特朗普對意識形態不感興趣
Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, took some wild questions at a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire on Thursday. One woman objected to the wearing of hijabs (which she called “heebie-jobbies”) by airport security officials and wondered if military veterans could be found to replace them. Mr Trump promised to look into it. He thereby conveyed the core principle of his campaign: there is no subject so controversial or off the radar that he will not speak his mind about it. That is what makes his rallies so interesting and, for his audiences, thrilling.
不久前，美國共和黨推定總統候選人唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)在新罕布什爾州一個市政廳的集會上回答了幾個瘋狂的問題。一名女士反對機場的運輸安全管理局(TSA)官員戴“希賈布”（hijab，穆斯林婦女戴的頭巾——譯者注；提問的女士還把這個詞說成了“heebie-jobbies”），並且想知道是否能找些退伍軍人替代她們。特朗普承諾研究此事。他由此傳達了其競選的核心原則：從不因話題爭議太大或過於冷門而保留自己的觀點。這使得他的競選集會非常有趣，同時對於他的受衆來說，非常令人興奮。
They thrill Republican leaders less — especially when Mr Trump vents his unorthodoxy on the “values” that once brought Christian voters to the polls in droves. Last week the US Supreme Court intervened to void certain Texas laws restricting access to abortion. This sort of judicial meddling has always been oratorical catnip for Republican candidates. Mr Trump said nothing. He was still busy talking, weeks after a mass murder at a gay nightclub in Florida, about what a terrific friend he would be to gays and lesbians.
這些集會對共和黨領袖來說沒則那麼令人興奮，特別是當特朗普將他的離經叛道用到共和黨的傳統“價值觀”上時——這些價值觀曾吸引大批基督教選民投票支持共和黨。不久前，美國最高法院(Supreme Court)介入，宣佈德州限制墮胎的法律無效。共和黨候選人總會拿此類司法干預大做文章。但特朗普什麼也沒說。在佛羅里達州一家同性戀夜店槍擊案發生數週後，他仍在忙着談論他會是同性戀多麼好的朋友。
Mr Trump is looking like one of those cosmopolitan New York politicians who travel badly — former mayor Rudolph Giuliani, for instance, who was the Republican frontrunner in 2008 until voters nationwide got acquainted with his tolerant, big-city ways. But Mr Trump adds a canny understanding of how the broader electorate has drifted away from his party’s preoccupations.
特朗普看起來就像那些一出本地就不吃香了的紐約大都會政客，比如紐約前市長魯道夫•朱利安尼(Rudolph Giuliani)。2008年，朱利安尼一度是領先的共和黨候選人，直到全美國的選民瞭解到他寬容的大城市人做派。但是特朗普又多了幾分精明——他知道大部分選民已經不再關心那些共和黨全心關注的問題。
Abortion is an organisational pillar for both parties. For Republicans Roe vs Wade, the 1973 case that legalised abortion, was long a powerful symbol of judicial over-reach. To invoke it was to connect with activists upset by the Supreme Court’s role in other cases, from workplace safety to civil rights. This fostered an optical illusion. Certain candidates grew unable to tell the party apparatus from the broader public. They believed Republicans could prosper by throwing the public more red meat. Ted Cruz, Mr Trump’s primary-season rival, was especially deluded on this score.
美國兩黨都把墮胎問題作爲本黨的組織支柱。共和黨長久以來一直認爲，1973年促使墮胎合法化的羅訴韋德案(Roe vs Wade)是司法越權的有力標誌。援引此事就是在拉攏其他不滿於最高法院在其他案件（從工作場所安全到民權案件）中角色的活動人士。這強化了一種視覺錯覺。某些候選人漸漸無法把黨組織與整體公衆區分開。他們認爲，共和黨可以通過給公衆更多合他們胃口的東西而蓬勃發展。在這一點上，特朗普初選時的競爭對手特德•克魯茲(Ted Cruz)的錯覺尤其嚴重。
Of course, respect must be paid. Mr Trump has hired anti-abortion staffers and drawn up a list of potential Supreme Court justices acceptable to them. In March Chris Matthews, the MSNBC host, got Mr Trump to agree (after four minutes of badgering) that, if Republicans really did plan to make it a crime to seek an abortion, then clearly this crime must have consequences for women who sought it. This was a novice’s blunder. Mr Trump erred on the side of candour and intellectual curiosity, two things a politician must never show. He had to renounce his remarks and paid for them with a heavy loss in the Wisconsin primary. Yet the episode showed him as someone who will not don a party line like a suit of clothes. He may benefit in the long run from not having thought through abortion.
當然，面子上還是要過得去的。特朗普聘請了反墮胎人士，並列出了一張他們認可的擬任命最高法院法官名單。3月，微軟全國廣播公司(MSNBC)主持人克里斯•馬修斯(Chris Matthews)（在糾纏了4分鐘後）使特朗普同意，如果共和黨確實計劃使墮胎成爲犯罪行爲，那麼犯下這一罪行的女性顯然必須承擔後果。這是菜鳥級錯誤。特朗普過於坦率和富有求知慾了，這兩樣東西是政客絕不能表現出來的。後來，他不得不收回自己的言論，併爲這些言論付出了沉重代價——在威斯康辛州初選中慘敗。不過，這段插曲表明，他是那種不會時刻把本黨的統一口徑放在心上的人。從長遠來看，沒有仔細地思考過墮胎問題或許會使他受益。
Unusually for a Republican, Mr Trump has thought through gay rights. He likes them. In 2000 he urged that sexual orientation be added to the US anti-discrimination laws. He sees sexual liberation as the highest form of western freedom. In this he resembles Geert Wilders of the Freedom party in the Netherlands. The status of homosexuality as the bogeyman of Islamism appears a reason to favour it.
特朗普倒是仔細思考過同性戀權益——這在共和黨人中並不常見。他支持同性戀權益。2000年，他敦促將性取向加入美國反歧視法中。他把性自由視爲西方自由的最高形式。在這方面，他與荷蘭自由黨(Freedom Party)的海爾特•維爾德斯(Geert Wilders)類似。同性戀被伊斯蘭教視爲魔鬼，這似乎是支持同性戀的理由之一。
You could see this when Omar Mateen, an Afghan-American, murdered 49 people last month at the Florida nightclub. Mr Trump viewed it as a chance to vindicate his calls for restrictions on Muslim immigration — a narrative that was complicated when it emerged Mateen’s feelings about his own sexuality may have had as much to do with the carnage as his readings of the Koran or opinions about Isis.
你可以從上個月發生在佛羅里達州一家夜店內的槍擊事件中看出這一點，當時阿富汗裔美國公民奧馬爾•馬丁(Omar Mateen)殺害了49人。特朗普把這視爲一次印證他呼籲限制穆斯林移民的正確性的機會。然而，後來人們得知，和閱讀《古蘭經》(Koran)、對“伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯蘭國”(ISIS)的態度一樣，馬丁對自己性取向的感受同樣是導致殺戮行爲的重要原因。這讓特朗普的論證不那麼站得住腳了。
“Ask yourself,” said Mr Trump at a June talk, “who is really the friend of women and the LGBT community: Donald Trump with his actions, or Hillary Clinton with her words? I will tell you who the better friend is, and someday I believe that will be proven out. Bigly.”
“你們捫心自問，”特朗普在6月的演講中稱，“誰真正是女性和LGBT羣體（女同性戀者、男同性戀者、雙性戀者與跨性別者）的朋友？是有實際行動的唐納德•特朗普、還是光說不練的希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)？我會告訴你誰纔是更好的朋友，我相信有一天事實會以令人無可辯駁的方式，證明這個答案的正確。”
Does Mr Trump believe what he says? The safest answer is: he believes it as much as any politician does. He is soft-pedalling the traditional culture-wars rhetoric not because it does not convince him, but because it does not interest him. The Trump movement is about sociology — not ideology. It is about reassuring globalisation’s losers that politicians have not forgotten them — not about crafting elegant syllogisms. In western countries globalisation produces losers faster than winners, Mr Trump thinks, so democracy will eventually vindicate his side. Any issue that highlights the gap between grandees and commoners helps his cause. Any issue that distracts is to be avoided.
特朗普相信他所說的話嗎？最保險的答案是：任何一名政客有多相信自己所說的話，特朗普也一樣。他沒有賣力地參與傳統的文化戰爭，不是因爲不相信相關言論，而是因爲他不感興趣。特朗普的競選圍繞的是社會學，而不是意識形態；是讓全球化的輸家放心——政客並未忘記他們，而不是編制精巧的三段論。特朗普認爲，全球化在西方國家制造輸家的速度要快於它製造贏家的速度，因此民主最終將站在他這邊。任何凸顯權貴與平民之間差距的問題，都有助於他的事業。任何分散注意力的問題都要回避。
In this, as in other things, nothing is more distracting than sex.
在這方面，如同在其他領域一樣，沒有什麼比性取向和性別更能分散注意力的了。
