经济学人下载:约翰逊语言专栏--政治用词的影响(2)

A lot of thought goes into the names of policies, which politicians naturally want to resonate in a positive way. Sometimes that means rebranding old ideas, or borrowing words from another domain. Democrats who say the state should pay for every American’s health care are a case in point. “Universal health care”, one way of expressing that goal, has a whiff of socialism about it. “Government-run health care” is even more off-putting, after Reagan memorably decried government as the problem rather than the solution.
政策的名称中包含了大量的思想，政客们自然希望以一种积极的方式引起共鸣。有时，这意味着重新定义旧的思想，或者从另一个领域借用词汇。民主党人说国家应该为每个美国人的医疗保健买单就是一个很好的例子。“全民医保”是实现这一目标的一种方式，带有一点社会主义的味道。里根曾公开谴责政府是问题而非解决方案，在那之后，“政府经营的医疗保健”更是令人反感。

Hence “Medicare for All”, touted by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Medicare is the hugely popular health-care programme for retirees; Mr Sanders and Ms Warren have borrowed its sainted name to propose extending care to everyone. George Lakoff, a linguist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a leftwrite wing activist, has been pushing Democrats to adopt more effective “frames” for their policies for years, arguing that Republicans consistently out-frame them. Mr Lakoff is a long-term advocate of “Medicare for All”. (Notably, proponents of the policy have avoided the name of Medicaid, the health-care scheme for lower-income Americans. “Medicaid” shares the taint of “welfare”; “Medicare” does not.)
因此，伯尼•桑德斯和伊丽莎白•沃伦鼓吹的“全民医疗保险”应运而生。（美国） 国家老年人医疗保险制度是非常受欢迎的退休人员医疗保健计划；桑德斯和沃伦借用了这个神圣的名字，提议将医保覆盖到所有人。加州大学伯克利分校的语言学家、左翼活动人士乔治·拉科夫多年来一直在推动民主党人采用更有效的政策“框架”，他认为，共和党人的框架总是比他们的框架更完善。拉科夫先生是“全民医保”的长期倡导者。（值得注意的是，该政策的支持者避免了医疗补助计划的名字，这是一项针对低收入美国人的医疗保健计划。“医疗补助计划”与“福利”一样臭名昭著；而“国家老年人医疗保险”制度则并非如此。）

But rebranding and renaming policies gets you only so far. Even upbeat words with positive associations can be tarnished and discredited. After all, “socialism” has the same root as the friendly concept of “society”. Even more starkly, “communism” is a relative of “community”, but no amount of etymology can make up for the ideology’s complicity in the deaths and immiseration of millions.
但是，重塑和重命名政策只能到此为止。即使是带有积极联想的乐观话语也会被玷污和抹黑。毕竟，“社会主义”与“社会”这个友好的概念有着相同的词源，但是，再多的词源也无法弥补这种意识形态对数百万人的死亡和贫困的共谋。

Even without such baggage, the enemy gets a vote too, as soldiers sometimes say. As soon as a shiny new idea is launched, opponents will try to associate it with everything evil under the sun. The “Green New Deal”, a set of leftish, climate- friendly proposals supported by some American Democrats, has been under relentless Republican attack since the concept was floated. Despite the bid to invoke the New Deal of the 1930s, for many voters it is now synonymous with a wild left-wing power grab.
即使没有这样的包袱，正如士兵们有时所说，敌人也有投票权。一旦有了一个闪亮的新想法，反对者就会试图把它与一切邪恶联系起来。“绿色新政”是由一些美国民主党人支持的一套左翼的、有利于气候变化的提案，自从这个概念被提出以来，它就一直受到共和党人的无情攻击。尽管有人试图援引上世纪30年代的新政，但对许多选民来说，它如今已成为疯狂的左翼夺权的同义词。

Tainting ideas is easier than decontaminating them. And though a new slogan might help remove the stigma that has accrued, the cycle is liable to begin again, and before long yet another new label is needed. Political rebranding is sometimes necessary, but it is nowhere near sufficient. In other words, politicians can’t prevail by linguistic engineering alone. They still have to win the underlying arguments.
污染思想比净化思想更容易。虽然一个新的口号可能有助于消除已经积累的污名，但这个周期可能会再次开始，不久就需要另一个新的标签。政治重塑有时是必要的，但远远不够。换句话说，单靠语言工程是无法战胜政客的。他们仍然需要赢得潜在的争论。