英文部分及图片来自“经济学人”杂志。译文是个人学习、欣赏语言之用，谢绝转载或用于任何商业用途。本人同意简书平台在接获有关著作权人的通知后，删除文章。

The debacle has forced Mr Trump to consider wooing Democratic congressmen (there is talk of him linking his tax reform plans, of which Democrats are sceptical, to his infrastructure plans, which they like),which would require him to moderate his behaviour. Some Republican senators, who have longer terms and more mixed electorates than their colleagues in the House, are already demanding he do so. Though the AHCA defeat did not in itself augur better congressional oversight of Mr Trump, the spectre that haunted Mr Schneiderman—a unified Republican government uncritically supporting a rogue president—is looking less threatening.

这次失败迫使特朗普先生考虑向民主党国会议员示好（据说他要把民主党人心存疑虑的税改计划与他们偏爱的基础设施计划联系在一起）。这就要求他克制自己的行为。一些有着更长任期和更复杂选民的共和党参议员正是这样要求他的。虽然美国健康保护法案的失败本身并不意味着议会拥有对特朗普总统的有效监督，但是困扰施奈德曼先生的幽灵 - 团结的共和党政府无原则地支持一位流氓总统 - 看起来并不那么危险。

Lawsuits, satire and social media

诉讼，讽刺和社交媒体

The courts have provided a more straightforward check. Mr Trump’s immigration rules appeared to be an attempt to honour his campaign promise to keep out Muslims; they were disguised as counter-terrorism measures against high-risk nationalities in an effort to evade the constitutional bar on discriminating on the basis of religion. Both edicts were challenged by broad coalitions of states, NGOs and private firms and subsequently stayed by judges on procedural and constitutional grounds. The president impugned the legitimacy of the first obstructive beak, James Robart—a George W. Bush appointee whom Mr Trump described as a “so-called judge”. Even his own nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, a Coloradan jurist, thought this too much. “When anyone criticises the honesty, the integrity or the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening,”he said during his Senate confirmation hearing on March 21st.

法院提供了一种更为直接了当的监督。特朗普总统的移民行政法令显然是履行竞选承诺的一次尝试，目的是阻止穆斯林进入美国; 这些法令被伪装成针对危险国家的反恐措施，以规避宪法限制的宗教歧视。这两个法令都受到州政府，非政府组织和私营企业构成的广泛联盟的质疑，随后被法官以违反程序和宪法为由停止执行。总统驳斥了阻挠法令执行的詹姆斯·罗伯特的正当性。乔治·W·布什任命的这位地方执法官被特朗普称为“所谓的法官”。即使他自己提名的最高法院法官，科罗拉多州法学家尼尔·戈索赫（Neil Gorsuch）也认为这种说法太过分了。他在3月21日的参议院确认听证会上说，“当有人批评联邦法官的正直，诚信或动机时，我会感觉沮丧。”

The media, leaky bureaucrats and the millions who have flocked to rallies against his presidency (which, though dwindling, are still widespread) have provided such a barrage of extra-constitutional scrutiny that some think a new system of accountability is emerging. “We’re seeing a vastly expanded definition of checks and balances, and they seem to be working,”says Alan Dershowitz, a legal scholar.

媒体，不忠诚的官僚机构以及成群结队集会来反对他总统职位的数百万人（尽管规模减小了，但仍然很普遍）已经提供了如此大规模的宪法以外的监督，以至于有人认为新的问责机制正在出现。法律学者艾伦·德肖维茨（Alan Dershowitz）说：“我们看到制衡制度的定义被大大扩展了，似乎还运转得不错。”

In a world worried about the rise of fake news, the best coverage of Mr Trump’s administration has been tremendous. The New York Times and Washington Post have had weekly scoops about the peculiar chumminess between its senior members and various Russians; the scandal has so far forced Michael Flynn to quit as national security adviser and Jeff Sessions, the attorney-general,to recuse himself from his department’s investigation into allegations that Mr Trump’s team colluded with Russian hackers during the campaign.Those revelations have also made it harder for Republican congressmen to ignore the issue, as some, including Devin Nunes,who heads the House intelligence committee,would clearly prefer.

在担心假新闻的世界里，关于特朗普政府执政的最佳新闻报道层出不穷。 “纽约时报”和“华盛顿邮报”每周都有关于其高级幕僚和各类俄罗斯人之间特殊亲密关系的报道;到目前为止，丑闻已经迫使迈克尔·弗林（Michael Flynn）辞去国家安全顾问一职。总检察长杰夫·赛辛斯（Jeff Sessions），自请回避本部门针对特朗普团队竞选期间与俄罗斯黑客勾结的指控调查。这些被披露的真相使得共和党议员更难无视这个问题，因为这是一些人喜闻乐见的局面，其中包括美国众议院情报委员会的领袖德温·努内斯（Devin Nunes）。

Honed by decades of growing partisanship and low expectations of congressional oversight, the response to Mr Trump from NGOs, left-leaning and otherwise,has been similarly impressive. The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the administration over both sets of immigration rules, received over $24m in online donations over the course of a recent weekend,more than six times what it normally expects to collect online in a year. For some, this is a continuation of previous struggles; to brief reporters on its plans to resist Mr Trump one environmental group dusts off a history of its (broadly successful)legal stand-offs with Mr Bush.

由于几十年来党派偏见的摩擦越来越多和对国会监督效果的预期不佳，来自非政府组织，左倾和其他势力对特朗普总统的反应也一样令人印象深刻。美国民权同盟就两套移民法令对行政管理机构提起了诉讼。藉此机会，他们在最近一个周末里，从网上募集捐款达2400多万美元，是通常网上一年募款额的六倍多。对于某些人来说，这只是以前斗争的延续; 一个环保组织为了向记者简要介绍抗议特朗普的计划，他们披露了尘封已久的与布什总统（总体上成功的）法律对峙的过往。

Mr Dershowitz also points to less organised checks, including critical commentary on social media, disapproving foreign allies and merciless late-night comics: MrTrump has perked up American satire and the career of Alec Baldwin. “It’s a more transient, not predictable or reliable,not visible or transparent system, which has its own dangers,” he says. “But in my view it will be strong enough to be a sufficient check on this presidency.”

德肖维茨还指出监管缺乏条理性，包括对社交媒体的批判性评论，对外国盟友的不认可以及对深夜脱口秀的无情反对等等：特朗普使美国人的讽刺水平和亚历克·鲍德温(Alec Baldwin)的职业生涯焕然一新。 “这是一个更加临时性的，不可预测或不可靠的，不可见或不透明的系统，它有自己的危险，”他说。 “但在我看来，这股力量足够强大用以监督总统。”

It is a sad reflection of the state of America that a quasi-constitutional role for “Saturday Night Live” could seem reassuring.The system that the founders created as a way for the different branches of government to counter each other’s excesses should not need shoring up by a posse of bloggers and disloyal civil servants. The constitutional frailty this reveals, and of which Mr Trump’s election is to some degree symptomatic, has in fact been evident for some time.

“星期六夜生活”的准宪法作用似乎令人放心，但这正是美国的悲哀之处。宪法体系奠基者们为政府部门间抑制彼此过分行为而设计的方案, 不应由一群乌合之众的博主们或不忠的公务员来支撑。这反映出宪法的脆弱性。事实上这已经有一段时间了。特朗普的当选某种程度上也是一个征兆,。

It is over four decades since the historian Arthur Schlesinger warned, in “The Imperial Presidency”, of a post-war power grab by the executive branch “so spacious and peremptory as to imply a radical transformation of the traditional polity.” The book was a hit, but did nothing to interrupt a steady flow of powers to the White House which has continued under all the presidents since. As the executive opened up new domains for itself in setting pollution standards for industry, overseeing banking and even ordering the country to war, a clear congressional prerogative, the presidential bureaucracy ballooned.

历史学家亚瑟·施莱辛格（Arthur Schlesinger）在“帝国总统”一书中发出预警已逾40年之久。他警告说行政部门在战后的权力争夺“广泛而不容辩驳，意味着传统政治的根本转变”。这本书是一个打击，但却没能阻止权力稳定地转向白宫。自那以后，在所有的总统任期内一直如此。行政部门在为自己开疆拓土，比如制定行业污染标准，监督银行业甚至下令国家进入战争，这明显是国会才拥有的特权。而于此同时，总统的官僚机构也在膨胀之中。

As it grew, it became increasingly politicised; under John F. Kennedy, 196 presidential appointments required Senate confirmation,now 1,212 do. And it became more centralised. In the 1930s Congress magnanimously permitted Franklin D. Roosevelt to maintain a staff of six “presidential assistants”; recent presidents have commanded an army of over 500 White House staffers, whose mission is to ensure the government bends to the president’s will,and that he gets all the credit when it does.This has transformed the character of government, from a semblance of well-advised policymaking to a relentless effort to fulfil presidential campaign promises.

随着官僚机构的壮大，它变得越来越政治化了;在约翰·肯尼迪治下，共有196次总统任命需要参议院确认，而现在达到了1,212次。官僚机构变得更加集权。在20世纪30年代，国会慷慨地允许富兰克林·罗斯福维持六名“总统助理”; 现在的总统们麾下则有多达500多名白宫工作人员，这可是一大群人。他们的任务是确保政府服从总统的意愿。这个任务实现之时，总统就获得所有的权力。这改变了政府的性质，从一个类似审慎的政策制定者，变为了不懈努力来实现总统竞选承诺的组织。

A space for authoritarianism

专制主义的空间

At the expense of Congress, recent presidents have also assumed additional powers over foreign policy and civil liberties. In doing so they risk being checked by judges.But they have mitigated that possibility by assembling, in the office of the White House counsel, a battery of ingenious, Supreme Court-quality lawyers; Mr Obama employed almost 50. The result has been a proliferation of contentious legal precedents,extending the authority of the president,which in unscrupulous hands could amount to a tool kit for tyranny. Following Mr Bush’s and Mr Obama’s example, the president can order American citizens to be killed secretly overseas, detain foreign prisoners indefinitely without charge and try them on the basis of evidence that the state will not divulge.

以牺牲国会为代价，现在的总统们也对外交政策和公民自由享有了更多的权力。他们这样做，是冒着被法官们核查的风险。但是他们通过在白宫顾问办公室组织一批有创见的，最高法院水准的律师有效地降低了这种可能性。为此，奥巴马招募了近50人。其结果是有争议的法律先例的滋生扩散，这扩大了总统的权威，但这种办法一旦落入无耻之徒的手中就可能变成暴政的工具包。由于布什和奥巴马树立了榜样，总统可以下令在海外秘密处死美国公民，未经指控无限期拘留外国囚犯，并依据国家不会透露的证据对他们进行审判。

Despite spasms of concern, both liberals and conservatives have applauded this executive power grab. “I want to strengthen the current Democratic president,” said Newt Gingrich, when he was a bitterly partisan Republican Speaker of the House under Mr Clinton, “because he is the president.” Scholars of both stripes have often argued that the risks of overreach were justified by the president’s democratic prerogative to fulfil his mandate. The growing dysfunction in Congress, which has seen its lawmaking and oversight give way to shouty tribalism (for which Mr Gingrich deserves much blame) has meanwhile made that conclusion seem more natural.For if Congress will not pass laws, how else is the country to be governed?

尽管担心，但自由主义者和保守派都赞成总统对行政权力的攫取。 “我想加强现任民主党总统的权力，”纽特·金瑞奇说，当时他是克林顿总统时期的严酷的共和党众议院议长，“因为他是总统”。两党的学者们经常争论是否这是总统为了完成任务而应享有的民主特权，而且不会带来权力集中的风险。国会的功能障碍越来越严重的同时也使得这一结论似乎更为自然。大家已经看到其立法和监督职能让位于吵吵嚷嚷的部落意识（金瑞奇应该承担大部分责任）。如果国会不能通过法律，那么这个国家要如何治理呢？