【英语社会】共和党能再次翻身吗？

It is always depressing to see Starbucks deploy its Christmas- themed cups at the beginning of November. In much the same way, one does not wish to be reminded that the next US mid-term elections are just two years and one recession away. Still, facts must be faced.Two years after the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Republican party seized control of Congress. The Democratic administration henceforth had to work with the enemy. What can the Republicans do to make this happen again?

The Republican triumph of 1994 was due to unforced errors on the administration's side (gays in the military, the hubristic overreach of Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan) and remarkably effective Republican leadership in Congress (Newt Gingrich and the “Contract with America”).

Barack Obama faces challenges far more difficult than the ones that confronted President Clinton. This gives greater scope for momentous errors but the politics works to Mr Obama's advantage: the country knows that the problems he faces are not of his making. The Obama team is cautious and shrewd. The missteps of the first two Clinton years are branded on its collective memory and unlikely to be repeated.

Politically, the economy helps in another way. The time is not ripe for an ideological assault on activist government. Even if it were, assertive leadership in Congress of the sort the Republicans demonstrated in 1994 is very unusual. In opposition, US political parties are less than the sum of their parts. Discipline is weak to non-existent. Leadership is divided.

In the past 15 years, both of Britain's main political parties reinvented themselves in opposition; strong reform-minded leaders overcame resistance to change. In the US, that kind of top-down direction in opposition is alien. Between the election of 2000 and the nomination of Mr Obama this year, who led the Democratic party? In the British sense, the job of “opposition leader” exists only for a month or two before each presidential election.

So repositioning the Republican party will not be easy and some repositioning is needed.

In my view, the challenge for the party is not, as many argue, to decide whether it is a movement of social conservatives, of fiscal conservatives, or of soft libertarians. To win elections, the Republican party has to gather support from all of those groups. If any one faction comes to dominate the party – as social conservatives have lately threatened to – its prospects are diminished. To get along with each other, never mind with the independents and uncommitted liberals whose votes the party needs, Republicans first need to develop their capacity for tolerance.

Social conservatives are suspected, often with reason, of wishing to impose their values on everyone else. For the sake of their own electoral prospects and to build alliances with other segments of opinion, they need to quell that instinct, insisting only that others do not try to impose their values on them. “Live and let live”, together with a lively scepticism about government-imposed solutions, is the watchword that can bring the strands of Republicanism together. It is a distinctively American creed, as well. This centre-right nation still resonates to it.

Two other things are necessary. First, the party needs to prioritise competence. In some ways this is the obverse of a more lightly worn ideology – but, in any case, necessary after the serial bungling of the Bush administration. The wide middle of the US electorate venerates results over theories. This is a pragmatic country, interested in what works.

As far as possible, therefore, Republicans need to get behind the new administration's efforts to revive the economy, helping to improve them where they can and avoiding automatic opposition for its own sake. This is a grave economic crisis, a frightening and extraordinary situation. For the next year or two, the country's impatience with brainless partisan mud-slinging will be far more pronounced than usual.

Tolerance, competence and the third thing is empathy. One of the McCain campaign's lowest points was when a top economic adviser criticised Americans for grumbling about the economy. Astonishing. The Republicans need to show that the interests of ordinary Americans are uppermost in their minds, something they have often failed to do. Their argument with Democrats should be about how best to serve those interests: their endless willingness to cede ground on who cares more is very perplexing.

A case in point: the Republicans should have gone into this election with a national plan for universal market-based healthcare (something that Republican governors in Massachusetts and California are trying to implement). If the Obama administration makes progress on this, it will be all the more necessary next time, but how stupid to have yielded the advantage.

It is too early to say who the Republicans should nominate in 2012, although not to say who they should not. Sarah Palin has been a popular governor, gets a passing grade for tolerance and high marks for empathy, but in national politics she has failed the competence test beyond any hope of recovery. The party has other good governors of well-run states and some senators of promise, so this is not the problem: a strong candidate can be found. The challenge is for all Republicans, leaderless though they are. The party can unite and strive to widen its appeal, or apportion blame, purify its thinking and contract to irrelevance. After a bad defeat, never underestimate the appeal of that second course.

看到星巴克(Starbucks)在11月初摆上圣诞主题的杯子时，总令人情绪低落。同样，人们也不希望想到，距离美国下一次中期选举只有两年的时间，其间还要经历一轮经济衰退。但人们还是必须面对现实。比尔•克林顿(Bill Clinton) 1992年当选总统的两年之后，共和党夺取了美国国会的控制权。在此之后，民主党政府不得不与对手共事。共和党人该如何让这一幕重演呢？

共和党1994年的胜利应归功于民主党政府自己失误（军队中的同性恋、希拉里•克林顿(Hillary Clinton)自大的医疗改革方案走过头），以及共和党在国会中相当有效的领导力（纽特•金里奇(Newt Gingrich)和《美利坚契约》(Contract with America)）。

巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)所面临的挑战远比克林顿更为艰巨。这增加了出现重大失误的可能性，但政治环境对奥巴马有利：美国民众清楚，他所面临的问题不是他造成的。奥巴马的班子谨慎而精明。克林顿执政最初两年的失误被铭记在其集体记忆中，不太可能会重演。

从政治角度讲，经济现状从另一方面起到了帮助作用。从意识形态角度抨击激进主义政府的时机还不成熟。即使时机成熟，共和党1994年在国会中表现出的那种果断自信的领导力亦很不寻常。美国政党在野期间的整体实力，不及其各派系实力的总和。它们纪律松散，几近于无。领导层也四分五裂。

过去15年间，英国两大主要政党都在在野期间对自己进行了彻底改造；具有强烈改革意识的领袖们克服了变革的阻力。而在美国，在野期间进行这种自上而下的改革是个异数。在2000年总统大选和奥巴马今年当选之间，谁是民主党领袖？英国意义的“反对党领袖”，仅在总统大选前的一、两个月存在。

因此，重新给共和党定位并非易事，但一定程度的重新定位是必要的。

在我看来，共和党面临的挑战并不像许多人主张的那样，是要判断它代表社会保守派、财政保守派、还是温和自由派的运动。为了赢得选举，共和党必须争取所有这些派系的支持。如果任何一个派系控制了整个政党——正如社会保守派不久前似乎有可能做到的那样——该党获胜的机率将会下降。要协调好各个派系，更不用说那些选票很重要的无党派人士和中立的自由派，共和党首先要锻炼自己的宽容。

社会保守派有将其价值观强加给其他所有人之嫌，而这种怀疑往往是有道理的。为了自己的选举前景，以及与其它舆论派别缔结同盟，他们需要克制这种本能，只是坚持其它派系不要试图将其价值观强加给自己。“自己活，也让别人活”，连同对政府推行的方案的强烈怀疑态度，是可以团结共和党各派力量的口号。这同样是美国人特有的信条。这个中间偏右立场的国家仍对此颇有共鸣。

还有其它两件事也很必要。首先，共和党必须优先考虑胜任能力。从某种程度上讲，这有点像老生常谈——但无论怎样，在布什政府连续把事情弄砸之后，这很有必要。美国选民的广大中间力量对结果的注重胜于理论。这是个务实的国家，对管用的东西感兴趣。

因此，共和党人应尽一切可能支持新政府重振经济的努力，帮助改进这些努力，避免出于私利而下意识地反对。这是一场严重的经济危机，是令人恐惧的非常时期。在未来一、两年内，美国人对于愚蠢的党派纷争的厌恶程度，会远远高于通常的水平。

在宽容、胜任能力之后，第三个必要条件是体察民情。麦凯恩竞选期间的低点之一，是他的一位主要经济顾问指责美国人对经济的抱怨。这令人震惊。共和党人应做出普通美国人的利益在他们心目中至高无上的样子——他们往往没能做到这一点。他们与民主党辩论时，应围绕如何最好地服务于这种利益：在“谁更关心”的问题上，他们总是自愿放弃，这着实令人困惑。

一个例证是：共和党人应在此次大选一开始就提出一项市场化的全民医疗保健方案（马萨诸塞州和加利福尼亚州的共和党州长们正试图推行这一方案）。如果奥巴马政府在这方面取得进展，下一次大选时它会愈发必要，但放弃了这一优势是非常愚蠢的行为。

讨论谁将是共和党2012年候选人还为时过早，这倒不是说他们不能讨论这个问题。萨拉•佩林(Sarah Palin)是位受欢迎的州长，在宽容方面达到了及格水平，体察民情方面得分很高，但在国家政治方面，她未能通过胜任能力测试，且毫无翻身的希望。共和党在一些治理出色的州拥有其他不错的州长，还有一些有前途的参议员，因而这不是问题：它能够找到一位强有力的候选人。所有共和党人都面临着挑战，尽管他们群龙无首。共和党可以团结起来，努力扩大其吸引力，也有可能到处指责，净化思维，最终收缩至无关紧要的地步。经历了一场惨败之后，绝不要低估后一种路线的吸引力。

译者/陈云飞