什麼纔是希拉里的美國夢
Until recently most of the world yearned for the US to become a more normal country. It had seen enough of George W Bush’s freedom agenda to put it off American exceptionalism for good. People should be careful what they wish for. Donald Trump may be the most gaffe-prone — and offensive — US presidential nominee in history. But he is also the first to scorn the belief that America’s mission should be to uphold universal values. It is not clear he even thinks such values exist. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is their unabashed cheerleader. “I believe with all my heart that America is an exceptional country,” she said in June. “We are still, in Lincoln’s words, the last best hope of earth.”
直到最近，世界大部分地區都渴望美國變成一個更平常的國家。他們受夠了喬治•W•布什(George W Bush)在全球推動自由的議程，以至對美國例外論心生反感。人們應該小心自己的期盼。唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)可能是美國曆史上最出言不遜——以及最具攻擊性——的總統候選人。但他也是第一個對以下信念——美國的使命應是維護普世價值觀——表現出不屑的總統候選人。我們甚至不清楚他是否認爲存在這些價值觀。另一方面，希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)則是這些價值觀的堅定擁護者。“我由衷地相信美國是一個例外的國家，”她6月時表示，“我們仍是——用亞伯拉罕•林肯(Abraham Lincoln)的話說——地球上最後、最好的希望。”
Long-suffering US realists — those who argue that America should merely pursue its national interests — must wonder what they did to deserve such a champion. Mr Trump vows to avoid foreign entanglements, such as pre-emptive wars in Iraq. That is what realists want to hear. Ditto for Mr Trump’s view that America’s allies should pay for more of their defence, or that China is entitled to occupy atolls in a sea named after it. Why should America always play the referee? But Mr Trump inevitably spoils things by adding his own gloss — promising a nuclear attack on Isis, for example, or claiming that President Barack Obama founded the terrorist group. The key to successful realism is tactical guile and deep knowledge of the world. Mr Trump epitomises the opposite. With friends like Mr Trump, realists need no enemies.
長期不如意的美國現實主義者——那些主張美國應該只追求本國國家利益的人士——一定驚訝於他們做了什麼纔會出現這樣一位現實主義的擁護者。特朗普誓言要避免對外干涉，例如對伊拉克進行的先發制人的戰爭。這正是現實主義者希望聽到的。他們也認同特朗普的其他一些觀點：美國的盟友應更多地承擔本國的防務開支，或是中國有權佔有以其國名命名的海域內的島礁。爲什麼美國總要擔當裁判？但特朗普的口無遮攔不可避免地把事情搞糟了，例如，他許諾要對“伊斯蘭國”(ISIS)進行核打擊，或是宣稱美國總統巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)創立了該恐怖組織。成功的現實主義的關鍵是在戰術上的狡詐和對世界的深刻理解。特朗普恰恰是反面的典型代表。有了特朗普這樣的隊友，現實主義者不需要敵人。
There is also the likelihood that he will lose to Mrs Clinton in November. Mr Trump’s defeat would probably come in spite of his foreign policy instincts, rather than because of them. For years, the US public has said it is tired of military adventures, thinks Nato allies should shoulder more of the burden and that America’s global role should be more modest. Nation-building is no longer an election winner, if it ever was one. Mr Trump’s “America first” slogan might have unfortunate antecedents (it was picked up by Fascist sympathisers in the early 1940s), but many Americans are happy with its current meaning. If he loses it will be because of his manifestly unpresidential temperament and a tendency to insult almost every group in America.
而且，特朗普可能在11月的大選中輸給希拉里。儘管在外交政策方面直覺不錯，他還是可能會落敗——他的失敗倒不是因爲這些直覺。多年來，美國民衆已經表示出了對軍事冒險的厭倦，他們認爲，北約盟國應該承擔更多的責任，美國扮演的全球性角色應該更加適度。國家建設議題不再是競選中的制勝法寶（如果曾經是的話）。特朗普的“美國第一”的口號或許有令人遺憾的先例（上世紀40年代初法西斯主義的同情者提過），但許多美國人對其現在的含義感到滿意。如果特朗普失敗了，原因在於他明顯毫無總統氣質以及他侮辱美國幾乎所有羣體的傾向。
Unfortunately for realists, their ship may go down with him, which means the USS Exceptionalist would set sail again under Mrs Clinton next January. Where was it during the Obama years? Mr Obama’s foreign policy has been neither exceptionalist nor realist but a hybrid of the two. A few weeks after he took office, I asked whether he subscribed to the school of US exceptionalism. Mr Obama replied that he was a US exceptionalist in much the same way that “Brits subscribe to British exceptionalism, and Greeks subscribe to Greek exceptionalism”. His creed, in other words, was avowedly subjective. Given how harshly Mr Obama’s critics have questioned his patriotism, his answer today may be less ambivalent. It is hard to imagine Mrs Clinton saying that. A true exceptionalist leaves no room for doubt. They believe the US stands taller and sees further than other nations, as Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state, once said.
對現實主義者而言，不幸的是，他們的大船或將與特朗普一同沉沒，這意味着，“美國例外號巨輪”將於明年1月在希拉里的領導下再次起航。那麼在奧巴馬執政時期這艘船在哪裏呢？奧巴馬的外交政策既非美國例外主義，也非現實主義，而是兩者的混合。奧巴馬上任幾周後，我問他是否信奉美國例外論。奧巴馬回答說，他信奉美國例外論就像“英國人信奉英國例外主義，希臘人信奉希臘例外主義”。換句話說，他的政治綱領公開地帶有主觀性。鑑於奧巴馬的批評者對他的愛國主義的強烈質疑，如果是今天回答上述問題，他的答案會更爲明確。很難想象希拉里會那樣說。一個真正的美國例外論者不會留下任何被質疑的餘地。正如美國前國務卿馬德琳•奧爾布賴特(Madeleine Albright)曾經說過的，他們相信美國比其他國家站得更高、看得更遠。
What would this mean for a Clinton administration? Unexpected events would dictate much of her presidency, as is always the case. Ronald Reagan’s struggle with the Soviet Union’s “evil empire” was rendered moot by the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev. Bush junior took office promising a humbler foreign policy. He pivoted quickly to hubris after the 9/11 attacks. Mr Obama promised to wind down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He will leave office with thousands of US soldiers in each country. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, vowed to uphold human rights and confront the “butchers of Beijing”. To his lasting regret, he turned a blind eye to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. This was largely because of what he learnt from another event — the “Black Hawk down” debacle in Somalia. He also brought China into the World Trade Organisation. In each case, however, the president’s philosophy shaped how they responded to events.
這對希拉里政府將意味着什麼？像以往一樣，不可預測的事件將主導她大部分總統任期。羅納德•里根(Ronald Reagan)與蘇聯“邪惡帝國”的較量因米哈伊爾•戈爾巴喬夫(Mikhail Gorbachev)的崛起而失去意義。小布什上任時曾承諾實行謙和的外交政策。9/11恐怖襲擊發生後，他的態度迅速地轉向了自大。奧巴馬承諾逐步結束在阿富汗和伊拉克的戰爭。到他離任時，這兩國還將駐紮有數千名美軍士兵。比爾•克林頓(Bill Clinton)曾誓言要維護人權，對抗“北京的屠夫”。讓他始終感到懊悔的是，他對1994年盧旺達種族屠殺不聞不問。這主要是因爲他從另一事件中學到教訓——在索馬里的“黑鷹墜落”事件。他還將中國帶入了世界貿易組織(WTO)。然而，每一起事件中，美國總統的信念決定了他們會如何做出迴應。
Many assume that Mrs Clinton would simply pick up the baton from Mr Obama, since she was his first secretary of state. But serving a president is very different from being one. On each military question that arose in Mr Obama’s first term, Mrs Clinton took the hawkish view. Sometimes she was on the winning side, such as on intervention in Libya. At others, such as on whether to arm Syrian rebels, her advice was overruled. In spite of her early involvement in the Iran nuclear talks, it is doubtful if she would have signed Mr Obama’s deal.
很多人認爲，希拉里可能將只是延續奧巴馬的執政方針，因爲她是奧巴馬手下的第一任國務卿。但是，效力於總統與自己當總統迥然不同。對於奧巴馬第一任期出現的所有軍事問題，希拉里都持強硬觀點。有時她可以佔上風，例如對利比亞的干預。有時——比如是否武裝敘利亞叛軍——她的建議被否決了。儘管參與了早期的伊朗核談判，但如果還在國務卿之位的話，她是否會簽署奧巴馬的伊朗核協議值得懷疑。
Her campaign rhetoric is also strikingly different from Mr Obama’s. In 2008 he pledged to revive America’s moral authority in a world reeling from Mr Bush’s wars of choice. She vows to engage with a dangerous world with all the tools at her disposal. It is a different sensibility.
希拉里的競選言辭也與奧巴馬截然不同。2008年，奧巴馬誓言在一個受到小布什“可打可不打的戰爭”衝擊的世界裏恢復美國的道德權威。而希拉里發誓要用所有可以訴諸的手段介入一個危險的世界。這是一種不同的覺悟。
Mr Obama once summed up his approach to foreign policy as “don’t do stupid shit”. In a rare critical moment, Mrs Clinton said Mr Obama’s maxim did not amount to an organising principle. She was right, of course. But in these hazardous times, the instinct to first do no harm may be worth more than we can appreciate.
奧巴馬曾將自己的外交政策方針總結爲“不做蠢事”。希拉里有一次罕見地對奧巴馬提出批評，說他的座右銘並不等同於組織原則。當然，她說的沒錯。但在這些危急時期，首先不爲害這種本能的價值可能超出了我們能理解的範疇。
