和四年前比，美国变得更好了吗？
40年前，一位69岁的总统候选人站在克利夫兰的辩论台上，距离现任总统站的位置只有15英尺远。他转向电视观众，提出了似乎一夜之间改变选情的问题：“你过得比四年前好吗？”
那是1980年10月28日，此前民意调查显示，加州前州长共和党人罗纳德·里根和时任美国总统吉米·卡特两位候选人竞争非常激烈，最新一次民调几乎平分秋色。但当晚90分钟的友好交流结束时，里根抛出的问题瞬间让局势明朗。当时，美国经济在“滞胀”的沉重压力下一蹶不振，大致可以理解为“一切都很糟糕”，失业率高达7.5%，通胀率飙升，汽油价格在之前一年里攀升了超过三分之一。号称“伟大沟通者”的里根几句话便点出了阴暗现实，一周后他获得压倒性优势，50个州拿下了44个州，顺利入主白宫。
四十年后，又一次遭逢总统大选的风口浪尖，当年里根提出的问题似乎还是最能触动选民。或许你猜到了，一些民调机构确实提出了同样的问题。9月英国《金融时报》（Financial Times）和彼得森基金会（Peterson Foundation）的调查发现，与四年前相比，35%的美国选民感觉现在的财务状况更好，31%的人感觉更糟。后来盖洛普（Gallup）的一项民意调查结果则更加乐观，明显多数登记投票者（56%）表示现在过得更好。从两项调查结果来看，似乎对与前副总统拜登对决的特朗普来说都是好消息。
但意外仍然存在，毕竟仅凭调研很难预测选民实际的投票结果。“我们做了很多研究，从来没真正发现人们的财务状况跟投票结果之间有联系。”杰弗里·琼斯说，他负责盖洛普美国民调业务，也包括之前提到的“是否过得更好”调查。“人们投票时并不会完全考虑自身利益，而是真正从社会出发。也就是说，他们更关心社会实际情况，而不是只看自身处境。”他说。
琼斯说，盖洛普的三项调查预测大选结果更准，相关调查可以判断美国人对整体经济的信心、对美国现状的满意程度，以及对总统的认可程度，而且看的是全国总体情况。（在每项里，总统的支持率目前都偏低，尤其是跟之前赢得连任的总统相比。）
那么，选民面临的根本问题并不是“我过得更好吗？”而是“我们过得更好吗？”这也正是40年前里根提问的真正重点，然而该事实常常遭到忽视。1980年里根对电视观众进一步发问时就提到：
你去商店买东西比四年前方便吗？美国失业率是比四年前高还是低？美国在全世界受尊敬的程度跟以前一样吗？你觉得我们的安全程度像四年前一样吗？
现在的美国选民正在面临更多的问题，也许会更深刻地影响美国的国民认同，包括我们共同的使命感、对政府和社会机构的信任，甚至是交谈和倾听的方式。当然每次选举中，选民都会不可避免地根据意识形态、哲学或道德做出个人选择。不过，今年各政治派别的选民投票前都应该问一个基本问题：比起四年前，美国是否更加团结？
我还是我们
“不管任何时候，也不管在哪里的社会，人性都是统治政治的基本力量。”迈克·莱维特说，他曾经三次当选犹他州的州长，后来在小布什政府担任美国卫生和公众服务部（U.S. Health and Human Services）的部长。“我过得更好吗？”以及“我们过得更好吗？”确实能够代表个人自由和安全之间的冲突。为了获得其中之一，不得不放弃另一项。保守派共和党人莱维特认为，自由和安全两大永恒目标之间的竞争乃正当合理，甚至必要。但他担心竞争太过残酷，不过他也辩称，尖酸刻薄的言辞累计远不止过去四年时间。“我们发现身处两个极端的人们似乎都愿意越界，打破民主的盟约。这让人不适，也使人害怕，因为这与社会上公认的（契约）并不一致。”
皮尤研究中心（Pew Research Center）的数据显示，左翼和右翼、民主党和共和党之间的分歧越发严重。尽管主要政党在某些问题上的分歧越来越大，但最让人担心的并非意识形态，而是关乎个人。皮尤中心的政治研究主任卡罗尔·多尔蒂表示：“党派反感是指，我不仅不同意反对党，对该党派的人看法也相当负面，20世纪90年代中期以来党派反感现象一直在加剧。”多尔蒂说，2016年各种负面情绪开始激增。皮尤研究中心的数据显示，认为民主党人比一般美国人道德败坏的共和党人比例从2016年的47%上升到2019年的55%。民主党人认为共和党人道德败坏的比例则上升了12个百分点，从35%上升到47%。皮尤调查显示，近三分之二（63%）的共和党人表示，民主党人比一般美国人“不爱国”（23%的民主党人认为共和党人不够爱国），而且两党里认为对手党比一般人“心胸狭窄”或“懒惰”的比例也在攀升。两党认为分歧在扩大的人都占压倒性多数，约四分之三的共和党人和民主党人承认，探讨对方观点时，“无法就基本事实达成一致”。皮尤研究中心发现，令人沮丧的是，如果涉及放弃任何利益，两党里都有很大比例成员（53%的共和党人和41%的民主党人）不希望领导人与对方寻求“共同基础”。
多尔蒂强调，皮尤的最新研究是在总统大选前一年和疫情之前进行。“虽然无从推断……但相关负面情绪可能恶化。”他指出。
“这是一场为美国灵魂的斗争，没有哪方能够获胜，主要看另一方的威胁。”新美国研究基金会（New America foundation）的政治改革项目高级研究员、政治科学家李·德鲁特曼说道。“美国有一半人相信，如果另一半人掌权，国家是不合法的，而且有极大破坏性。”德鲁特曼的书《打破两党厄运循环：美国多党民主的案例》（Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America）已经于今年1月出版，书中认为不断升级的超党派主义已经将政治“简化”为我们与他们，以及善与恶的二元对立。
德鲁特曼表示，特朗普的言论是激化双方长期积累愤怒的“催化剂”。特朗普入主白宫后，在竞选集会上发出的激烈呼吁并未结束。相关言论声量越来越大，也越发激烈，还在社交媒体上引发共鸣。埃默里大学（Emory University）的政治学教授阿兰·阿布拉莫维茨说：“他从吹狗哨变成了拿着大喇叭喊”——从悄悄挖掘种族、种族和党派的恨意，变成体育场里的大合唱。
马里兰大学（University of Maryland）的政府与政治副教授、《不文明协议：政治如何成为我们的身份》（Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity）一书的作者利利亚娜·梅森说，特朗普超高分贝大喇叭轰鸣的效果远远超出了“集会”，这种行为鼓励了以政治为基础的暴力，甚至变得正常化。她指出，美国“反移民”仇恨团体增加，与政客反移民言论同步就是例子。（非营利机构南方贫困法律中心表示，2014年以来，类似激进组织的数量增加了超过一倍。）“很多人警告称会出现激进的暴力行为，主要是右翼挑起，尤其是在2020年大选前后。”梅森说，“不过美国各大城市已经有全副武装的士兵巡逻。”10月联邦调查局（FBI）披露，一些自称民兵组织的厚颜无耻之徒策划绑架了密歇根州州长格雷琴·惠特默，潜在的危险可从中一瞥。梅森表示，这些“都是2016年难以想象的”。
长长的待办清单
尽管负面的党派偏见导致美国社会结构撕裂，也增加了立法的挑战性，尤其是联邦层面“想做任何事，都得建立某种程度上的跨党派同盟，”阿布拉莫维茨说。德鲁特曼表示，实际问题甚至更严重。“美国制度里的根本冲突之一是，政治体制的出发点是鼓励广泛妥协，而政党制度下达成妥协很难。所以，从一开始选举和执政激励机制就是不同的两套制度。”政治摩擦升级只会扩大两者之间的差别。
为了下一个世纪继续繁荣发展，而且世界要比以往更具竞争力也更经济，美国人必须投资自身，就像企业为了发展要自我投资一样。这意味着为再就业计划和关键基础设施重建提供资金，具体操作起来涉及面很广，从修复破损的道路和桥梁到建设先进的5G电信网络均包括在内。社会保障体系的不稳定性也未减轻，需要以某种方式修正。我们要控制失控的医保费用，控制仍然在肆虐的疫情，更要为今后的疫情做好准备。还有更棘手的问题要面对，包括应对气候变化、刑事司法改革、制定既能够推动产业发展和美国安全又可以维护公平感的移民政策等。到最后，我们还得想办法帮助因疫情封锁失业的数百万人重返工作岗位（参见我们的选举方案）。要做的事情可不少。
为待办事项花钱可以说是更加艰巨的挑战，两党挥金如土的领导人已经掏空了美国的钱包，而人们已经穷到快穿不起裤子。国会预算办公室（见图表）的数据显示，到2023年公众持有的联邦债务将达到美国GDP的106%，而且届时起红线将继续上升。解决问题需要创造性和雄心，意味着交战双方要尽弃前嫌共同努力。
这也意味着我们也要刺激美国商业增长。“如果说解决办法就是创新，听起来可能有点偏学术，也有点空想。”哥伦比亚大学资本主义与社会中心（Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University）的主任，2006年诺贝尔经济学奖得主埃德蒙·菲尔普斯说。“但老实说，如果不能推动经济发展得比过去40年或50年好，今后还能够有多少进展真不一定。”菲尔普斯说，很高兴看到企业开始积极抵制特朗普政府的关税以及“阻碍企业开发产品所需人才”的移民政策。菲尔普斯特别希望下一届政府能积极开展国际贸易。“国际贸易可能是美国商业部门新能源的来源。对就业、工资和其他方面都大有裨益。”他说。
微软（Microsoft）的董事会成员、纽约私募股权公司Clayton Dubilier&Rice的合伙人桑迪·彼得森同样对特朗普的移民政策很失望。她说：“如果我们不能齐心协力，美国的创新引擎将不复存在，创新引擎就是吸引全世界最聪明的人，创造令人惊艳的新产品。人们不再来这里学习，由于拿不到签证，人们也无法来这工作。”彼得森曾经担任强生（Johnson & Johnson）的全球董事长，她还表示，吸引海外人才“是长期以来推动美国经济增长的原因，我们却搞砸了。”
选民在这方面面临的挑战是，思考解决问题的最佳办法，是再给特朗普一次机会，还是换个人重新开始。
信任和信誉
无论2021年1月20日谁上台，都将面临另一项紧迫任务：重建对政府机构本身的信任。过去四年里，疾病预防控制中心（CDC）、食品与药品管理局（FDA）和司法部（Justice Department）之类过去被认为无党派且不受政治压力影响的机构，似乎都对白宫唯命是从，受到很多人质疑。新美国研究基金会的德鲁特曼说：“之前这些机构都是中立的仲裁者，如果政治体系中人们能够就基本的程序公平达成一致，并接受合理的反对意见，这些机构就可以保持独立。”但身处狂热的超党派时代，理想的政治体系似乎已经不复存在。
马里兰大学的梅森表示，内讧对国家安全造成影响。她提醒说，乔治·华盛顿总统在告别演说中曾经发出警告。“如果允许派系存在，就可能自相残杀，最终导致国家受到外部干涉；如果制造非常严重的党派分歧，会使国家变弱，其他国家要搅乱美国也更容易。”梅森说。
史汀森中心（Stimson Center）是研究全球安全和其他关键问题的无党派智库，其总裁兼首席执行官布莱恩·芬莱对此表示赞同。“现在世界上的对手已经发现了美国制度的根本弱点。”芬莱说。“他们利用党派分歧，也通过让孩子们相信《华盛顿邮报》（Washington Post）不可信，充分利用了发现的技术弱点。我们的对手越来越聪明，现在还在攻击选举，就像在鱼缸里点杀金鱼一样简单。他们不需要向美国派遣武装人员，在地下室的电脑上就能破坏。”
防御此类非同步战争很困难。如果没有同盟、关系和协议就更难。美国早已签订多边协议，阻止冷战中的苏联扩张和侵略，限制核武器在世界各地扩散，阻止非法捕鱼，当然也要出售更多的美国商品。
然而过去四年里，特朗普退出了多个重要的同盟，还威胁要“终止”美国与世界卫生组织（World Health Organization）的联系（而且是在全球疫情泛滥期间），1948年世界卫生组织由美国倡议并协助成立。他还破坏了跨太平洋伙伴关系（TPP）贸易协定，芬雷说。
美国退出了里根总统1987年与苏联总理戈尔巴乔夫签署的《中程核武器条约（INF）》（Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty），当年正是该条约推动冷战结束。美国放弃了两党广泛支持的《开放天空条约》（Open Skies Treaty），特朗普还让美国退出了应对气候变化的《巴黎协议》（Paris Agreement）。
对于美国的健康、繁荣和安全，以上诸多举动更多都是自我伤害，也是选民投票时需要考虑的问题。最后简单地说吧，我们比四年前过得更好，还是应该寻求改变了？（财富中文网）
本文登载于《财富》杂志2020年11月刊。
译者：夏林
40年前，一位69岁的总统候选人站在克利夫兰的辩论台上，距离现任总统站的位置只有15英尺远。他转向电视观众，提出了似乎一夜之间改变选情的问题：“你过得比四年前好吗？”
那是1980年10月28日，此前民意调查显示，加州前州长共和党人罗纳德·里根和时任美国总统吉米·卡特两位候选人竞争非常激烈，最新一次民调几乎平分秋色。但当晚90分钟的友好交流结束时，里根抛出的问题瞬间让局势明朗。当时，美国经济在“滞胀”的沉重压力下一蹶不振，大致可以理解为“一切都很糟糕”，失业率高达7.5%，通胀率飙升，汽油价格在之前一年里攀升了超过三分之一。号称“伟大沟通者”的里根几句话便点出了阴暗现实，一周后他获得压倒性优势，50个州拿下了44个州，顺利入主白宫。
四十年后，又一次遭逢总统大选的风口浪尖，当年里根提出的问题似乎还是最能触动选民。或许你猜到了，一些民调机构确实提出了同样的问题。9月英国《金融时报》（Financial Times）和彼得森基金会（Peterson Foundation）的调查发现，与四年前相比，35%的美国选民感觉现在的财务状况更好，31%的人感觉更糟。后来盖洛普（Gallup）的一项民意调查结果则更加乐观，明显多数登记投票者（56%）表示现在过得更好。从两项调查结果来看，似乎对与前副总统拜登对决的特朗普来说都是好消息。
但意外仍然存在，毕竟仅凭调研很难预测选民实际的投票结果。“我们做了很多研究，从来没真正发现人们的财务状况跟投票结果之间有联系。”杰弗里·琼斯说，他负责盖洛普美国民调业务，也包括之前提到的“是否过得更好”调查。“人们投票时并不会完全考虑自身利益，而是真正从社会出发。也就是说，他们更关心社会实际情况，而不是只看自身处境。”他说。
琼斯说，盖洛普的三项调查预测大选结果更准，相关调查可以判断美国人对整体经济的信心、对美国现状的满意程度，以及对总统的认可程度，而且看的是全国总体情况。（在每项里，总统的支持率目前都偏低，尤其是跟之前赢得连任的总统相比。）
那么，选民面临的根本问题并不是“我过得更好吗？”而是“我们过得更好吗？”这也正是40年前里根提问的真正重点，然而该事实常常遭到忽视。1980年里根对电视观众进一步发问时就提到：
你去商店买东西比四年前方便吗？美国失业率是比四年前高还是低？美国在全世界受尊敬的程度跟以前一样吗？你觉得我们的安全程度像四年前一样吗？
现在的美国选民正在面临更多的问题，也许会更深刻地影响美国的国民认同，包括我们共同的使命感、对政府和社会机构的信任，甚至是交谈和倾听的方式。当然每次选举中，选民都会不可避免地根据意识形态、哲学或道德做出个人选择。不过，今年各政治派别的选民投票前都应该问一个基本问题：比起四年前，美国是否更加团结？
我还是我们
“不管任何时候，也不管在哪里的社会，人性都是统治政治的基本力量。”迈克·莱维特说，他曾经三次当选犹他州的州长，后来在小布什政府担任美国卫生和公众服务部（U.S. Health and Human Services）的部长。“我过得更好吗？”以及“我们过得更好吗？”确实能够代表个人自由和安全之间的冲突。为了获得其中之一，不得不放弃另一项。保守派共和党人莱维特认为，自由和安全两大永恒目标之间的竞争乃正当合理，甚至必要。但他担心竞争太过残酷，不过他也辩称，尖酸刻薄的言辞累计远不止过去四年时间。“我们发现身处两个极端的人们似乎都愿意越界，打破民主的盟约。这让人不适，也使人害怕，因为这与社会上公认的（契约）并不一致。”
皮尤研究中心（Pew Research Center）的数据显示，左翼和右翼、民主党和共和党之间的分歧越发严重。尽管主要政党在某些问题上的分歧越来越大，但最让人担心的并非意识形态，而是关乎个人。皮尤中心的政治研究主任卡罗尔·多尔蒂表示：“党派反感是指，我不仅不同意反对党，对该党派的人看法也相当负面，20世纪90年代中期以来党派反感现象一直在加剧。”多尔蒂说，2016年各种负面情绪开始激增。皮尤研究中心的数据显示，认为民主党人比一般美国人道德败坏的共和党人比例从2016年的47%上升到2019年的55%。民主党人认为共和党人道德败坏的比例则上升了12个百分点，从35%上升到47%。皮尤调查显示，近三分之二（63%）的共和党人表示，民主党人比一般美国人“不爱国”（23%的民主党人认为共和党人不够爱国），而且两党里认为对手党比一般人“心胸狭窄”或“懒惰”的比例也在攀升。两党认为分歧在扩大的人都占压倒性多数，约四分之三的共和党人和民主党人承认，探讨对方观点时，“无法就基本事实达成一致”。皮尤研究中心发现，令人沮丧的是，如果涉及放弃任何利益，两党里都有很大比例成员（53%的共和党人和41%的民主党人）不希望领导人与对方寻求“共同基础”。
多尔蒂强调，皮尤的最新研究是在总统大选前一年和疫情之前进行。“虽然无从推断……但相关负面情绪可能恶化。”他指出。
“这是一场为美国灵魂的斗争，没有哪方能够获胜，主要看另一方的威胁。”新美国研究基金会（New America foundation）的政治改革项目高级研究员、政治科学家李·德鲁特曼说道。“美国有一半人相信，如果另一半人掌权，国家是不合法的，而且有极大破坏性。”德鲁特曼的书《打破两党厄运循环：美国多党民主的案例》（Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America）已经于今年1月出版，书中认为不断升级的超党派主义已经将政治“简化”为我们与他们，以及善与恶的二元对立。
德鲁特曼表示，特朗普的言论是激化双方长期积累愤怒的“催化剂”。特朗普入主白宫后，在竞选集会上发出的激烈呼吁并未结束。相关言论声量越来越大，也越发激烈，还在社交媒体上引发共鸣。埃默里大学（Emory University）的政治学教授阿兰·阿布拉莫维茨说：“他从吹狗哨变成了拿着大喇叭喊”——从悄悄挖掘种族、种族和党派的恨意，变成体育场里的大合唱。
马里兰大学（University of Maryland）的政府与政治副教授、《不文明协议：政治如何成为我们的身份》（Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity）一书的作者利利亚娜·梅森说，特朗普超高分贝大喇叭轰鸣的效果远远超出了“集会”，这种行为鼓励了以政治为基础的暴力，甚至变得正常化。她指出，美国“反移民”仇恨团体增加，与政客反移民言论同步就是例子。（非营利机构南方贫困法律中心表示，2014年以来，类似激进组织的数量增加了超过一倍。）“很多人警告称会出现激进的暴力行为，主要是右翼挑起，尤其是在2020年大选前后。”梅森说，“不过美国各大城市已经有全副武装的士兵巡逻。”10月联邦调查局（FBI）披露，一些自称民兵组织的厚颜无耻之徒策划绑架了密歇根州州长格雷琴·惠特默，潜在的危险可从中一瞥。梅森表示，这些“都是2016年难以想象的”。
长长的待办清单
尽管负面的党派偏见导致美国社会结构撕裂，也增加了立法的挑战性，尤其是联邦层面“想做任何事，都得建立某种程度上的跨党派同盟，”阿布拉莫维茨说。德鲁特曼表示，实际问题甚至更严重。“美国制度里的根本冲突之一是，政治体制的出发点是鼓励广泛妥协，而政党制度下达成妥协很难。所以，从一开始选举和执政激励机制就是不同的两套制度。”政治摩擦升级只会扩大两者之间的差别。
为了下一个世纪继续繁荣发展，而且世界要比以往更具竞争力也更经济，美国人必须投资自身，就像企业为了发展要自我投资一样。这意味着为再就业计划和关键基础设施重建提供资金，具体操作起来涉及面很广，从修复破损的道路和桥梁到建设先进的5G电信网络均包括在内。社会保障体系的不稳定性也未减轻，需要以某种方式修正。我们要控制失控的医保费用，控制仍然在肆虐的疫情，更要为今后的疫情做好准备。还有更棘手的问题要面对，包括应对气候变化、刑事司法改革、制定既能够推动产业发展和美国安全又可以维护公平感的移民政策等。到最后，我们还得想办法帮助因疫情封锁失业的数百万人重返工作岗位（参见我们的选举方案）。要做的事情可不少。
为待办事项花钱可以说是更加艰巨的挑战，两党挥金如土的领导人已经掏空了美国的钱包，而人们已经穷到快穿不起裤子。国会预算办公室（见图表）的数据显示，到2023年公众持有的联邦债务将达到美国GDP的106%，而且届时起红线将继续上升。解决问题需要创造性和雄心，意味着交战双方要尽弃前嫌共同努力。
这也意味着我们也要刺激美国商业增长。“如果说解决办法就是创新，听起来可能有点偏学术，也有点空想。”哥伦比亚大学资本主义与社会中心（Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University）的主任，2006年诺贝尔经济学奖得主埃德蒙·菲尔普斯说。“但老实说，如果不能推动经济发展得比过去40年或50年好，今后还能够有多少进展真不一定。”菲尔普斯说，很高兴看到企业开始积极抵制特朗普政府的关税以及“阻碍企业开发产品所需人才”的移民政策。菲尔普斯特别希望下一届政府能积极开展国际贸易。“国际贸易可能是美国商业部门新能源的来源。对就业、工资和其他方面都大有裨益。”他说。
微软（Microsoft）的董事会成员、纽约私募股权公司Clayton Dubilier&Rice的合伙人桑迪·彼得森同样对特朗普的移民政策很失望。她说：“如果我们不能齐心协力，美国的创新引擎将不复存在，创新引擎就是吸引全世界最聪明的人，创造令人惊艳的新产品。人们不再来这里学习，由于拿不到签证，人们也无法来这工作。”彼得森曾经担任强生（Johnson & Johnson）的全球董事长，她还表示，吸引海外人才“是长期以来推动美国经济增长的原因，我们却搞砸了。”
选民在这方面面临的挑战是，思考解决问题的最佳办法，是再给特朗普一次机会，还是换个人重新开始。
信任和信誉
无论2021年1月20日谁上台，都将面临另一项紧迫任务：重建对政府机构本身的信任。过去四年里，疾病预防控制中心（CDC）、食品与药品管理局（FDA）和司法部（Justice Department）之类过去被认为无党派且不受政治压力影响的机构，似乎都对白宫唯命是从，受到很多人质疑。新美国研究基金会的德鲁特曼说：“之前这些机构都是中立的仲裁者，如果政治体系中人们能够就基本的程序公平达成一致，并接受合理的反对意见，这些机构就可以保持独立。”但身处狂热的超党派时代，理想的政治体系似乎已经不复存在。
马里兰大学的梅森表示，内讧对国家安全造成影响。她提醒说，乔治·华盛顿总统在告别演说中曾经发出警告。“如果允许派系存在，就可能自相残杀，最终导致国家受到外部干涉；如果制造非常严重的党派分歧，会使国家变弱，其他国家要搅乱美国也更容易。”梅森说。
史汀森中心（Stimson Center）是研究全球安全和其他关键问题的无党派智库，其总裁兼首席执行官布莱恩·芬莱对此表示赞同。“现在世界上的对手已经发现了美国制度的根本弱点。”芬莱说。“他们利用党派分歧，也通过让孩子们相信《华盛顿邮报》（Washington Post）不可信，充分利用了发现的技术弱点。我们的对手越来越聪明，现在还在攻击选举，就像在鱼缸里点杀金鱼一样简单。他们不需要向美国派遣武装人员，在地下室的电脑上就能破坏。”
防御此类非同步战争很困难。如果没有同盟、关系和协议就更难。美国早已签订多边协议，阻止冷战中的苏联扩张和侵略，限制核武器在世界各地扩散，阻止非法捕鱼，当然也要出售更多的美国商品。
然而过去四年里，特朗普退出了多个重要的同盟，还威胁要“终止”美国与世界卫生组织（World Health Organization）的联系（而且是在全球疫情泛滥期间），1948年世界卫生组织由美国倡议并协助成立。他还破坏了跨太平洋伙伴关系（TPP）贸易协定，芬雷说。
美国退出了里根总统1987年与苏联总理戈尔巴乔夫签署的《中程核武器条约（INF）》（Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty），当年正是该条约推动冷战结束。美国放弃了两党广泛支持的《开放天空条约》（Open Skies Treaty），特朗普还让美国退出了应对气候变化的《巴黎协议》（Paris Agreement）。
对于美国的健康、繁荣和安全，以上诸多举动更多都是自我伤害，也是选民投票时需要考虑的问题。最后简单地说吧，我们比四年前过得更好，还是应该寻求改变了？（财富中文网）
本文登载于《财富》杂志2020年11月刊。
译者：夏林
Forty years ago, a 69-year-old candidate for President stood on a Cleveland debate stage 15 feet from the incumbent, turned to the television audience, and asked a question that would seemingly change the race overnight: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
It was Oct. 28, 1980, and opinion polls until then had been suggesting a close contest between the two nominees, former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, the Republican, and President Jimmy Carter, the Democrat—with the most recent of surveys splitting down the middle as to who had the edge. But the challenger’s question that evening, posed at the end of a cordial 90-minute exchange, clarified the choice in a flash. The American economy was wilting under the burden of “stagflation,” a portmanteau that roughly translated to “everything stinks”—the unemployment rate was mired at 7.5%, inflation was soaring, gasoline prices had climbed by more than a third in just the past year. Reagan, “the Great Communicator,” had framed those gloomy circumstances in a handful of words—and one week later he won the White House in a landslide, carrying 44 of the 50 states.
Four decades later, on the cusp of another presidential election, it might seem that there’s no question that’s more relevant to voters than the one Reagan asked—and a few pollsters, as you might expect, have already asked it. A September survey by the Financial Times and the Peterson Foundation found that a plurality of U.S. voters, 35%, felt better about their present financial situation, and 31% felt worse, compared with four years ago; a later poll by Gallup painted a more upbeat picture, with a clear majority of registered voters (56%) saying they were better off today. Both surveys would seem to portend good news for President Donald Trump as he faces off against former Vice President Joe Biden.
Yet here’s a surprise: The answers tell us little about how voters will actually fill out their ballots. “We’ve done a lot of research and have never really found a link between people’s own finances and how the vote turned out,” says Jeffrey Jones, who oversees all U.S. polling for Gallup, including the “better off” survey above. “People are not really self-interested when they think about how they’re going to vote, it’s really sociotropic voting: They care more about what’s going on out there as opposed to their own situation,” he says.
Far more predictive of election outcomes, says Jones, are a trio of Gallup surveys—those measuring Americans’ confidence in the economy overall, satisfaction with the way things are going in the U.S., and presidential approval—that look at the state of the nation as a whole. (In each, the President’s rating is currently underwater, and particularly so compared with previous incumbents who won reelection.)
The material question for voters, then, isn’t “Am I better off?” but rather “Are we better off?” Indeed, that was the true focus of the question Reagan framed 40 years ago, a fact that has been too often missed. As the candidate went on to prompt his TV audience in 1980:
Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago?
U.S. voters today are facing additional questions that drive, perhaps, even more deeply to who we are as a nation: our shared sense of purpose, our trust in the institutions of government and society, even the way we talk and listen to one another. In every election, of course, voters will inevitably make personal choices on the basis of ideology, philosophy, or morality—as it should be. This year, though, there is one fundamental question that voters of every political bent ought to ask before they cast their ballot: Is the United States of America more or less united than it was four years ago?
Me vs. We
“Human nature really is the fundamental force that governs politics in any society at any time,” says Mike Leavitt, who was elected three times as governor of Utah and later served in President George W. Bush’s cabinet as secretary of U.S. Health and Human Services. “And this division between ‘Am I better off?’ and ‘Are we better off?’ is really the conflict between (me) individual liberty and (we) security: We give up one in order to gain the other.” Leavitt, a conservative Republican, sees the struggle between these two eternal goals—liberty and security—as a legitimate, and even necessary contest. But he is concerned with how brutal the battle has become, though he contends the vitriol has been building for far longer than in just the past four years. “We’re seeing people on both extremes who seem willing to color outside the lines, to break the covenant of democracy. And that offends us, and it scares us, because it’s not consistent with [the pact] we’ve all entered into.”
Data from the Pew Research Center shows how hardened the divisions between left and right, Democrat and Republican have become. Though the major parties are growing further apart on issues, the bigger concern is not ideological but personal. “Partisan antipathy—this is the sense that I not only disagree with the opposing party, but I take a rather negative view of the people in that party—has been growing since the mid-1990s,” says Carroll Doherty, the Pew Center’s director of political research. But in 2016, Doherty says, those negative feelings began to spike. The share of Republicans who describe Democrats as more immoral than other Americans grew from 47% in 2016 to 55% in 2019, according to Pew research. The share of Democrats who describe Republicans as immoral rose 12 percentage points, from 35% to 47%. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of Republicans surveyed by Pew said Democrats are more “unpatriotic” than other Americans (23% of Democrats feel the same about Republicans), and the share in each party who view the other as more “close-minded” or “lazy” than their countrymen has climbed as well. Overwhelming majorities in both parties say the divide between them is growing, with some three-quarters of Republicans and Democrats acknowledging that they “cannot agree on basic facts” when it comes to the views of the other side. Dispiritingly, Pew found, huge percentages on both sides of the aisle (53% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats) do not want their leaders to seek “common ground” with the other party if it means giving up anything.
Doherty emphasizes that Pew’s latest study was conducted a year before the presidential election—and before the coronavirus pandemic: “While we can’t extrapolate … it’s possible that these negative sentiments could have grown,” he notes.
“There is this existential struggle for the soul of America in which neither side can win, and it’s all about the threat of the other side,” says political scientist Lee Drutman, a senior fellow in the political reform program at the New America foundation. “We have half of the country who’s convinced that the other half of the country—if they got power—would be illegitimate and substantially destructive.” Drutman, whose book Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America was published in January, contends that the escalating hyper-partisanship has “simplified” politics into this us-versus-them, good-versus-evil binary.
Trump’s rhetoric has been an “accelerant” to the long-simmering anger on both sides, says Drutman. The fiery invocations he unleashed at his campaign rallies didn’t end when he got to the White House. They got louder and fiercer and were echoed on social media. Says Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University: “He went from dog whistles to a bullhorn”—from quietly tapping into racial, ethnic, and partisan resentment to stadium-size chants.
The high-decibel roar of his MAGAphone has had an effect that goes well beyond “rallying the base,” says Lilliana Mason, associate professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, and author of the book, Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. It has encouraged and even normalized politically based violence, she says—pointing, for example, to the rise in “anti-immigrant” hate groups in the U.S., which has risen in parallel with the anti-immigration rhetoric of politicians. (The number of such groups has more than doubled since 2014, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.) “There are a lot of people warning about radical, mainly right-wing, violence specifically around the 2020 election,” says Mason, “but we’ve already seen heavily armed men walking through American cities.” To glimpse the potential danger, witness the brazen plot by members of self-styled militia groups to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, which was revealed by the FBI in October. These are things “we couldn’t even imagine in 2016,” Mason says.
A long to-do list
As much as this negative partisanship has torn America’s social fabric, it has made legislating all the more challenging—particularly at the federal level where “to get anything done, you have to be able to build coalitions that to some extent cross party lines,” says Abramowitz. Indeed, Drutman says the problem goes even deeper: “One of the fundamental conflicts in the American system is that we have political institutions that are set out to encourage broad compromise, and we have a party system that has evolved to make compromise very difficult. So we have a different set of electoral and governing incentives from the start.” The escalation in political vitriol only widens the gap between them.
To thrive over the next century—and in a world that’s more competitive, economically, than ever before—Americans must invest in the nation, just as any business needs to invest in itself in order to grow. That means funding job reskilling programs and rebuilding critical infrastructure, a sprawling mandate that spans from repairing crumbling roads and bridges to constructing advanced 5G telecom networks. The Social Security system did not get less wobbly on its own; it will need to be fixed somehow. We still have to rein in runaway health care costs, and get the still-raging pandemic under control, to say nothing of preparing for whatever outbreaks are yet to come. There are even knottier problems to contend with—climate change, criminal justice reform, crafting an immigration policy that sustains both industry, U.S. security, and a sense of fairness. And ultimately, we’ll have to find a way to put the millions of people who lost their jobs in the wake of COVID-19 shutdowns back to work (see our election package). It’s no small list of must-dos.
Paying for all of this is, if anything, a more daunting challenge: Our spendaholic leaders in both parties have already emptied America’s wallet, and we’re in hock up to our shorts. The federal debt held by the public will reach 106% of our GDP in 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office (see chart)—and the fever line rises relentlessly from there. We’ll have to be creative and ambitious in our problem-solving—and, yes, that means the warring parties must set aside their bitterness and work together.
It also means we’ll have to hot-wire business growth in the U.S. “It sounds probably academic and otherworldly to say the solution is innovation,” says Edmund Phelps, winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Economics and director of the Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University. “But quite frankly, I’m not sure how far we can progress if we don’t get the economy to be delivering better than it has been for the past 40 or 50 years.” Phelps says he is happy that companies are starting to aggressively push back on Trump administration tariffs as well as on an immigration policy that is “blocking the talents that companies need for developing new products.” Phelps is particularly keen to see the next administration embrace international trade. “It could be a source of new energy in the business sector in this country. That will be great for jobs and wage rates and everything else,” he says.
Sandi Peterson, a member of the board of directors at Microsoft and a partner at Clayton Dubilier & Rice, a New York private equity firm, is equally frustrated with Trump’s immigration policy. “If we don’t get our act together, the innovation engine of the United States—where all the smartest people in the world showed up and created all this amazing stuff—is gone,” she says. “People won’t come here to study anymore. People won’t come here to try to work anymore, because they can’t get visas,” says Peterson, who was formerly group worldwide chairman for Johnson & Johnson. Luring talent from overseas “is what has driven the economy of this country for an incredibly long time—and we just really messed it up.”
The challenge for voters, on this front, is to guess what’s the best way to fix this: Give Trump another chance or clear the slate and start over.
Trust and credibility
Whoever ends up being in charge on Jan. 20, 2021, will have another urgent task: rebuilding trust in the institutions of government itself. Over the past four years, agencies that used to be considered nonpartisan and independent from political pressure—including the CDC, FDA, and the Justice Department—have been viewed by many with skepticism and suspicion, as they have seemed to bend to White House talking points. “All of these institutions used to be neutral arbiters,” says New America’s Drutman. “And in a political system where everybody can agree on a basic procedural fairness and can accept the idea of a legitimate opposition, then these institutions can maintain their independence.” But this is one more lost treasure, it seems, in our era of fevered hyper-partisanship.
Such infighting has implications for our national security, says the University of Maryland’s Mason: President George Washington warned against this in his farewell address, she reminds us. “If you allow factions to form, you open the nation to foreign interference because we start fighting ourselves,” says Mason. “When we create this very deep partisan divide, it makes us weaker as a nation, and it makes it much easier for other nations to mess with us.”
Brian Finlay, president and CEO of the Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank devoted to studying global security and other critical issues, agrees. “We’re now in a world where our adversaries have identified the fundamental weaknesses of our system,” says Finlay. “They’ve exploited the divisions. They’ve exploited the technology weakness that they’ve seen by convincing our children that the Washington Post doesn’t have credibility. Our adversaries have wised up, and now they’re attacking our elections, which is like shooting fish in a barrel. They don’t need to send armed combatants to the United States. They can do it from their basement computers.”
It is hard enough to defend against such asynchronous warfare. It is harder still to do it without alliances, partnerships, and pacts. The U.S. has long entered into multilateral agreements—to stem Soviet expansion and aggression in the Cold War, limit the spread of nuclear weapons around the world, prevent illegal fishing, and naturally, sell more American goods.
But in the past four years, President Trump has pulled us away from many of these critically important alliances—even “terminating” our relationship (in the middle of a global pandemic) with the World Health Organization, an institution that the U.S. pushed for, and helped create, in 1948. He has also scuttled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, says Finlay.
We also exited the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty that President Ronald Reagan signed with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, and which helped to end the Cold War. We abandoned the Open Skies Treaty, which had broad bipartisan support, and Trump yanked the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement on climate change.
These are yet more self-inflicted wounds when it comes to America’s health, prosperity, and security—and one more consideration for voters as they head to the polls. But let’s keep it simple: Are we better off than we were four years ago, or is it time for a change?
This article appears in the November 2020 issue of Fortune.
