美国共和党可能需要组建新党派（中英双语）

青岛希尼尔翻译公司（www.sinosenior.com.cn）整理发布2016-03-10

希尼尔翻译公司（www.sinosenior.com.cn）2016年3月10日了解到：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.

周二，唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)在美国举行初选的11个州中的7个州碾压对手，这已成为本选举年的常态。在数月自欺欺人之后，共和党人不得不努力面对一种看法，即这位纽约地产大亨兼电视真人秀明星可能赢得本党提名。

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?

特朗普喜欢称之为“建制派”的那些共和党人反应各有不同，有的顺从地接受“人民的意志”，有的信誓旦旦地反对他，不是投票给希拉里•克林顿(Hillary Clinton)，就是投票支持第三个党派的竞选人。共和党的正确反应是什么？

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.

就其本质来说，这是个私人问题。在美国，让人们透露投票支持谁或者告诉他们如何投票是不礼貌的行为。甚至，报纸会称所支持的候选人为“我们的选择”，而不会劝说读者投票给某位候选人。大多数人美国人也不是忠诚拥护某一政党政策的选民。决定此次选举的人不是共和党或者民主党的核心人士。许多人关心理念；其他人则慢慢觉得美国政府不再关心他们。我也是这么认为的。

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.

作为一个在1992年首次投票的移民，站在投票箱前仍让我对自己的幸运感到自豪和惊叹。我也是一名共和党人，但这是因为我的意识形态正好与共和党一致，并非是忠诚于共和党。我信仰的东西——个人自由、小政府、美国全球领导力——是道德而非政治上的选择。和我持相同观点的人往往是共和党人，但也并非全都是。当我投票的时候，外交政策是个决定性因素。我们应该从这个视角评判希拉里的候选人资格。

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.

一些共和党人将会投票支持希拉里，这不是因为她的优点，而只是因为她不是特朗普。但更重要的是，要从其过往记录评判这位美国前国务卿。希拉里在担任参议员时表现平平，任何观点似乎都没有依据。作为美国国务卿，她的记录能得到的最高评价也只能是平庸。

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.

希拉里由于在2012年班加西袭击事件中的角色而遭受共和党人的抨击——当时美国驻利比亚大使克里斯托弗•史蒂文斯(Christopher Stevens)在班加西遇袭身亡。但她的更为严重的错误是支持推翻穆阿迈尔•卡扎菲(Muammer Gaddafi)，随后却在如何稳定利比亚局势的问题上保持沉默。

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.

更令人担忧的是，她对克林顿基金会(Clinton Foundation)的活动含糊其辞、在担任国务卿期间使用私人电邮服务器、以及其他一些事情意味着，我们不能假定，如果她真的入主白宫，她现在说的任何事情还算数。

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，特朗普与这位可能的民主党提名总统候选人都有这种信口开河的嗜好。例如，特朗普的外交政策立场是什么？没有人知道。他不喜欢穆斯林，但反对推翻叙利亚的巴沙尔•阿萨德(Bashar al-Assad)等中东地区的独裁者。他说，他将驱逐1100万非法移民。为他辩解的人坚称，特朗普如果当选总统，将受到美国宪法的制衡，无法实施其更激进的计划。这种说法只是安抚人。

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.

因此美国陷入了困境，让一位许多人憎恶的女性与一位让我们想起贝尼托•墨索里尼(Benito Mussolini)的男性对决。难道不能出现更好的情况吗？我希望能。许多共和党人永远不会投票支持希拉里；对亚伯拉罕•林肯(Abraham Lincoln)的政党来说更重要的是，他们将永远不会投票支持特朗普。自由派、立宪派、民主派、少数派以及其他许多人准备为他们的核心运动理念战斗。如果共和党不再体现他们的核心理念，他们就会与内布拉斯加州的参议员本•萨斯(Ben Sasse)一样，创建另一个能够体现这些理念的党派。

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.

在政党忠诚度和政党影响力最为薄弱之际，现在是时候倚重至关重要的思想和原则了。对保守派来说，这意味着找到一个能够直言选民愤怒的候选人——这些选民合理地感受到主导着美国的党派的背叛。这并不意味着要选择希拉里或者特朗普，让我们的价值观让步。

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.

身为美国人比身为共和党人（或者就此而言是民主党人）更重要。如果这意味着两党制的终结，那就这样吧。如果这意味着“协商会议”(brokered convention)，我会接受它。来源：可可英语