《紐約時報》：擁護特朗普的美國億萬富翁們，或已成有用的白痴

Useful Idiots and Trumpist Billionaires

有用的白痴和支持特朗普的億萬富翁們

素材來源：《紐約時報》 翻譯：世界播

By Paul Krugman

作者：保羅?克魯格曼

Whoever came up with the phrase 「useful idiots」 — it』s often credited to Lenin, but there』s no evidence he ever said it — was on to something. There are times when dangerous political movements derive important support from people who will, if these movements achieve and hold power, be among their biggest victims.

不管是誰想出了「有用的白痴」這樣的措辭，但他說到點子上了。這句話經常被認為出自列寧之口，然而沒有證據表明他曾說過這句話。有時，危險的政治運動會得到重要的支持，而這些支持來自那些一旦這些運動取得成功並掌握權力，就會成為其最大受害者之一的人。

Certainly I found myself thinking of the phrase when I read about the Trump fund-raiser held at the Hamptons home of Stephen Ross.

當然，當我讀到斯蒂芬?羅斯在漢普頓的家中為特朗普舉辦籌款活動時，我就想到了這個短語。

Most reporting on the Ross event has focused on the possible adverse effects on his business empire: The young, educated, urban fitness fanatics who go to his gyms don』t like the idea that their money is supporting Donald Trump. But the foolishness of Ross』s Trump support goes well beyond the potential damage to his bottom line.

大多數關於羅斯舉辦的這場活動的報道都聚焦於他的商業帝國可能受到的負面影響：去他健身房的那些年輕且受過教育的城市健身狂熱者不喜歡用他們的錢來支持唐納德?特朗普。但羅斯支持特朗普的愚蠢遠遠超出了對他利益底線的潛在損害。

I mean, if you』re a billionaire who also happens to be a racist, supporting Trump makes perfect sense: You know what you』re buying. But if you』re supporting Trump not because of his racism but despite it, because you expect him to keep your taxes low, you』re being, well, an idiot.

我的意思是，如果你是一位億萬富翁，碰巧又是一個種族主義者，那麼支持特朗普是完全有道理的：你知道自己在投資什麼。但如果你支持特朗普並非因他的種族主義，而是因為其他別的方面，比如你希望他把你們的稅率保持在低水平，那麼你就是個白痴。

It』s true that Trump (breaking all his campaign promises) has indeed cut taxes on the wealthy, and will surely cut them further if re-elected. By contrast, whoever the Democrats nominate is likely to raise those taxes if she or he wins the general election, perhaps substantially.

的確，特朗普(違背了他所有的競選承諾)確實削減了富人的稅收，如果再次當選，他肯定會進一步為富人減稅。相比之下，如果民主黨提名的候選人在大選中獲勝，他或她很可能會提高這些稅收，也許是大幅提高。

But let』s get real. If you』re a billionaire, you don』t need the extra money. At that level, purchasing power has nothing to do with the quality of life; having a 45,000-square-foot house instead of just 40,000, or flying to one of your multiple other residences in a bigger private jet, won』t make you happier.

但讓我們現實一點。如果你是億萬富翁，你根本就不需要這些通過減稅省下來的錢。在這種水平上，購買力與生活質量無關；擁有一棟4.5萬平方英尺的房子，而不是僅僅4萬平方英尺，或者乘坐一架更大的私人飛機飛往你的其他多個住宅之一，都不會讓你感到更幸福。

People who』ve studied the extremely rich argue that money, for them, is largely not about being able to buy things but is instead a way of keeping score; their satisfaction comes not from more consumption but from overtaking their perceived peers.

研究過超級富豪的人認為，對他們來說，金錢在很大程度上不是為了買東西，而是一種記分的方式；他們的滿足感不是來自更多的消費，而是來自超越他們眼中的同類人。

And tax cuts don』t help on that dimension, since your peers get the same tax breaks you do.

而減稅在這方面沒有幫助，因為你的同類競爭對手和你一樣享受減稅。

More to the point, Trumpism is about much more than tax cuts: It』s an attempt to end the rule of law and impose an authoritarian, white nationalist regime. And even billionaires should be terrified about what their lives will be like if that attempt succeeds.

更重要的是，特朗普主義的意義遠不止於減稅：它試圖終結法治，建立一個威權的白人民族主義政權。即使是億萬富翁也應該擔心，如果這一嘗試成功，他們的生活將會變成什麼樣子。

In fact, the ingredients for an American pogrom are already in place. The El Paso shooting suspect, like many right-wing terrorists, is a believer in 「replacement theory」 — the claim that immigration is part of a vast conspiracy to replace whites with people of color. And who』s behind that conspiracy? You know who: 「Jews will not replace us,」 declared the torch-carrying marchers in Charlottesville.

事實上，美國大屠殺的潛在爆發因子已準備就緒。與許多右翼恐怖分子一樣，埃爾帕索槍擊案嫌疑人也相信「替代理論」——即移民是用有色人種取代白人的巨大陰謀的一部分。那誰是這場陰謀的幕後主使？你知道是誰：夏洛茨維爾舉著火炬的遊行者們宣稱，「猶太人不會取代我們」。

Is Trump a replacement theory guy? The replacement theorists think so.

特朗普是個崇洋替代理論的傢伙嗎？至少替代理論家們是這樣認為的。

In any case, billionaires who imagine that their wealth will insulate them from the purges and insecurity of an authoritarian regime are deluding themselves. Look at Vladimir Putin』s Russia, a place Trump surely sees as a role model. Putin certainly coddles an inner circle of oligarchs. But he has shown no hesitation about using a politicized legal system to persecute and ruin his critics, no matter how wealthy.

無論如何，那些認為自己的財富將使自己免受威權政權清洗和不安全影響的億萬富翁們是在自欺欺人。看看弗拉基米爾?普京領導下的俄羅斯，特朗普肯定會把這個國家視為榜樣。普京當然縱容了一個寡頭核心小圈子。但他毫不猶豫地利用政治化的法律體系迫害和毀滅他的批評者，無論他們多麼富有。

Oh, and don』t say it can』t happen here. The man who prompts chants of 「lock her up,」 who has declared the independent media 「enemies of the people,」 has made it abundantly clear that he』d love to engage in politicized prosecutions of anyone who gets in his way.

別說這在美國不會發生。這位鼓動人們高喊「把她關起來」的人，宣稱獨立媒體是「人民公敵」的人，已經非常明確地表示，他願意對任何妨礙他的人進行政治化的起訴。

Again, there are surely some wealthy Americans who want to live in that kind of country. But most Trump-supporting billionaires would probably be horrified at the prospect. So what are they thinking raising money for a would-be authoritarian?

再說一遍，肯定會有一些富有的美國人想生活在那樣的國家。但大多數支持特朗普的億萬富翁可能會對這一前景感到恐懼。那麼，他們是怎麼想的呢？為一個想要成為威權的人籌集資金？

The answer, of course, is that they aren』t thinking. Instead of considering what a consolidation of Trumpist power would mean, they』re reacting mindlessly out of greed and ego.

當然，答案只能是，他們根本就沒有經過深思熟慮。他們沒有考慮特朗普權力的鞏固意味著什麼，他們只是出於貪婪和自負，做出了愚蠢的反應。

By the way, the greed part is obvious. But it has also been clear since the Obama years that a fair number of the superrich aren』t satisfied with being immensely wealthy; they also want adulation. They expect to be praised as heroic job creators and are enraged at any suggestion that some of their number may have behaved badly, let alone that they may have benefited from a rigged system.

順便說一下，貪婪的部分是顯而易見的。而且自奧巴馬執政以來就已經變得很明顯了，相當多的超級富豪們並不滿足於擁有巨額財富；他們也想要阿諛奉承。他們期望自己被稱讚為創造就業的英雄，並對任何關於他們中的一些人可能表現不好的暗示感到憤怒，更不用說他們可能從一個被操縱的體系中獲益。

Hence the hatred for even reasonable, pro-market progressives like, say, Elizabeth Warren. It』s not just that these progressives might make billionaires a bit poorer, but that they make them feel small.

因此，即便是像伊麗莎白?沃倫這樣理性的、親市場的進步人士，也會遭到憎恨。這些進步人士不僅可能讓億萬富翁們變得更窮，還會讓他們覺得自己很渺小。

But this is no time for pettiness. Vast wealth brings many privileges, and it will continue to do so even if progressive Democrats win big next year. What wealth doesn』t bring is the right to let self-indulgence turn you into a useful idiot.

但現在不是小心眼的時候。巨大的財富帶來了許多特權，即使進步的民主黨明年大獲全勝，這種特權也將繼續存在。財富所不能帶來的，是讓自我放縱把你變成一個有用的白痴的權利。

世界播

雙語資訊，讀懂世界

長按識別左邊二維碼

加入世界播用戶交流群

喜歡這篇文章嗎？立刻分享出去讓更多人知道吧！