Barack Obama's re-election
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: November 08, 2012
Nov 7th 2012, 6:33 by M.S.
AFTER a panel discussion on the US elections hosted by a Dutch radio station the other night, I got to talking to a fellow American who's looking for work stateside. His Dutch government-funded job had been eliminated by austerity measures, so he was trying to convince his wife of the virtues of moving back to America. The main reason he was hesitating was the mood of vicious and increasingly entrenched political animosity. "Do you get the feeling," he asked, "that it could get violent?"
I said I didn't know. But it's certainly not a silly question. A recent broadcast of "This American Life", which focused on people who have lost close friends in recent years over politics, seemed to capture the mood pretty accurately. One sequence portrayed a student with a life-threatening pre-existing condition that until recently rendered him uninsurable, who has stopped talking to a conservative friend who refuses to support ObamaCare because he said it felt as though the friend didn't value his life. A conservative man describes being unable to continue talking to a former friend who supports a president he is convinced is destroying the country. Two sisters can't agree on who is being rude and condescending to whom after a furious falling-out over political philosophy.
Barack Obama has just won re-election, but America remains a country bitterly divided, as it has been for well over a decade. The divide is simultaneously very narrow in numerical terms, and gaping in ideological or partisan terms. This is what strikes one most strongly looking back at America from across an ocean: the country seems repeatedly embroiled in savage 51-49 electoral campaigns, and it seems to be increasingly paralysed by irresolvable rancour between right and left.
And think about it for a second: this is bizarre. If Americans are in fact divided between two extremely different political ideologies, it would be an extraordinary coincidence if each of those philosophies were to hold the allegiance of nearly equal blocs of support. That situation ought not to be stable. Adherence to these two ideologies ought to shift enough just due to demographics that the 50-50 split should deteriorate. And yet the even split seems to be stable. What's going on?
To put this another way, it's entirely logical to get a 50-50 split in a country where two relatively compatible political parties are competing for centrist votes. In a system governed by the logic of the median-voter theorem, one would expect to see the parties converging in policy terms to win the allegiance of voters in the centre. And you can even make a case that this is, in policy terms, what has happened in America. Realistic arguments over policy take place on relatively narrow terrain: they are arguments over a top marginal tax rate of 35% or 39.6%, over a health-insurance system with guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions but with or without a mandate, and so forth. But in ideological terms, this is not what the political divide looks like. Republicans construe the Democratic positions on these questions as socialism and international decline. Democrats construe the Republican positions as social darwinism and militant imperialism. How you do end up with a populace split evenly between these radical belief structures?
My basic take is that the stable, narrow, bitter partisan divide in America is a phenomenon driven by an interaction between two major players: the parties themselves, and the media. Political parties have achieved a staggering level of professionalism; the increasing availability of voter preference data and increasing sophistication of recruitment techniques in the age of information technology are likely to result in convergence between their abilities to secure their vote shares. The media, meanwhile, and this can't be repeated often enough, is overwhelmingly biased towards producing exciting political races. Horse-race reporting gives the media the collective ability to shape the kind of narrative it needs in order to report excitingly. The increasing interaction between mass media and social media seems only to exacerbate this tendency: both mass-media analysts and private social-media contributors are rewarded for sharply divisive characterisations. We're seeing market segmentation in which a number of players have an interest in keeping the segments at equal sizes.
But most people don't view the increase in partisanship as a morally neutral, structural phenomenon in which they're being driven into two camps by organisational forces. And they don't see the policy argument as being a narrow one. The suspicion on both sides is that, while the results in policy terms if the other side wins the election may not be catastrophic, the other side's true aim is a vision of America that is anathema to one's own. And this leads to a social antipathy that can be quite profound. It increasingly takes a conscious effort for Democrats and Republicans to be socially at ease with each other. There is an increasing level of outright hostility; on the Republican side especially, the arguments that have been deployed to rally opposition to the enemy's agenda provide intellectual support for violent resistance.
Setting aside the policy issues we're facing over the next four years, I think the most immediate need is for Americans to find a way to live civilly with each other. "This American Life" brought on a pair of writers, liberal Phil Neisser and conservative Jacob Hess, who've written a book ("You're Not as Crazy as I Thought (But You're Still Wrong)") about their efforts to find a way to talk to each other and agree to disagree on fundamental philosophical and moral issues. There need to be a lot more similar efforts along these lines. This election has put Barack Obama back in office, and returned him a Democratic Senate and a Republican House. Over the next four years, legislative battles are going to continue to be savage and hard-fought. Neither conservatives nor liberals are going to change their minds en masse about fundamental issues of political philosophy. The top priority is for Americans to figure out a way to keep these divisions from
歐巴馬連任，分裂的美國走向何處？
2012-11-08 Web only 作者：經濟學人
歐巴馬成功連任，但美國仍舊是個極為分化的國家，而且這個情況已經持續超過十年了。如果美國真的分裂成兩個極為不同的政治意識形態陣營，這兩個陣營實在不太可能擁有人數幾近相同的支持群眾；這樣的情況應該無法長期維持，但美國的分裂似乎處於穩定狀態，到底是怎麼回事？
換個角度來看，如果一國之內的兩大政黨相對能容忍對方，且雙方都在競爭中間選民的選票，那雙方的支持群眾不分上下也就十分合理。而在這種競逐中間選民的國家，各黨的政策應該會有所交匯，以贏得中間選民的支持。
美國的兩黨在實際政策方面的差異確實相對較小，例如最高稅率是在35%和39.6%之間爭執。但在意識形態上，共和黨人認為，民主黨的立場是社會主義和國際地位下滑；民主黨人則認為，共和黨的立場是社會達爾文主義和軍國主義。這兩種極為激進的信念，怎麼會剛好擁有不相上下的支持者？
這可能是政黨擁有強大固票能力，加上媒體喜歡製造激烈競選的態勢，所導致的現象。但對大部分人來說，分裂並非道德中立的結構性現象，雙方都擔心，雖然另一方勝選並非災難，但另一方的真實目標，是將美國帶往已方無法接受的境地。
這次選舉讓歐巴馬回到白宮，也給了他民主黨掌握的參議院，以及共和黨掌握的眾議院；接下來四年，立法之爭依舊會激烈無比。保守派和自由派都不會改變自身對於根本議題的看法，而對美國人來說，最重要的事情就是，避免這樣的分立把國家分成兩個相互敵視、無法對話的陣營。（黃維德譯）
留言列表
高普考補充資料 (3)
