到目前为止,这一任美国总统川普先生还是挺幸运的,不知道好运气能持续多久呢?
令人困扰的川普总统的任期后两年开始,不过开始得有点混乱。联邦政府新年伊始就关门,市场起伏不定,内阁成员如John Kelly将军及James Mattis 先后辞职。川普的反对者觉得这简直是灾难,而支持者则斥责批评者歇息底里。
要想评价川普任期必须先屏蔽美国新闻圈才能做出冷静的思考。面对川普第一个四年任期(不知是否还有第二个)的下半场,我们可能需要回答三个问题。真实的情况到底有多坏?最坏能去到什么程度?美国人民以及外国政府,准备如何去面对川普的下半场演出?
川普先生太极端了以致他的批评者对他自诩的任何成就基本屏蔽。圣诞前夕川普通过了一个两党支持的罪罚公平法改方案。其中很多改变对学校和企业都有好处。在外交方面也做出了缓和中美关系的改变。只不过大家认为可能换了任何一个共和党人做总统也会比他做得更好罢了。
让川普的前两年声名狼藉的是他控制不住的"搅屎棍"性格。他这种破坏性人格颠覆了人们对美国华府精英的印象。 一个美国总统无恶不作,恐吓,撒谎,人身攻击,简直令三观沦陷。他的限制移民政策,北韩谈判,北约协议都没有什么实质性进展。金正恩继续搞武器实验并没有做出任何让步,反而要求老美给他颁一个和平奖。欧洲人被他弄烦了或许愿意多花一点在国防预算上,但 美国前面那几个总统先生花了半个世纪和亿万金元和欧洲建立的友好关系,被老川两年内三扒两拨就败了个精光。
接下来两年会更糟糕。川普的运气估计就快被他花光。他的前两年任期一直在走狗屎运。他不用面对他的两个前任面对的突发性灾难事件。9/11、阿富汗、伊拉克、金融危机、叙利亚等等,碰上一个估计就崩盘了。而选举的胜利,上升的经济和繁荣的金融市场让他避开了很多炮弹。
即使没有突发事件,天气却已经渐渐转阴。虽然经济依然稳定,减税带来的甜蜜效应在减退,川普一直用以吹嘘自己政绩的经济繁荣,开始摇摇欲坠。共和党中期选举失去众议院。民主党极力推动调查弹劾川普种种行为,而特别检察官Robert Mueller的川普选举"通俄门"事件调查报告行将发布。
过去两年,川普显示他面对压力以及难题的时候总是大幅度退让而不计后果。包括过去几周下令从叙利亚和阿富汗撤军的决定,最后又出尔反尔。除了造成不可估计的后果之外,也让世界对美国外交政策嗤之以鼻。
川普从不尊重法律道德和界限行事。迄今他已经被指控犯有几项重罪,他的几个前参谋不是在监狱里就是在去往监狱的路上。随着他惹的麻烦越来越多,估计总统的身份也难以庇佑他。如果"通俄门"事件指征实锤,川普恐怕只能走总统赦免特权这条路。估计接下来众议院的民主党们会翻出川普帮俄国人洗钱的老底证据。到那时候如何是好?
混淆视听,制造混乱,打破常规是川普做事的方法. 如果联邦政府是企业的话,把白宫的高级人员都换掉这种事早就让投资人把公司股票全部抛空。而川普对事情的干预往往把结果推向他想要的另一端。他指责联储主席Jerome Powell过于鹰牌激进,这种指责反而把原来比较中立行事的联储推向鹰牌作风。
他的谈判官都害怕他的情绪化习惯。大部分高级职员离开后都说川普一意孤行自以为是,思想不集中,思维混乱闭塞,他要求下属绝对忠诚,但当他得到他们的忠诚后,却从不回报以忠诚。
美国国会和世界应该如何准备面对即将到来的不确定呢?各国应该联合起来,如果能和川普合作则合作,但要留一手如果川普反悔的B计划。民主党当然希望弹劾川普,但共和党仍然控制着参议院,估计不会把川普移交法办。不过如果证据确凿,共和党人也应该大义灭亲,不要成为川普的帮凶。
参议院中许多共和党人发现自己在一个尴尬的位置,左右做人难。公开发言害怕失去席位,保持沉默又怕失去党内支持。或者他们应该学习当年败给奥巴马而又杀回政坛的Mitt Romney,刚一回归众议院就炮轰川普的行为。他的回归以及许多强势倒川力量的崛起让人拍手称快,表明被川普这两年搞了个措手不及的美国民主,开始着手反击。
经历了川普上台后混乱的两年,川普的肥皂闹剧表演还会不停上演,大家只能极力忍耐得过且过。不过把希望寄托在美国好运气会继续之上,颇有点把繁荣与和平建立在纸牌屋上的感觉。
DONALD TRUMP’S nerve-jangling presidential term began its second half with a federal-government shut down, seesawing markets and the ejection of reassuring cabinet members like Generals John Kelly and James Mattis. As Mr Trump’s opponents called this a disaster, his supporters lambasted their criticism as hysterical—wasn’t everybody saying a year ago that it was sinister to have so many generals in the cabinet?
A calm assessment of the Trump era requires those who admire America to unplug themselves from the news cycle for a minute. As the next phase of the president’s four-year term begins, three questions need answering. How bad is it really? How bad could it get? And how should Americans, and foreign governments, prepare for the Trump Show’s second season?
Mr Trump is so polarising that his critics brush off anything that might count as an achievement. Shortly before Christmas he signed a useful, bipartisan criminal-justice reform into law. Some of the regulatory changes to schools and companies have been helpful. In foreign affairs the attempt to change the terms of America’s economic relations with China is welcome, too. But any orthodox Republican president enjoying the backing of both houses of Congress might have achieved as much—or more.
What marks out Mr Trump’s first two years is his irrepressible instinct to act as a wrecker. His destructive tactics were supposed to topple a self-serving Washington elite, but the president’s bullying, lying and sleaze have filled the swamp faster than it has drained. Where he has been at his most Trumpish—on immigration, North Korea,NATO—the knocking down has yet to lead to much renewal. Mr Trump came to office with a mandate to rewrite America’s immigration rules and make them merit-based, as in Canada. Yet because he and his staff are ham-fisted with Congress, that chance is now gone. Kim Jong Un still has his weapons programme and, having conceded nothing, now demands a reward from America. Europeans may pay more into their defence budgets at the president’s urging. But America has spent half a century and billions of dollars building its relations with Europe. In just two years Mr Trump has taken a sledgehammer to them.
The next two years could be worse. For a start, Mr Trump’s luck may be about to turn. In the first half of his term he has been fortunate. He was not faced by any shock of the sort his two predecessors had to deal with: 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, the financial crisis, Syria. Electoral triumph, a roaring economy and surging financial markets gave him an air of invulnerability.
Even without a shock, the weather has changed. Although the economy is still fairly strong, the sugar-high from the tax cut is fading and growth is slowing in China and Europe. Markets, which Mr Trump heralds as a proxy for economic success, are volatile (seearticle). Republicans were trounced in the House in the mid-terms. The new Democratic majority will investigate the president’s conduct, and at some point Robert Mueller, the special counsel, will complete his report on links between Russia and the Trump campaign.
Over the past two years, Mr Trump has shown that he reacts to any adversity by lashing out without regard to the consequences. Neither the magnitude nor target of his response need bear on the provocation. In the past few weeks he has announced troop withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan. Seemingly, this was partly because he was being criticised by pundits for failing to build a southern border-wall. The Afghanistan withdrawal was later walked back and the Syrian one blurred, with the result that nobody can say what America’s policy is (though the harm will remain). Now that his cabinet has lost its steadying generals, expect even more such destructive ambiguity.
Moreover, when Mr Trump acts, he does not recognise boundaries, legal or ethical. He has already been implicated in two felonies and several of his former advisers are in or heading for prison. As his troubles mount, he will become less bound by institutional machinery. If Mr Mueller indicts a member of Mr Trump’s family, the president may instruct his attorney-general to end the whole thing and then make egregious use of his pardon powers. House Democrats might unearth documents suggesting that the Trump Organisation was used to launder Russian money. What then?
Confusion, chaos and norm-breaking are how Mr Trump operates. If the federal government really were a business, the turnover of senior jobs in the White House would have investors dumping the stock. Mr Trump’s interventions often accomplish the opposite of what he intends. His criticism of the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell, for being too hawkish will, if anything, only make an independent-minded Fed more hawkish still.
His own negotiators fear that he might undermine them if the mood takes him. Most of the senior staff who have left the administration have said that he is selfabsorbed, distracted and ill-informed. He demands absolute loyalty and, when he gets it, offers none in return.
How should Congress and the world prepare for what is coming? Foreign allies should engage and hedge; work with Mr Trump when they can, but have a plan B in case he lets them down. Democrats in control of the House have a fine line to tread. Some are calling for Mr Trump to be impeached but, as of now, the Republican-controlled Senate will not convict him. As things stand, it would be better if the verdict comes at the ballot box. Instead, they must hold him to account, but not play into his desire that they serve as props in his permanent campaign.
Many Republicans in the Senate find themselves in a now familiar dilemma. Speak out and risk losing their seats in a primary; stay silent and risk losing their party and their consciences. More should follow Mitt Romney, who marked his arrival in the Senate this week by criticising Mr Trump’s conduct. His return to politics is welcome, as is the vibrant opposition to Mr Trump by activists and civil society evident in the mid-terms. Assailed by his presidency, American democracy is fighting back.
After two chaotic years, it is clear that the Trump Show is something to be endured. Perhaps the luck will hold and America and the world will muddle through. But luck is a slender hope on which to build prosperity and peace.
网友评论