经济学人下载:违约杯具已避,跛脚政治风险犹存

American politics has always been fractious; that is part of its strength. Checks and balances prevent abuse of power and compel compromise. But checks and balances combined with polarisation allow a small number of legislators to bring government to a halt. Businessmen always and everywhere complain about politicians, but what is happening now in America seriously bothers them. Daniel Kaufmann of the Brookings Institution, examining surveys by the World Economic Forum, notes that the confidence of American business executives in their legislature has fallen steadily since 2002, while that of their Canadian, British and German peers has not (see chart 1). America’s ranking in an annual World Bank survey of governance indicators has also fallen steadily since 2000. It then ranked 15th for “government effectiveness”. In 2009 it was 24th.

美国的政治体制一直以来都是摩擦不断，当然从某些方面来说，也是它的优势之所在。权力的制衡防止了权力的滥用，并且迫使政客们做出妥协。但也正是由于这种制衡和两党极度的分化导致了，即便一小撮立法者就能把政府搞成停摆。商人们无时不刻在向政客抱怨，但目前在美国政坛所发生的一切尤其让他们抓耳挠腮。布鲁金斯学会（很NB的一个美国智库）的丹尼尔．考夫曼根据世界经济论坛的研究报告，注意到了和加拿大、英国、德国不同（见图表1），美国公司高层对本国立法机构的信心，自2002年以来，一直就在往下降。还有，自2000年以来，美国在世界银行每年发布的政府管理指标报告中的排名也一直在跌。2000年时，政府效率这一项还排在第15，到了2009年，就掉到了第24位。

More than anything, businesses have hated the uncertainty of the weeks of posturing over the debt, which has caused many of them to put their plans on hold. Yet now that the stalemate is resolved and the deal signed, uncertainty is still rife—because the polarisation that made the stand-off possible is as sharp as ever.

商业比其他任何领域都厌恶这几周在债务问题上两党相互装逼所酿成的不确定性。正是这种不确定性，造成他们搁置了很多企划方案。另外，虽然僵局已被打破，协议也签了，但是这种不确定性依旧弥漫着——因为两党极端分化而导致的两党对峙比任何时候都显得尖锐。

It has been a long time forming. Most congressional seats are safely in the hands of one of the two parties, thanks to gerrymandering. The real election for many congressmen is the primary, when any representative who strays too far from the party line will face a challenge from an ideological purist. The Democratic landslide of 2008 and the Republican one of 2010 have also helped to weed out many centrists. The present House, according to Congressional Quarterly, a sister publication of The Economist, is the most starkly divided yet, with even the most liberal Republican now somewhere firmly to the right of the most conservative Democrat.

这种状况的形成历经了蛮长的一段时间。由于不公平的选区划分政策，国会中的多数议席始终牢牢掌握在两党之中一方的手中。对于很多众议员来说，真正的选举在于初选。初选时，任何一名代表，如果偏离本党路线太远，就会面临来自党内极端分子的挑战。民主党2008年压倒性的胜利和2010年共和党中期选举的胜利，都扫除了很多中间分子。按照《国会季刊》——本刊的姊妹刊物，的说法，目前国会正面临前所未有的分裂。即便是最为开明的共和党人，和最为保守的民主党当人相比，前者还是会显得更偏“右”。

Economic weakness reinforces this dogmatism. Democrats blame the crisis on deregulation and private greed, and find it especially heartless to cut social services when the ranks of poor and jobless are growing. Republicans blame the weak recovery on misguided Keynesian pump-priming and government overreach, and think higher taxes perverse when the economy is struggling. Many on both sides conclude that their different visions of society cannot be reconciled. Voters will have to choose between them: defenders of the rich in the Republican corner, reckless spendthrifts in the Democratic one.

经济的脆弱更是强化这种教条的观点（意指共和党人就必须保守，而民主党人就必须温和开明）。民主党人将金融危机归结为监管的失位和私人的贪婪，他们认为当贫困者和失业人数不断攀升时，对社会服务部分预算痛下杀手，尤其让人感觉残忍。而共和党人则指责说危机后缓慢的恢复速度正是政府被凯恩斯刺激型政策和“大政府”观点所误导的结果。他们还认为当经济还在挣扎着恢复时，提高税收是很荒谬的。两党中的很多人据此得出结论，双方不同的版本的社会构想是不可能达成和解的。选民们也只能在他们之间做出选择：是支持一个维护富人利益的共和党，还是选择一个只会大手大脚花钱的民主党。