美國共和黨可能需要組建新黨派
On Tuesday, in what is becoming a routine occurrence in this election year, Donald Trump cleaned up primary contests in all but four of the 11 US states in contention. And after months of living in denial, Republicans are grappling with the notion that the New York property mogul cum reality television star might win their party’s nomination.
週二，唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)在美國舉行初選的11個州中的7個州碾壓對手，這已成爲本選舉年的常態。在數月自欺欺人之後，共和黨人不得不努力面對一種看法，即這位紐約地產大亨兼電視真人秀明星可能贏得本黨提名。
Reactions from what Mr Trump likes to label “the establishment” range from dutiful acceptance of the “will of the people” to fervent pledges to oppose him, either by voting for Hillary Clinton or for a candidate from a third party. What is the right call for Republicans?
特朗普喜歡稱之爲“建制派”的那些共和黨人反應各有不同，有的順從地接受“人民的意志”，有的信誓旦旦地反對他，不是投票給希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)，就是投票支持第三個黨派的競選人。共和黨的正確反應是什麼？
The question is, by its nature, a personal one. In the US, asking people to say who they voted for or telling them how to vote is not the done thing. Even newspaper endorsements are couched as “our choice” rather than an exhortation to vote for a particular candidate. Nor are most Americans party line voters. The people who will decide this election are not hardcore Republicans or Democrats. Many care about ideas; others nurture a sense that the government no longer cares about them. I feel the same way.
就其本質來說，這是個私人問題。在美國，讓人們透露投票支持誰或者告訴他們如何投票是不禮貌的行爲。甚至，報紙會稱所支持的候選人爲“我們的選擇”，而不會勸說讀者投票給某位候選人。大多數人美國人也不是忠誠擁護某一政黨政策的選民。決定此次選舉的人不是共和黨或者民主黨的核心人士。許多人關心理念；其他人則慢慢覺得美國政府不再關心他們。我也是這麼認爲的。
As an immigrant who first voted in 1992, standing at the ballot box still fills me with pride and amazement at my good fortune. I am also a Republican, but that is a coincidence of ideology not a matter of party loyalty. The things I believe in — individual freedom, small government, US global leadership — are moral rather than political choices. The people who share my views have tended to be Republicans but not always. When I vote, foreign policy is the deciding factor in my choice. That is the prism through which Mrs Clinton’s candidacy ought to be judged.
作爲一個在1992年首次投票的移民，站在投票箱前仍讓我對自己的幸運感到自豪和驚歎。我也是一名共和黨人，但這是因爲我的意識形態正好與共和黨一致，並非是忠誠於共和黨。我信仰的東西——個人自由、小政府、美國全球領導力——是道德而非政治上的選擇。和我持相同觀點的人往往是共和黨人，但也並非全都是。當我投票的時候，外交政策是個決定性因素。我們應該從這個視角評判希拉里的候選人資格。
There will be some Republicans who will vote for Mrs Clinton, not on the merits, but simply because she is not Mr Trump. But it is more important to judge the former secretary of state on her record. She was an unremarkable senator, seemingly ungrounded in any particular set of convictions. As secretary of state she had a record that is at best feckless.
一些共和黨人將會投票支持希拉里，這不是因爲她的優點，而只是因爲她不是特朗普。但更重要的是，要從其過往記錄評判這位美國前國務卿。希拉里在擔任參議員時表現平平，任何觀點似乎都沒有依據。作爲美國國務卿，她的記錄能得到的最高評價也只能是平庸。
She has been attacked by Republicans for her role in the Benghazi debacle in 2012, in which Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, was killed. But her graver sin was to support the overthrow of Muammer Gaddafi and then stay silent on the question of how to stabilise Libya in the aftermath.
希拉里由於在2012年班加西襲擊事件中的角色而遭受共和黨人的抨擊——當時美國駐利比亞大使克里斯托弗•史蒂文斯(Christopher Stevens)在班加西遇襲身亡。但她的更爲嚴重的錯誤是支持推翻穆阿邁爾•卡扎菲(Muammer Gaddafi)，隨後卻在如何穩定利比亞局勢的問題上保持沉默。
Even more troubling, her evasiveness about the activities of the Clinton Foundation and her use of a private email server while secretary of state, among other things, mean we cannot assume that anything she says now will be the case if and when she is resident in the White House.
更令人擔憂的是，她對克林頓基金會(Clinton Foundation)的活動含糊其辭、在擔任國務卿期間使用私人電郵服務器、以及其他一些事情意味着，我們不能假定，如果她真的入主白宮，她現在說的任何事情還算數。
Oddly, this penchant for saying anything is one the likely Democratic candidate shares with Mr Trump. Where does he stand on foreign policy, for example? No one knows. He does not like Muslims but opposes the overthrowing of Middle East dictators such as Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. He says he would deport 11m illegal aliens. Apologists insist a President Trump would be limited by America’s constitutional checks and balances, and rendered incapable of carrying out his more radical plans. This is meant to be reassuring.
奇怪的是，特朗普與這位可能的民主黨提名總統候選人都有這種信口開河的嗜好。例如，特朗普的外交政策立場是什麼？沒有人知道。他不喜歡穆斯林，但反對推翻敘利亞的巴沙爾•阿薩德(Bashar al-Assad)等中東地區的獨裁者。他說，他將驅逐1100萬非法移民。爲他辯解的人堅稱，特朗普如果當選總統，將受到美國憲法的制衡，無法實施其更激進的計劃。這種說法只是安撫人。
And so America has come to a pretty pass, pitting a woman who is anathema to many against a man who reminds us of Benito Mussolini. Are we not better than this? I would hope so. Many Republicans will never vote for Mrs Clinton; more importantly for the party of Abraham Lincoln, they will never vote for Mr Trump. Libertarians, constitutionalists, small “d” democrats, minorities and many more are ready to fight for the soul of their movement. And if the Republican party no longer embodies that soul, they, like Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, will build another one that does.
因此美國陷入了困境，讓一位許多人憎惡的女性與一位讓我們想起貝尼託•墨索里尼(Benito Mussolini)的男性對決。難道不能出現更好的情況嗎？我希望能。許多共和黨人永遠不會投票支持希拉里；對亞伯拉罕•林肯(Abraham Lincoln)的政黨來說更重要的是，他們將永遠不會投票支持特朗普。自由派、立憲派、民主派、少數派以及其他許多人準備爲他們的核心運動理念戰鬥。如果共和黨不再體現他們的核心理念，他們就會與內布拉斯加州的參議員本•薩斯(Ben Sasse)一樣，創建另一個能夠體現這些理念的黨派。
At a moment when partisan loyalty and party power are at their weakest, it is time to fall back on the ideas and principles that matter. For conservatives, that means finding a candidate able to speak to the anger of voters who rightly feel betrayed by the parties that dominate the body politic. It does not mean compromising our values by opting for Mrs Clinton or Mr Trump.
在政黨忠誠度和政黨影響力最爲薄弱之際，現在是時候倚重至關重要的思想和原則了。對保守派來說，這意味着找到一個能夠直言選民憤怒的候選人——這些選民合理地感受到主導着美國的黨派的背叛。這並不意味着要選擇希拉里或者特朗普，讓我們的價值觀讓步。
Being an American is more important than being a Republican — or, for that matter, a Democrat. If that means the end of the two-party system, so be it. If it means a brokered convention, I will take it.
身爲美國人比身爲共和黨人（或者就此而言是民主黨人）更重要。如果這意味着兩黨制的終結，那就這樣吧。如果這意味着“協商會議”(brokered convention)，我會接受它。
