Name: 特朗普贏了嗎？| 灰色地帶 (Is Trump winning? | The Gray Area)
Uploaded: 2025-06-17T15:30:08.000Z
Duration: 42 min 52 s

Hey, I'm Sean host of the gray area for the show this week.

嘿，我是本週節目灰色地帶的主持人肖恩。

I talked to Zach Beacham He's the author of the reactionary spirit and a colleague of mine here at Vox We discussed the first 100 days or so of the Trump administration and how the American left is trying to make sense of it I hope you enjoy it Zach Beacham welcome back to the show.

我採訪了扎克-比徹姆（Zach Beacham），他是《反動精神》（the reactionary spirit）一書的作者，也是我在 Vox 的同事。我們討論了特朗普政府執政的前 100 天左右，以及美國左翼如何試圖理解這一切。

Hey Sean, this is great It's good to see you buddy, you are back for what I guess we can call a Follow-up to our last chat, which was back in November and that's right in that chat.

嘿，肖恩，這太好了，很高興見到你，夥計，你又回來了，我想我們可以稱之為上次哈拉的後續，上次哈拉是在 11 月份，就在那次哈拉中。

You you said a lot of smart and interesting things one of the things you said was that you know, Trump is Walking into his second term with a pretty clear agenda for what he wanted to do And there were three things like in particular you listed it was mass deportations Tariffs and trade disruption slash warfare and Basically remaking the federal government, right which includes, you know Purging critics and taking over the civil service as much as possible that kind of thing.

你說了很多聰明而有趣的話，其中一句是，你知道，特朗普在進入第二個任期時有一個非常明確的議程，他想做什麼，有三件事，比如你特別列出的大規模驅逐關稅和貿易破壞削減戰爭，以及基本上重塑聯邦政府，對吧，其中包括，你知道清洗批評者和儘可能多地接管公務員系統之類的事情。

You know, we're a hundred plus days into the administration.

你知道，我們已經執政一百多天了。

Well that makes me sound perhaps more prescient than I thought I was because those those are the big themes Of the Trump administration, right and they've pursued them to varying degrees of success But it's very clear right that like those three areas that you outlined aggressive use of immigration enforcement Aggressive use of tariff powers and aggressive efforts to Centralize power in the president's hands by remaking the federal government like those are the three big stories of the Trump administration so far I think the three biggest And most defining ones right with the There being I think significant interconnections between all of them in a way I don't think anyone fully anticipated and I guess I'll elaborate on what I mean by that, which is that Trump has pursued his remaking of the government and his his exercise of power to a degree and in a manner of Flawlessness that I don't think anyone anticipated and all of these different things, right?

這讓我聽起來也許比我想象的更有先見之明，因為這些都是特朗普政府的大主題、但很明顯，就像你概述的三個領域 積極使用移民執法權 積極使用關稅權 積極通過重塑聯邦政府將權力集中在總統手中那就是特朗普對政府的改造和權力的行使 達到了我認為沒有人預料到的程度和方式

They all fall under and are all related to this general goal of power centralization, right?

它們都屬於權力集中這一總體目標的範疇，都與之相關，對嗎？

It's very obvious, but think about Trump's use of tariff powers, right?

這很明顯，但想想特朗普對關稅權的使用，對吧？

The way in which he's done it is by claiming Emergency authority when there's clearly not an emergency, right?

他這樣做的方式就是在明顯不存在緊急情況的情況下，聲稱擁有緊急權力，對嗎？

It's just the emergency is that Trump doesn't like the way the trade works right now and he wants to change it That is a very aggressive interpretation that a court recently smacked down right of what the the emergency powers given by Congress to the president are and if allowed to be unimpeded they will end up You know centralizing a lot of authority in the president's hands and immigration is very similar, right?

這是對國會賦予總統的緊急權力的一種非常激進的解釋，如果允許這種解釋不受阻礙，最終將把大量權力集中到總統手中，移民問題也是如此，對嗎？

All of these amount to right all of these different areas Which are the key policy priorities coming in have become vehicles for a gigantic power grab And that is the fundamental story of this administration is the president saying I can do whatever I want Try and stop me Well now that you've congratulated yourself on nailing it I kid But seriously, I yeah, is there anything I was gonna ask has anything really surprised you up to this point for in a good or Bad way, but maybe another way to ask that is I think it was true unexpected happen I think I was trying to get at that which is the brazenness of the way in which they have attempted to disregard the law to Accomplish this power centralization and it's a stunning to me And one thing I got I got wrong if we want to keep doing this as I wrote a piece saying You know what my predictions for the Trump administration and I do think they've mostly been right But the one that I got wrong is that I said Elon Musk would be less important than it seemed like you would and that Was just like completely totally Incorrect Elon Musk Defined this lawlessness like he really pioneered the I'm just going to do stuff and try and stop me Approach to remaking the federal government.

所有這些都是正確的，所有這些不同的領域都是關鍵的政策優先事項，都成為了巨大的權力掠奪的工具，這就是這個政府的基本故事，總統說我可以做任何我想做的事情，試著阻止我，好了，現在你已經祝賀自己釘住了它，我開玩笑的，但說真的，我是的，有什麼我想問的，有什麼東西真的讓你驚訝到這一點，在好或壞的方式、但也許可以換一種問法，我覺得這確實出乎意料，我覺得我想說的是，他們試圖無視法律來實現這種權力集中的方式的厚顏無恥，這讓我感到震驚，有一件事我想錯了，如果我們想繼續這樣做，我寫過一篇文章，你知道我對特朗普政府的預測是什麼嗎

It's sort of a defining feature of the Trump era in lots of ways that things seem to be both Completely broken and somehow kind of all right at the same time in in your newsletter You know, you wrote that that this this administration has proven very very good at breaking things.

在你的通訊中，你寫道："事實證明，本屆政府非常善於打破常規。"從很多方面來看，這是特朗普時代的一個決定性特徵。

What do you think they're actually breaking?

I think it's two things right two related things.

我認為這是兩件正確的事，兩件相關的事。

The first is Breaking the US government as An Entity that's designed to deliver discrete services, right?

首先是將美國政府打造成一個旨在提供獨立服務的實體，對嗎？

It's just like a thing that does things it is now much worse at doing things Right, and that's one thing and second things related to that is breaking the idea That's been part of the US government since the Pendleton Act which reforms civil service right around the turn of the 20th century So for over a hundred years, it's this notion that civil service should be a truly civil service.

它就像一個做事情的東西，現在做事情的能力卻大不如前，這是其一，其二與此相關的是打破自《彭德爾頓法案》（Pendleton Act）以來美國政府一直存在的觀念。

That is not a Something that you can distribute as spoils to your Political allies to govern in accordance with partisan interests, but rather a nonpartisan professionalized system designed to deliver government goods for all of us, right and they've really been Upfront about thinking that that norm is bad.

這不是一個你可以作為戰利品分給你的政治盟友，讓他們按照黨派利益進行治理的東西，而是一個非黨派的專業化系統，旨在為我們所有人提供政府產品，對吧，他們真的一直在直言不諱地認為這種規範是不好的。

The reason they think it's bad is that they think it's a lie, right?

他們之所以認為這不好，是因為他們認為這是個謊言，對嗎？

They think that the civil service is chock-full of Democrats who just do things for Democratic purposes and are basically agents of the deep state This is not true, right?

他們認為公務員隊伍中充滿了民主黨人，他們只是為了民主黨的目的而做事，基本上是深層國家的代理人。

It's it's false I want to be clear about that, but that is the stated rationale And so the end result the solution they think is well if it's already been politicized by them We can politicize it too.

我想說的是，這是假的，但這是既定的理由，所以最終的結果是他們認為的解決方案是好的，如果它已經被他們政治化了，我們也可以把它政治化。

And so we staff administrative positions all throughout the federal government with people that They think are politically reliable, right?

是以，我們在整個聯邦政府的行政職位上都配備了他們認為政治上可靠的人，對嗎？

And because they're politically reliable not because they're competent I mean, I just saw a story this morning about someone appointed to a high-level counterterrorism post Who's a 22 year old whose work experience was working at a grocery store and as a gardener?

因為他們在政治上可靠，而不是因為他們有能力，我是說，我今天早上剛看到一則新聞，說有人被任命為高級反恐職位，而這個人只有22歲，工作經歷只是在雜貨店打工和當園丁？

He was an intern at the Heritage Foundation after that and was just a raving think-tank in DC That's like and now he's has a high-level counterterrorism post at the Department of Homeland Security Helping coordinate US efforts to secure the homeland.

之後，他在傳統基金會當實習生，在特區就是一個狂熱的智囊團成員。 現在，他在國土安全部擔任高級反恐職務，幫助協調美國為確保國土安全所做的努力。

Another W for the meritocracy I Just I see stories like that and then to even that that's not even getting into like permanent civil service, right?

我只是看到這樣的故事，甚至還沒有進入永久性公務員系統，對嗎？

that's a political appointment, but people who Whose job it is their careers are to work on something like public health who RFK is just shuffled off Because he either doesn't think their positions are important or wants to put some kind of like Maha ideologue in that job and he just It becomes much harder for the government to do stuff when the people who know how to do things are being removed for political Purposes.

這是一種政治任命，但那些以公共衛生為職業的人，肯尼迪卻把他們趕走了，因為他要麼認為他們的職位不重要，要麼想讓一些像馬哈那樣的意識形態主義者來做這個工作，他就這樣把他們趕走了。

This isn't just like me extrapolating right based on like sort of first principles Is that we've seen this movie before in lots of other countries, right?

這不只是我根據第一原則推斷出來的 我們在很多其他國家都看過這部電影，對吧？

We people get rid of administrators who know what they're doing in revolutionary regimes and they replace them with People who you know, I don't know was like a sergeant in the Revolutionary Army And that sergeant has no idea not to dunk on sergeants in specific It's anyone who's a low-level or even a high-level military person is not necessarily qualified to administer the EPA Right or to administer a clean air program and that's like we're doing the equivalent of that right like taking revolutionary cadres and Installing them in government regardless of whether or not they know how government works and that's just gonna make things worse Yeah, that's bad But look, yeah Breaking and broken aren't exactly the same thing.

我們的人趕走了在革命政權中知道自己在做什麼的行政人員 他們用那些你知道的人取而代之：我不知道，就像革命軍中的軍士 而那個軍士根本不知道如何在軍士身上扣籃 任何一個低級甚至高級軍事人員但聽著，"破 "和 "壞 "並不是一回事

So let me ask it this way me of all this stuff, you know, what is happening?

那麼，讓我這麼問吧，在所有這些事情中，你知道發生了什麼嗎？

What might happen that can't be repaired with an election victory, you know?

有什麼事情是選舉勝利後也無法彌補的，你知道嗎？

What what might a Democratic Congress a president or even a serious well-intentioned Republican for that matter?

民主黨國會、總統，甚至是認真善意的共和黨人會怎麼做？

Not be able to rebuild after this So That's a good question, I'm trying to think through the answer because we don't know right we do we don't We've never been in a position like this before and I don't mean just the United States I mean there has never been a wealthy democracy that has had an established and competent governing apparatus That has had it torn down Intentionally and replaced like getting rid of people who have institutional knowledge and putting in people who do not but are politically reliable All right, no government like this has experienced something like this We're just we're just way way way way outside of the history books.

這是個好問題，我正在想答案 因為我們不知道，我們知道，我們不知道 我們以前從沒遇到過這樣的情況，我指的不只是美國 我指的是，從來沒有一個富裕的民主國家 擁有一個成熟的、有能力的管理機構沒有這樣的政府經歷過這樣的事 我們只是在歷史書的範圍之外

And so I it's hard for me to say What's going to happen because it's so impressive in it.

是以，我很難預料會發生什麼，因為裡面的內容太令人印象深刻了。

There are a few things you can say concretely, right?

有幾件事你可以說得很具體，對嗎？

So it is very very hard to restart programs that have been broken So when you cut off huge amounts of scientific funding as they've done so far Those research agendas can't just be restarted four years later, right?

所以，當你像他們迄今為止所做的那樣，砍掉鉅額科研經費時，那些研究議程不可能在四年後重新啟動，對嗎？

It's that all of the progress has been lost.

Maybe a sample has decayed Maybe they've lost contact with the people that they were tracking for the study Maybe the researchers had to due to financial imperatives move on to something Maybe even go into a different career entirely right and then the scientific knowledge that would have been produced as a result of current funding and there are lots of key areas where scientific Funding has been hampered for instance the development of an HIV AIDS vaccine, you know, like important stuff That you can't just restart it, right?

也許樣本已經腐爛，也許他們已經失去了與研究追蹤對象的聯繫，也許研究人員由於經濟原因不得不轉行，也許甚至完全改行，然後，由於目前的資助而產生的科學知識，有很多關鍵領域的科學資助受到了阻礙，例如艾滋病疫苗的開發，你知道，像這樣重要的東西，你不能只是重新開始，對嗎？

yeah, I Think this in particular is one of those stories and there are probably several of them that we're gonna look back on and go That's a pretty big deal We that was an underappreciated big deal.

是啊，我覺得這就是其中的一個故事，可能還有好幾個故事，我們回過頭來看，都會覺得這是件大事，是件不被重視的大事。

You can't even You can't even predict which ones it's going to be right of these different scientific developments.

你甚至無法預測，在這些不同的科學發展中，哪些會是正確的。

It just it feels like They're intentionally tearing this apart for No good reason right it's a the common phrase that I'm starting to hear now is Suicide of a superpower, which ironically is very close to the name of a Pat Buchanan book about the United States under you know, its previous liberal democratic regime and Buchanan was bemoaning the way in which You know policies of multiculturalism and open trade degraded what he saw was good about the United States and obviously Buchanan is the ideological predecessor But Trump in many ways as a political figure and what we're seeing is that the Buchananite policies being pursued by the administration are the ones that are actually eroding the foundations of American I mean American global leadership is putting it too mildly right like America's ability to be the engine of Global human progress, whatever you think of American foreign policy specifically It's economic dynamism and scientific research have really powered tremendous amounts of Global good right of helping the world's develop new technologies that have improved Human welfare of keeping people getting people everywhere richer, right?

我現在經常聽到的一句話就是 "超級大國的自殺" 諷刺的是，這與帕特-布坎南的一本書的名字非常接近，這本書是關於美國在自由民主體制下的故事、布坎南哀嘆多元文化主義和開放貿易政策削弱了他眼中美國的優點，顯然布坎南是特朗普的意識形態前輩，但特朗普在很多方面都是政治人物，我們看到的是，美國政府推行的布坎南主義政策實際上正在侵蝕美國的基礎，我是說美國的全球上司地位說得太溫和了，就像美國成為全球人類進步引擎的能力一樣、無論你對美國外交政策有什麼具體看法 美國的經濟活力和科學研究確實為全球帶來了巨大的好處 幫助世界開發

It's Global economies are interconnected and u.s.

全球經濟相互關聯，美國也是如此。

Demand purchasing goods from poor countries has helped bring a lot of people out of poverty and Like I'm listing all these things not because You know I think that they're the only things that matter but rather to underscore how massive the scope is here of the damage that's being done And how difficult it is to predict what we're gonna remember in the history of books.

我列舉這些事情，並不是因為我認為只有這些才是最重要的，而是想強調，這些事情所造成的破壞有多大，以及我們將在歷史書中記住什麼有多難預測。

We're talking about fundamental building blocks of the world in which we live being torn down by it by a like gigantic toddler Yeah, and a lot of things you you won't appreciate until they're gone Um, well, you know me the audience knows me I am a pathological optimist And you said the right content for you Hopefully the audience gets that joke Yeah, they will in a second.

我們說的是我們生活的這個世界的基本構件 被一個巨大的蹣跚學步的孩子拆掉了 是啊，很多東西你在它們消失之前是不會欣賞的 嗯，好吧，你瞭解我，觀眾也瞭解我 我是一個病態的樂觀主義者 你說的內容對你來說是正確的 希望觀眾能聽懂這個笑話 是啊，他們馬上就能聽懂。

We've probably done half a dozen episodes on my on my cynicism that I'm trying to conquer But you sir recently gave me some reasons to feel better And I want to talk about that a little bit because despite the fact that it often feels like Trump is demolishing everything and he is actually demolishing quite a few things But you have argued that he is actually failing on the most important Fronts, so let's talk about that Lay out your case for us.

我們大概討論了半打關於我的憤世嫉俗情緒的節目，我正在努力克服這種情緒，但您最近給了我一些讓我感覺好些的理由，我想談一下這個問題，因為儘管人們經常感覺特朗普正在摧毀一切，他實際上也在摧毀不少東西，但您認為他實際上在最重要的方面失敗了，所以讓我們來談談這個問題 為我們闡述一下您的觀點。

Sure so when I say most important front when you say that what I meant specifically is a American democracy, right?

當然，所以當我說最重要的前沿時，你說我具體指的是美式民主，對嗎？

Democracy as we know it with some other kind of system.

我們所熟知的民主與其他某種制度。

I Think the answer to that question is no, I think the answer is first of all that he's trying I think that's fairly clear and we can discuss why I think that's clear but second I don't think it's working and I think that's essential to all of the other issues that we've been talking about because You know, I just said I don't know what one can do to repair certain things Well, you won't know until somebody's in a position to actually do that reparation right and that means you need to be confident that we're going to have a fully democratic election in 2028 and the question is Are Donald Trump's efforts to centralize power in his own hands?

我認為這個問題的答案是否定的，我認為答案首先是他正在努力，我認為這一點相當明確，我們可以討論為什麼我認為這是明確的，但其次，我不認為它是有效的，我認為這對我們一直在談論的所有其他問題至關重要，因為你知道、我剛說過，我不知道該如何修復某些問題 除非有人能真正做出正確的補償，否則你是不會知道的 這意味著你需要相信，我們將在2028年舉行一次完全民主的選舉 問題是，唐納德-特朗普是否在努力將權力集中在自己手中？

Successfully undermining the conditions for free and fair elections in the United States the answer so far.

成功地破壞了美國自由公正選舉的條件，這就是迄今為止的答案。

I think is no It's not that he's not Trying to do that, right?

我覺得他不是不想這麼做，對吧？

It's the the attacks on Universities the efforts to wield immigration policy against people who criticize Israel for some reason not even the Trump administration, but Israel these are the efforts to intimidate media, you know punishing the Associated Press for Not calling the Gulf of Mexico Gulf of America These are all Examples of the kinds of policies that you see in countries like Hungary or India or Israel where the leader has been hell-bent on trying to Cement their own ability to rule indefinitely to varying degrees of success But what's interesting about the Trump versions of these policies is they are In the words of a political scientist.

這是對大學的攻擊，對出於某種原因責備以色列的人實施移民政策，甚至不是特朗普政府，而是以色列，這些都是恐嚇媒體的行為、這些都是你在匈牙利、印度或以色列等國家看到的政策範例，這些國家的領導人一心想要鞏固自己無限期統治的能力，並取得了不同程度的成功，但特朗普版本的這些政策的有趣之處在於，用一位政治學家的話說：

I spoke to the stupidest version of this imaginable, right?

我說的是最愚蠢的版本，對嗎？

They are doing it badly right because it is one thing to say we're gonna make it hard for the US government to Conduct key administrative functions be it funding scientific research or you know Managing the health of our rivers and other pollution related things or even the the basic competence of the US military Which Pete Hex has seems to be very busily and very busy destroying for basically culture war purposes but it's actually an entirely different thing to build an effective system for repressing dissent and Controlling the outcome of elections, right that's building That's an affirmative project and you need to create state institutions and policies that deliver that particular outcome So you can't just do vandalism there, right?

他們做得很糟糕，因為說我們要讓美國政府難以履行關鍵的行政職能是一回事，無論是資助科學研究，還是管理我們河流的健康和其他與汙染相關的事情，甚至是美國軍隊的基本能力，皮特-哈克斯似乎非常忙，非常忙，基本上是為了文化戰爭的目的而進行破壞，但實際上，建立一個有效的系統來壓制異議和控制選舉結果是完全不同的事情、對，那是建設，那是一個平權項目 你需要建立國家機構和政策 來實現那個特定的結果 所以你不能只是做破壞活動，對吧？

You need to break some elements of the democratic political system And replace them with ways of imposing your will on the voters and they've not done that very well To imply or say that he's failing or losing is to Suggest that he's not achieving his goal Right.

你需要打破民主政治制度中的某些元素，代之以將自己的意志強加於選民的方式，而他們並沒有很好地做到這一點。 暗示或說他失敗或失利，就是暗示他沒有實現自己的目標。

Do you feel like you have a clear sense of what that goal is?

你覺得自己對目標有清晰的認識嗎？

I mean, do you really think it's regime change?

我的意思是，你真的認為這是政權更迭嗎？

Yeah, I think it's full consolidation of power in his own hands the ability to act unfettered and the ability to Control and corral the opposition such that they don't they don't present a meaningful threat to his personal exercise of power Right.

是的，我認為這是將權力完全集中在他自己手中，讓他能夠不受約束地行事，並能夠控制和籠絡反對派，使他們不會對他個人行使權力構成有意義的威脅。

I think that would and the opposition here is broadly construed, right?

我認為，這將是一個廣義上的反對，對嗎？

It's not just the Democratic Party It's the press who he hates and sees as an enemy.

他憎恨的不僅僅是民主黨，還有被他視為敵人的媒體。

I mean he recently called for an investigation into Bruce Springsteen And his political activities for no reason.

我是說他最近無緣無故地要求調查布魯斯-斯普林斯汀和他的政治活動。

There's nothing Springsteen has done nothing that merits investigation.

斯普林斯汀沒有做過任何值得調查的事。

He criticized Trump or something like that or maybe worked with the Democratic Party on a fundraiser I forgot the exact specifics of it but I mean this is This is like really truly Not so authoritarian stuff just randomly picking somebody who is aligned with the opposition and targeting them.

他責備了特朗普或類似的事情，或者可能與民主黨合作籌款，我忘了具體細節，但我的意思是，這就像真正的不那麼獨裁的東西，只是隨機挑選與反對派結盟的人，並針對他們。

It's exactly the way that An authoritarian leader might try to assert power making an example out of somebody who's a prominent dissenter He just he really clearly like judging not again not just from statements though they matter but from actions Right from the way in which he has attempted to exercise power without fetters Right to do things that are in direct contradiction of the laws Wants to be able to do whatever he wants Right and wants to be able to change all sorts of policies I mean, he's talked quite a lot about changing election law, even though Trump doesn't have Election interests like he can't run again.

這正是一個獨裁領導人可能試圖行使權力的方式，他將某個著名的持不同政見者作為榜樣，他只是很明顯地喜歡評判別人，而不只是從聲明中，雖然聲明很重要，但從行動中，從他試圖不受束縛地行使權力的方式中，他希望能夠做任何他想做的事，並希望能夠改變各種政策，我的意思是、儘管特朗普沒有選舉利益，比如他不能再次參選，但他還是大談特談修改選舉法。

Although maybe he would right maybe in this he's talked about that too, right?

也許他也會這麼做 也許他在這篇文章裡也提到過，對吧？

And the way that he's governed unlawfully Means that all bets are off So maybe this stuff about changing the electoral system to eliminate the non-existent fraud in 2020 Right, which is to say changing the electoral system to bet in ways that benefits Republicans I makes it easier would make it easier for Donald Trump to win again were he to run in 2028 Okay, I get I don't think it's going to happen I think we for this is sort of the premise of this conversation But I don't think he's gonna be able to get what he wants but what he wants has been spelled out in multiple different ways through word and deed and It amounts to not like a systematic plan, which I think is part of the problem for Trump actually He doesn't have a vision for like what the Trump regime looks like what its ideological Scaffolding is what its bureaucratic offices are the man doesn't think like that Right he but what he does think is I want to do what I want and I want to crush the people who have opposed Me, I want to get revenge on all the people who've hurt me and that would prove would produce If it were successful an authoritarian political system Support for the show comes from Shopify Starting a business is all about turning your ideas into reality and to see it through you need the right tools tools like Shopify Shopify is a commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and they say 10% of all e-commerce in the US from household names like Mattel and Gymshark to brands just getting started like dr Shawn ailings drillings and fillings and the gray area sole patch die for hip cats who want to look as young as they feel Shopify's design studio lets you build a big beautiful online store that matches your brand style You can also use their AI tools to step up your content creation Plus you can easily create email and social media campaigns to meet your customers wherever they are If you're ready to sell you can be ready for Shopify You can turn your big business idea into reality with Shopify on your side You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period and start selling today at Shopify comm slash Fox Go to Shopify comm slash Fox Shopify comm slash box You One of the red lines in a constitutional system like ours has always been refusing to obey the courts and You know for all the bluster it does appear that they are doing that for the most Part, yeah, right and something you pointed out in one of your pieces is that?

而他非法執政的方式 意味著所有的賭注都被取消了 所以也許這個關於改變選舉制度 以消除2020年不存在的舞弊行為的說法 是的 也就是說改變選舉制度 以有利於共和黨人的方式下注我明白，我不認為這會發生，我認為這是我們這次談話的前提，但我不認為他能如願以償，但他想要的東西已經通過言行以多種不同的方式表達出來了，這不像是一個系統的計劃、我認為這也是特朗普的問題所在 他沒有一個願景，比如特朗普政權是什麼樣的 其意識形態架構是什麼樣的 其官僚機構是什麼樣的我想報復所有傷害過我的人，這將證明，如果成功的話，就會產生一個

You know, there's over 200 lawsuits against various Trump policies and you know a good deal of them have been You know rejected or temporary?

你知道，針對特朗普各種政策的訴訟有200多起，其中很多都被駁回或暫時擱置。

Temporarily paused so the courts do seem to be holding up, you know, and for all the fretting about The Supreme Court in particular and certainly I was one of the people making noises about that Right now though in this moment it does seem like they are not rolling over for Trump and the ways we might have anticipated and these are reasons to To be hopeful.

所以，法院似乎還能撐得住，你知道的，儘管人們對最高法院尤其感到焦慮，當然我也是對此發出聲音的人之一，但現在看來，他們並沒有像我們預料的那樣為特朗普翻案，這些都是值得我們抱有希望的原因。

I think the courts are Critical to the entire picture right because they are in a system like ours They're the enforcement mechanism for loss right or then by enforcement mechanism.

我認為法院對整個局面至關重要，因為在我們這樣的體系中，法院是權利損失的執行機制，或者說是執行機制的執行機制。

I don't mean like they implement the laws I mean, they're the ones that ensure the rest of the system is complying with them But as you suggested court authority only comes from willingness to obey, right?

我不是說他們執行法律，我的意思是，他們是確保其他系統遵守法律的人，但正如你所說，法院的權威只來自於服從的意願，對嗎？

It's essentially a norms or principle based thing or if you want to put a little further a fear based thing What are the fears of crossing the courts, right?

這本質上是一種基於規範或原則的事情，或者如果你想說得更遠一點，這是一種基於恐懼的事情，跨越法庭的恐懼是什麼，對嗎？

How would the rest of the system and the mass public react if you just declared court?

如果你就這樣宣佈開庭，系統的其他部分和廣大公眾會作何反應？

Authority null and void and there are again There are clear cases of them trying to get around what the court is doing that I think constitute disobedience They're not they're not most of the cases, right?

有明顯的案例表明，他們試圖繞過法院正在做的事情，我認為這構成了不服從。

If you look at most instances So one one micro level example is the US Institute of Peace which Doge shuttered and then used as like a hangout headquarters, they're building At this like august US government sponsored foreign policy think-tank like these 20-something dudes were hanging out smoking weed and and by that I don't just mean like Metaphorically, I mean that when people are cleaning it up.

如果你看一下大多數實例，那麼一個微觀層面的例子是美國和平研究所，它被杜格關閉，然後被用作像一個閒逛總部，他們正在建設在這個像莊嚴的美國政府贊助的外交政策智囊團，就像這些20多歲的帥哥在閒逛抽大麻，我說的不僅僅是像隱喻，我的意思是，當人們正在清理它。

They actually found Bags of weed lying around in the US IP offices but they were cleaning it up because the court ruled that shuttering US IP was unlawful and the Doge bros had to go find somewhere else to get high and like that It To me is an encapsulation both of the ridiculousness of the situation But also the ways in which like that ridiculous incompetence is not working for them The ridiculousness is is the thing Well, not the thing but but I think and in part of the problem and it is kind of hard to articulate Is this line between appearance and reality?

實際上，他們在美國知識產權辦公室發現了成袋的大麻，但他們正在清理，因為法院裁定關閉美國知識產權辦公室是非法的，Doge 兄弟不得不去找別的地方嗨，就像那樣。 對我來說，這既概括了這種情況的荒謬性，也概括了這種荒謬的無能對他們不起作用的方式、但我覺得這也是問題的一部分，而且很難說清楚 表象和現實之間的界限是什麼？

Yeah with Trump, you know, Trump is the master at Appearing to do things which is not the same thing as actually doing things and I think He really just wants to run a good television show doesn't really care all that much about anything else and that vacuousness Has been a gift to the country because it's probably prevented him from doing as much damage as he could if he was a serious Operator and I don't know you may disagree with this but to me Trump isn't really succeeding all that much in legislative or material terms because I don't really think that's his measure at all I think he thinks he's succeeding if we're talking about him and he's making money And I think his gamble is that most people aren't really aren't really tracking things It's hard to do that even if it's your job So he just stages spectacles and constantly performs the role of a big transformative present president doing big transformative things But so much of it really is just that a performance and it's kind of hard to untangle all of it Yeah, the most aggressively postmodern president Could imagine true There's a lot of words.

是啊，特朗普就是這樣、我認為他只想做一出好的電視節目 對其他事情並不關心 這種空虛感是對國家的恩賜 因為這可能阻止了他的破壞力 如果他是個認真的經營者的話因為我覺得這根本不是他衡量成功的標準，我認為他認為只要我們談論他，他在賺錢，他就是成功的，我認為他的賭注是，大多數人並沒有真正跟蹤事情的發展，即使這是你的工作，也很難做到這一點，所以他只是在表演，不斷扮演一個大變革的現任總統的角色，做著大變革的事情、是的，最有侵略性的後現代總統 你能想象嗎？

No, it's I find it fascinating in the sense that The man's whole shtick can be boiled down to the apprentice Right, and this isn't just I have this on the brain because I read a study today that showed that The perceptions of Trump based on apprentice view viewing was like meaningful And so the people who were more in the areas where there was a higher apprentice viewership due to this random design Had a higher assessment of Trump's competence and Here's the kicker.

不，我覺得這很吸引人，因為這個人的全部伎倆都可以歸結為學徒 沒錯，這不僅僅是我腦子裡的想法，因為我今天讀到了一項研究，研究表明，根據學徒的收視率，人們對特朗普的看法是有意義的，是以，在學徒收視率較高的地區，由於這種隨機設計，人們對特朗普的能力有更高的評價，這就是重點。

He did better in those places in the Republican primary Than in the ones that were demographically similar, but didn't have that exposure to the apprentice The apprentice if you didn't watch it you know, it's Trump being in charge of all these business people and he says you're fired and When he thinks somebody's doing a bad job and generally is treated by everyone on the show as a master businessman Except he wasn't right.

在共和黨初選中，他在這些地方的表現比在人口統計學上相似的地方要好，但沒有接觸到學徒。 如果你沒看過學徒，你知道，這是特朗普負責所有這些業務人員，他說你被解僱了，當他認為某人做得不好時，一般來說，在節目中每個人都被視為一個大師級的商人，除了他不正確。

We know from like a number of investigative looks into his business practices that he Really was not very good at The actual nuts and bolts of making money He started out with a lot of money and by one assessment He probably wouldn't have before then before his time in politics have made More money than he would have had he just like plowed his money into the stock market that he got from his dad When he started right basically a break-even for all shenanigans at one point He managed to bankrupt a casino, which I just like I don't even know how you do that Right, the house always wins unless the house is Donald Trump The point is the apprentice created this persona of who he was a aggressive competence a business genius respected by everybody And that's stuck with a lot of people and was actually materially significant in terms of his rise to power Right.

我們通過對他商業行為的大量調查瞭解到 他並不擅長賺錢的實際操作 他一開始有很多錢，根據一項評估 他在從政之前賺的錢可能不會比 他把從父親那裡賺來的錢投入股市賺的錢多我都不知道你是怎麼做到的 除非是唐納德-川普，否則賭場總是贏的

We were not just speculating about this anymore We have cold hard evidence that it was and that has been the trick throughout his time in public This is a long-winded way of saying I think you're right about this I think that there is a lot of performance and saying what is performance and what is actual, you know Really important developments is an essential task for those of us Who's job it is to like interpret the world for everybody else?

我們不再只是猜測，我們有確鑿的證據證明這一點，這也是他在公共場合的一貫伎倆。 這是一種囉嗦的說法，我認為你是對的，我認為有很多表演，說什麼是表演，什麼是實際的，你知道，真正重要的發展是我們這些人的基本任務，誰的工作就像是為其他人解釋世界？

I think that performer the performative aspect actually does help obscure some of the very real Dangerous shit that he's doing But let me let us get let us get back on the tracks here a little bit because I think the key point up to this Part of the conversation is that We're holding the line as it were but American democracy Is by no means safe, right the cracks are there and they've been there for a long time and Trump has done At least one service and really exposing them Which I think leads to a question without a clear answer What kind of regime are we actually living in right now?

我認為，表演性的一面實際上確實有助於掩蓋他所做的一些非常真實的危險勾當，但讓我讓我們回到正題上來，因為我認為談話進行到這裡的關鍵點是，我們守住了底線，但美國民主絕非安全，裂痕就在那裡，而且存在已久，特朗普至少做了一件事，真正揭露了這些裂痕，我認為這引出了一個沒有明確答案的問題：我們現在究竟生活在一個什麼樣的政權中？

This is still a democracy, but are we close?

這仍然是一個民主國家，但我們接近了嗎？

To some kind of hybrid system with elements of democracy and authoritarianism or what political scientists sometimes called competitive authoritarianism Yeah, so that is a term that that I think is really useful and it's worth focusing on To try to understand what it means right is coined by Steven Levitsky and Luke and way to leading political scientists who focus on comparative democracy and they defined a competitive authoritarian system as one that is they have free elections in the sense that they Aren't rigged like the ballot boxes and stuffed but they're not taking place on fair grounds right the The the playing field is tilted in the incumbent parties Direction so heavily that it's very difficult for the opposition to compete meaningfully.

某種包含民主和獨裁元素的混合制度，政治學家有時稱之為競爭性獨裁、這個詞由史蒂文-列維茨基（Steven Levitsky）和盧克（Luke）提出，他們是研究比較民主的頂尖政治學家，他們將競爭性專制制度定義為：選舉是自由的，沒有操縱投票箱，但選舉不是在公平的基礎上進行的。

So elections are not rigged, but they also aren't Really truly Elections that give voters a choice because so many voters are for a variety of reasons, you know government control over the media gerrymandering Campaign finance rules that make it difficult for the opposition to fundraise, you know go on down the list right like a variety of different things that that erode the What one might call the background conditions under which elections operate fairly, right?

是以，選舉不是被操縱的，但也不是真正給選民提供選擇的選舉，因為許多選民出於各種原因，你知道政府對媒體的控制，選區劃分，使反對派難以籌款的競選財務規則，你知道繼續往下看，就像各種不同的事情，侵蝕了人們可以稱之為選舉公平運作的背景條件，對嗎？

So that's that's I think it's the main model for how you Take a country that was once a democracy and turn it into an authoritarian state in modern times Because it gets around the problem of having to declare, you know, well, we're we're just abolishing elections democracy doesn't matter That's not very popular anymore people who live in democracies generally want to keep democracy And so you need to be able to convince people that you're all you're doing is just democratic reform Right, and that is very much the Trump rhetoric, you know, we're getting we're rooting out the deep state We're dealing with the fraud in 2020, right?

所以這就是我認為的如何把一個曾經民主的國家 變成現代獨裁國家的主要模式 因為它解決了必須宣佈的問題，你知道，我們只是在廢除選舉 民主並不重要 這已經不太受歡迎了 生活在民主國家的人一般都希望保留民主 所以你需要讓人們相信 你所做的一切只是民主改革 對，這正是特朗普的說辭 你知道，我們正在根除深層國家

We're making so the the elites are no longer controlling you the people, right?

我們要讓精英們不再控制你們這些人，對嗎？

It's the best way to understand what they're trying to do.

這是瞭解他們想要做什麼的最佳途徑。

We are in a Democratic system in the sense that elections still matter and we still have the background conditions that are essential for them to be fair You know free and fair media rule of law sort of and You know Certainly non-partisan local election administration still exists in a lot of places and And I mean, I think generally right?

從選舉仍然重要的意義上講，我們是在民主制度下，我們仍然擁有對選舉公平至關重要的背景條件，你知道自由和公平的媒體法治，你知道當然無黨派的地方選舉管理仍然存在於許多地方，我的意思是，我認為一般來說，對嗎？

There's no allegations of fraud in the 2024 election that were meaningful and but we are currently being governed under an authoritarian logic by which I mean the President is acting as if the rule of law is not real as acting as if there are no constraints acting as if he is Free to attack the background conditions that make democracy fair.

在 2024 年的選舉中沒有任何有意義的舞弊指控，但我們目前是在專制的邏輯下進行治理，我的意思是總統的行為就好像法治不是真實的一樣，就好像沒有任何約束一樣，就好像他可以隨意攻擊使民主公平的背景條件一樣。