Name: 是什麼推動了美國的政治暴力？| DW 新聞 (What's driving political violence in the United States? | DW News)
Uploaded: 2025-06-17T15:50:35.000Z
Duration: 10 min 3 s

It's often said that politics is high stakes, but is it also becoming more high-risk?

人們常說政治是高風險的，但政治是否也變得越來越高風險？

第二類條件句型

If events over the weekend in the U.S. were anything to go by, the answer would appear to be yes.

如果上週末在美國發生的事件能說明什麼，答案似乎是肯定的。

Police in the state of Minnesota have arrested a man for the murder of a Democratic lawmaker and the attempted murder of another.

明尼蘇達州警方以謀殺一名民主黨議員和謀殺另一名議員未遂的罪名逮捕了一名男子。

The suspect fatally shot State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband at their residence early on Saturday.

週六早些時候，犯罪嫌疑人在州眾議員梅麗莎-霍爾特曼（Melissa Hortman）和她丈夫的住所開槍致其死亡。

He also opened fire on State Senator John Hoffman and his wife at their home several kilometers away.

他還向幾公里外的州參議員約翰-霍夫曼和他的妻子開火。

State officials say the shooter's actions appear to have been politically motivated.

州政府官員說，槍手的行為似乎有政治動機。

Officers found a list of nearly 70 names in his car, including prominent state and federal lawmakers and community leaders, along with abortion rights advocates.

警官在他的車裡發現了一份近 70 人的名單，其中包括著名的州和聯邦立法者、社區領袖以及墮胎權利倡導者。

And the United States has a long history of politically motivated violence against presidents, lawmakers, and prominent figures.

針對總統、立法者和知名人士的出於政治動機的暴力行為在美國由來已久。

It reached its peak in the 1960s and 70s.

它在二十世紀六七十年代達到頂峰。

Just think of the assassinations of Martin Luther King, John F.

只要想想馬丁-路德-金、約翰-F.約翰遜等人的暗殺事件，就會明白這一點。

肯尼迪、馬爾科姆-X 和羅伯特-F.

Experts are now warning that we could be witnessing a return to those dark and dangerous days.

專家們現在警告說，我們可能正在目睹那些黑暗而危險的日子的重現。

In April this year, a man set fire to the official residence of Pennsylvania's Governor Democrat Josh Shapiro.

今年 4 月，一名男子縱火焚燒了賓夕法尼亞州州長、民主黨人喬希-夏皮羅的官邸。

He and his family were asleep at the time.

Inside the building, they escaped the blaze unharmed.

在樓內，他們安然無恙地躲過了大火。

Donald Trump, remember, was the target in last year's presidential campaign.

唐納德-特朗普（Donald Trump）在去年的總統競選中成為眾矢之的。

He was holding a rally in Pennsylvania when he was shot and wounded in his right ear by a 20-year-old shooter.

他在賓夕法尼亞州舉行集會時，被一名 20 歲的槍手開槍打傷右耳。

On January 6th of 2021, of course, Trump supporters forced their way inside the U.S.

當然，2021 年 1 月 6 日，特朗普的支持者們強行進入美國境內。

Capitol building, while Congress was meeting to confirm Joe Biden's election victory.

當時國會正在開會確認喬-拜登的選舉勝利。

Lawmakers were forced to take shelter, and the building was put into lockdown.

議員們被迫躲避，大樓被封鎖。

Matt Dalek is a professor of political management at George Washington University.

Matt Dalek 是喬治-華盛頓大學政治管理學教授。

Now, the Minnesota attacks are, of course, absolutely shocking.

當然，明尼蘇達州的襲擊事件絕對令人震驚。

But to someone who monitors the political culture in the U.S., are they surprising?

但是，對於一個關注美國政治文化的人來說，它們令人驚訝嗎？

I mean, of course, they're horrific, but these are, you know, this attack in Minnesota comes after more attacks, politically inspired attacks, than I think I can even count.

我的意思是，當然，他們很可怕，但這些都是，你知道，明尼蘇達州的這次襲擊是在更多的襲擊之後發生的，政治激發的襲擊，我想我甚至都數不過來。

You know, ever since at least the Charlottesville, white supremacist riots in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, the United States has seen a fairly steady stream of political violence.

要知道，至少從2017年弗吉尼亞州夏洛茨維爾發生白人至上主義騷亂以來，美國就一直不斷髮生政治暴力事件。

And you know, it's both terrible, but it's also become endemic to the culture.

要知道，這既很可怕，但也已成為一種文化。

And my sense is that one day in the future, the period we're living in now will seem to be akin, at least at the level of political violence, to what Americans lived through in the 1960s and early 1970s.

我的感覺是，在未來的某一天，我們現在所處的時期，至少在政治暴力的層面上，似乎與美國人在 20 世紀 60 年代和 70 年代初所經歷的時期相似。

How dangerous would you say it is to be a politician or even just politically active in the U.S. today?

您認為在當今美國，成為一名政治家，甚至只是一名政治活躍分子有多危險？

Yeah, well, look, statistically, I don't know if anyone has modeled this, but statistically, I think you're still highly unlikely to be a victim of an attack.

是的，聽著，從統計學角度來看，我不知道是否有人做過建模，但從統計學角度來看，我認為你成為襲擊受害者的可能性仍然很低。

But that's not to say that political violence does not have other costs.

但這並不是說政治暴力沒有其他代價。

So one of them is that a lot of these officials who 10, 20 years ago would not need security now need security.

是以，其中一個原因是，很多官員在 10 年、20 年前不需要安保，現在卻需要安保。

They're starting to take their addresses, their home addresses off of their public websites.

他們開始把自己的地址、家庭住址從公開網站上刪除。

They're more concerned about going to town halls or any sort of public event.

他們更關心參加市民大會或任何形式的公共活動。

And I think some of them are understandably reluctant to run for office or stay in office because why would they want to put their families through just the prospect that they're going to be targeted?

我認為，他們中的一些人不願競選或留任是可以理解的，因為他們為什麼要讓自己的家人承受成為攻擊目標的前景呢？

So you know, the costs are still, I think they operate on multiple levels.

是以，我認為成本仍然是多層次的。

And even if one is not directly a victim of the attack, I think it affects actually all Americans.

即使一個人不是襲擊的直接受害者，我認為它實際上影響到所有美國人。

It's it's it has a spillover effect in that way.

是什麼導致了暴力事件的增加？

Well, I think there's a lot of a lot of factors going on.

The country has been polarized for decades.

幾十年來，這個國家一直兩極分化。

I mean, there's always been divisions, but it's been increasingly polarized.

我的意思是，分歧一直存在，但越來越兩極分化。

But the polarization has grown worse, I think, over the past 15, 20 years to the point where the other side seems to be more of a threat of an enemy than a fellow American who just has different views.

但我認為，在過去的15、20年裡，兩極分化愈演愈烈，以至於另一方似乎更像是敵人的威脅，而不是觀點不同的美國同胞。

Social media is an obvious one, kind of fracturing a reality.

社交媒體就是一個顯而易見的例子，它讓現實變得支離破碎。

I think Donald Trump has been both a victim of political violence, but also an accelerant.

我認為唐納德-特朗普既是政治暴力的受害者，也是政治暴力的助推器。

And and also his his actions, pardoning the January 6th rioters, including many of whom who were convicted of beating police officers, essentially condoning political violence as long as it's done in his name and to defend his legitimacy.

此外，他還赦免了1月6日的騷亂者，其中包括許多被判毆打警察的人，只要是以他的名義和為了捍衛他的合法性而實施的政治暴力，他基本上就是在縱容政治暴力。

Americans have also suffered a decades long loss of faith and trust in institutions.

數十年來，美國人對機構也失去了信心和信任。

And it's not only that, but it's really a kind of roiling anger at government.

不僅如此，這也是一種對政府的憤怒。

And I think that, you know, the the restraints in a way which were always imperfect, there's always been some degree of political violence.

我認為，你知道，在某種程度上，約束總是不完美的，總是存在某種程度的政治暴力。

But to the extent that there were institutional and cultural restraints in place, I think those things have have been lifted.

但是，如果說以前存在著制度和文化上的限制，我認為這些限制已經解除了。

And we are seeing now we're living through the effects of that right now.

我們現在就看到了這種影響的後果。

So the lifting of these cultural restraints and the threat of political violence and the actual execution of political violence, how would you say all of that is transforming America?

那麼，這些文化束縛的解除、政治暴力的威脅以及政治暴力的實際執行，你認為這一切正在如何改變美國？

Well, what is to me both fascinating and also scary is that when an act of political violence happens, there's not a sense of the country coming together in any sort of way to condemn that act.

在我看來，既令人著迷又令人恐懼的是，當政治暴力事件發生時，全國人民並沒有以任何方式團結起來譴責這種行為。

In fact, the violence serves as a further irritant because depending on where you sit, you're going to interpret the act in one way or another through your partisan lens, through an ideological lens.

事實上，暴力是一種進一步的刺激，因為根據你的立場，你會通過你的黨派視角、意識形態視角以這樣或那樣的方式來解釋這一行為。

The other thing is, I think it emboldens extremists and extremism because it creates more room for conspiracy theories.

另一件事是，我認為這讓極端分子和極端主義更加膽大妄為，因為它為陰謀論提供了更大的空間。

It inspires maybe copycat shooters and acts.

這可能會激發模仿槍手和行為。

And and so it's I think it has contributes to a further kind of coarsening.

是以，我認為這導致了進一步的粗糙化。

And in the same way that I think a similar pattern unfolded in the 1960s or other particularly fraught moments.

同樣，我認為在 20 世紀 60 年代或其他特別緊張的時刻，也出現了類似的模式。

And so that's not to say it's indefinite.

是以，這並不是說它是不確定的。

Of course, you know, history is always changing.

當然，你知道，歷史總是在不斷變化。

But but we are in a particularly perilous moment where I think it does affect at least psychologically the lives of most Americans.

但是，我們正處於一個特別危險的時刻，我認為這至少從心理上影響了大多數美國人的生活。

And what's striking is that studies suggest that on both sides of the political spectrum, actually, there is bigger acceptance of violence as a means for political change.

令人震驚的是，研究表明，在政治光譜的兩邊，實際上都有更多的人接受暴力作為政治變革的手段。

What needs to change to reverse this trend?

要扭轉這一趨勢，需要做些什麼？

Yeah, well, yeah, you got to get those poll numbers down to where they were maybe in the 1980s and 1990s.

是啊，是啊，你得把民調數字降到上世紀八九十年代的水準。

So the wars in the Middle East, those ending would help this period of economic uncertainty and inflation.

是以，中東戰爭的結束將有助於這段經濟不穩定和通貨膨脹的時期。

Ending that would help having Donald Trump no longer in office, having served his second term.

如果唐納德-特朗普（Donald Trump）在第二個任期結束後不再擔任公職，那麼結束這一切將大有裨益。

And and then finding ways for both the center right and the center left to be empowered within America's two party system and finding ways.

然後想方設法讓中間偏右和中間偏左兩派在美國的兩黨制內獲得權力，並想方設法。

And this is a long term, maybe a generational fight to empower and real legitimize some of the main institutions of American life.

這是一場長期的鬥爭，也許是一代人的鬥爭，目的是使美國生活中的一些主要機構獲得權力並真正合法化。

The courts, public service, politics, nonprofits and research scientists, just to name a few.

法院、公共服務部門、政界、非營利組織和科研人員，僅舉幾例。

So, you know, those things, none of them are obviously easy.

所以，你知道，這些事情顯然都不容易。

Maybe social media one day will be regulated and it will be harder to spread conspiracy theories as easily as is now true.

也許有一天，社交媒體會受到監管，陰謀論就很難像現在這樣輕易傳播了。

And but I do think all of those things could help at the margins.

但我確實認為，所有這些事情都會對邊緣地區有所幫助。

And I am hopeful that over the medium to long term, there will be a reduction in the level of political violence that we've experienced over the past five, 10 years.

我希望，從中長期來看，我們在過去五年或十年中所經歷的政治暴力事件會有所減少。

That was Matt Dalek of George Washington University.

那是喬治華盛頓大學的馬特-達萊克。