美國權力與智力日益脫節

If you believe history is yet to come, the United States is still the place to be. Only in America can you find people trying to make cars fly, abolish human mortality and nurture robots with feelings. Yet America’s politics is remarkable for its resistance to new ideas. The gap between Washington’s dearth of creativity and the ferment beyond is widening. Every week, some audacious start-up aims to exploit the commercial potential of science. Many are too zany to succeed. A few will deserve to. Every week, it seems, a presidential campaign is launched. Some of the 2016 candidates are actively hostile to science. None, so far, have hinted at original ideas for fixing America’s problems. One will undeservedly succeed.

如果你相信人類還在繼續創造歷史，那麼美國仍是你應該待的地方。只有在美國，你才能發現有人正嘗試着讓汽車飛起來、讓人類長生不老、讓機器人擁有感情。不過，美國政壇對新觀念的抵制是引人注目的。在缺乏創造力的華盛頓與蓬勃發展的美國其餘地方之間，鴻溝正在擴大。每週都會有些大膽的初創公司試圖開發科技的商業潛力。很多都太過荒唐，無法成功。而一些公司則成功得實至名歸。每週似乎都有一場總統競選活動啓動。2016年大選的一些候選人對科技表現出咄咄逼人的敵意。迄今爲止，沒有哪位候選人對解決美國的種種問題有什麼原創性想法，雖然肯定還是會有一個人取得這場名不副實的勝利。

The root of America’s intellectual disconnect is cultural. In Silicon Valley, “fail harder” is a motto. A history of bankruptcy is proof of business credentials. In Washington, a single miscue can ruin your career. Ruth Porat’s move last week fromMorgan Stanley, where she was chief financial officer, to Google for a cool $70m was taken as another sign of Silicon Valley’s increasing edge over Wall Street. A growing share of top US graduates are bypassing a career in investment banking for Big Data. Less noticed was the fact that Ms Porat turned down a job in Barack Obama’s administration last year as deputy Treasury secretary. She feared the Senate confirmation process would rip her to shreds. She was probably right.

美國智力與權力的脫節，其根源在於文化。在硅谷，人們把“fail harder（更努力地去失敗）”作爲座右銘。曾經破產過，就是商業資歷的證明。在華盛頓，只要一個失誤，就可能毀掉你的事業。摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)的前首席財務官(CFO)露絲•波拉特(Ruth Porat)不久前爲了整整7000萬美元跳槽到谷歌(Google)的舉動，被視爲硅谷對華爾街優勢擴大的另一個信號。美國尖子畢業生沒有選擇投行而選擇以大數據(Big Data)爲職業的比例日益增加。更少人留意到的是，去年，波拉特還拒絕了出任奧巴馬政府財政部副部長的工作機會。她當時擔心，參議院的確認過程將讓她萬劫不復。她的顧慮很可能是正確的。

The result is a system in which the bland are leading the bland. Washington is host to the largest collection of think- tanks in the world. Yet they are notable nowadays for their lack of original thinking. The ideas shortage has nothing to do with low IQ. The post codes around Washington have America’s highest concentration of PhDs other than Silicon Valley. But if you want a job in a future US administration, you risk running a gauntlet from which you may never recover. The route to success is paved with caution. One stray remark, or risqué policy idea, can kill your prospects. Science is the basis of America’s innovative edge. Yet embracing it can be a political career-stopper. Several Republican presidential candidates reject the notion of man-made global warming while some believe child vaccines cause disease.

結果就是這麼一個古板之士領導着古板之人的體系。華盛頓聚集着全世界數量最多的智庫機構。而如今，它們缺乏創造性思維的問題十分明顯。缺少想法跟智商低沒有關係，華盛頓周邊地區聚集着全美除硅谷以外最多的博士。但是如果你想在未來的美國政府中找一份工作，你可能要經受一場可能讓你一蹶不振的暴風雨洗禮，成功之路步步驚心。一次偏激的評論或是一個有傷風化的政策想法，都可能毀掉你的前程。科學是美國創新優勢的根基，然而，信奉科學可能會終結你的政治生涯。共和黨一些總統候選人拒不相信全球變暖是人爲造成的，還有一些認爲給兒童接種疫苗會導致疾病。

Aversion to science is not a conservative monopoly. Among the 19,000 papers produced by Washington’s top 10 think-tanks in the past few years, science and technology ranked bottom among the subjects addressed, according to a survey by Foreign Policy magazine. During the cold war, senior US officials were expected to be fluent in the language of nuclear technology — understanding it was the basis of America’s rivalry with the Soviet Union. Today few have much clue about the evolving threat of cyber warfare. Unlike nuclear weapons, which were too risky to use given the certainty of overwhelming retaliation, cyber attacks are low risk. Deterrence does not work on anonymous foes. Yet cyber attacks are arguably the greatest future danger to US national security.

厭惡科學並非保守派的專利。據《外交政策》(Foreign Policy)雜誌的調查顯示，華盛頓前10大智庫最近幾年寫出的1.9萬份論文中，關於科學和技術的論文數量最少。在冷戰期間，鑑於核技術是美國與蘇聯對立的根本原因，美國高級官員熟練掌握核技術那一套語言在民衆看來是理所應當的。如今，幾乎沒有幾名高官對日益升級的網絡戰爭威脅有所瞭解。由於肯定會遭到全面報復，核武器過於危險，因此不宜使用。與核武器不同的是，網絡攻擊的風險較低，威懾也無法對匿名的敵人起作用。不過，網絡攻擊可謂是未來對美國國家安全最大的威脅。

Some hope Silicon Valley’s growing visibility in Washington might spark new ideas. If US politics runs on money, Big Data’s dollars are preferable to Wall Street’s. Tech companies used to disdain the US capital in the myopic view that their success had little to do with government. Today, the most rapid lobbying growth comes from the likes of Google and Facebook. Yet their priority is to repair the damage from theEdward Snowden leaks — strengthening privacy, rather than lifting research and development budgets, or opening up the US immigration system. They aim to curb the National Security Agency’s incursions rather than spread bold thinking to Washington.

一些人希望，硅谷在華盛頓日益增加的存在感也許會激發新思路。如果美國政治依靠金錢運作，從大數據領域拿錢比從華爾街拿錢更可取。科技公司曾短視地認爲它們的成功與政府沒什麼關係，因而不屑於討好華盛頓。如今，遊說投入增長最快的就是像谷歌和Facebook這樣的企業。不過，它們優先考慮的是修復愛德華•斯諾登(Edward Snowden)泄密帶來的損害——加強隱私保護，而不是增加研發預算或是開放美國移民系統。它們的目的是遏制國家安全局(National Security Agency)的侵入，而不是向華盛頓灌輸大膽的想法。

Might 2016 produce an original debate over America’s future? It is tempting to believe so. Yet the contest is shaping into a traditional slugfest between those who want to shrink federal government and those who would conserve it. In the coming days, Hillary Clinton will launch her official candidacy. Having strung it out so long, she is expected to justify the wait with original thinking. In 2008 she won ovations by saying she was born in the middle of the last century, into the middle class in the middle of America. That will no longer bring blue collar voters to their feet. It is possible Mrs Clinton has spent the time coming up with new ideas to address America’s middle class squeeze — but unlikely. As it stands, her chief originality will be a promise to break the White House gender barrier. Nor should we expect Jeb Bush, or his rivals, to restock Washington’s intellectual cupboard. Gridlock suits the conservative base.

2016年可能會發生一場關於美國未來的原創性討論嗎？人們很容易相信答案是肯定的。不過，這場爭論正在演化爲希望縮小聯邦政府者與希望聯邦政府保持現有規模者之間的傳統激戰。希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)將於近日正式參選。這一天已經拖延了太久，她有望用創造性思維來證明等待是值得的。2008年，她自稱出生於上世紀中期、美國中部的中產階級家庭而贏得一片喝彩，如今這不會再拉攏到藍領選民。希拉里有可能已花時間想出瞭解決美國中產階級受擠壓問題(middle class squeeze)的新思路——但這種可能性比較低。照現在看來，她的主要創意會是承諾打破白宮的性別障礙。我們也不應指望傑布•布什(Jeb Bush)或是其競選對手會重新補充華盛頓的智力庫。僵局對保守派有利。

If the US is recovering in spite of Washington, might conservatives have a point? Alas not. Much of America’s innovative edge comes from public research. Washington tends to come up with new ideas during emergencies — necessity being the mother of invention. Silicon Valley’s prowess dates from the breakthroughs produced by cold war Pentagon spending. Even the technology behind hydraulic fracking, which has helped power the US job market recovery, comes from public investment in the aftermath of the 1970s oil shortages. The secret sauce of US capitalism is a history of collaboration with federal government. The two are now increasingly disconnected. Do not look to White House hopefuls to restore it.

如果即便華盛頓如此，美國經濟仍在復甦的話，那麼保守派是不是可能有些道理？可惜的是，答案是否定的。美國創新優勢大部分來自公共研究。華盛頓往往在緊急時期能夠拿出新想法——必要時還會成爲發明的孕育者。硅谷的輝煌可以追溯到冷戰時期五角大樓開支增加所帶來的突破。即使是助推美國就業市場復甦的水力壓裂法(hydraulic fracking)背後的技術，也來自於上世紀70年代石油短缺之後的公共投資。美國資本主義發展的祕訣就在於與聯邦政府的合作史，兩者如今卻日益脫節。不要指望角逐白宮的種子選手能修復二者關係。