Chris Anderson: Welcome to this next edition of TED Dialogues. We're trying to do some bridging here today. You know, the American dream has inspired millions of people around the world for many years. Today, I think, you can say that America is divided, perhaps more than ever, and the divisions seem to be getting worse. It's actually really hard for people on different sides to even have a conversation. People almost feel... disgusted with each other. Some families can't even speak to each other right now. Our purpose in this dialogue today is to try to do something about that, to try to have a different kind of conversation, to do some listening, some thinking, some understanding. And I have two people with us to help us do that.
克里斯·安德森(CA): 歡迎來到新一期的 TED 對話。 今天我們準備溝通天地,連接你我。 大家都知道,多年來美國夢激勵了 遍佈世界各地數百萬人。 而如今,我覺得可以說美國是分裂的, 可能比以往更甚; 而且分歧也越來越糟。 說真的,各個陣營的人 都很難進行一場對話。 人們幾乎是...... 討厭彼此, 當下的有些家庭甚至互不講話。 這個對話的目的就是為此做點什麼, 嘗試不同方式的交流, 有傾聽,有思考,還有理解。 今天將有兩位嘉賓 來幫助我們一起做這件事。
They're not going to come at this hammer and tong against each other. This is not like cable news. This is two people who have both spent a lot of their working life in the political center or right of the center. They've immersed themselves in conservative worldviews, if you like. They know that space very well. And we're going to explore together how to think about what is happening right now, and whether we can find new ways to bridge and just to have wiser, more connected conversations.
他們今天不會唇槍舌戰, 這裡也不像有線電視新聞節目。 這二位在職業生涯中很多時間 持政治中立或者中立稍偏右態度。 你也可以理解為,他們 沉浸在保守的世界觀中, 他們對這個很在行。 接下來,我們將一起探討 如何看待時下所發生的事情, 能否搭橋找到新的契機, 只為了建立更睿智、更有效的溝通。
With me, first of all, Gretchen Carlson, who has spent a decade working at Fox News, hosting "Fox and Friends" and then "The Real Story," before taking a courageous stance in filing sexual harassment claims against Roger Ailes, which eventually led to his departure from Fox News. David Brooks, who has earned the wrath of many of [The New York Times's] left-leaning readers because of his conservative views, and more recently, perhaps, some of the right-leaning readers because of his criticism of some aspects of Trump. Yet, his columns are usually the top one, two or three most-read content of the day because they're brilliant, because they bring psychology and social science to providing understanding for what's going on. So without further ado, a huge welcome to Gretchen and David. Come and join me.
首先有請葛蕾琴·卡森, 她在福克斯新聞工作了十年, 在她勇敢地指控 羅傑斯·艾爾斯性騷擾前, 她先是主持《福克斯和朋友們》, 然後主持《實話實説》新聞節目, 她的指控最終導致 羅傑斯·艾爾斯離開福克斯新聞。 另一位是大偉·布庫斯, 因其保守觀點,引發眾多 《紐約時報》左傾讀者的憤怒; 就在最近,可能因其 對川普某些方面的批評, 有些右傾讀者 也加入聲討他的行列中。 但是,他的專欄 通常是每日閱讀量的前三, 原因就在於內容精彩, 因為他從心理學和社會科學角度, 讓人們明白當下發生的事情。 話不多說,熱烈歡迎葛蕾琴和大偉。 請坐。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
So, Gretchen. Sixty-three million Americans voted for Donald Trump. Why did they do this?
葛蕾琴, 6300 萬的美國人選出了唐納•川普, 他們為什麼這麼做?
Gretchen Carlson: There are a lot of reasons, in my mind, why it happened. I mean, I think it was a movement of sorts, but it started long ago. It didn't just happen overnight. "Anger" would be the first word that I would think of -- anger with nothing being done in Washington, anger about not being heard. I think there was a huge swath of the population that feels like Washington never listens to them, you know, a good part of the middle of America, not just the coasts, and he was somebody they felt was listening to their concerns. So I think those two issues would be the main reason. I have to throw in there also celebrity. I think that had a huge impact on Donald Trump becoming president.
葛蕾琴:在我看來, 有很多因素導致為什麼會這樣。 我是想說這是一種運動, 但早些年就開始了, 這不是一夜之間發生的。 「憤怒」是我想到的第一個詞, 對政府的不作為感到憤怒, 對自己的聲音沒人理會感到憤怒。 我覺得有一大群怒火中燒的人, 感覺政府從來不聽他們的心聲; 有很大一部分是美國中部的, 不只是在沿海地區, 川普讓這些人覺得 他在傾聽他們的訴求。 所以我認為這兩個是主要原因。 當然還要考慮他是名人, 我認為這對唐納•川普 成為總統有很大的影響。
CA: Was the anger justified?
CA:「憤怒」有道理嗎?
David Brooks: Yeah, I think so. In 2015 and early 2016, I wrote about 30 columns with the following theme: don't worry, Donald Trump will never be the Republican nominee.
大偉(CB):是的,我認為有道理。 在 2015 年和 2016 年初, 我大概寫了 30 篇專欄文章, 有關以下主題: 別擔心,唐納•川普 不會被共和黨提名。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And having done that and gotten that so wrong, I decided to spend the ensuing year just out in Trumpworld, and I found a lot of economic dislocation. I ran into a woman in West Virginia who was going to a funeral for her mom. She said, "The nice thing about being Catholic is we don't have to speak, and that's good, because we're not word people." That phrase rung in my head: word people. A lot of us in the TED community are word people, but if you're not, the economy has not been angled toward you, and so 11 million men, for example, are out of the labor force because those jobs are done away. A lot of social injury. You used to be able to say, "I'm not the richest person in the world, I'm not the most famous, but my neighbors can count on me and I get some dignity out of that." And because of celebritification or whatever, if you're not rich or famous, you feel invisible. And a lot of moral injury, sense of feeling betrayed, and frankly, in this country, we almost have one success story, which is you go to college, get a white-collar job, and you're a success, and if you don't fit in that formula, you feel like you're not respected. And so that accumulation of things -- and when I talked to Trump voters and still do, I found most of them completely realistic about his failings, but they said, this is my shot.
這樣做的結局很糟糕, 我決定接下來一年專注於川普世界, 還發現很多經濟失調的問題。 我在維吉尼亞州遇到一位女士, 她要去參加母親的葬禮。 她說:「身為天主教徒的好處 是我們不必說話, 這很好,因為我們不是 善於舞文弄墨的人。」 那句話一直在我腦海裡迴響: 舞文弄墨的人。 我們 TED 論壇很多人 都是和文字打交道的, 如果不是,經濟不會站在你這邊; 比方説,1100 萬人失業了, 因為這些工作已經沒有了, 這對社會傷害很大。 你以前會說: 「我不是世界上最有錢的, 也不是最有名的, 但鄰居們可以仰賴我, 我也以此為傲。」 要不是遇上烏鴉 變鳳凰這些個有的沒的, 倘若沒錢無名,你覺得 自己被當成空氣了。 還有道德上的傷害,感覺被背叛了, 坦率地說,在這個國家, 我們幾乎有個成功的故事: 那就是你上完大學, 找份白領的工作,你就是成功的; 但如果你不符合那個流程, 你會覺得被看不起。 所以,當經過歲月的蹉跎, 我問起川普的選民, 現在也還在問, 我發現大多數人 對他的失敗都超現實, 不過他們說,這是我的機會。
GC: And yet I predicted that he would be the nominee, because I've known him for 27 years. He's a master marketer, and one of the things he did extremely well that President Obama also did extremely well, was simplifying the message, simplifying down to phrases and to a populist message. Even if he can't achieve it, it sounded good. And many people latched on to that simplicity again. It's something they could grasp onto: "I get that. I want that. That sounds fantastic." And I remember when he used to come on my show originally, before "The Apprentice" was even "The Apprentice," and he'd say it was the number one show on TV. I'd say back to him, "No, it's not." And he would say, "Yes it is, Gretchen." And I would say, "No it's not." But people at home would see that, and they'd be like, "Wow, I should be watching the number one show on TV." And -- lo and behold -- it became the number one show on TV. So he had this, I've seen this ability in him to be the master marketer.
GC:但是我知道他會被提名, 因為我認識他都27年了。 他是一個行銷大師。 有件事他做得非常好, 奧巴馬總統也做得不錯, 就是簡化了資訊消息, 簡單到口號 和親民的短消息。 就算他難以兌現承諾,但聽起來不錯。 於是很多人再次理解這種簡約, 這是他們可以理解的: 「我懂,要的就是這個, 聽起來太棒了。」 我還記得他早年來上我的節目, 那時《誰是接班人》節目 遠不像現在眾所周知, 他會說這是排名第一的電視節目。 我回他說:「不,根本不是。」 他會說:「是第一,葛蕾琴。」 我會說:「就不是的。」 但人們在家會看這個節目而且會說: 「哇,我應該看看這個 第一名的電視節目。」 你瞧,《誰是接班人》還真成了 第一熱門的電視節目。 所以他很有一套, 我在他身上看到了 成為營銷大師的能力。
CA: It's puzzling to a lot of people on the left that so many women voted for him, despite some of his comments.
CA:對許多左派來說, 令人困惑的是: 儘管他說了一些侮辱女性言論, 很多女性還是投了贊成票。
GC: I wrote a column about this for Time Motto, saying that I really believe that lot of people put on blinders, and maybe for the first time, some people decided that policies they believed in and being heard and not being invisible anymore was more important to them than the way in which he had acted or acts as a human. And so human dignity -- whether it would be the dust-up about the disabled reporter, or what happened in that audiotape with Billy Bush and the way in which he spoke about women -- they put that aside and pretended as if they hadn't seen that or heard that, because to them, policies were more important.
GC:我就此給《時代週刊》的 〈Motto 〉欄目寫過專欄, 在文章中寫到,我真的相信 很多人對此選擇視而不見, 也許是有生的第一次, 有人認為他們所相信的政策 能被聽到而不是視而不見 對他們來說更重要, 這些比起川普作為一個 普通人的行為不妥更重要, 至於人格—— 無論是關於殘障記者的口水戰, 還是對比利·布希的錄音帶事件, 當然還有他調侃女人的方式; 他們就把它擱到一邊, 裝聾作啞或視而不見。 對他們來說,政策才更重要。
CA: Right, so just because someone voted for Trump, it's not blind adherence to everything that he's said or stood for.
CA:是的,這些人投票支持川普, 也並非盲目地堅持他所說的一切。
GC: No. I heard a lot of people that would say to me, "Wow, I just wish he would shut up before the election. If he would just stay quiet, he'd get elected."
GC:不是的,我聽到很多人對我說, 「天呐,我就希望選舉前他能閉嘴, 只要他閉嘴別亂說,會當選的。」
CA: And so, maybe for people on the left there's a trap there, to sort of despise or just be baffled by the support, assuming that it's for some of the unattractive features. Actually, maybe they're supporting him despite those, because they see something exciting. They see a man of action. They see the choking hold of government being thrown off in some way and they're excited by that.
CA:所以對左派來說, 認為裡面有貓膩, 有點鄙視她們支持川普 或者說被搞糊塗了, 以為是因為一些沒有新意的觀點, 實際上就算有這些, 他們也還是會支持他, 因為他們看到了令人振奮的東西, 人們看到了實幹家。 他們看到政府桎梏就這麽被甩掉, 人們對此感到興奮。
GC: But don't forget we saw that on the left as well -- Bernie Sanders. So this is one of the commonalities that I think we can talk about today, "The Year of the Outsider," David -- right? And even though Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for a long time, he was deemed an outsider this time. And so there was anger on the left as well, and so many people were in favor of Bernie Sanders. So I see it as a commonality. People who like Trump, people who like Bernie Sanders, they were liking different policies, but the underpinning was anger.
GC:但別忘了我們在左派人士 伯尼·桑德斯身上也看到了這些。 這就是我覺得今天 可以拿來談論的共通處之一, 《局外人的一年》,大偉,對嗎? 儘管伯尼·桑德斯 在國會有些時間了, 但這次他被當做局外人。 所以左派也很憤怒, 有那麽多人支持伯尼·桑德斯。 我認為它有共通性。 喜歡川普的人, 喜歡伯尼·桑德斯的人, 他們喜歡不同的政策, 但深層次的卻是憤怒。
CA: David, there's often this narrative, then, that the sole explanation for Trump's victory and his rise is his tapping into anger in a very visceral way. But you've written a bit about that it's actually more than that, that there's a worldview that's being worked on here. Could you talk about that?
CA:大偉,總是有這麽個説法, 對川普勝利及崛起的唯一正解 就是他對憤怒者直達心扉。 但你也寫到實際上不止這些, 還有個現行的世界觀。 你要不來講講?
DB: I would say he understood what, frankly, I didn't, which is what debate we were having. And so I'd grown up starting with Reagan, and it was the big government versus small government debate. It was Barry Goldwater versus George McGovern, and that was the debate we had been having for a generation. It was: Democrats wanted to use government to enhance equality, Republicans wanted to limit government to enhance freedom. That was the debate. He understood what I think the two major parties did not, which was that's not the debate anymore. The debate is now open versus closed. On one side are those who have the tailwinds of globalization and the meritocracy blowing at their back, and they tend to favor open trade, open borders, open social mores, because there are so many opportunities. On the other side are those who feel the headwinds of globalization and the meritocracy just blasting in their faces, and they favor closed trade, closed borders, closed social mores, because they just want some security. And so he was right on that fundamental issue, and people were willing to overlook a lot to get there. And so he felt that sense of security.
DB:坦白說,我會說 川普明白我不懂的東西, 這正是我們在辯論的內容。 我成長於雷根時代, 是大小政府間的辯論。 貝利·高華德對喬治·麥戈文, 是我們那代人的討論。 那就是:民主黨人想讓政府加強平等; 共和黨人想限制政府來提高自由, 這就是那時的辯論。 他曉得而我覺得兩大黨派卻沒搞懂, 那就是再也不必辯論了。 現在的爭議是開放對封閉。 一方是全球化風生水起 及背後強大的精英團隊; 他們傾向於自由貿易、 開放的邊界、開放的公序良俗, 因為這樣做有很多機會。 另一方是那些逆全球化 衝著精英主義者正面打臉, 他們喜歡封閉的貿易、 封閉邊界、封閉的社會道德, 因為他們只想要安全。 所以他在這個根本問題上是對的, 人們為了這個安全願意忽視些東西。 他有種給人安全的感覺。
We're speaking the morning after Trump's joint session speech. There are three traditional groups in the Republican Party. There are the foreign policies hawks who believe in America as global policeman. Trump totally repudiated that view. Second, there was the social conservatives who believed in religious liberty, pro-life, prayer in schools. He totally ignored that. There was not a single mention of a single social conservative issue. And then there were the fiscal hawks, the people who wanted to cut down on the national debt, Tea Party, cut the size of government. He's expanding the size of government! Here's a man who has single-handedly revolutionized a major American party because he understood where the debate was headed before other people. And then guys like Steve Bannon come in and give him substance to his impulses.
在川普聯合會議發言後的 第二天早上,我們說過: 共和黨有三個傳統團體, 有外交鷹派, 相信美國是全球警衛, 川普完全否認這觀點。 其次,有社會保守派, 相信宗教自由、 反墮胎、 允許校內禱告。 他完全忽視這點, 對於任何社會保守問題都隻字未提。 剩下就是財富鷹派, 那些想減少國債的人, 茶黨要求削減政府規模; 而川普在擴大政府規模! 就這麽個人,他隻手 革了美國主要政黨的命, 因為他比其他人更早知道 辯論的方向。 像史蒂芬·班農這樣的人參與進來, 給川普的口號提供實質行動支持。
CA: And so take that a bit further, and maybe expand a bit more on your insights into Steve Bannon's worldview. Because he's sometimes tarred in very simple terms as this dangerous, racist, xenophobic, anger-sparking person. There's more to the story; that is perhaps an unfair simplification.
CA:再往深處談一下, 也許可以拓展下你們的看法, 有關史蒂芬·班農的世界觀。 有時,他被極簡的方式標注為: 這個危險、種族主義者, 排外、怒火中燒的傢伙。 但故事沒那麽簡單; 這種簡化相當不公平。
DB: I think that part is true, but there's another part that's probably true, too. He's part of a global movement. It's like being around Marxists in 1917. There's him here, there's the UKIP party, there's the National Front in France, there's Putin, there's a Turkish version, a Philippine version. So we have to recognize that this is a global intellectual movement. And it believes that wisdom and virtue is not held in individual conversation and civility the way a lot of us in the enlightenment side of the world do. It's held in -- the German word is the "volk" -- in the people, in the common, instinctive wisdom of the plain people. And the essential virtue of that people is always being threatened by outsiders. And he's got a strategy for how to get there. He's got a series of policies to bring the people up and repudiate the outsiders, whether those outsiders are Islam, Mexicans, the media, the coastal elites... And there's a whole worldview there; it's a very coherent worldview. I sort of have more respect for him. I loathe what he stands for and I think he's wrong on the substance, but it's interesting to see someone with a set of ideas find a vehicle, Donald Trump, and then try to take control of the White House in order to advance his viewpoint.
DB:我覺得這部分是對的, 但另外部分也沒錯。 他是全球化運動的一部分, 就像 1917 年的馬克思主義運動一樣。 他所處的時代有英國獨立黨, 還有法國國民陣線, 有普京,有土耳其、菲律賓的版本。 所以我們得認識到 這是全球的知性運動。 人們認為, 有些人的言談舉止毫無德智可言, 與我們很多人所遵循的 世界啟蒙信條不同。 這些美德就在人民中, 德語中「Volk」是人民, 就藏在樸實平常的普通百姓 與生俱來的智慧裡, 而人們的重要美德 總受到外界的威脅。 而他知道如何達到目的, 他有一套政策引導人們, 而不去理會外界, 不管外界是伊斯蘭、墨西哥人、媒體, 還是東西海岸的精英們... 這裡有完整的世界觀; 一氣呵成的世界觀。 我多少有點尊敬他。 我厭惡他的主張, 認為他本質上不對, 不過看到川普這樣有想法的人 找到實現的途徑也很有意思, 他試圖控制白宮 以宣揚他的觀點。
CA: So it's almost become, like, that the core question of our time now is: Can you be patriotic but also have a global mindset? Are these two things implacably opposed to each other? I mean, a lot of conservatives and, to the extent that it's a different category, a lot of Trump supporters, are infuriated by the coastal elites and the globalists because they see them as, sort of, not cheering for America, not embracing fully American values. I mean, have you seen that in your conversations with people, in your understanding of their mindset?
CA:所以成為當下的核心問題是: 你能夠同時擁有全球化 和愛國的心嗎? 這兩件事水火不容嗎? 我是說,很多保守派, 在某種程度上屬於不同範疇, 還有很多川普的支持者, 被東西岸精英 和全球主義者給氣炸了。 因為認為他們不站在美國這一邊, 這些人完全不信奉美國價值觀。 你在與人交流時,是否遇到過, 能體會他們的心態?
GC: I do think that there's a huge difference between -- I hate to put people in categories, but, Middle America versus people who live on the coasts. It's an entirely different existence. And I grew up in Minnesota, so I have an understanding of Middle America, and I've never forgotten it. And maybe that's why I have an understanding of what happened here, because those people often feel like nobody's listening to them, and that we're only concentrating on California and New York. And so I think that was a huge reason why Trump was elected. I mean, these people felt like they were being heard. Whether or not patriotism falls into that, I'm not sure about that. I do know one thing: a lot of things Trump talked about last night are not conservative things. Had Hillary Clinton gotten up and given that speech, not one Republican would have stood up to applaud. I mean, he's talking about spending a trillion dollars on infrastructure. That is not a conservative viewpoint. He talked about government-mandated maternity leave. A lot of women may love that; it's not a conservative viewpoint. So it's fascinating that people who loved what his message was during the campaign, I'm not sure -- how do you think they'll react to that?
GC:我覺得是有很大的區別。 我討厭把人分類, 美國中部對照沿海人士。 這是一個完全不同的現狀。 而且我是在明尼蘇達長大, 所以我對中部很瞭解, 我也從來沒忘記過。 也許這也就是為什麼 我能體會到出了什麽問題。 因為這些人老覺得 沒人傾聽他們的聲音, 政府只專注於加州和紐約。 我想這也是川普能當選的很大原因。 我的意思是,這些人覺得 終於有人聽到他們的心聲。 愛國主義是否牽涉其中, 我不太清楚。 但我知道一點: 川普昨晚講了很多 不是保守黨的事情。 要是讓希拉蕊•克林頓來做這個演講, 不會有共和黨人起身鼓掌的。 他提到在基礎設施上要花上萬億, 那不是保守的觀點。 他談到法定產假, 超多女人會愛上這點; 這也不是保守觀點。 這很是讓有些人遐想, 那些競選期就喜歡他言論的人, 我不確定 ——你覺得 他們現在會如何反應?
DB: I should say I grew up in Lower Manhattan, in the triangle between ABC Carpets, the Strand Bookstore and The Odeon restaurant.
DB:我應該聲明 我在曼哈頓下城區長大, 在 ABC 地毯公司、Strand 書店, 和 Odeon 餐廳間的三角地帶。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
GC: Come to Minnesota sometime!
GC:有空來明尼蘇達州吧!
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
CA: You are a card-carrying member of the coastal elite, my man. But what did you make of the speech last night? It seemed to be a move to a more moderate position, on the face of it.
CA:夥計,你可是 沿海精英的正牌成員。 對他昨晚的演講,你如何評論呢? 從面上看起來 似乎是朝更溫和前進。
DB: Yeah, I thought it was his best speech, and it took away the freakishness of him. I do think he's a moral freak, and I think he'll be undone by that fact, the fact that he just doesn't know anything about anything and is uncurious about it.
DB:是的,我覺得 這是川普最好的演講, 打消了他怪伽的形象。 我認為他是個道德怪胎, 他也將會被以下事實所抵消: 其實他不是什麽都懂, 只是不關心而已。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
But if you take away these minor flaws, I think we got to see him at his best, and it was revealing for me to see him at his best, because to me, it exposed a central contradiction that he's got to confront, that a lot of what he's doing is offering security. So, "I'm ordering closed borders, I'm going to secure the world for you, for my people." But then if you actually look at a lot of his economic policies, like health care reform, which is about private health care accounts, that's not security, that's risk. Educational vouchers: that's risk. Deregulation: that's risk. There's really a contradiction between the security of the mindset and a lot of the policies, which are very risk-oriented. And what I would say, especially having spent this year, the people in rural Minnesota, in New Mexico -- they've got enough risk in their lives. And so they're going to say, "No thank you." And I think his health care repeal will fail for that reason.
但如果你拿掉這些小瑕疵, 我想我們會看到他最棒的一面, 這就讓我看到他是最好的, 因為對我來說,這暴露了 他必需面對重要矛盾, 他做的很多事情 就是提供安全保障。 於是說:「我命令封閉邊界, 我要保護你們,我的人民。」 但其實,當你看到 他的很多經濟政策, 例如個人醫保帳戶的健保改革, 那不是安全,是個風險。 教育憑證:是風險。 去除管制:是風險。 真是互相矛盾:心裡想著安全, 可還有那麽多高風險的政策。 而且就在今年,我會說, 明尼蘇達州、新墨西哥州的鄉親, 他們的生活壓力很大。 然後他們會說:「不用了,謝謝你。」 我認為他的健保廢除議案 會因此而失敗。
CA: But despite the criticisms you just made of him, it does at least seem that he's listening to a surprisingly wide range of voices; it's not like everyone is coming from the same place. And maybe that leads to a certain amount of chaos and confusion, but --
CA:儘管你剛才對他的批評, 但看起來他至少有在 廣納雅言; 好像是來自各方的雅言。 也許這會導致一定的混亂,但是——
GC: I actually don't think he's listening to a wide range of voices. I think he's listening to very few people. That's just my impression of it. I believe that some of the things he said last night had Ivanka all over them. So I believe he was listening to her before that speech. And he was Teleprompter Trump last night, as opposed to Twitter Trump. And that's why, before we came out here, I said, "We better check Twitter to see if anything's changed." And also I think you have to keep in mind that because he's such a unique character, what was the bar that we were expecting last night? Was it here or here or here? And so he comes out and gives a looking political speech, and everyone goes, "Wow! He can do it." It just depends on which direction he goes.
GC:其實我並不覺得他有多在聆聽。 我覺得他只聽少數幾個人的, 這是我的感覺。 我相信他昨晚說的一部分, 伊凡卡有全程參與。 所以我相信 他在演講前有聽她的話。 和隨隨便便發推文的他相比, 昨天晚上川普很義正言辭。 這就是在我們來此之前, 為什麼我會說: 「我們最好檢查推特一下, 看看有沒有變化。」 而且我想大家也得牢記, 他是這麽個有個性的人, 昨晚我們的期待有多高? 是這麼高?還是再高一點, 抑或低一點? 所以他來給個像模像樣的政治演講, 大家都說,「哇!他做得到。」 這取決於他想怎麼做。
DB: Yeah, and we're trying to build bridges here, and especially for an audience that may have contempt for Trump, it's important to say, no, this is a real thing. But as I try my best to go an hour showing respect for him, my thyroid is surging, because I think the oddities of his character really are condemnatory and are going to doom him.
DB:是的,我們在此試圖溝通彼此, 特別是對那些 看不起川普的觀眾來說, 說清楚這一點很重要。 雖然在這一個小時裡 我盡量去尊重他, 可我的喉嚨在發緊, 因為我認為他怪異的 性格應該受到譴責, 這個會搞死他。
CA: Your reputation is as a conservative. People would you describe you as right of center, and yet here you are with this visceral reaction against him and some of what he stands for. I mean, I'm -- how do you have a conversation? The people who support him, on evidence so far, are probably pretty excited. He's certainly shown real engagement in a lot of what he promised to do, and there is a strong desire to change the system radically. People hate what government has become and how it's left them out.
CA:你一直是保守人士。 人們認為你中間偏右, 而此刻的你是打內心裡 反對他和他所持的某些立場。 我想說那你如何交流? 現有的徵兆表明, 支持他的人可能很興奮。 川普他實實在在地參與到 很多他之前的允諾中, 並且帶有極強烈的願望來徹底變革。 人們討厭現有政府, 還有對他們的置之不理。
GC: I totally agree with that, but I think that when he was proposing a huge government program last night that we used to call the bad s-word, "stimulus," I find it completely ironic. To spend a trillion dollars on something -- that is not a conservative viewpoint. Then again, I don't really believe he's a Republican.
GC:我完全同意這一點, 但我認為昨晚他提出的 龐大政府計劃極具諷刺性, 我們以前常「刺激」來貶稱它, 花一萬億美元的事情, 可不是保守派的觀點。 再者,我真覺得他不是共和黨人。
DB: And I would say, as someone who identifies as conservative: first of all, to be conservative is to believe in the limitations of politics. Samuel Johnson said, "Of all the things that human hearts endure, how few are those that kings can cause and cure." Politics is a limited realm; what matters most is the moral nature of the society. And so I have to think character comes first, and a man who doesn't pass the character threshold cannot be a good president. Second, I'm the kind of conservative who -- I harken back to Alexander Hamilton, who was a Latino hip-hop star from the heights --
DB:作為大家眼中的保守派: 我要說的是,首先, 保守派相信政治有局限性。 塞缪尔·詹森說:「凡人心所載, 君王定奪有幾何。」 政治是有限的國度; 最重要的是社會的道德本質。 所以我必須先考慮人性, 一個人格底線不及格的人 不會是個好的總統。 第二,我是那種保守的人, 讓我回想起亞歷山大·漢密爾頓, 同名音樂劇中,由《高地人生》創作者 一位拉丁裔嘻哈明星扮演了他——
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
but his definition of America was very future-oriented. He was a poor boy from the islands who had this rapid and amazing rise to success, and he wanted government to give poor boys and girls like him a chance to succeed, using limited but energetic government to create social mobility. For him and for Lincoln and for Teddy Roosevelt, the idea of America was the idea of the future. We may have division and racism and slavery in our past, but we have a common future. The definition of America that Steve Bannon stands for is backwards-looking. It's nostalgic; it's for the past. And that is not traditionally the American identity. That's traditionally, frankly, the Russian identity. That's how they define virtue. And so I think it is a fundamental and foundational betrayal of what conservatism used to stand for.
但他對美國的定義 是非常面向未來的。 他一個小島來的窮小子, 如此快速而驚人地變身成功人士, 他希望政府能給像他 一樣貧窮的男孩和女孩 成功的機會, 透過捉襟見肘但幹勁十足的 政府創造社會流動性。 對他、對林肯和泰迪•羅斯福來說, 理想中的美國關乎未來。 也許過去我們有分裂、 種族主義和奴隸制, 但我們有共同的未來。 史蒂芬·班農主張的 美國定義是倒退的, 是懷舊的;是過去式的。 而這並不是傳統上的美國身份。 傳統意義上,坦白講, 這是俄羅斯的身份。 這就是他們如何界定美德。 所以我認為這是一個 對保守主義立場 徹頭徹尾的背叛。
CA: Well, I'd like actually like to hear from you, and if we see some comments coming in from some of you, we'll -- oh, well here's one right now. Jeffrey Alan Carnegie: I've tried to convince progressive friends that they need to understand what motivates Trump supporters, yet many of them have given up trying to understand in the face of what they perceive as lies, selfishness and hatred. How would you reach out to such people, the Tea Party of the left, to try to bridge this divide?
CA:嗯,我真的很高興聽你的發言, 如果我們讓觀眾當中 有人發表些見解,那我們—— 剛剛好有一個。 傑弗里·艾倫·卡內基(聽眾): 我試圖說服開明的朋友, 他們需要瞭解川普 支持者的動機是什麼, 但面對他們認為的謊言、 自私和仇恨, 他們中很多人已經 放棄嘗試去理解。 你怎麽跟左派茶黨這些人打交道, 去試圖彌合鴻溝?
GC: I actually think there are commonalities in anger, as I expressed earlier. So I think you can come to the table, both being passionate about something. So at least you care. And I would like to believe -- the c-word has also become a horrible word -- "compromise," right? So you have the far left and the far right, and compromise -- forget it. Those groups don't want to even think about it. But you have a huge swath of voters, myself included, who are registered independents, like 40 percent of us, right? So there is a huge faction of America that wants to see change and wants to see people come together. It's just that we have to figure out how to do that.
GC:我其實覺得有憤怒的共性。 正如我早前講過的。 所以我覺得把大家都很在乎的 事情都攤到檯面上來, 説明至少你在乎。 我願意相信「妥協」, C 代表很糟糕的詞 「妥協」,對吧? 所以我們有最左的和最右的, 妥協 ——免談。 那些團體想都不會去想的。 但一大堆選民,包括我在內, 作為登記在冊的獨立人士, 可能有40%,對吧? 所以在美國有很大 一部分人希望看到變革, 希望看到人們團結在一起。 這就是我們得弄清楚 如何做到這點。
CA: So let's talk about that for a minute, because we're having these TED Dialogues, we're trying to bridge. There's a lot of people out there, right now, perhaps especially on the left, who think this is a terrible idea, that actually, the only moral response to the great tyranny that may be about to emerge in America is to resist it at every stage, is to fight it tooth and nail, it's a mistake to try and do this. Just fight! Is there a case for that?
CA:所以讓我們再多談一下, 因為我們在做的 TED 對話 就是想試圖溝通你我。 現在有很多人,特別是左派的, 他們認為這是個糟糕的想法, 但事實上,對大獨裁 唯一道義上的反應 在美國會即將發生: 就是每個階段都抵制, 拼了命地反抗, 試圖溝通彼此是個錯誤。 就應該鬥爭! 有必要這樣嗎?
DB: It depends what "fight" means. If it means literal fighting, then no. If it means marching, well maybe marching to raise consciousness, that seems fine. But if you want change in this country, we do it through parties and politics. We organize parties, and those parties are big, diverse, messy coalitions, and we engage in politics, and politics is always morally unsatisfying because it's always a bunch of compromises. But politics is essentially a competition between partial truths. The Trump people have a piece of the truth in America. I think Trump himself is the wrong answer to the right question, but they have some truth, and it's truth found in the epidemic of opiates around the country, it's truth found in the spread of loneliness, it's the truth found in people whose lives are inverted. They peaked professionally at age 30, and it's all been downhill since. And so, understanding that doesn't take fighting, it takes conversation and then asking, "What are we going to replace Trump with?"
DB:這要看「鬥爭」的意思。 如果僅字面上來説,那沒有。 那如果意味著遊行, 那也許會提高點意識, 也還不錯。 但如果想改變這個國家, 是透過政黨和政治來實現的。 我們成立政黨,這些龐大、 多元而凌亂的同盟, 我們參與政治, 政治道德上從來就不令人滿意, 因為它總是一堆妥協。 但政治本質上是部分真理間的競爭。 支持川普的人對美國現狀的理解 有一部分是真實的, 我覺得川普本人 是正確問題的錯誤答案, 但他們有些道理, 在全國上下集體麻痹中得到真相, 在孤單寂寞的迷霧中發現真相, 在生活打敗的人身上發現真相。 30 歲時,他們在專業上達到頂峰, 然後就一直走下坡路。 所以,理解這一點根本不需要鬥爭, 需要對話,然後問問自己: 「我們拿什麽來替換川普?」
GC: But you saw fighting last night, even at the speech, because you saw the Democratic women who came and wore white to honor the suffragette movement. I remember back during the campaign where some Trump supporters wanted to actually get rid of the amendment that allowed us to vote as women. It was like, what? So I don't know if that's the right way to fight. It was interesting, because I was looking in the audience, trying to see Democratic women who didn't wear white. So there's a lot going on there, and there's a lot of ways to fight that are not necessarily doing that.
GC:但就在昨晚的 演講中也看到了抵抗, 有看到民主黨女性身著白衫, 以紀念婦女參政運動。 我記得競選那會兒, 一些川普的支持者想真正廢除 允許女性投票的修正案。 這算什麼? 所以我不覺得這是正確的對抗。 這很有趣,當時我正在觀眾席, 想看看有沒有 沒穿白衫的民主黨女士。 所以很多事情在發生, 而且還有很多對抗的方式, 但不一定非得這樣。
CA: I mean, one of the key questions, to me, is: The people who voted for Trump but, if you like, are more in the center, like they're possibly amenable to persuasion -- are they more likely to be persuaded by seeing a passionate uprising of people saying, "No, no, no, you can't!" or will that actually piss them off and push them away?
CA:一個對我來說的關鍵問題是: 投票選川普的人 更多位於政治光譜的中段, 好像他們更容易被說服—— 看到群情奮起的人高喊: 「不要,不要,就不要,你不行!」 他們更易被說服, 或者真的會惹毛他們或置之不理?
DB: How are any of us persuaded? Am I going to persuade you by saying, "Well, you're kind of a bigot, you're supporting bigotry, you're supporting sexism. You're a primitive, fascistic rise from some authoritarian past"? That's probably not going to be too persuasive to you. And so the way any of us are persuaded is by: a) some basic show of respect for the point of view, and saying, "I think this guy is not going to get you where you need to go." And there are two phrases you've heard over and over again, wherever you go in the country. One, the phrase "flyover country." And that's been heard for years, but I would say this year, I heard it almost on an hourly basis, a sense of feeling invisible. And then the sense a sense of the phrase "political correctness." Just that rebellion: "They're not even letting us say what we think." And I teach at Yale. The narrowing of debate is real.
DB:要怎麽說服我們呢? 要說服你,我會說:「你個老頑固, 你支持偏執,你支持性別歧視, 你個蒙昧落後的、 舊專制黨派崛起的法西斯」? 但這可能對你不太有說服力。 於是大家是這樣被說服的: 先對觀點以示必要的尊重,並說: 「我認為這傢伙 不會讓你達成願望的。」 還有耳朵聽到起繭的兩個詞, 在美國處處聽得到, 一,架空的國家。 這個講了很多年了, 但我會說:今年我每小時都聽得到, 無孔不入的感覺。 二,「政治正確」這詞的體會。 就那種逆反的心理: 「都不讓我們說我們想說的。」 我在耶魯大學教書, 爭論點的縮窄是真實的。
CA: So you would say this is a trap that liberals have fallen into by celebrating causes they really believe in, often expressed through the language of "political correctness." They have done damage. They have pushed people away.
CA:所以你會說自由主義者 自己掉進了坑裡, 透過表彰他們真正的信念, 老是以「政治正確」來說事。 他們已經搞砸了,把人推開了。
DB: I would say a lot of the argument, though, with "descent to fascism," "authoritarianism" -- that just feels over-the-top to people. And listen, I've written eight million anti-Trump columns, but it is a problem, especially for the coastal media, that every time he does something slightly wrong, we go to 11, and we're at 11 every day. And it just strains credibility at some point.
DB:雖然說很多爭論, 比如「骨子裡的法西斯主義」、 「集權主義」, 對人們來說有點太過了, 聽我說,我的專欄 寫過八百萬篇的反川普文章, 但這也是個問題, 特別是對於沿海媒體來說, 每當他只是犯點小錯誤, 我們都要小題大做, 我們每天都在無限上綱。 而且某種程度上是可信度的問題。
CA: Crying wolf a little too loud and a little too early. But there may be a time when we really do have to cry wolf.
CA:喊狼來了有點講過頭, 也喊得太早了。 可能我們還真有狼來了的時候。
GC: But see -- one of the most important things to me is how the conservative media handles Trump. Will they call him out when things are not true, or will they just go along with it? To me, that is what is essential in this entire discussion, because when you have followers of somebody who don't really care if he tells the truth or not, that can be very dangerous. So to me, it's: How is the conservative media going to respond to it? I mean, you've been calling them out. But how will other forms of conservative media deal with that as we move forward?
GC:但還是有看到, 對我來說有件重要的事情: 是傳統媒體如何應對川普。 一旦事情不對,他們就點川普的名? 還是由他去吧? 對我來說這是 整個討論的重中之重, 因為當有跟屁蟲, 都不關心主子是否說實話, 這可相當危險。 所以對我來說就是: 保守媒體怎麼回應? 我的意思是你一個勁地點他的名。 但是,其他保守媒體怎麼辦呢? 當我們都向前看了。
DB: It's all shifted, though. The conservative media used to be Fox or Charles Krauthammer or George Will. They're no longer the conservative media. Now there's another whole set of institutions further right, which is Breitbart and Infowars, Alex Jones, Laura Ingraham, and so they're the ones who are now his base, not even so much Fox.
DB:一切都變了。 之前保守媒體要麽是福斯, 要麽是查爾斯·柯翰默或喬治·威爾, 現在他們不再是保守媒體了。 現在還有一大波更右傾的機構, 比如説 Breitbart、Infowars、 Alex Jones、Laura Ingraham, 他們現在是他的媒體大本營, 而沒有福斯多少事了。
CA: My last question for the time being is just on this question of the truth. I mean, it's one of the scariest things to people right now, that there is no agreement, nationally, on what is true. I've never seen anything like it, where facts are so massively disputed. Your whole newspaper, sir, is delivering fake news every day.
CA:現在我最後的問題是 真相的問題。 我是想說這是當下人們 面臨最可怕的事情之一, 全國範圍內對真相 是什麼尚未達成共識。 從來沒有看見過像這樣的現象, 事實表明爭議如此巨大。 先生,你整個報紙 每天都在提供假消息。
DB: And failing.
DB:還有失敗。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
CA: And failing. My commiserations. But is there any path whereby we can start to get some kind of consensus, to believe the same things? Can online communities play a role here? How do we fix this?
CA:失敗,深表同情。 那有沒有通道 可以著手得到某種共識, 好相信同樣的事情? 線上論壇可以發揮點作用嗎? 我們如何解決這個問題?
GC: See, I understand how that happened. That's another groundswell kind of emotion that was going on in the middle of America and not being heard, in thinking that the mainstream media was biased. There's a difference, though, between being biased and being fake. To me, that is a very important distinction in this conversation. So let's just say that there was some bias in the mainstream media. OK. So there are ways to try and mend that. But what Trump's doing is nuclearizing that and saying, "Look, we're just going to call all of that fake." That's where it gets dangerous.
GC:我明白怎麼回事。 另一種群情激昂, 正在美國中部地區上演, 無人理會。 他們認為主流媒體有偏見; 當然偏見和虛假之間是有區別的。 對我來說,這是此次對話中 非常重要的區別。 我們姑且認為主流媒體是有偏見的。 所以還是有辦法去修補的。 但川普所作所為讓事態更加惡化, 說道:「我們認為媒體上都是假消息。」 這才是要命的事。
CA: Do you think enough of his supporters have a greater loyalty to the truth than to any ... Like, the principle of not supporting something that is demonstrably not true actually matters, so there will be a correction at some point?
CA:你認為他的支持者們 對真相忠貞不二,還是...... 比如原則上不去支持那些 顯然錯得離譜的東西更為重要, 因此,到頭來是會修正的?
DB: I think the truth eventually comes out. So for example, Donald Trump has based a lot of his economic policy on this supposition that Americans have lost manufacturing jobs because they've been stolen by the Chinese. That is maybe 13 percent of the jobs that left. The truth is that 87 percent of the jobs were replaced by technology. That is just the truth. And so as a result, when he says, "I'm going to close TPP and all the jobs will come roaring back," they will not come roaring back. So that is an actual fact, in my belief. And --
DB:我想真相終會來臨的。 比方説,唐納•川普的 很多經濟政策基於 假設美國人失去製造業的工作 是因為被中國人偷走了; 也許 13% 的工作是如此。 事實上 87% 的工作 是被技術所取代的, 這才是真相。 結果當他說: 「我要關掉 TPP, 讓工作都呼啦啦地回來」, 工作是不太可能呼啦啦地就回來的。 所以,這是我認為的真正事實。 還有——
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
GC: But I'm saying what his supporters think is the truth, no matter how many times you might say that, they still believe him.
GC:但我想說的是, 他的支持者卻認為是真的, 不管你講多少次, 他們仍然相信他。
DB: But eventually either jobs will come back or they will not come back, and at that point, either something will work or it doesn't work, and it doesn't work or not work because of great marketing, it works because it actually addresses a real problem and so I happen to think the truth will out.
DB:但最終工作 會不會回歸是個問題, 到時候,要麽有效,要麽不起作用, 不會因為大力行銷而行或不行; 得要真正對症下藥才行, 所以我認為真相總會大白的。
CA: If you've got a question, please raise your hand here.
CA:有什麽問題想問的,請舉手!
Yael Eisenstat: I'll speak into the box. My name's Yael Eisenstat. I hear a lot of this talk about how we all need to start talking to each other more and understanding each other more, and I've even written about this, published on this subject as well, but now today I keep hearing liberals -- yes, I live in New York, I can be considered a liberal -- we sit here and self-analyze: What did we do to not understand the Rust Belt? Or: What can we do to understand Middle America better? And what I'd like to know: Have you seen any attempts or conversations from Middle America of what can I do to understand the so-called coastal elites better? Because I'm just offended as being put in a box as a coastal elite as someone in Middle America is as being considered a flyover state and not listened to.
伊爾·艾森斯塔特: 我對著 TED 錄音盒說話。 我叫伊爾·艾森斯塔特。 我聽到很多這樣的談話, 關於我們都如何更加參與對話, 彼此瞭解, 我寫過甚至還發表過 這個問題的文章, 但現今,我還是 聽到自由主義者說—— 我住在紐約,算是自由主義者—— 我們坐在這裡自省: 我們想瞭解銹帶(美國中部 及五大湖區),卻什麼都不做? 或者:我們能做些什麼 來更好地瞭解美國中部? 我想知道的是: 你有看到美國中部的 任何嘗試來對話, 要試圖瞭解所謂的沿海精英, 又要做些什麽? 我對自己被歸類到 沿海精英的小圈子裡,很不爽; 可身為美國中部的人覺得被架空, 又沒人理會。
CA: There you go, I can hear Facebook cheering as you --
CA:你說到點子上了, Facebook 在為你叫好。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
DB: I would say -- and this is someone who has been conservative all my adult life -- when you grow up conservative, you learn to speak both languages. Because if I'm going to listen to music, I'm not going to listen to Ted Nugent. So a lot of my favorite rock bands are all on the left. If I'm going to go to a school, I'm going probably to school where the culture is liberal. If I'm going to watch a sitcom or a late-night comedy show, it's going to be liberal. If I'm going to read a good newspaper, it'll be the New York Times. As a result, you learn to speak both languages. And that actually, at least for a number of years, when I started at National Review with William F. Buckley, it made us sharper, because we were used to arguing against people every day. The problem now that's happened is you have ghettoization on the right and you can live entirely in rightworld, so as a result, the quality of argument on the right has diminished, because you're not in the other side all the time. But I do think if you're living in Minnesota or Iowa or Arizona, the coastal elites make themselves aware to you, so you know that language as well, but it's not the reverse.
DB:我會說—— 作為一名保守的成年人—— 當你中規中矩地長大成人, 你學會說兩種話。 假定我想聽音樂, 我不會去聽泰德·紐根特 (主打搖滾、金屬樂)。 而我最愛的搖滾樂隊都是左派。 那如果要上學, 我可能會去學風自由左傾的學校。 如果我觀看情景劇, 或是午夜夜場秀, 會選自由輕鬆的。 我要是讀一份靠譜的報紙, 那將是《紐約時報》。 因此,你(左右)兩種話都會。 實際上,起碼持續了有些年, 當我和小威廉·F·巴克利 開播《國家評論》時, 那使得我們言語更鋒利, 因為我們習慣於天天與人爭論。 現在的問題是, 如果你自我設限為右派, 你可以完全活在右派世界裡, 於是,右派觀點爭論價值就會下降, 因為你一直以來 沒在對方的陣營裡。 但我確實覺得,如果你住在 明尼蘇達、愛荷華或亞利桑那, 沿海精英會讓你意識到他們的存在, 所以你也懂這種語言, 但反過來並非如此。
CA: But what does Middle America not get about coastal elites? So the critique is, you are not dealing with the real problems. There's a feeling of a snobbishness, an elitism that is very off-putting. What are they missing? If you could plant one piece of truth from the mindset of someone in this room, for example, what would you say to them?
CA:那麼,美國中部的人 沒能從沿海精英獲得什麽? 批評會說, 你沒有抓住真正問題。 讓人感覺很勢利, 精英主義讓人不爽。 他們漏掉了什麼? 如果能種下一條真理, 比方説種在現場觀眾的心田上, 那你會對他們說什麼呢?
DB: Just how insanely wonderful we are.
DB:我們都太棒了。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
No, I reject the category. The problem with populism is the same problem with elitism. It's just a prejudice on the basis of probably an over-generalized social class distinction which is too simplistic to apply in reality. Those of us in New York know there are some people in New York who are completely awesome, and some people who are pathetic, and if you live in Iowa, some people are awesome and some people are pathetic. It's not a question of what degree you have or where you happen to live in the country. The distinction is just a crude simplification to arouse political power.
不對,我拒絕分類。 民粹主義和精英主義 是同樣的問題。 這就是個偏見, 對過分廣義的社會階級, 簡單粗俗,脫離現實。 我們紐約人都知道紐約的有些人 是非常了不起的; 可也有人是可悲的, 同樣你若住在愛荷華, 有些人很棒,有些人很糟。 這不是你有什麽學歷的問題, 或者你住在哪裡, 區別在於為政治權力 而簡單粗暴地簡化。
GC: But I would encourage people to watch a television news show or read a column that they normally wouldn't. So if you are a Trump supporter, watch the other side for a day, because you need to come out of the bubble if you're ever going to have a conversation. And both sides -- so if you're a liberal, then watch something that's very conservative. Read a column that is not something you would normally read, because then you gain perspective of what the other side is thinking, and to me, that's a start of coming together. I worry about the same thing you worry about, these bubbles. I think if you only watch certain entities, you have no idea what the rest of the world is talking about.
GC:但我會鼓勵人們 去看電視新聞談話節目, 或去讀下他們通常不會看的專欄。 所以如果是川普的支持者, 某天去看看其他陣營的, 如果要想和對方對話, 你得走出你的小圈圈。 另一方亦如此—— 如果你是個自由主義者, 那麼看些非常保守的東西, 讀些通常不碰的專欄, 這樣就可以搞明白保守派 想的事情是怎麽一回事, 對我而言,這只是走到一起的開始。 我們都擔心同樣的事情,小圈子。 我想如果只看個別事例, 你根本不知道世界上 其他地方在說什麼。
DB: I think not only watching, being part of an organization that meets at least once a month that puts you in direct contact with people completely unlike yourself is something we all have a responsibility for. I may get this a little wrong, but I think of the top-selling automotive models in this country, I think the top three or four are all pickup trucks. So ask yourself: How many people do I know who own a pickup truck? And it could be very few or zero for a lot of people. And that's sort of a warning sign kind of a problem. Where can I join a club where I'll have a lot in common with a person who drives a pickup truck because we have a common interest in whatever?
DB:我想不僅僅是觀察, 作為社團成員至少 每月去碰個頭,見個面, 讓你有機會直面 與你完全不同的人, 我們都有責任這麽做。 這麽說可能會不一定對, 但這讓我想到美國最暢銷的車型, 前三、四名都是小貨卡。 所以捫心自問: 我認識的人中誰有輛小貨卡? 對很多人來說, 可能少的可憐或沒有。 這就是問題的一種警示。 何處我可以加入一個俱樂部, 在那裡我會跟某位開小貨卡的人 有很多共同之處, 因為我們有某些同好之類的。
CA: And so the internet is definitely contributing to this. A question here from Chris Ajemian: "How do you feel structure of communications, especially the prevalence of social media and individualized content, can be used to bring together a political divide, instead of just filing communities into echo chambers?" I mean, it looks like Facebook and Google, since the election, are working hard on this question. They're trying to change the algorithms so that they don't amplify fake news to the extent that it happened last time round. Do you see any other promising signs of ...?
CA:當然互聯網絕對 可以解決這個問題。 下面是克里斯·阿傑米揚的問題: 「你如何看待溝通的架構, 特別是社交媒體 和個性化內容的普及, 除了讓大家到社區填表格登記外, 能否用來連接政治鴻溝?」 我的意思是, 自從選舉以來,Facebook 和 Google 都在努力解決這個問題。 他們試圖修改演算法, 以防假消息被放大; 不像上一輪大選發生的那樣。 你有看到任何其他光明的跡象嗎?
GC: ... or amplify one side of the equation.
GC:或者放大等式的某一邊。
CA: Exactly.
CA:太對了。
GC: I think that was the constant argument from the right, that social media and the internet in general was putting articles towards the top that were not their worldview. I think, again, that fed into the anger. It fed into the anger of: "You're pushing something that's not what I believe." But social media has obviously changed everything, and I think Trump is the example of Twitter changing absolutely everything. And from his point of view, he's reaching the American people without a filter, which he believes the media is.
GC:這就是右派吵個不停的爭論, 大體上講,社交媒體和互聯網 把不是他們世界觀的文章置頂。 我想,這就是火上澆油。 結果導致很生氣: 「你在宣揚那些 我都不相信的東西。」 社交媒體顯然已經改變了這一切, 川普的推特就是個 改變局勢很好的例子。 而從他的角度來看, 他未經修飾直面美國民眾, 而他認為媒體是篩選過的。
CA: Question from the audience.
CA:觀眾提問,
Destiny: Hi. I'm Destiny. I have a question regarding political correctness, and I'm curious: When did political correctness become synonymous with silencing, versus a way that we speak about other people to show them respect and preserve their dignity?
戴斯特尼:嗨!我是戴斯特尼。 我有個政治正確的問題,我很好奇: 政治正確何時成了沈默的代名詞, 而不是當我們論及別人時, 很客氣也很尊重對方?
GC: Well, I think the conservative media really pounded this issue for the last 10 years. I think that they really, really spent a lot of time talking about political correctness, and how people should have the ability to say what they think. Another reason why Trump became so popular: because he says what he thinks. It also makes me think about the fact that I do believe there are a lot of people in America who agree with Steve Bannon, but they would never say it publicly, and so voting for Trump gave them the opportunity to agree with it silently.
GC:我認為保守媒體 有點講爛了這個問題, 在過去十年裡。 他們的確花很多時間 在談論政治正確性, 還有人們應該如何 去表達自己的想法。 川普另一個變得如此受歡迎的原因: 是因為他想啥就說啥。 這也讓我想起了些事, 我相信有很多美國人 認同史蒂芬·班農, 但他們從來不會公開說, 所以投票選川普給了他們一次機會 來無聲地支持。
DB: On the issue of immigration, it's a legitimate point of view that we have too many immigrants in the country, that it's economically costly.
DB:關於移民問題, 這個正當的觀點是 我們國家有太多移民, 那可是相當燒錢。
CA: That we have too many --
CA:我們有太多...
DB: Immigrants in the country, especially from Britain.
DB:國內的移民, 尤其是來自英格蘭。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
GC: I kind of like the British accent, OK?
GC:我還有點喜歡 英國口音呢,好不好?
CA: I apologize. America, I am sorry.
CA:我很抱歉。對不起,美國。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
I'll go now.
我立馬就走。
DB: But it became sort of impermissible to say that, because it was a sign that somehow you must be a bigot of some sort. So the political correctness was not only cracking down on speech that we would all find completely offensive, it was cracking down on some speech that was legitimate, and then it was turning speech and thought into action and treating it as a crime, and people getting fired and people thrown out of schools, and there were speech codes written. Now there are these diversity teams, where if you say something that somebody finds offensive, like, "Smoking is really dangerous," you can say "You're insulting my group," and the team from the administration will come down into your dorm room and put thought police upon you. And so there has been a genuine narrowing of what is permissible to say. And some of it is legitimate. There are certain words that there should be some social sanction against, but some of it was used to enforce a political agenda.
DB:但是,這成了個談話的禁忌, 因為某種程度上 説明你有點頑固不化。 所以政治正確不只打擊言論, 我們都覺得那樣太無禮, 它在打擊一些合法的言論, 然後,它把言論和想法變成行動, 視其為犯罪, 人們被解僱、被攆出學校, 這裡有書面的言論守則。 現在這些五花八門的團隊, 說什麽總會有人覺得被冒犯, 就像「吸煙真的很危險」, 你可以說「你在詆毀我們組」, 宿管員會敲開你的房門, 充當國安給你做思想工作。 所以能說得話真是少到可憐。 有些還是合法的呢。 有些話本應該受到社會制裁, 結果有些話反被政治圖謀所鞏固。
CA: So is that a project you would urge on liberals, if you like -- progressives -- to rethink the ground rules around political correctness and accept a little more uncomfortable language in certain circumstances? Can you see that being solved to an extent that others won't be so offended?
CA:是否有那麼個項目, 你會敦促自由派或進步派, 就政治正確的基本規則去重新思考, 在特定環境下, 去接受那麽些有點不太舒服的話嗎? 你看到這有用嗎, 某種程度上別人不會那麽生氣?
DB: I mean, most American universities, especially elite universities, are overwhelmingly on the left, and there's just an ease of temptation to use your overwhelming cultural power to try to enforce some sort of thought that you think is right and correct thought. So, be a little more self-suspicious of, are we doing that? And second, my university, the University of Chicago, sent out this letter saying, we will have no safe spaces. There will be no critique of micro-aggression. If you get your feelings hurt, well, welcome to the world of education. I do think that policy -- which is being embraced by a lot of people on the left, by the way -- is just a corrective to what's happened.
DB:我想說大多數美國大學, 特別是精英大學, 絕大部分是左派, 就那麽潛移默化地, 試圖用壓倒性的文化鞏固一些思想, 那些你認為正確的思想。 最好能來點自我懷疑, 我們是在這麽做嗎? 再者,我的母校芝加哥大學 發佈了一封信說, 我們將無安全之處, 將不會有對微侵犯的批評。 如果你覺得很受傷, 那很歡迎來到教育界。 我確實認為政策是 對時下發生事情的糾正—— 順帶提一下, 有很多左派人士同意這一點。
CA: So here's a question from Karen Holloway: How do we foster an American culture that's forward-looking, like Hamilton, that expects and deals with change, rather than wanting to have everything go back to some fictional past? That's an easy question, right?
CA:下面是凱倫·霍洛威的提問: 我們該如何培育美國文化? 像漢密爾頓一樣前瞻、 滿懷期待並擁抱變革, 而不是幻想讓一切 都倒退到虛構的舊社會? 這問題不難,是吧?
GC: Well, I'm still a believer in the American dream, and I think what we can teach our children is the basics, which is that hard work and believing in yourself in America, you can achieve whatever you want. I was told that every single day. When I got in the real world, I was like, wow, that's maybe not always so true. But I still believe in that. Maybe I'm being too optimistic. So I still look towards the future for that to continue.
GC:嗯,我依然相信美國夢, 我想我們能教孩子們 根本的東西, 就是辛勤工作, 充滿自信, 在美國,只要你肯做, 就能實現夢想。 我就是這麽被教導長大的。 當我步入社會,我心說: 喔,原來也不完全是真的。 但我還仍然相信, 可能我太樂觀了。 我仍然期待未來 大家依然相信美國夢。
DB: I think you're being too optimistic.
DB:我覺得你太樂觀了。
GC: You do?
GC:你真這麽想?
DB: The odds of an American young person exceeding their parents' salary -- a generation ago, like 86 percent did it. Now 51 percent do it. There's just been a problem in social mobility in the country.
DB:目前美國年輕人的薪水 超過其父母的比例—— 30 年前大約有 86%, 現在是 51%。 這只是國內社會流動性的問題。
CA: You've written that this entire century has basically been a disaster, that the age of sunny growth is over and we're in deep trouble.
CA:你寫過整個世紀 基本上是場災難, 見風就長的年代已成過去, 現在我們深陷困境。
DB: Yeah, I mean, we averaged, in real terms, population-adjusted, two or three percent growth for 50 years, and now we've had less than one percent growth. And so there's something seeping out. And so if I'm going to tell people that they should take risks, one of the things we're seeing is a rapid decline in mobility, the number of people who are moving across state lines, and that's especially true among millennials. It's young people that are moving less. So how do we give people the security from which they can take risk? And I'm a big believer in attachment theory of raising children, and attachment theory is based on the motto that all of life is a series of daring adventures from a secure base. Have you parents given you a secure base? And as a society, we do not have a secure base, and we won't get to that "Hamilton," risk-taking, energetic ethos until we can supply a secure base.
DB:是的,實際上 我們調整後的平均人口, 50 年來有 2-3% 增長, 現在增長不到 1%, 這說明一些問題。 所以,如果我告訴大家 他們該冒點風險, 我們面臨的問題之一 就是流動性急劇下降, 跨州界的人數在下降, 在千禧一代上尤為如此, 年輕人動的越來愈少。 那如何給人們提供安全保障, 以便他們能承擔風險呢? 而且,我是天道人倫的忠實粉絲, 天道人倫來自格言: 即生活的本質是 基於安全的大膽冒險。 父母有給你安定的後盾嗎? 作為社會,我們沒有安定的基礎, 我們不會幹勁十足地 去冒「漢密爾頓式」的險, 直到我們能夠提供安全的基礎。
CA: So I wonder whether there's ground here to create almost like a shared agenda, a bridging conversation, on the one hand recognizing that there is this really deep problem that the system, the economic system that we built, seems to be misfiring right now. Second, that maybe, if you're right that it's not all about immigrants, it's probably more about technology, if you could win that argument, that de-emphasizes what seems to me the single most divisive territory between Trump supporters and others, which is around the role of the other. It's very offensive to people on the left to have the other demonized to the extent that the other seems to be demonized. That feels deeply immoral, and maybe people on the left could agree, as you said, that immigration may have happened too fast, and there is a limit beyond which human societies struggle, but nonetheless this whole problem becomes de-emphasized if automation is the key issue, and then we try to work together on recognizing that it's real, recognizing that the problem probably wasn't properly addressed or seen or heard, and try to figure out how to rebuild communities using, well, using what? That seems to me to become the fertile conversation of the future: How do we rebuild communities in this modern age, with technology doing what it's doing, and reimagine this bright future?
CA:所以我不知道是否有根據 創建出像共同的議程、 溝通的對話機制, 一方面,要認識到 這個深層次的問題, 我們現有的經濟體制 當下似乎失敗了。 再者,你有可能是對的, 這不全關乎移民, 可能更多的是技術, 如果能講通這觀點, 依我看,川普支持者和其他人之間 最最爭議的領域將不再顯著, 這一切都是圍繞對方的。 左派的人很反感被對方妖化, 妖化程度說明對方已妖魔化。 這感覺很不道德, 如你所說,左派的可能會同意 移民可能來得太快了, 超越人類社會掙扎的限度, 然而,假定自動化是關鍵問題, 移民問題變得不那麽重要了, 然後我們通力合作達成共識, 意識到問題可能沒有妥善處理好, 或沒有被發現或聽到, 然後試圖為重建社區找出路, 那要用什麼呢? 對我來説,這似乎 成為很多未來的話題: 隨著技術的推進, 現代社會我們如何重建社區, 重塑這遠大前程?
GC: That's why I go back to optimism. I'm not being ... it's not like I'm not looking at the facts, where we've come or where we've come from. But for gosh sakes, if we don't look at it from an optimistic point of view -- I'm refusing to do that just yet. I'm not raising my 12- and 13-year-old to say, "Look, the world is dim."
GC:這就是我回歸樂觀的原因。 我不是...這不是說我沒看事實, 我們從何處來,又要到哪裡去。 可是天哪,如果我們不樂觀的話, 我現在就不打算這樣做。 我不會告訴我 12 歲和 13 歲的 孩子:「看,世界很悲觀。」
CA; We're going to have one more question from the room here.
CA:現場我們再來一個問題。
Questioner: Hi. Hello. Sorry. You both mentioned the infrastructure plan and Russia and some other things that wouldn't be traditional Republican priorities. What do you think, or when, will Republicans be motivated to take a stand against Trumpism?
提問者:嗨,你好!不好意思, 你倆都提到了 基礎設施計劃和俄羅斯, 還有些不是老牌共和黨 優先考慮的事情。 你們認為:共和黨人會如何 或何時會積極行動 去表明反川普主義立場?
GC: After last night, not for a while. He changed a lot last night, I believe.
GC:昨晚之後,不會很快。 我想他昨晚變了很多。
DB: His popularity among Republicans -- he's got 85 percent approval, which is higher than Reagan had at this time, and that's because society has just gotten more polarized. So people follow the party much more than they used to. So if you're waiting for Paul Ryan and the Republicans in Congress to flake away, it's going to take a little while.
DB:他在共和黨人中的 受歡迎度有 85%, 這比雷根當年還高, 這是因為社會已經變得更加兩極化。 人們比以往更加跟隨黨派。 所以,如果你在等保羅·萊恩 和國會的共和黨人離開, 這是得花點時間。
GC: But also because they're all concerned about reelection, and Trump has so much power with getting people either for you or against you, and so, they're vacillating every day, probably: "Well, should I go against or should I not?" But last night, where he finally sounded presidential, I think most Republicans are breathing a sigh of relief today.
GC:但也因為他們都關注連任, 不論是對支持者還是反對者, 川普有很大的權力, 所以他們可能每天都在糾結: 「我是要反對還是不呢?」 但昨晚,他聼起來很有總統範, 我想大多數共和黨人 今天都鬆了口氣。
DB: The half-life of that is short.
DB:主意改得好快。
GC: Right -- I was just going to say, until Twitter happens again.
GC:是的——我本打算說, 等發佈推特後再評論吧。
CA: OK, I want to give each of you the chance to imagine you're speaking to -- I don't know -- the people online who are watching this, who may be Trump supporters, who may be on the left, somewhere in the middle. How would you advise them to bridge or to relate to other people? Can you share any final wisdom on this? Or if you think that they shouldn't, tell them that as well.
CA:好的,我打算 給你倆每人一次機會, 想像下你正在 跟網上收看節目的人對話, 他們可能是川普的支持者, 也可能是來自個左派, 或者左右派中間的某個位置, 你會如何建議他們與其他人 彌補鴻溝或建立聯係? 能分享一下相關的終極智慧嗎? 或者你認為他們不應該這麽做, 也不妨說說看。
GC: I would just start by saying that I really think any change and coming together starts from the top, just like any other organization. And I would love if, somehow, Trump supporters or people on the left could encourage their leaders to show that compassion from the top, because imagine the change that we could have if Donald Trump tweeted out today, to all of his supporters, "Let's not be vile anymore to each other. Let's have more understanding. As a leader, I'm going to be more inclusive to all of the people of America." To me, it starts at the top. Is he going to do that? I have no idea. But I think that everything starts from the top, and the power that he has in encouraging his supporters to have an understanding of where people are coming from on the other side.
GC:我會這麽說, 我真地認為任何改變和融合 從一開就始於頂層, 就像任何組織一樣。 某種程度上,我會很高興看到 不管是川普的支持者或者左派 都可以鼓勵他們的領導人 從高層展現出同情心, 想像下我們可能擁有的改變, 要是今天唐納•川普 向他的支持者發推文, 「讓我們不再互相使壞, 讓我們瞭解彼此。 作為一個領導者, 我將對所有美國人民更包容。」 對我來說,它就是從高層開始。 他真要去做嗎?我不知道。 但我認為一切都從上層開始, 從他擁有的權利開始, 鼓勵他的支持者去瞭解 來自另一陣營的人民。
CA: David. DB: Yeah, I guess I would say I don't think we can teach each other to be civil, and give us sermons on civility. That's not going to do it. It's substance and how we act, and the nice thing about Donald Trump is he smashed our categories. All the categories that we thought we were thinking in, they're obsolete. They were great for the 20th century. They're not good for today. He's got an agenda which is about closing borders and closing trade. I just don't think it's going to work. I think if we want to rebuild communities, recreate jobs, we need a different set of agenda that smashes through all our current divisions and our current categories. For me, that agenda is Reaganism on macroeconomic policy, Sweden on welfare policy and cuts across right and left. I think we have to have a dynamic economy that creates growth. That's the Reagan on economic policy. But people have to have that secure base. There have to be nurse-family partnerships; there has to be universal preschool; there have to be charter schools; there have to be college programs with wraparound programs for parents and communities. We need to help heal the crisis of social solidarity in this country and help heal families, and government just has to get a lot more involved in the way liberals like to rebuild communities. At the other hand, we have to have an economy that's free and open the way conservatives used to like. And so getting the substance right is how you smash through the partisan identities, because the substance is what ultimately shapes our polarization.
CA:戴維。 DB:是的,我想我會說 我認為我們不能教對方有禮貌, 並對我們很客氣。 不是這回事。 這是本質,還有我們如何應對, 唐納•川普好的一面 是他粉碎了界限。 我們以為我們所想的 全部分類,都已經過時了。 在二十世紀這些是很了不起; 但今天不好使了。 他有個關閉邊界和貿易的議案。 我想這些不會有效。 我想如果我們打算 重建社區,再造就業, 我們需要另外的議案, 摧毀我們現有部門和當下的分類。 對我來說,這個議題是 宏觀經濟的雷根主義政策, 瑞典的福利政策, 以及跨越左右兩派。 我想我們要有個 生機勃勃的經濟去創造增長。 那就是雷根的經濟政策。 但人們得有安定的基礎: 得有看護家庭夥伴; 得普及學前教育; 得有實驗學校; 還得有面向父母和社區的 包羅萬象的大學課程。 我們需要協助國家 從社會危機中恢復團結, 幫助撫慰家庭, 政府必須積極參與, 就像自由主義者 喜歡的那樣去重建社區。 另一方面,我們得有 自由和開放的經濟, 就像保守派過去喜歡的那種方式。 所以返璞歸正是如何打破 派別的身份認同, 因為這是最終導致 我們兩極分化的本質。
CA: David and Gretchen, thank you so much for an absolutely fascinating conversation. Thank you. That was really, really interesting.
CA:非常感謝大偉和葛蕾琴, 非常精彩的對話。 謝謝。真地很有意思。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Hey, let's keep the conversation going. We're continuing to try and figure out whether we can add something here, so keep the conversation going on Facebook. Give us your thoughts from whatever part of the political spectrum you're on, and actually, wherever in the world you are. This is not just about America. It's about the world, too. But we're not going to end today without music, because if we put music in every political conversation, the world would be completely different, frankly. It just would.
對話繼續。 我們也將不斷嘗試並弄清楚 看能不能加點內容, 讓話題轉到 Facebook上。 不管你來自政治光譜哪個位置, 歡迎向我們提供你的想法, 或者不論你身處何處。 這不只關乎美國,這還關乎全世界。 今天不來點音樂,怎麽能結束呢。 如果我們在每個 政治對話中都放點音樂, 坦白說,世界會完全不一樣。 一定會的。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Up in Harlem, this extraordinary woman, Vy Higginsen, who's actually right here -- let's get a shot of her.
在哈林區,有這樣 一位了不起的女士, 瓦艾·黑格森,她就在現場—— 請給個特寫。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
She created this program that brings teens together, teaches them the joy and the impact of gospel music, and hundreds of teens have gone through this program. It's transformative for them. The music they made, as you already heard, is extraordinary, and I can't think of a better way of ending this TED Dialogue than welcoming Vy Higginsen's Gospel Choir from Harlem. Thank you.
她創建了個聚合青少年的方案, 教他們福音音樂的快樂和感染, 數百位青少年參加過這個方案。 對他們來說是變革。 他們創作的音樂非常棒, 你已聽過的, 我再找不到更好的方式 來結束今天的 TED 對話。 下面歡迎來自哈林區的 瓦艾·黑格森福音合唱團。 謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲) (掌聲結束)
(Singing) Choir: O beautiful for spacious skies For amber waves of grain For purple mountain majesties Above the fruited plain America! America! America! America! God shed his grace on thee And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea From sea to shining sea
(歌聲)合唱團:哦,廣袤的天多美, 飽碩的麥浪金黃, 莊嚴的山巒巍峨, 在這豐收的平原上。 美國! 美國! 美國! 美國! 上帝保佑你, 兄弟般的情誼為你, 在亮閃閃的海面上, 在亮閃閃的海面上,
(Applause)
(掌聲)