenity. He also promised to get our military out of the Middle East, and although it wasn’t as big a part of his campaign promises as the wall, I would support a government shutdown if it would produce a reduction of America’s endless and ubiquitous wars. In short, I disagree with Trump’s priority here, but there are so many other things to complain about that it doesn’t really jerk my chain that much.

另一方面，民选官员应该做到什么地步也是个问题。特朗普承诺要建一堵墙，这是一个重要的竞选承诺。这是否要求他为了追求承诺的特定部分而关闭政府呢？我想说不，我觉得建这堵墙是道德败坏的行为。他还承诺让我们的军队撤出中东，尽管这并不像他的竞选承诺中的边境墙那么重要，但如果它能减少美国无休止和无处不在的战争，我会支持政府关门。简而言之，我不同意特朗普在这个问题上的优先地位，但我们有太多其他事情要抱怨了，以至于这件事并没有真的让我那么恼火。

评论15：Charlie
My belief is the government shutdown is less about funding for the wall and more about forcing the fed to lower interest rates due to a possible lowering of US debt credit rating a prolonged shutdown would ensure. That the Democrats are so against the wall makes this the perfect opportunity to force a correction.

我认为，特朗普让政府关门更多地是为了迫使美联储降低利率，而不是为边境墙提供资金，因为政府长期关门可能会降低美国债务信用评级。民主党如此反对边境墙，就使得这次机会成为了迫使政府进行纠正的绝佳机会。

评论16：NR
Daize: “do we live in a democracy, or do we not, and should a president actually follow up on the promises which got him elected?” The president is not the only democratically elected (well, somewhat anyway) official in the United States. Members of Congress are also elected, and the Constitution says that Congress decides what federal money gets spent on. If the people wanted Trump’s wall, they were perfectly free to vote for members of Congress who supported it.

总统并不是美国唯一一个通过民主选举产生的官员。国会议员也是选举产生的，宪法规定国会决定联邦资金的支出。如果人民想要建那堵墙，他们完全可以投票给支持这项提议的国会议员。

评论17：Dale
We live in a republic not a democracy. Big difference. Trump promised that Mexico would pay for the wall, not U.S taxpayers. Big difference. Trump raised tariffs on Chinese products too. Is this payment for the proposed wall?

我们生活在一个共和政体的国家，而不是一个民主政体国家，这里面有很大的不同。特朗普曾经承诺，墨西哥将为边境墙买单，而不是由美国纳税人买单，这里面也有很大的不同。特朗普也提高了对中国产品的关税，这是对拟建的边境墙的付款吗?