Political common ground in a polarized United States | Gretchen Carlson, David Brooks

審譯者: Carol Wang

Chris Anderson: Welcome to this next edition of TED Dialogues.

克里斯·安德森（CA）： 歡迎來到新一期的 TED 對話。

We're trying to do some bridging here today.

今天我們準備溝通天地，連接你我。

You know, the American dream has inspired millions of people

大家都知道，多年來美國夢激勵了

around the world for many years.

遍佈世界各地數百萬人。

Today, I think, you can say that America is divided,

而如今，我覺得可以說美國是分裂的，

perhaps more than ever,

可能比以往更甚；

and the divisions seem to be getting worse.

而且分歧也越來越糟。

說真的，各個陣營的人

It's actually really hard for people on different sides

都很難進行一場對話。

to even have a conversation.

People almost feel...

人們幾乎是......

disgusted with each other.

討厭彼此，

Some families can't even speak to each other right now.

當下的有些家庭甚至互不講話。

Our purpose in this dialogue today is to try to do something about that,

這個對話的目的就是為此做點什麼，

嘗試不同方式的交流，

to try to have a different kind of conversation,

to do some listening, some thinking, some understanding.

有傾聽，有思考，還有理解。

And I have two people with us to help us do that.

今天將有兩位嘉賓 來幫助我們一起做這件事。

They're not going to come at this hammer and tong against each other.

他們今天不會唇槍舌戰，

This is not like cable news.

這裡也不像有線電視新聞節目。

This is two people who have both spent a lot of their working life

這二位在職業生涯中很多時間

in the political center or right of the center.

持政治中立或者中立稍偏右態度。

They've immersed themselves in conservative worldviews, if you like.

你也可以理解為，他們 沉浸在保守的世界觀中，

They know that space very well.

他們對這個很在行。

And we're going to explore together

接下來，我們將一起探討

how to think about what is happening right now,

如何看待時下所發生的事情，

and whether we can find new ways to bridge

能否搭橋找到新的契機，

and just to have wiser, more connected conversations.

只為了建立更睿智、更有效的溝通。

With me, first of all, Gretchen Carlson,

首先有請葛蕾琴·卡森，

who has spent a decade working at Fox News,

她在福克斯新聞工作了十年，

hosting "Fox and Friends" and then "The Real Story,"

在她勇敢地指控

羅傑斯·艾爾斯性騷擾前，

before taking a courageous stance in filing sexual harassment claims

她先是主持《福克斯和朋友們》， 然後主持《實話實説》新聞節目，

against Roger Ailes,

which eventually led to his departure from Fox News.

她的指控最終導致 羅傑斯·艾爾斯離開福克斯新聞。

David Brooks, who has earned the wrath

另一位是大偉·布庫斯，

因其保守觀點，引發眾多

of many of [The New York Times's] left-leaning readers

《紐約時報》左傾讀者的憤怒；

because of his conservative views,

and more recently, perhaps, some of the right-leaning readers

就在最近，可能因其 對川普某些方面的批評，

有些右傾讀者 也加入聲討他的行列中。

because of his criticism of some aspects of Trump.

Yet, his columns are usually

但是，他的專欄

the top one, two or three most-read content of the day

通常是每日閱讀量的前三，

because they're brilliant,

原因就在於內容精彩，

because they bring psychology and social science

因為他從心理學和社會科學角度，

to providing understanding for what's going on.

讓人們明白當下發生的事情。

So without further ado, a huge welcome to Gretchen and David.

話不多說，熱烈歡迎葛蕾琴和大偉。

Come and join me.

請坐。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

So, Gretchen.

葛蕾琴，

Sixty-three million Americans voted for Donald Trump.

6300 萬的美國人選出了唐納•川普，

Why did they do this?

他們為什麼這麼做？

Gretchen Carlson: There are a lot of reasons, in my mind, why it happened.

葛蕾琴：在我看來， 有很多因素導致為什麼會這樣。

我是想說這是一種運動， 但早些年就開始了，

I mean, I think it was a movement of sorts, but it started long ago.

It didn't just happen overnight.

這不是一夜之間發生的。

"Anger" would be the first word that I would think of --

「憤怒」是我想到的第一個詞，

anger with nothing being done in Washington,

對政府的不作為感到憤怒，

anger about not being heard.

對自己的聲音沒人理會感到憤怒。

I think there was a huge swath of the population

我覺得有一大群怒火中燒的人，

that feels like Washington never listens to them,

感覺政府從來不聽他們的心聲；

you know, a good part of the middle of America, not just the coasts,

有很大一部分是美國中部的， 不只是在沿海地區，

and he was somebody they felt was listening to their concerns.

川普讓這些人覺得 他在傾聽他們的訴求。

So I think those two issues would be the main reason.

所以我認為這兩個是主要原因。

I have to throw in there also celebrity.

當然還要考慮他是名人，

I think that had a huge impact on Donald Trump becoming president.

我認為這對唐納•川普 成為總統有很大的影響。

CA: Was the anger justified?

CA：「憤怒」有道理嗎？

David Brooks: Yeah, I think so.

大偉（CB）：是的，我認為有道理。

In 2015 and early 2016, I wrote about 30 columns

在 2015 年和 2016 年初， 我大概寫了 30 篇專欄文章，

with the following theme:

有關以下主題：

don't worry, Donald Trump will never be the Republican nominee.

別擔心，唐納•川普 不會被共和黨提名。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And having done that and gotten that so wrong,

這樣做的結局很糟糕，

I decided to spend the ensuing year just out in Trumpworld,

我決定接下來一年專注於川普世界，

and I found a lot of economic dislocation.

還發現很多經濟失調的問題。

I ran into a woman in West Virginia who was going to a funeral for her mom.

我在維吉尼亞州遇到一位女士， 她要去參加母親的葬禮。

她說：「身為天主教徒的好處 是我們不必說話，

She said, "The nice thing about being Catholic is we don't have to speak,

and that's good, because we're not word people."

這很好，因為我們不是 善於舞文弄墨的人。」

That phrase rung in my head: word people.

那句話一直在我腦海裡迴響： 舞文弄墨的人。

A lot of us in the TED community are word people,

我們 TED 論壇很多人 都是和文字打交道的，

but if you're not, the economy has not been angled toward you,

如果不是，經濟不會站在你這邊；

and so 11 million men, for example, are out of the labor force

比方説，1100 萬人失業了，

because those jobs are done away.

因為這些工作已經沒有了，

A lot of social injury.

這對社會傷害很大。

You used to be able to say, "I'm not the richest person in the world,

你以前會說： 「我不是世界上最有錢的，

I'm not the most famous,

也不是最有名的，

但鄰居們可以仰賴我， 我也以此為傲。」

but my neighbors can count on me and I get some dignity out of that."

And because of celebritification or whatever, if you're not rich or famous,

要不是遇上烏鴉 變鳳凰這些個有的沒的，

倘若沒錢無名，你覺得 自己被當成空氣了。

you feel invisible.

And a lot of moral injury, sense of feeling betrayed,

還有道德上的傷害，感覺被背叛了，

and frankly, in this country, we almost have one success story,

坦率地說，在這個國家， 我們幾乎有個成功的故事：

which is you go to college, get a white-collar job, and you're a success,

那就是你上完大學， 找份白領的工作，你就是成功的；

and if you don't fit in that formula,

但如果你不符合那個流程，

you feel like you're not respected.

你會覺得被看不起。

And so that accumulation of things --

所以，當經過歲月的蹉跎，

and when I talked to Trump voters and still do,

我問起川普的選民， 現在也還在問，

I found most of them completely realistic about his failings,

我發現大多數人 對他的失敗都超現實，

but they said, this is my shot.

不過他們說，這是我的機會。

GC: And yet I predicted that he would be the nominee,

GC：但是我知道他會被提名，

because I've known him for 27 years.

因為我認識他都27年了。

He's a master marketer,

他是一個行銷大師。

and one of the things he did extremely well

有件事他做得非常好，

that President Obama also did extremely well,

奧巴馬總統也做得不錯，

was simplifying the message,

就是簡化了資訊消息，

simplifying down to phrases

簡單到口號

and to a populist message.

和親民的短消息。

Even if he can't achieve it, it sounded good.

就算他難以兌現承諾，但聽起來不錯。

And many people latched on to that simplicity again.

於是很多人再次理解這種簡約，

It's something they could grasp onto:

這是他們可以理解的：

"I get that. I want that. That sounds fantastic."

「我懂，要的就是這個， 聽起來太棒了。」

And I remember when he used to come on my show originally,

我還記得他早年來上我的節目，

before "The Apprentice" was even "The Apprentice,"

那時《誰是接班人》節目 遠不像現在眾所周知，

他會說這是排名第一的電視節目。

and he'd say it was the number one show on TV.

我回他說：「不，根本不是。」

I'd say back to him, "No, it's not."

And he would say, "Yes it is, Gretchen."

他會說：「是第一，葛蕾琴。」

我會說：「就不是的。」

And I would say, "No it's not."

But people at home would see that, and they'd be like,

但人們在家會看這個節目而且會說：

"Wow, I should be watching the number one show on TV."

「哇，我應該看看這個 第一名的電視節目。」

And -- lo and behold -- it became the number one show on TV.

你瞧，《誰是接班人》還真成了 第一熱門的電視節目。

So he had this, I've seen this ability in him

所以他很有一套， 我在他身上看到了

to be the master marketer.

成為營銷大師的能力。

CA: It's puzzling to a lot of people on the left

CA：對許多左派來說， 令人困惑的是：

that so many women voted for him,

儘管他說了一些侮辱女性言論，

despite some of his comments.

很多女性還是投了贊成票。

GC: I wrote a column about this for Time Motto,

GC：我就此給《時代週刊》的 〈Motto 〉欄目寫過專欄，

saying that I really believe that lot of people put on blinders,

在文章中寫到，我真的相信 很多人對此選擇視而不見，

and maybe for the first time,

也許是有生的第一次，

some people decided that policies they believed in

有人認為他們所相信的政策

and being heard and not being invisible anymore

能被聽到而不是視而不見

was more important to them

對他們來說更重要，

than the way in which he had acted or acts as a human.

這些比起川普作為一個 普通人的行為不妥更重要，

And so human dignity --

至於人格——

whether it would be the dust-up about the disabled reporter,

無論是關於殘障記者的口水戰，

or what happened in that audiotape with Billy Bush

還是對比利·布希的錄音帶事件，

and the way in which he spoke about women --

當然還有他調侃女人的方式；

they put that aside

他們就把它擱到一邊，

and pretended as if they hadn't seen that or heard that,

裝聾作啞或視而不見。

because to them, policies were more important.

對他們來說，政策才更重要。

CA: Right, so just because someone voted for Trump,

CA：是的，這些人投票支持川普，

it's not blind adherence to everything that he's said or stood for.

也並非盲目地堅持他所說的一切。

GC: No. I heard a lot of people that would say to me,

GC：不是的，我聽到很多人對我說，

"Wow, I just wish he would shut up before the election.

「天呐，我就希望選舉前他能閉嘴，

If he would just stay quiet, he'd get elected."

只要他閉嘴別亂說，會當選的。」

CA: And so, maybe for people on the left there's a trap there,

CA：所以對左派來說， 認為裡面有貓膩，

to sort of despise or just be baffled by the support,

有點鄙視她們支持川普 或者說被搞糊塗了，

assuming that it's for some of the unattractive features.

以為是因為一些沒有新意的觀點，

Actually, maybe they're supporting him despite those,

實際上就算有這些， 他們也還是會支持他，

because they see something exciting.

因為他們看到了令人振奮的東西，

They see a man of action.

人們看到了實幹家。

They see the choking hold of government being thrown off in some way

他們看到政府桎梏就這麽被甩掉，

人們對此感到興奮。

and they're excited by that.

GC: But don't forget we saw that on the left as well -- Bernie Sanders.

GC：但別忘了我們在左派人士 伯尼·桑德斯身上也看到了這些。

So this is one of the commonalities that I think we can talk about today,

這就是我覺得今天 可以拿來談論的共通處之一，

"The Year of the Outsider," David -- right?

《局外人的一年》，大偉，對嗎？

And even though Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for a long time,

儘管伯尼·桑德斯 在國會有些時間了，

he was deemed an outsider this time.

但這次他被當做局外人。

And so there was anger on the left as well,

所以左派也很憤怒，

and so many people were in favor of Bernie Sanders.

有那麽多人支持伯尼·桑德斯。

So I see it as a commonality.

我認為它有共通性。

People who like Trump, people who like Bernie Sanders,

喜歡川普的人， 喜歡伯尼·桑德斯的人，

他們喜歡不同的政策， 但深層次的卻是憤怒。

they were liking different policies, but the underpinning was anger.

CA: David, there's often this narrative, then,

CA：大偉，總是有這麽個説法，

that the sole explanation for Trump's victory and his rise

對川普勝利及崛起的唯一正解

is his tapping into anger in a very visceral way.

就是他對憤怒者直達心扉。

But you've written a bit about that it's actually more than that,

但你也寫到實際上不止這些，

that there's a worldview that's being worked on here.

還有個現行的世界觀。

Could you talk about that?

你要不來講講？

DB: I would say he understood what, frankly, I didn't,

DB：坦白說，我會說 川普明白我不懂的東西，

which is what debate we were having.

這正是我們在辯論的內容。

And so I'd grown up starting with Reagan,

我成長於雷根時代，

and it was the big government versus small government debate.

是大小政府間的辯論。

It was Barry Goldwater versus George McGovern,

貝利·高華德對喬治·麥戈文，

and that was the debate we had been having for a generation.

是我們那代人的討論。

It was: Democrats wanted to use government to enhance equality,

那就是：民主黨人想讓政府加強平等；

Republicans wanted to limit government to enhance freedom.

共和黨人想限制政府來提高自由，

這就是那時的辯論。

That was the debate.

He understood what I think the two major parties did not,

他曉得而我覺得兩大黨派卻沒搞懂，

which was that's not the debate anymore.

那就是再也不必辯論了。

The debate is now open versus closed.

現在的爭議是開放對封閉。

On one side are those who have the tailwinds of globalization

一方是全球化風生水起

and the meritocracy blowing at their back,

及背後強大的精英團隊；

and they tend to favor open trade,

他們傾向於自由貿易、

open borders, open social mores,

開放的邊界、開放的公序良俗，

because there are so many opportunities.

因為這樣做有很多機會。

On the other side are those who feel the headwinds of globalization

另一方是那些逆全球化

and the meritocracy just blasting in their faces,

衝著精英主義者正面打臉，

and they favor closed trade, closed borders, closed social mores,

他們喜歡封閉的貿易、 封閉邊界、封閉的社會道德，

because they just want some security.

因為他們只想要安全。

And so he was right on that fundamental issue,

所以他在這個根本問題上是對的，

and people were willing to overlook a lot to get there.

人們為了這個安全願意忽視些東西。

And so he felt that sense of security.

他有種給人安全的感覺。

We're speaking the morning after Trump's joint session speech.

在川普聯合會議發言後的 第二天早上，我們說過：

There are three traditional groups in the Republican Party.

共和黨有三個傳統團體，

There are the foreign policies hawks

有外交鷹派，

who believe in America as global policeman.

相信美國是全球警衛，

Trump totally repudiated that view.

川普完全否認這觀點。

Second, there was the social conservatives

其次，有社會保守派，

who believed in religious liberty,

相信宗教自由、

pro-life,

反墮胎、

prayer in schools.

允許校內禱告。

He totally ignored that.

他完全忽視這點，

There was not a single mention of a single social conservative issue.

對於任何社會保守問題都隻字未提。

And then there were the fiscal hawks,

剩下就是財富鷹派，

the people who wanted to cut down on the national debt, Tea Party,

那些想減少國債的人，

茶黨要求削減政府規模；

cut the size of government.

He's expanding the size of government!

而川普在擴大政府規模！

Here's a man who has single-handedly revolutionized a major American party

就這麽個人，他隻手 革了美國主要政黨的命，

because he understood where the debate was headed

因為他比其他人更早知道

before other people.

辯論的方向。

And then guys like Steve Bannon come in

像史蒂芬·班農這樣的人參與進來，

and give him substance to his impulses.

給川普的口號提供實質行動支持。

CA: And so take that a bit further,

CA：再往深處談一下，

and maybe expand a bit more on your insights

也許可以拓展下你們的看法，

into Steve Bannon's worldview.

有關史蒂芬·班農的世界觀。

Because he's sometimes tarred in very simple terms

有時，他被極簡的方式標注為：

as this dangerous, racist, xenophobic, anger-sparking person.

這個危險、種族主義者， 排外、怒火中燒的傢伙。

There's more to the story; that is perhaps an unfair simplification.

但故事沒那麽簡單； 這種簡化相當不公平。

DB: I think that part is true,

DB：我覺得這部分是對的，

but there's another part that's probably true, too.

但另外部分也沒錯。

He's part of a global movement.

他是全球化運動的一部分，

It's like being around Marxists in 1917.

就像 1917 年的馬克思主義運動一樣。

There's him here, there's the UKIP party, there's the National Front in France,

他所處的時代有英國獨立黨， 還有法國國民陣線，

there's Putin, there's a Turkish version, a Philippine version.

有普京，有土耳其、菲律賓的版本。

So we have to recognize that this is a global intellectual movement.

所以我們得認識到 這是全球的知性運動。

And it believes

人們認為，

that wisdom and virtue is not held in individual conversation and civility

有些人的言談舉止毫無德智可言，

the way a lot of us in the enlightenment side of the world do.

與我們很多人所遵循的 世界啟蒙信條不同。

It's held in -- the German word is the "volk" -- in the people,

這些美德就在人民中， 德語中「Volk」是人民，

in the common, instinctive wisdom of the plain people.

就藏在樸實平常的普通百姓 與生俱來的智慧裡，

And the essential virtue of that people is always being threatened by outsiders.

而人們的重要美德 總受到外界的威脅。

And he's got a strategy for how to get there.

而他知道如何達到目的，

He's got a series of policies to bring the people up

他有一套政策引導人們，

and repudiate the outsiders,

而不去理會外界，

whether those outsiders are Islam, Mexicans, the media,

不管外界是伊斯蘭、墨西哥人、媒體，

the coastal elites...

還是東西海岸的精英們...

And there's a whole worldview there; it's a very coherent worldview.

這裡有完整的世界觀； 一氣呵成的世界觀。

I sort of have more respect for him.

我多少有點尊敬他。

I loathe what he stands for and I think he's wrong on the substance,

我厭惡他的主張， 認為他本質上不對，

but it's interesting to see someone with a set of ideas

不過看到川普這樣有想法的人

find a vehicle, Donald Trump,

找到實現的途徑也很有意思，

and then try to take control of the White House

他試圖控制白宮

in order to advance his viewpoint.

以宣揚他的觀點。

CA: So it's almost become, like, that the core question of our time now is:

CA：所以成為當下的核心問題是：

Can you be patriotic but also have a global mindset?

你能夠同時擁有全球化 和愛國的心嗎？

Are these two things implacably opposed to each other?

這兩件事水火不容嗎？

I mean, a lot of conservatives

我是說，很多保守派，

and, to the extent that it's a different category,

在某種程度上屬於不同範疇，

a lot of Trump supporters,

還有很多川普的支持者，

are infuriated by the coastal elites and the globalists

被東西岸精英 和全球主義者給氣炸了。

because they see them as, sort of, not cheering for America,

因為認為他們不站在美國這一邊，

not embracing fully American values.

這些人完全不信奉美國價值觀。

I mean, have you seen that in your conversations with people,

你在與人交流時，是否遇到過，

in your understanding of their mindset?

能體會他們的心態？

GC: I do think that there's a huge difference between --

GC：我覺得是有很大的區別。

I hate to put people in categories, but,

我討厭把人分類，

Middle America versus people who live on the coasts.

美國中部對照沿海人士。

It's an entirely different existence.

這是一個完全不同的現狀。

And I grew up in Minnesota, so I have an understanding of Middle America,

而且我是在明尼蘇達長大， 所以我對中部很瞭解，

and I've never forgotten it.

我也從來沒忘記過。

And maybe that's why I have an understanding of what happened here,

也許這也就是為什麼 我能體會到出了什麽問題。

because those people often feel like nobody's listening to them,

因為這些人老覺得 沒人傾聽他們的聲音，

and that we're only concentrating on California and New York.

政府只專注於加州和紐約。

And so I think that was a huge reason why Trump was elected.

我想這也是川普能當選的很大原因。

I mean, these people felt like they were being heard.

我的意思是，這些人覺得 終於有人聽到他們的心聲。

Whether or not patriotism falls into that,

愛國主義是否牽涉其中，

I'm not sure about that.

我不太清楚。

I do know one thing:

但我知道一點：

a lot of things Trump talked about last night are not conservative things.

川普昨晚講了很多 不是保守黨的事情。

Had Hillary Clinton gotten up and given that speech,

要是讓希拉蕊•克林頓來做這個演講，

not one Republican would have stood up to applaud.

不會有共和黨人起身鼓掌的。

I mean, he's talking about spending a trillion dollars on infrastructure.

他提到在基礎設施上要花上萬億，

That is not a conservative viewpoint.

那不是保守的觀點。

He talked about government-mandated maternity leave.

他談到法定產假，

A lot of women may love that; it's not a conservative viewpoint.

超多女人會愛上這點； 這也不是保守觀點。

這很是讓有些人遐想，

So it's fascinating

that people who loved what his message was during the campaign,

那些競選期就喜歡他言論的人，

I'm not sure -- how do you think they'll react to that?

我不確定 ——你覺得 他們現在會如何反應？

DB: I should say I grew up in Lower Manhattan,

DB：我應該聲明 我在曼哈頓下城區長大，

in the triangle between ABC Carpets, the Strand Bookstore

在 ABC 地毯公司、Strand 書店，

and The Odeon restaurant.

和 Odeon 餐廳間的三角地帶。

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

GC: Come to Minnesota sometime!

GC：有空來明尼蘇達州吧！

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

CA: You are a card-carrying member of the coastal elite, my man.

CA：夥計，你可是 沿海精英的正牌成員。

But what did you make of the speech last night?

對他昨晚的演講，你如何評論呢？

It seemed to be a move to a more moderate position,

從面上看起來

似乎是朝更溫和前進。

on the face of it.

DB: Yeah, I thought it was his best speech,

DB：是的，我覺得 這是川普最好的演講，

and it took away the freakishness of him.

打消了他怪伽的形象。

I do think he's a moral freak,

我認為他是個道德怪胎，

and I think he'll be undone by that fact,

他也將會被以下事實所抵消：

the fact that he just doesn't know anything about anything

其實他不是什麽都懂，

只是不關心而已。

and is uncurious about it.

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

但如果你拿掉這些小瑕疵，

But if you take away these minor flaws,

I think we got to see him at his best,

我想我們會看到他最棒的一面，

and it was revealing for me to see him at his best,

這就讓我看到他是最好的，

because to me, it exposed a central contradiction that he's got to confront,

因為對我來說，這暴露了 他必需面對重要矛盾，

that a lot of what he's doing is offering security.

他做的很多事情 就是提供安全保障。

So, "I'm ordering closed borders,

於是說：「我命令封閉邊界，

I'm going to secure the world for you, for my people."

我要保護你們，我的人民。」

But then if you actually look at a lot of his economic policies,

但其實，當你看到 他的很多經濟政策，

例如個人醫保帳戶的健保改革，

like health care reform, which is about private health care accounts,

that's not security, that's risk.

那不是安全，是個風險。

Educational vouchers: that's risk. Deregulation: that's risk.

教育憑證：是風險。 去除管制：是風險。

There's really a contradiction between the security of the mindset

真是互相矛盾：心裡想著安全，

and a lot of the policies, which are very risk-oriented.

可還有那麽多高風險的政策。

And what I would say, especially having spent this year,

而且就在今年，我會說，

the people in rural Minnesota, in New Mexico --

明尼蘇達州、新墨西哥州的鄉親，

they've got enough risk in their lives.

他們的生活壓力很大。

And so they're going to say, "No thank you."

然後他們會說：「不用了，謝謝你。」

And I think his health care repeal will fail for that reason.

我認為他的健保廢除議案 會因此而失敗。

CA: But despite the criticisms you just made of him,

CA：儘管你剛才對他的批評，

it does at least seem that he's listening

但看起來他至少有在

廣納雅言；

to a surprisingly wide range of voices;

it's not like everyone is coming from the same place.

好像是來自各方的雅言。

And maybe that leads to a certain amount of chaos and confusion, but --

也許這會導致一定的混亂，但是——

GC: I actually don't think he's listening to a wide range of voices.

GC：其實我並不覺得他有多在聆聽。

I think he's listening to very few people.

我覺得他只聽少數幾個人的，

That's just my impression of it.

這是我的感覺。

I believe that some of the things he said last night

我相信他昨晚說的一部分，

had Ivanka all over them.

伊凡卡有全程參與。

So I believe he was listening to her before that speech.

所以我相信 他在演講前有聽她的話。

And he was Teleprompter Trump last night, as opposed to Twitter Trump.

和隨隨便便發推文的他相比， 昨天晚上川普很義正言辭。

And that's why, before we came out here,

這就是在我們來此之前， 為什麼我會說：

I said, "We better check Twitter to see if anything's changed."

「我們最好檢查推特一下， 看看有沒有變化。」

And also I think you have to keep in mind

而且我想大家也得牢記，

that because he's such a unique character,

他是這麽個有個性的人，

what was the bar that we were expecting last night?

昨晚我們的期待有多高？

Was it here or here or here?

是這麼高？還是再高一點， 抑或低一點？

And so he comes out and gives a looking political speech,

所以他來給個像模像樣的政治演講，

and everyone goes, "Wow! He can do it."

大家都說，「哇！他做得到。」

It just depends on which direction he goes.

這取決於他想怎麼做。

DB: Yeah, and we're trying to build bridges here,

DB：是的，我們在此試圖溝通彼此，

and especially for an audience that may have contempt for Trump,

特別是對那些 看不起川普的觀眾來說，

it's important to say, no, this is a real thing.

說清楚這一點很重要。

But as I try my best to go an hour showing respect for him,

雖然在這一個小時裡 我盡量去尊重他，

my thyroid is surging,

可我的喉嚨在發緊，

because I think the oddities of his character

因為我認為他怪異的 性格應該受到譴責，

really are condemnatory and are going to doom him.

這個會搞死他。

CA: Your reputation is as a conservative.

CA：你一直是保守人士。

人們認為你中間偏右，

People would you describe you as right of center,

and yet here you are with this visceral reaction against him

而此刻的你是打內心裡

反對他和他所持的某些立場。

and some of what he stands for.

I mean, I'm -- how do you have a conversation?

我想說那你如何交流？

The people who support him, on evidence so far,

現有的徵兆表明，

are probably pretty excited.

支持他的人可能很興奮。

He's certainly shown real engagement

川普他實實在在地參與到

in a lot of what he promised to do,

很多他之前的允諾中，

and there is a strong desire to change the system radically.

並且帶有極強烈的願望來徹底變革。

People hate what government has become and how it's left them out.

人們討厭現有政府， 還有對他們的置之不理。

GC: I totally agree with that,

GC：我完全同意這一點，

but I think that when he was proposing a huge government program last night

但我認為昨晚他提出的 龐大政府計劃極具諷刺性，

that we used to call the bad s-word, "stimulus," I find it completely ironic.

我們以前常「刺激」來貶稱它，

To spend a trillion dollars on something --

花一萬億美元的事情，

that is not a conservative viewpoint.

可不是保守派的觀點。

再者，我真覺得他不是共和黨人。

Then again, I don't really believe he's a Republican.

DB: And I would say, as someone who identifies as conservative:

DB：作為大家眼中的保守派：

我要說的是，首先，

first of all,

保守派相信政治有局限性。

to be conservative is to believe in the limitations of politics.

Samuel Johnson said, "Of all the things that human hearts endure,

塞缪尔·詹森說：「凡人心所載，

how few are those that kings can cause and cure."

君王定奪有幾何。」

Politics is a limited realm;

政治是有限的國度；

what matters most is the moral nature of the society.

最重要的是社會的道德本質。

And so I have to think character comes first,

所以我必須先考慮人性，

and a man who doesn't pass the character threshold

一個人格底線不及格的人

不會是個好的總統。

cannot be a good president.

第二，我是那種保守的人，

Second, I'm the kind of conservative who --

I harken back to Alexander Hamilton,

讓我回想起亞歷山大·漢密爾頓，

who was a Latino hip-hop star from the heights --

同名音樂劇中，由《高地人生》創作者 一位拉丁裔嘻哈明星扮演了他——

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

but his definition of America was very future-oriented.

但他對美國的定義 是非常面向未來的。

He was a poor boy from the islands

他一個小島來的窮小子，

who had this rapid and amazing rise to success,

如此快速而驚人地變身成功人士，

and he wanted government to give poor boys and girls like him

他希望政府能給像他 一樣貧窮的男孩和女孩

成功的機會，

a chance to succeed,

using limited but energetic government to create social mobility.

透過捉襟見肘但幹勁十足的 政府創造社會流動性。

For him and for Lincoln and for Teddy Roosevelt,

對他、對林肯和泰迪•羅斯福來說，

the idea of America was the idea of the future.

理想中的美國關乎未來。

We may have division and racism and slavery in our past,

也許過去我們有分裂、 種族主義和奴隸制，

but we have a common future.

但我們有共同的未來。

The definition of America that Steve Bannon stands for is backwards-looking.

史蒂芬·班農主張的 美國定義是倒退的，

It's nostalgic; it's for the past.

是懷舊的；是過去式的。

And that is not traditionally the American identity.

而這並不是傳統上的美國身份。

That's traditionally, frankly, the Russian identity.

傳統意義上，坦白講， 這是俄羅斯的身份。

That's how they define virtue.

這就是他們如何界定美德。

And so I think it is a fundamental and foundational betrayal

所以我認為這是一個 對保守主義立場

徹頭徹尾的背叛。

of what conservatism used to stand for.

CA: Well, I'd like actually like to hear from you,

CA：嗯，我真的很高興聽你的發言，

and if we see some comments coming in from some of you, we'll --

如果我們讓觀眾當中 有人發表些見解，那我們——

oh, well here's one right now.

剛剛好有一個。

Jeffrey Alan Carnegie: I've tried to convince progressive friends

傑弗里·艾倫·卡內基（聽眾）： 我試圖說服開明的朋友，

that they need to understand what motivates Trump supporters,

他們需要瞭解川普 支持者的動機是什麼，

但面對他們認為的謊言、 自私和仇恨，

yet many of them have given up trying to understand

in the face of what they perceive as lies, selfishness and hatred.

他們中很多人已經 放棄嘗試去理解。

How would you reach out to such people, the Tea Party of the left,

你怎麽跟左派茶黨這些人打交道，

to try to bridge this divide?

去試圖彌合鴻溝？

GC: I actually think there are commonalities in anger,

GC：我其實覺得有憤怒的共性。

正如我早前講過的。

as I expressed earlier.

So I think you can come to the table, both being passionate about something.

所以我覺得把大家都很在乎的 事情都攤到檯面上來，

So at least you care.

説明至少你在乎。

And I would like to believe -- the c-word has also become

我願意相信「妥協」，

a horrible word -- "compromise," right?

C 代表很糟糕的詞 「妥協」，對吧？

So you have the far left and the far right,

所以我們有最左的和最右的，

and compromise -- forget it.

妥協 ——免談。

Those groups don't want to even think about it.

那些團體想都不會去想的。

But you have a huge swath of voters, myself included,

但一大堆選民，包括我在內，

who are registered independents,

作為登記在冊的獨立人士，

like 40 percent of us, right?

可能有40％，對吧？

So there is a huge faction of America that wants to see change

所以在美國有很大 一部分人希望看到變革，

and wants to see people come together.

希望看到人們團結在一起。

It's just that we have to figure out

這就是我們得弄清楚

how to do that.

如何做到這點。

CA: So let's talk about that for a minute,

CA：所以讓我們再多談一下，

because we're having these TED Dialogues, we're trying to bridge.

因為我們在做的 TED 對話 就是想試圖溝通你我。

There's a lot of people out there, right now, perhaps especially on the left,

現在有很多人，特別是左派的，

who think this is a terrible idea,

他們認為這是個糟糕的想法，

that actually, the only moral response to the great tyranny

但事實上，對大獨裁 唯一道義上的反應

that may be about to emerge in America

在美國會即將發生：

is to resist it at every stage, is to fight it tooth and nail,

就是每個階段都抵制， 拼了命地反抗，

it's a mistake to try and do this.

試圖溝通彼此是個錯誤。

Just fight!

就應該鬥爭！

Is there a case for that?

有必要這樣嗎？

DB: It depends what "fight" means. If it means literal fighting, then no.

DB：這要看「鬥爭」的意思。 如果僅字面上來説，那沒有。

If it means marching, well maybe marching to raise consciousness,

那如果意味著遊行， 那也許會提高點意識，

that seems fine.

也還不錯。

But if you want change in this country, we do it through parties and politics.

但如果想改變這個國家， 是透過政黨和政治來實現的。

We organize parties, and those parties are big, diverse, messy coalitions,

我們成立政黨，這些龐大、 多元而凌亂的同盟，

and we engage in politics,

我們參與政治，

and politics is always morally unsatisfying

政治道德上從來就不令人滿意，

because it's always a bunch of compromises.

因為它總是一堆妥協。

But politics is essentially a competition between partial truths.

但政治本質上是部分真理間的競爭。

The Trump people have a piece of the truth in America.

支持川普的人對美國現狀的理解 有一部分是真實的，

I think Trump himself is the wrong answer to the right question,

我覺得川普本人 是正確問題的錯誤答案，

but they have some truth,

但他們有些道理，

and it's truth found in the epidemic of opiates around the country,

在全國上下集體麻痹中得到真相，

it's truth found in the spread of loneliness,

在孤單寂寞的迷霧中發現真相，

it's the truth found in people whose lives are inverted.

在生活打敗的人身上發現真相。

They peaked professionally at age 30,

30 歲時，他們在專業上達到頂峰，

and it's all been downhill since.

然後就一直走下坡路。

And so, understanding that doesn't take fighting,

所以，理解這一點根本不需要鬥爭，

it takes conversation and then asking,

需要對話，然後問問自己：

"What are we going to replace Trump with?"

「我們拿什麽來替換川普？」

GC: But you saw fighting last night, even at the speech,

GC：但就在昨晚的 演講中也看到了抵抗，

有看到民主黨女性身著白衫，

because you saw the Democratic women who came and wore white

以紀念婦女參政運動。

to honor the suffragette movement.

I remember back during the campaign

我記得競選那會兒，

where some Trump supporters wanted to actually get rid of the amendment

一些川普的支持者想真正廢除

允許女性投票的修正案。

that allowed us to vote as women.

It was like, what?

這算什麼？

So I don't know if that's the right way to fight.

所以我不覺得這是正確的對抗。

It was interesting, because I was looking in the audience,

這很有趣，當時我正在觀眾席，

想看看有沒有 沒穿白衫的民主黨女士。

trying to see Democratic women who didn't wear white.

So there's a lot going on there,

所以很多事情在發生，

and there's a lot of ways to fight that are not necessarily doing that.

而且還有很多對抗的方式， 但不一定非得這樣。

CA: I mean, one of the key questions, to me, is:

CA：一個對我來說的關鍵問題是：

The people who voted for Trump but, if you like, are more in the center,

投票選川普的人 更多位於政治光譜的中段，

like they're possibly amenable to persuasion --

好像他們更容易被說服——

are they more likely to be persuaded by seeing a passionate uprising

看到群情奮起的人高喊：

of people saying, "No, no, no, you can't!"

「不要，不要，就不要，你不行！」 他們更易被說服，

or will that actually piss them off and push them away?

或者真的會惹毛他們或置之不理？

DB: How are any of us persuaded?

DB：要怎麽說服我們呢？

Am I going to persuade you by saying, "Well, you're kind of a bigot,

要說服你，我會說：「你個老頑固，

你支持偏執，你支持性別歧視，

you're supporting bigotry, you're supporting sexism.

You're a primitive, fascistic rise from some authoritarian past"?

你個蒙昧落後的、 舊專制黨派崛起的法西斯」？

That's probably not going to be too persuasive to you.

但這可能對你不太有說服力。

And so the way any of us are persuaded is by:

於是大家是這樣被說服的：

a) some basic show of respect for the point of view, and saying,

先對觀點以示必要的尊重，並說：

"I think this guy is not going to get you where you need to go."

「我認為這傢伙 不會讓你達成願望的。」

And there are two phrases you've heard over and over again,

還有耳朵聽到起繭的兩個詞，

wherever you go in the country.

在美國處處聽得到，

One, the phrase "flyover country."

一，架空的國家。

And that's been heard for years,

這個講了很多年了，

but I would say this year, I heard it almost on an hourly basis,

但我會說：今年我每小時都聽得到，

a sense of feeling invisible.

無孔不入的感覺。

And then the sense a sense of the phrase "political correctness."

二，「政治正確」這詞的體會。

Just that rebellion: "They're not even letting us say what we think."

就那種逆反的心理： 「都不讓我們說我們想說的。」

And I teach at Yale.

我在耶魯大學教書，

The narrowing of debate is real.

爭論點的縮窄是真實的。

CA: So you would say this is a trap that liberals have fallen into

CA：所以你會說自由主義者 自己掉進了坑裡，

by celebrating causes they really believe in,

透過表彰他們真正的信念，

often expressed through the language of "political correctness."

老是以「政治正確」來說事。

They have done damage. They have pushed people away.

他們已經搞砸了，把人推開了。

DB: I would say a lot of the argument, though,

DB：雖然說很多爭論，

比如「骨子裡的法西斯主義」、 「集權主義」，

with "descent to fascism," "authoritarianism" --

that just feels over-the-top to people.

對人們來說有點太過了，

And listen, I've written eight million anti-Trump columns,

聽我說，我的專欄 寫過八百萬篇的反川普文章，

but it is a problem, especially for the coastal media,

但這也是個問題， 特別是對於沿海媒體來說，

that every time he does something slightly wrong, we go to 11,

每當他只是犯點小錯誤， 我們都要小題大做，

and we're at 11 every day.

我們每天都在無限上綱。

And it just strains credibility at some point.

而且某種程度上是可信度的問題。

CA: Crying wolf a little too loud and a little too early.

CA：喊狼來了有點講過頭， 也喊得太早了。

But there may be a time when we really do have to cry wolf.

可能我們還真有狼來了的時候。

GC: But see -- one of the most important things to me

GC：但還是有看到， 對我來說有件重要的事情：

is how the conservative media handles Trump.

是傳統媒體如何應對川普。

Will they call him out when things are not true,

一旦事情不對，他們就點川普的名？

or will they just go along with it?

還是由他去吧？

To me, that is what is essential in this entire discussion,

對我來說這是 整個討論的重中之重，

because when you have followers of somebody

因為當有跟屁蟲，

who don't really care if he tells the truth or not,

都不關心主子是否說實話，

that can be very dangerous.

這可相當危險。

So to me, it's: How is the conservative media going to respond to it?

所以對我來說就是： 保守媒體怎麼回應？

I mean, you've been calling them out.

我的意思是你一個勁地點他的名。

But how will other forms of conservative media deal with that

但是，其他保守媒體怎麼辦呢？

as we move forward?

當我們都向前看了。

DB：一切都變了。

DB: It's all shifted, though.

The conservative media used to be Fox or Charles Krauthammer or George Will.

之前保守媒體要麽是福斯， 要麽是查爾斯·柯翰默或喬治·威爾，

現在他們不再是保守媒體了。

They're no longer the conservative media.

現在還有一大波更右傾的機構，

Now there's another whole set of institutions further right,

比如説 Breitbart、Infowars、 Alex Jones、Laura Ingraham，

which is Breitbart and Infowars, Alex Jones, Laura Ingraham,

and so they're the ones who are now his base, not even so much Fox.

他們現在是他的媒體大本營， 而沒有福斯多少事了。

CA: My last question for the time being is just on this question of the truth.

CA：現在我最後的問題是 真相的問題。

I mean, it's one of the scariest things to people right now,

我是想說這是當下人們 面臨最可怕的事情之一，

全國範圍內對真相 是什麼尚未達成共識。

that there is no agreement, nationally, on what is true.

I've never seen anything like it,

從來沒有看見過像這樣的現象，

where facts are so massively disputed.

事實表明爭議如此巨大。

Your whole newspaper, sir, is delivering fake news every day.

先生，你整個報紙 每天都在提供假消息。

DB: And failing.

DB：還有失敗。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

CA: And failing. My commiserations.

CA：失敗，深表同情。

But is there any path

那有沒有通道

whereby we can start to get some kind of consensus,

可以著手得到某種共識，

to believe the same things?

好相信同樣的事情？

Can online communities play a role here?

線上論壇可以發揮點作用嗎？

我們如何解決這個問題？

How do we fix this?

GC: See, I understand how that happened.

GC：我明白怎麼回事。

That's another groundswell kind of emotion

另一種群情激昂，

that was going on in the middle of America

正在美國中部地區上演，

and not being heard,

無人理會。

in thinking that the mainstream media was biased.

他們認為主流媒體有偏見；

There's a difference, though, between being biased and being fake.

當然偏見和虛假之間是有區別的。

To me, that is a very important distinction in this conversation.

對我來說，這是此次對話中 非常重要的區別。

So let's just say that there was some bias in the mainstream media.

我們姑且認為主流媒體是有偏見的。

OK. So there are ways to try and mend that.

所以還是有辦法去修補的。

But what Trump's doing is nuclearizing that and saying,

但川普所作所為讓事態更加惡化，

"Look, we're just going to call all of that fake."

說道：「我們認為媒體上都是假消息。」

That's where it gets dangerous.

這才是要命的事。

CA: Do you think enough of his supporters

CA：你認為他的支持者們

have a greater loyalty to the truth than to any ...

對真相忠貞不二，還是......

Like, the principle of not supporting something

比如原則上不去支持那些

顯然錯得離譜的東西更為重要，

that is demonstrably not true

actually matters, so there will be a correction at some point?

因此，到頭來是會修正的？

DB: I think the truth eventually comes out.

DB：我想真相終會來臨的。

So for example, Donald Trump has based a lot of his economic policy

比方説，唐納•川普的 很多經濟政策基於

on this supposition that Americans have lost manufacturing jobs

假設美國人失去製造業的工作

because they've been stolen by the Chinese.

是因為被中國人偷走了；

That is maybe 13 percent of the jobs that left.

也許 13% 的工作是如此。

The truth is that 87 percent of the jobs were replaced by technology.

事實上 87% 的工作 是被技術所取代的，

That is just the truth.

這才是真相。

And so as a result, when he says,

結果當他說：

"I'm going to close TPP and all the jobs will come roaring back,"

「我要關掉 TPP， 讓工作都呼啦啦地回來」，

they will not come roaring back.

工作是不太可能呼啦啦地就回來的。

So that is an actual fact, in my belief.

所以，這是我認為的真正事實。

And --

還有——

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

GC：但我想說的是， 他的支持者卻認為是真的，

GC: But I'm saying what his supporters think is the truth,

no matter how many times you might say that,

不管你講多少次，

他們仍然相信他。

they still believe him.

DB: But eventually either jobs will come back or they will not come back,

DB：但最終工作 會不會回歸是個問題，

and at that point, either something will work or it doesn't work,

到時候，要麽有效，要麽不起作用，

and it doesn't work or not work because of great marketing,

不會因為大力行銷而行或不行；

it works because it actually addresses a real problem

得要真正對症下藥才行，

and so I happen to think the truth will out.

所以我認為真相總會大白的。

CA: If you've got a question, please raise your hand here.

CA：有什麽問題想問的，請舉手！

Yael Eisenstat: I'll speak into the box.

伊爾·艾森斯塔特： 我對著 TED 錄音盒說話。

My name's Yael Eisenstat.

我叫伊爾·艾森斯塔特。

I hear a lot of this talk

我聽到很多這樣的談話，

about how we all need to start talking to each other more

關於我們都如何更加參與對話，

and understanding each other more,

彼此瞭解，

and I've even written about this, published on this subject as well,

我寫過甚至還發表過 這個問題的文章，

but now today I keep hearing liberals -- yes, I live in New York,

但現今，我還是 聽到自由主義者說——

我住在紐約，算是自由主義者——

I can be considered a liberal --

we sit here and self-analyze:

我們坐在這裡自省：

What did we do to not understand the Rust Belt?

我們想瞭解銹帶（美國中部 及五大湖區），卻什麼都不做？

Or: What can we do to understand Middle America better?

或者：我們能做些什麼 來更好地瞭解美國中部？

And what I'd like to know:

我想知道的是：

Have you seen any attempts or conversations from Middle America

你有看到美國中部的 任何嘗試來對話,

of what can I do to understand the so-called coastal elites better?

要試圖瞭解所謂的沿海精英， 又要做些什麽？

Because I'm just offended as being put in a box as a coastal elite

我對自己被歸類到 沿海精英的小圈子裡，很不爽；

as someone in Middle America is as being considered a flyover state

可身為美國中部的人覺得被架空，

又沒人理會。

and not listened to.

CA: There you go, I can hear Facebook cheering as you --

CA：你說到點子上了， Facebook 在為你叫好。

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

DB: I would say -- and this is someone who has been conservative

DB：我會說——

作為一名保守的成年人——

all my adult life --

when you grow up conservative,

當你中規中矩地長大成人，

you learn to speak both languages.

你學會說兩種話。

Because if I'm going to listen to music,

假定我想聽音樂，

I'm not going to listen to Ted Nugent.

我不會去聽泰德·紐根特 （主打搖滾、金屬樂）。

So a lot of my favorite rock bands are all on the left.

而我最愛的搖滾樂隊都是左派。

If I'm going to go to a school,

那如果要上學，

I'm going probably to school where the culture is liberal.

我可能會去學風自由左傾的學校。

If I'm going to watch a sitcom

如果我觀看情景劇，

or a late-night comedy show, it's going to be liberal.

或是午夜夜場秀， 會選自由輕鬆的。

If I'm going to read a good newspaper, it'll be the New York Times.

我要是讀一份靠譜的報紙， 那將是《紐約時報》。

As a result, you learn to speak both languages.

因此，你（左右）兩種話都會。

And that actually, at least for a number of years,

實際上，起碼持續了有些年，

when I started at National Review with William F. Buckley,

當我和小威廉·F·巴克利 開播《國家評論》時，

it made us sharper,

那使得我們言語更鋒利，

because we were used to arguing against people every day.

因為我們習慣於天天與人爭論。

The problem now that's happened is you have ghettoization on the right

現在的問題是， 如果你自我設限為右派，

and you can live entirely in rightworld,

你可以完全活在右派世界裡，

so as a result, the quality of argument on the right has diminished,

於是，右派觀點爭論價值就會下降，

because you're not in the other side

因為你一直以來

沒在對方的陣營裡。

all the time.

But I do think if you're living in Minnesota or Iowa or Arizona,

但我確實覺得，如果你住在 明尼蘇達、愛荷華或亞利桑那，

the coastal elites make themselves aware to you,

沿海精英會讓你意識到他們的存在，

so you know that language as well,

所以你也懂這種語言，

but it's not the reverse.

但反過來並非如此。

CA: But what does Middle America not get about coastal elites?

CA：那麼，美國中部的人 沒能從沿海精英獲得什麽？

So the critique is,

批評會說，

you are not dealing with the real problems.

你沒有抓住真正問題。

There's a feeling of a snobbishness, an elitism that is very off-putting.

讓人感覺很勢利， 精英主義讓人不爽。

What are they missing?

他們漏掉了什麼？

If you could plant one piece of truth

如果能種下一條真理，

from the mindset of someone in this room, for example,

比方説種在現場觀眾的心田上，

what would you say to them?

那你會對他們說什麼呢？

DB: Just how insanely wonderful we are.

DB：我們都太棒了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

No, I reject the category.

不對，我拒絕分類。

The problem with populism is the same problem with elitism.

民粹主義和精英主義 是同樣的問題。

It's just a prejudice on the basis

這就是個偏見，

of probably an over-generalized social class distinction

對過分廣義的社會階級，

which is too simplistic to apply in reality.

簡單粗俗，脫離現實。

Those of us in New York know there are some people in New York

我們紐約人都知道紐約的有些人

who are completely awesome, and some people who are pathetic,

是非常了不起的； 可也有人是可悲的，

and if you live in Iowa, some people are awesome and some people are pathetic.

同樣你若住在愛荷華， 有些人很棒，有些人很糟。

這不是你有什麽學歷的問題，

It's not a question of what degree you have

or where you happen to live in the country.

或者你住在哪裡，

區別在於為政治權力 而簡單粗暴地簡化。

The distinction is just a crude simplification to arouse political power.

GC: But I would encourage people to watch a television news show

GC：但我會鼓勵人們 去看電視新聞談話節目，

or read a column that they normally wouldn't.

或去讀下他們通常不會看的專欄。

So if you are a Trump supporter, watch the other side for a day,

所以如果是川普的支持者， 某天去看看其他陣營的，

because you need to come out of the bubble

如果要想和對方對話，

if you're ever going to have a conversation.

你得走出你的小圈圈。

And both sides -- so if you're a liberal,

另一方亦如此—— 如果你是個自由主義者，

then watch something that's very conservative.

那麼看些非常保守的東西，

Read a column that is not something you would normally read,

讀些通常不碰的專欄，

because then you gain perspective of what the other side is thinking,

這樣就可以搞明白保守派 想的事情是怎麽一回事，

and to me, that's a start of coming together.

對我而言，這只是走到一起的開始。

I worry about the same thing you worry about, these bubbles.

我們都擔心同樣的事情，小圈子。

I think if you only watch certain entities,

我想如果只看個別事例，

you have no idea what the rest of the world is talking about.

你根本不知道世界上 其他地方在說什麼。

DB: I think not only watching,

DB：我想不僅僅是觀察，

being part of an organization that meets at least once a month

作為社團成員至少 每月去碰個頭，見個面，

that puts you in direct contact with people completely unlike yourself

讓你有機會直面 與你完全不同的人，

我們都有責任這麽做。

is something we all have a responsibility for.

這麽說可能會不一定對，

I may get this a little wrong,

but I think of the top-selling automotive models in this country,

但這讓我想到美國最暢銷的車型，

I think the top three or four are all pickup trucks.

前三、四名都是小貨卡。

So ask yourself: How many people do I know who own a pickup truck?

所以捫心自問： 我認識的人中誰有輛小貨卡？

And it could be very few or zero for a lot of people.

對很多人來說， 可能少的可憐或沒有。

And that's sort of a warning sign kind of a problem.

這就是問題的一種警示。

Where can I join a club

何處我可以加入一個俱樂部，

where I'll have a lot in common with a person who drives a pickup truck

在那裡我會跟某位開小貨卡的人 有很多共同之處，

because we have a common interest in whatever?

因為我們有某些同好之類的。

CA: And so the internet is definitely contributing to this.

CA：當然互聯網絕對 可以解決這個問題。

A question here from Chris Ajemian:

下面是克里斯·阿傑米揚的問題：

"How do you feel structure of communications,

「你如何看待溝通的架構，

especially the prevalence of social media and individualized content,

特別是社交媒體 和個性化內容的普及，

can be used to bring together a political divide,

除了讓大家到社區填表格登記外，

instead of just filing communities into echo chambers?"

能否用來連接政治鴻溝？」

I mean, it looks like Facebook and Google, since the election,

我的意思是，

自從選舉以來，Facebook 和 Google 都在努力解決這個問題。

are working hard on this question.

They're trying to change the algorithms

他們試圖修改演算法，

so that they don't amplify fake news

以防假消息被放大；

to the extent that it happened last time round.

不像上一輪大選發生的那樣。

Do you see any other promising signs of ...?

你有看到任何其他光明的跡象嗎？

GC: ... or amplify one side of the equation.

GC：或者放大等式的某一邊。

CA: Exactly.

CA：太對了。

GC: I think that was the constant argument from the right,

GC：這就是右派吵個不停的爭論，

that social media and the internet in general

大體上講，社交媒體和互聯網

was putting articles towards the top that were not their worldview.

把不是他們世界觀的文章置頂。

I think, again, that fed into the anger.

我想，這就是火上澆油。

It fed into the anger of:

結果導致很生氣：

"You're pushing something that's not what I believe."

「你在宣揚那些 我都不相信的東西。」

But social media has obviously changed everything,

社交媒體顯然已經改變了這一切，

and I think Trump is the example of Twitter changing absolutely everything.

川普的推特就是個 改變局勢很好的例子。

而從他的角度來看，

And from his point of view,

he's reaching the American people without a filter,

他未經修飾直面美國民眾，

which he believes the media is.

而他認為媒體是篩選過的。

CA: Question from the audience.

CA：觀眾提問，

Destiny: Hi. I'm Destiny.

戴斯特尼：嗨！我是戴斯特尼。

I have a question regarding political correctness, and I'm curious:

我有個政治正確的問題，我很好奇：

When did political correctness become synonymous with silencing,

政治正確何時成了沈默的代名詞，

versus a way that we speak about other people

而不是當我們論及別人時，

to show them respect and preserve their dignity?

很客氣也很尊重對方？

GC: Well, I think the conservative media really pounded this issue

GC：我認為保守媒體 有點講爛了這個問題，

for the last 10 years.

在過去十年裡。

I think that they really, really spent a lot of time

他們的確花很多時間

talking about political correctness,

在談論政治正確性，

and how people should have the ability to say what they think.

還有人們應該如何 去表達自己的想法。

Another reason why Trump became so popular:

川普另一個變得如此受歡迎的原因：

because he says what he thinks.

是因為他想啥就說啥。

It also makes me think about the fact

這也讓我想起了些事，

that I do believe there are a lot of people in America

我相信有很多美國人

who agree with Steve Bannon,

認同史蒂芬·班農，

but they would never say it publicly,

但他們從來不會公開說，

and so voting for Trump gave them the opportunity

所以投票選川普給了他們一次機會

to agree with it silently.

來無聲地支持。

DB: On the issue of immigration, it's a legitimate point of view

DB：關於移民問題， 這個正當的觀點是

that we have too many immigrants in the country,

我們國家有太多移民，

that it's economically costly.

那可是相當燒錢。

CA: That we have too many --

CA：我們有太多...

DB: Immigrants in the country, especially from Britain.

DB：國內的移民， 尤其是來自英格蘭。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

GC: I kind of like the British accent, OK?

GC：我還有點喜歡 英國口音呢，好不好？

CA: I apologize. America, I am sorry.

CA：我很抱歉。對不起，美國。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I'll go now.

我立馬就走。

DB: But it became sort of impermissible to say that,

DB：但是，這成了個談話的禁忌，

because it was a sign that somehow you must be a bigot of some sort.

因為某種程度上 説明你有點頑固不化。

So the political correctness was not only cracking down on speech

所以政治正確不只打擊言論，

that we would all find completely offensive,

我們都覺得那樣太無禮，

it was cracking down on some speech that was legitimate,

它在打擊一些合法的言論，

and then it was turning speech and thought into action

然後，它把言論和想法變成行動，

and treating it as a crime,

視其為犯罪，

and people getting fired and people thrown out of schools,

人們被解僱、被攆出學校，

and there were speech codes written.

這裡有書面的言論守則。

Now there are these diversity teams,

現在這些五花八門的團隊，

where if you say something that somebody finds offensive,

說什麽總會有人覺得被冒犯，

like, "Smoking is really dangerous," you can say "You're insulting my group,"

就像「吸煙真的很危險」， 你可以說「你在詆毀我們組」，

and the team from the administration will come down into your dorm room

宿管員會敲開你的房門，

and put thought police upon you.

充當國安給你做思想工作。

And so there has been a genuine narrowing of what is permissible to say.

所以能說得話真是少到可憐。

And some of it is legitimate.

有些還是合法的呢。

There are certain words that there should be some social sanction against,

有些話本應該受到社會制裁，

but some of it was used to enforce a political agenda.

結果有些話反被政治圖謀所鞏固。

CA: So is that a project

CA：是否有那麼個項目，

you would urge on liberals, if you like -- progressives --

你會敦促自由派或進步派，

to rethink the ground rules around political correctness

就政治正確的基本規則去重新思考，

and accept a little more uncomfortable language

在特定環境下，

去接受那麽些有點不太舒服的話嗎？

in certain circumstances?

Can you see that being solved

你看到這有用嗎，

to an extent that others won't be so offended?

某種程度上別人不會那麽生氣？

DB: I mean, most American universities, especially elite universities,

DB：我想說大多數美國大學， 特別是精英大學，

are overwhelmingly on the left,

絕大部分是左派，

and there's just an ease of temptation

就那麽潛移默化地，

to use your overwhelming cultural power to try to enforce some sort of thought

試圖用壓倒性的文化鞏固一些思想，

that you think is right and correct thought.

那些你認為正確的思想。

So, be a little more self-suspicious of, are we doing that?

最好能來點自我懷疑， 我們是在這麽做嗎？

And second, my university, the University of Chicago,

再者，我的母校芝加哥大學

sent out this letter saying, we will have no safe spaces.

發佈了一封信說， 我們將無安全之處，

There will be no critique of micro-aggression.

將不會有對微侵犯的批評。

If you get your feelings hurt, well, welcome to the world of education.

如果你覺得很受傷， 那很歡迎來到教育界。

I do think that policy --

我確實認為政策是 對時下發生事情的糾正——

which is being embraced by a lot of people on the left, by the way --

順帶提一下，

有很多左派人士同意這一點。

is just a corrective to what's happened.

CA: So here's a question from Karen Holloway:

CA：下面是凱倫·霍洛威的提問：

How do we foster an American culture

我們該如何培育美國文化？

that's forward-looking, like Hamilton,

像漢密爾頓一樣前瞻、

that expects and deals with change,

滿懷期待並擁抱變革，

rather than wanting to have everything go back to some fictional past?

而不是幻想讓一切 都倒退到虛構的舊社會？

That's an easy question, right?

這問題不難，是吧？

GC: Well, I'm still a believer in the American dream,

GC：嗯，我依然相信美國夢，

and I think what we can teach our children is the basics,

我想我們能教孩子們 根本的東西，

which is that hard work

就是辛勤工作，

and believing in yourself

充滿自信，

in America, you can achieve whatever you want.

在美國，只要你肯做， 就能實現夢想。

I was told that every single day.

我就是這麽被教導長大的。

When I got in the real world, I was like, wow, that's maybe not always so true.

當我步入社會，我心說： 喔，原來也不完全是真的。

But I still believe in that.

但我還仍然相信，

Maybe I'm being too optimistic.

可能我太樂觀了。

So I still look towards the future for that to continue.

我仍然期待未來 大家依然相信美國夢。

DB: I think you're being too optimistic.

DB：我覺得你太樂觀了。

GC: You do?

GC：你真這麽想？

DB: The odds of an American young person exceeding their parents' salary --

DB：目前美國年輕人的薪水 超過其父母的比例——

a generation ago, like 86 percent did it.

30 年前大約有 86%，

Now 51 percent do it.

現在是 51%。

There's just been a problem in social mobility in the country.

這只是國內社會流動性的問題。

CA: You've written that this entire century has basically been a disaster,

CA：你寫過整個世紀 基本上是場災難，

that the age of sunny growth is over and we're in deep trouble.

見風就長的年代已成過去， 現在我們深陷困境。

DB: Yeah, I mean, we averaged, in real terms, population-adjusted,

DB：是的，實際上 我們調整後的平均人口，

two or three percent growth for 50 years,

50 年來有 2-3% 增長，

and now we've had less than one percent growth.

現在增長不到 1%，

And so there's something seeping out.

這說明一些問題。

And so if I'm going to tell people that they should take risks,

所以，如果我告訴大家 他們該冒點風險，

one of the things we're seeing is a rapid decline in mobility,

我們面臨的問題之一 就是流動性急劇下降，

the number of people who are moving across state lines,

跨州界的人數在下降，

and that's especially true among millennials.

在千禧一代上尤為如此，

It's young people that are moving less.

年輕人動的越來愈少。

那如何給人們提供安全保障， 以便他們能承擔風險呢？

So how do we give people the security from which they can take risk?

And I'm a big believer in attachment theory of raising children,

而且，我是天道人倫的忠實粉絲，

and attachment theory is based on the motto

天道人倫來自格言：

that all of life is a series of daring adventures from a secure base.

即生活的本質是 基於安全的大膽冒險。

Have you parents given you a secure base?

父母有給你安定的後盾嗎？

And as a society, we do not have a secure base,

作為社會，我們沒有安定的基礎，

and we won't get to that "Hamilton," risk-taking, energetic ethos

我們不會幹勁十足地 去冒「漢密爾頓式」的險，

until we can supply a secure base.

直到我們能夠提供安全的基礎。

CA: So I wonder whether there's ground here

CA：所以我不知道是否有根據

to create almost like a shared agenda, a bridging conversation,

創建出像共同的議程、 溝通的對話機制，

on the one hand recognizing that there is this really deep problem

一方面，要認識到 這個深層次的問題，

that the system, the economic system that we built,

我們現有的經濟體制

seems to be misfiring right now.

當下似乎失敗了。

Second, that maybe, if you're right that it's not all about immigrants,

再者，你有可能是對的， 這不全關乎移民，

it's probably more about technology,

可能更多的是技術，

if you could win that argument,

如果能講通這觀點，

that de-emphasizes what seems to me the single most divisive territory

依我看，川普支持者和其他人之間 最最爭議的領域將不再顯著，

between Trump supporters and others, which is around the role of the other.

這一切都是圍繞對方的。

It's very offensive to people on the left to have the other demonized

左派的人很反感被對方妖化，

to the extent that the other seems to be demonized.

妖化程度說明對方已妖魔化。

That feels deeply immoral,

這感覺很不道德，

and maybe people on the left could agree, as you said,

如你所說，左派的可能會同意

that immigration may have happened too fast,

移民可能來得太快了，

and there is a limit beyond which human societies struggle,

超越人類社會掙扎的限度，

but nonetheless this whole problem becomes de-emphasized

然而，假定自動化是關鍵問題，

移民問題變得不那麽重要了，

if automation is the key issue,

and then we try to work together on recognizing that it's real,

然後我們通力合作達成共識，

recognizing that the problem probably wasn't properly addressed

意識到問題可能沒有妥善處理好，

or seen or heard,

或沒有被發現或聽到，

and try to figure out how to rebuild communities

然後試圖為重建社區找出路，

using, well, using what?

那要用什麼呢？

That seems to me to become the fertile conversation of the future:

對我來説，這似乎 成為很多未來的話題：

How do we rebuild communities in this modern age,

隨著技術的推進，

with technology doing what it's doing,

現代社會我們如何重建社區，

and reimagine this bright future?

重塑這遠大前程？

GC: That's why I go back to optimism.

GC：這就是我回歸樂觀的原因。

I'm not being ... it's not like I'm not looking at the facts,

我不是...這不是說我沒看事實，

where we've come or where we've come from.

我們從何處來，又要到哪裡去。

But for gosh sakes, if we don't look at it from an optimistic point of view --

可是天哪，如果我們不樂觀的話，

I'm refusing to do that just yet.

我現在就不打算這樣做。

I'm not raising my 12- and 13-year-old to say, "Look, the world is dim."

我不會告訴我 12 歲和 13 歲的 孩子：「看，世界很悲觀。」

CA; We're going to have one more question from the room here.

CA：現場我們再來一個問題。

Questioner: Hi. Hello. Sorry.

提問者：嗨，你好！不好意思，

You both mentioned the infrastructure plan and Russia

你倆都提到了 基礎設施計劃和俄羅斯，

and some other things that wouldn't be traditional Republican priorities.

還有些不是老牌共和黨 優先考慮的事情。

What do you think, or when, will Republicans be motivated

你們認為：共和黨人會如何 或何時會積極行動

to take a stand against Trumpism?

去表明反川普主義立場？

GC: After last night, not for a while.

GC：昨晚之後，不會很快。

He changed a lot last night, I believe.

我想他昨晚變了很多。

DB: His popularity among Republicans -- he's got 85 percent approval,

DB：他在共和黨人中的 受歡迎度有 85％，

which is higher than Reagan had at this time,

這比雷根當年還高，

and that's because society has just gotten more polarized.

這是因為社會已經變得更加兩極化。

So people follow the party much more than they used to.

人們比以往更加跟隨黨派。

So if you're waiting for Paul Ryan and the Republicans in Congress

所以，如果你在等保羅·萊恩

to flake away,

和國會的共和黨人離開，

it's going to take a little while.

這是得花點時間。

GC: But also because they're all concerned about reelection,

GC：但也因為他們都關注連任，

and Trump has so much power with getting people either for you

不論是對支持者還是反對者，

or against you,

川普有很大的權力，

and so, they're vacillating every day, probably:

所以他們可能每天都在糾結：

"Well, should I go against or should I not?"

「我是要反對還是不呢？」

But last night, where he finally sounded presidential,

但昨晚，他聼起來很有總統範，

I think most Republicans are breathing a sigh of relief today.

我想大多數共和黨人 今天都鬆了口氣。

DB: The half-life of that is short.

DB：主意改得好快。

GC: Right -- I was just going to say, until Twitter happens again.

GC：是的——我本打算說， 等發佈推特後再評論吧。

CA: OK, I want to give each of you the chance

CA：好的，我打算 給你倆每人一次機會，

to imagine you're speaking to -- I don't know --

想像下你正在

跟網上收看節目的人對話，

the people online who are watching this,

who may be Trump supporters,

他們可能是川普的支持者，

who may be on the left, somewhere in the middle.

也可能是來自個左派， 或者左右派中間的某個位置，

How would you advise them to bridge or to relate to other people?

你會如何建議他們與其他人 彌補鴻溝或建立聯係？

Can you share any final wisdom on this?

能分享一下相關的終極智慧嗎？

Or if you think that they shouldn't, tell them that as well.

或者你認為他們不應該這麽做， 也不妨說說看。

GC: I would just start by saying

GC：我會這麽說，

that I really think any change and coming together starts from the top,

我真地認為任何改變和融合 從一開就始於頂層，

just like any other organization.

就像任何組織一樣。

And I would love if, somehow,

某種程度上，我會很高興看到

Trump supporters or people on the left could encourage their leaders

不管是川普的支持者或者左派 都可以鼓勵他們的領導人

to show that compassion from the top,

從高層展現出同情心，

because imagine the change that we could have

想像下我們可能擁有的改變，

if Donald Trump tweeted out today,

要是今天唐納•川普

to all of his supporters,

向他的支持者發推文，

"Let's not be vile anymore to each other.

「讓我們不再互相使壞，

Let's have more understanding.

讓我們瞭解彼此。

As a leader, I'm going to be more inclusive

作為一個領導者，

我將對所有美國人民更包容。」

to all of the people of America."

To me, it starts at the top.

對我來說，它就是從高層開始。

Is he going to do that? I have no idea.

他真要去做嗎？我不知道。

But I think that everything starts from the top,

但我認為一切都從上層開始，

and the power that he has

從他擁有的權利開始，

in encouraging his supporters

鼓勵他的支持者去瞭解

to have an understanding of where people are coming from on the other side.

來自另一陣營的人民。

CA: David. DB: Yeah, I guess I would say

CA：戴維。 DB：是的，我想我會說

I don't think we can teach each other to be civil,

我認為我們不能教對方有禮貌，

and give us sermons on civility.

並對我們很客氣。

That's not going to do it.

不是這回事。

It's substance and how we act,

這是本質，還有我們如何應對，

and the nice thing about Donald Trump is he smashed our categories.

唐納•川普好的一面 是他粉碎了界限。

All the categories that we thought we were thinking in, they're obsolete.

我們以為我們所想的 全部分類，都已經過時了。

They were great for the 20th century. They're not good for today.

在二十世紀這些是很了不起； 但今天不好使了。

他有個關閉邊界和貿易的議案。

He's got an agenda which is about closing borders and closing trade.

我想這些不會有效。

I just don't think it's going to work.

我想如果我們打算 重建社區，再造就業，

I think if we want to rebuild communities, recreate jobs,

we need a different set of agenda

我們需要另外的議案，

that smashes through all our current divisions and our current categories.

摧毀我們現有部門和當下的分類。

For me, that agenda is Reaganism on macroeconomic policy,

對我來說，這個議題是 宏觀經濟的雷根主義政策，

Sweden on welfare policy

瑞典的福利政策，

and cuts across right and left.

以及跨越左右兩派。

I think we have to have a dynamic economy that creates growth.

我想我們要有個 生機勃勃的經濟去創造增長。

That's the Reagan on economic policy.

那就是雷根的經濟政策。

But people have to have that secure base.

但人們得有安定的基礎：

There have to be nurse-family partnerships;

得有看護家庭夥伴；

there has to be universal preschool;

得普及學前教育；

there have to be charter schools;

得有實驗學校；

there have to be college programs with wraparound programs

還得有面向父母和社區的

包羅萬象的大學課程。

for parents and communities.

We need to help heal the crisis of social solidarity in this country

我們需要協助國家 從社會危機中恢復團結，

and help heal families,

幫助撫慰家庭，

and government just has to get a lot more involved

政府必須積極參與，

in the way liberals like to rebuild communities.

就像自由主義者 喜歡的那樣去重建社區。

At the other hand, we have to have an economy that's free and open

另一方面，我們得有 自由和開放的經濟，

the way conservatives used to like.

就像保守派過去喜歡的那種方式。

And so getting the substance right is how you smash through

所以返璞歸正是如何打破

the partisan identities,

派別的身份認同，

because the substance is what ultimately shapes our polarization.

因為這是最終導致 我們兩極分化的本質。

CA: David and Gretchen, thank you so much

CA：非常感謝大偉和葛蕾琴，

for an absolutely fascinating conversation.

非常精彩的對話。

Thank you. That was really, really interesting.

謝謝。真地很有意思。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Hey, let's keep the conversation going.

對話繼續。

We're continuing to try and figure out

我們也將不斷嘗試並弄清楚

whether we can add something here,

看能不能加點內容，

so keep the conversation going on Facebook.

讓話題轉到 Facebook上。

Give us your thoughts from whatever part of the political spectrum you're on,

不管你來自政治光譜哪個位置， 歡迎向我們提供你的想法，

and actually, wherever in the world you are.

或者不論你身處何處。

這不只關乎美國，這還關乎全世界。

This is not just about America. It's about the world, too.

But we're not going to end today without music,

今天不來點音樂，怎麽能結束呢。

because if we put music in every political conversation,

如果我們在每個 政治對話中都放點音樂，

the world would be completely different, frankly.

坦白說，世界會完全不一樣。

It just would.

一定會的。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Up in Harlem, this extraordinary woman,

在哈林區，有這樣 一位了不起的女士，

Vy Higginsen, who's actually right here --

瓦艾·黑格森，她就在現場——

let's get a shot of her.

請給個特寫。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

She created this program that brings teens together,

她創建了個聚合青少年的方案，

teaches them the joy and the impact of gospel music,

教他們福音音樂的快樂和感染，

and hundreds of teens have gone through this program.

數百位青少年參加過這個方案。

It's transformative for them.

對他們來說是變革。

The music they made, as you already heard,

他們創作的音樂非常棒，

is extraordinary,

你已聽過的，

and I can't think of a better way of ending this TED Dialogue

我再找不到更好的方式 來結束今天的 TED 對話。

than welcoming Vy Higginsen's Gospel Choir from Harlem.

下面歡迎來自哈林區的 瓦艾·黑格森福音合唱團。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

（掌聲結束）

（歌聲）合唱團：哦，廣袤的天多美，

(Singing) Choir: O beautiful for spacious skies

For amber waves of grain

飽碩的麥浪金黃，

For purple mountain majesties

莊嚴的山巒巍峨，

Above the fruited plain

在這豐收的平原上。

America!

美國！

America!

美國！

America!

美國！

America!

美國！

God shed his grace on thee

上帝保佑你，

And crown thy good with brotherhood

兄弟般的情誼為你，

From sea to shining sea

在亮閃閃的海面上，

From sea to shining sea

在亮閃閃的海面上，

（掌聲）

(Applause)