Hamilton vs. Madison and the birth of American partisanship | Noah Feldman

譯者: Claire Wei 審譯者: ZHOU AILUN

如果過去一年你曾思索過美國政治，

If you've been thinking about US politics

and trying to make sense of it for the last year or so,

並嘗試理解它、將它合理化，

you might have hit on something like the following three propositions:

你腦袋可能會出現以下三個論點：

第一，美國黨派之爭 從來沒這麼亂過；

one, US partisanship has never been so bad before;

two,

第二，

for the first time, it's geographically spatialized --

美國首次出現了地域差異──

we're divided between the coasts, which want to look outwards,

我們彼此分化著── 住在沿岸地區的人們向外看，

and the center of the country, which wants to look inwards;

而居住在內陸地區的人們視野向內；

and third,

第三，

我們對此無能為力。

there's nothing we can do about it.

I'm here to today to say that all three of these propositions,

今天在這

我想告訴各位，

all of which sound reasonable,

也許這三個論點聽起來合理， 但並不是真的。

are not true.

事實上，

In fact,

our US partisanship goes all the way back

美國黨派之爭可追溯至

to the very beginning of the republic.

最早的共和民主制政體。

It was geographically spatialized in almost eerily the same way

當時的地域差異，

與今天幾乎相同。

that it is today,

and it often has been throughout US history.

這現象貫穿著美國歷史。

And last,

最後一點，

and by far most importantly,

也是到目前最重要的一點，

we actually have an extraordinary mechanism

我們其實擁有一個非凡的機制，

that's designed to help us manage factional disagreement and partisanship.

用於協助我們管理 分歧的意見與黨系之爭。

That technology is the Constitution.

這個機制被稱之為「憲法」。

And this is an evolving, subtly, supplely designed entity

這是一項不斷革新、微妙、 精良的設計實體，

它獨特的用意在於

that has the specific purpose

of teaching us how to manage factional disagreement

指導我們處理意見分歧，

where it's possible to do that,

的確可能可以處理，

同時給了我們解決分歧的工具，

and giving us techniques for overcoming that disagreement

when that's possible.

在可能的情況下。

Now, in order to tell you the story,

現在，為了給你們講這個故事，

I want to go back to a pivotal moment in US history,

我想回顧一下 一個美國史上的關鍵時刻，

and that is the moment

而正是那時刻，

when factional disagreement and partisanship was born.

出現了分歧的意見以及黨派的誕生。

There actually was a birth moment --

在美國史中這時刻

a moment in US history when partisanship snapped into place.

正是黨派誕生到位的時刻。

The person who's at the core of that story is James Madison.

詹姆斯·麥迪遜是故事的核心人物。

And at the moment that this began,

在故事開始，

James Madison was riding high.

詹姆斯·麥迪遜處在巔峰時段。

He himself was the Einstein of not only the US Constitution,

麥迪遜不只是美國憲法的創始者，

but of constitutional thought more globally,

也將憲政思想傳播到世界，

說句公道話，

and, to give him his due,

he knew it.

他知道。

In a period of time of just three years,

在短短的三年之中，

from 1785 to 1788,

1785-1788 年間，

he had conceived, theorized, designed, passed and gotten ratified

他從構想、理論化、設計、通過，

並得到批准，完成了美國憲法。

the US Constitution.

And just to give you some sense of the enormity

我想讓各位理解他所完成的巨作

有多麼的深遠與偉大，

of what that accomplishment actually was,

雖然麥迪遜當時不可能未卜先知，

although Madison couldn't have known it at the time,

直到今日，他所投入的憲法實體，

today that same constitutional technology that he invented is still in use

not only in the US,

不只美國仍然實行著，

在 230 年後，

but, 230 years later,

in places like Canada,

許多地方如加拿大、

印度、

India,

South Africa,

南非、

Brazil.

巴西都在用。

對全世界影響如此深遠，

So in an extraordinary range of contexts all over the world,

this technology is still the dominant,

今天這項巨作仍占主導地位，

對於管理統治上，仍是最頻繁使用 也是最有效的一項技術。

most used, most effective technology to manage governance.

In that moment,

當時，

Madison believed that, having solved this problem,

麥迪遜相信如果解決了這個問題，

the country would run smoothly,

這個國家會運轉的更順利，

and that he had designed a technology

因此他設計了這項技術，

使派系紛爭傷害降到最小，

that would minimize the results of factions

也就不會有政黨的出現了。

so there would be no political parties.

Remarkably, he thought he had designed a constitution

很顯然的，他認為他所設計的憲法

that was against political parties

是不利於政黨的，

and would make them unnecessary.

也會使政黨成為不必要。

He had gotten an enormous degree of help

他在最後推廣憲法階段

in the final marketing phase of his constitutional project

得到了某人莫大的幫助，

from a man you may have heard of, called Alexander Hamilton.

而這人你可能聽過， 亞歷山大·漢密爾頓。

Now, Hamilton was everything Madison was not.

漢密爾頓、麥迪遜兩人 天性可說是南轅北轍。

He was passionate, where Madison was restrained.

漢密爾頓充滿熱情激昂， 而麥迪遜則是嚴謹拘束，

He was pansexual,

漢密爾頓男女老幼通吃，

where Madison didn't speak to a woman except for once

麥迪遜則從沒跟女人說過話，

until he was 42 years old,

直到他 42 歲那年，

因此娶了朵莉為妻， 並幸福過了 40 年。

and then married Dolley and lived happily ever after for 40 years.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

To put it bluntly,

簡而言之，

Hamilton's the kind of person

漢密爾頓是

about whom you would write a hip-hop musical --

那種會使你譜出嘻哈音樂劇的人──

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

and Madison is the kind of person

而麥迪遜是那種

about whom you would not write a hip-hop musical.

無法將他譜進嘻哈音樂劇的人。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Or indeed, a musical of any kind at all.

或是，任何種類的音樂劇都不行。

But together,

但是他們兩人搭檔一起時，

they had become a rather unlikely pairing,

他們配合的天衣無縫，

and they had produced the Federalist Papers,

他們共同創造出《聯邦論》，

which offered a justification

也因此給了──

就如我先前所提到的，

and, as I mentioned,

憲法行銷計畫的理由。

a marketing plan for the Constitution,

which had been wildly effective and wildly successful.

結果十分有效、十分成功。

Once the new government was in place,

當新的政府就任時，

Hamilton became Secretary of the Treasury,

漢密爾頓當上了財政部部長，

and he had a very specific idea in mind.

當時他心頭湧上一個特別的想法。

And that was

那就是

to do for financial institutions and infrastructure

實行金融機構以及基礎建設，

exactly what Madison had done for constitutions.

就像麥迪遜為憲法所做的一樣。

Again, his contemporaries all knew it.

而同僚得知後，

One of them told Madison,

其中一個人告訴麥迪遜，

who can't have liked it very much,

他不可能願意看到

that Hamilton was the Newton of infrastructure.

漢密爾頓成為基礎建設的初始者。

The idea was pretty straightforward.

他的想法相當簡單明確。

Hamilton would give the United States a national bank,

漢密爾頓將給美國一間中央銀行，

a permanent national debt --

一筆永久的國債──

he said it would be "immortal," his phrase --

他說這將會「成為永恆」，

and a manufacturing policy that would enable trade and manufacturing

而他所制定的產業政策， 將使貿易和製造業

rather than agriculture,

超越農業

which was where the country's primary wealth had historically been.

這項歷史上國家首要財務來源。

Madison went utterly ballistic.

麥迪遜極力反駁。

And in this pivotal, critical decision,

在這至關重要決定中，

instead of just telling the world that his old friend Hamilton was wrong

除了告訴眾人他的老友 漢密爾頓是錯誤的，

and was adopting the wrong policies,

並實施著錯誤的決策，

he actually began to argue

他還開始爭論

that Hamilton's ideas were unconstitutional --

漢密爾頓的想法有違憲法的概念──

that they violated the very nature of the Constitution

違反了他們當初一起起草的

that the two of them had drafted together.

憲法其本質。

Hamilton responded the way you would expect.

漢密爾頓的回應就如我們預期，

He declared Madison to be his "personal and political enemy" --

他宣稱麥迪遜是 「我個人也是政治上的敵人」──

these are his words.

這是他親口說的。

So these two founders who had been such close friends and such close allies

這兩位開國元勳人曾是 如此友好、如此親密的盟友、

and such partners,

如此有默契的夥伴，

最後彼此產生了敵意。

then began to produce enmity.

And they did it in the good, old-fashioned way.

他們的做法很老派，

首先他們各別成立了黨派。

First, they founded political parties.

Madison created a party originally called the Democratic Republican Party --

麥迪遜成立的黨派 原本稱為「民主共和黨」，

後來簡稱為「共和黨」，

"Republican" for short --

and Hamilton created a party called the Federalist Party.

而漢密爾頓建立了「聯邦黨。」

Those two parties adopted positions on national politics

這兩個黨派所擁護的國家政治立場

十分誇張的極端。

that were extreme and exaggerated.

To give you a clear example:

以下一個例子：

Madison, who had always believed

麥迪遜的想法是

that the country would have some manufacturing and some trade

一個國家不單單 只發展貿易與製造業，

and some agriculture,

農業也必須概括在內，

began attacking Hamilton

所以他開始攻擊漢密爾頓，

說他是金融市場的工具，

as a kind of tool of the financial markets

whom Hamilton himself intended to put in charge of the country.

而漢密爾頓打算控制國家。

That was an overstatement,

雖然聽起來誇張，

但這的確是麥迪遜所相信的。

but it was something Madison came to believe.

麥迪遜同時也攻擊城市的生活型態，

He also attacked city life,

他認為沿岸正在腐敗，

and he said that the coasts were corrupt,

and what people needed to do was to look inwards

人民應該向內陸看，

to the center of the country,

應該更關心國家的中心，

to farmers, who were the essence of Republican virtue,

應該注重農民， 即共和黨美德的精髓。

同時也應該注重 使美國人偉大的核心價值，

and they should go back to the values that had made American great,

specifically the values of the Revolution,

尤其是革命的價值觀，

and those were the values of low taxes,

即低稅收，

agriculture

看重農業，

and less trade.

同時減少貿易。

Hamilton responded to this by saying that Madison was naïve,

漢密爾頓回應說麥迪遜是如此天真，

同時也很幼稚，

that he was childish,

and that his goal was to turn the United States

他的目標是將美國轉變成為

into a primitive autarchy,

一個守舊獨裁專制，

self-reliant and completely ineffectual on the global scale.

一個自給自足， 對全球毫無影響力的國家。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

They both meant it,

他們都是認真的，

and there was some truth to each of their claims,

他們各自的主張中也許有些事實，

這樣說是因為兩邊為了打贏，

because each side was grossly exaggerating the views of the other

in order to fight their war.

都把對方的言詞誇大。

They founded newspapers,

隨後他們各自成立報社，

也是美國歷史上頭遭

and so for the first time in US history,

人們所接收到的新聞來源

the news that people received came entirely through the lens

不是出自共和黨，就是聯邦黨。

of either the Republican or the Federalist party.

這最後是如何收場的？

How does this end?

Well, as it turned out, the Constitution did its work.

結果是，憲法呈現出它的功效，

But it did its work in surprising ways

而且是以出乎意料的方式呈現，

麥迪遜本身並沒有完全料到。

that Madison himself had not fully anticipated.

First, there was a series of elections.

首先是一連串的選舉。

And the first two times out of the box,

頭兩次讓人跌破眼鏡，

the Federalists destroyed the Republicans.

聯邦黨打敗了共和黨。

Madison was astonished.

麥迪遜極為錯愕。

Of course, he blamed the press.

當然，他責怪媒體。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

他提出一個相當創新的觀點──

And in a rather innovative view --

Madison never failed to innovate when he thought about anything --

不管做任何事麥迪遜 總是以創新的觀點出發──

he said the reason that the press was so pro-Federalist

他說媒體之所以都支持聯邦黨，

is that the advertisers were all Federalists,

是因為廣告商都是聯邦黨人，

because they were traders on the coasts who got their capital from Britain,

因為他們是住在沿岸的貿易商， 他們從英國拿資金，

which Federalism was in bed with.

而英國是聯邦黨人的老相好。

That was his initial explanation.

以上是他一開始的解釋。

But despite the fact that the Federalists,

儘管聯邦黨

once in power,

一上台之後，

actually enacted laws that criminalized criticism of the government --

就制定法條，將批評政府列為非法──

that happened in the United States --

美國也發生過這種事──

nevertheless,

然而

the Republicans fought back,

共和黨反擊，

and Madison began to emphasize the freedom of speech,

麥迪遜開始強調言論自由，

which he had built into the Bill of Rights,

並將言論自由納入權利法案中，

同時也允許

and the capacity of civil society

民間社會組織的成立。

to organize.

And sure enough, nationally,

所以當然，在全國各地

small local groups -- they were called Democratic-Republican Societies --

就有一群小型的地方組織， 他們稱之為民主—共和主義社會，

began to form and protest against Federalist-dominated hegemony.

開始形成並反擊聯邦黨的霸權。

最後，共和黨贏得全國的選舉，

Eventually, the Republicans managed to win a national election --

that was in 1800.

那是 1800 年。

Madison became the Secretary of State,

麥迪遜也成為了國家的國務卿，

his friend and mentor Jefferson became president,

而他的朋友同時也是導師 傑佛遜成為了美國總統，

and they actually, over time,

隨著時間推移，

managed to put the Federalists completely out of business.

他們真的讓聯邦黨完全消失。

That was their goal.

這是他們的目標。

Now, why did that happen?

而為什麼會這樣？

It happened because in the structure of the Constitution

這是由於憲法的架構中，

were several features that actually managed faction

其中有幾項特點 確實可以管理黨派的分歧，

the way there were supposed to do in the first place.

在故事一開始的時候就應該實行了。

What were those?

這些特點是什麼呢？

One -- most important of all --

第一，也是最重要的一點，

the freedom of speech.

言論自由。

This was an innovative idea at the time.

在當時這是一個新思維。

Namely, that if you were out of power,

換句話說，當你失去政權時，

你仍有權力說政府的不好。

you could still say that the government was terrible.

Two,

第二點，

civil society organization.

民間社會組織。

不管是組織私人團體或是聚眾，

The capacity to put together private groups, individuals,

political parties and others

或是成立政黨等等，

who would organize to try to bring about fundamental change.

會帶來本質上的改變。

Perhaps most significantly was the separation of powers --

也許最重要的是權力分立──

這是憲法中非凡的組成。

an extraordinary component of the Constitution.

關於權力分立，

The thing about the separation of powers

不管是當時或是現在，

is that it did then and it does now,

drive governance to the center.

都將治理推向中間。

在美國你可以 藉由邊陲的支持當選上台，

You can get elected to office in the United States

with help from the periphery,

right or left.

不管是偏右或是偏左。

It turns out,

然而結果是，

you actually can't govern unless you bring on board the center.

除非你注重中間，否則無法治理。

There are midterm elections that come incredibly fast

總統就位後，

after a presidency begins.

期中選舉很快就到了，

Those drive presidents towards the center.

也因此使總統一定要著重中間。

事實上在這架構中，總統並不統治

There's a structure in which the president, in fact, does not rule

or even govern,

或是管理，

but can only propose laws which other people have to agree with --

但只能提案， 而且必須獲得其他人同意──

another feature that tends to drive presidents

這是另一個架構特色，

驅使總統

who actually want to get things done

to the center.

將心力放在中間。

And a glance at the newspapers today will reveal to you

在今日的報紙中你仍可以發現

that these principles are still completely in operation.

這些原則今日依然運行著。

No matter how a president gets elected,

無論一個總統是如何選上的，

the president cannot get anything done

總統在沒有遵循憲法前提下

是什麼都無法完成的。

unless the president first of all follows the rules of the Constitution,

because if not,

若沒有遵循憲法，

the courts will stand up, as indeed has sometimes occurred,

法院會發聲並採取一些措施，

not only recently, but in the past, in US history.

這不是現在才有的， 而是從過去美國歷史延續到現在。

此外，

And furthermore,

the president needs people,

總統需要人民，

elected officials who know they need to win election

民選官員都知道他們需要

中間選民以贏得選舉，

from centrist voters,

also to back his or her policies in order to pass laws.

及支持他們想通過的法案。

Without it, nothing much happens.

若沒有經過這樣的程序， 基本上總統無力改變些什麼。

The takeaway of this brief excursus

從歷史上的黨爭 得到的精華概要就是：

into the history of partisanship, then, is the following:

partisanship is real;

黨派之爭真實存在；

它影響深遠；

it's profound;

非常有力；

it's extraordinarily powerful,

and it's terribly upsetting.

非常令人生氣。

But the design of the Constitution is greater than partisanship.

然而憲法的設計 是遠超乎黨派本身的。

It enables us to manage partisanship when that's possible,

它使我們能夠管理黨派，

and it enables us actually to overcome partisan division

也使我們可以克服黨派間的分歧，

and produce compromise,

並產生妥協，

when and only when that is possible.

也只有這種情況下才有可能。

這樣的工具

A technology like that is a technology that worked

for the founders,

對開國元勳是有效的，

it worked for their grandchildren,

同時也適用於他們的後代子孫，

雖然在南北戰爭期間 憲法並沒有作用，

it didn't work at the moment of the Civil War,

but then it started working again.

但戰爭結束後又恢復它的功效了。

And it worked for our grandparents,

它延伸至我們的祖父母，

our parents,

我們的父母，

and it's going to work for us.

當然它也適用於我們。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

So what you should do is really simple.

而你真正該做的其實很簡單。

Stand up for what you believe in,

捍衛你所信仰的，

support the organizations that you care about,

支持你所關心的組織，

speak out on the issues that matter to you,

勇敢大聲說出和你息息相關的議題，

get involved,

並參與其中，

make change,

嘗試著改變，

express you opinion,

說出你的意見，

and do it with respect and knowledge and confidence

並用尊重的心、智慧與自信來做，

that it's only by working together

唯有當我們共同努力，

that the constitutional technology can do the job that it is designed to do.

憲法系統才能發揮它的效用。

Stand up for what you believe,

在捍衛你的信仰之前，

but take a deep breath while you do it.

深呼吸，

It's going to be OK.

一切都會沒事的。

謝謝各位。

Thanks.

(Applause)

（掌聲）