Jonathan Haidt: How common threats can make common (political) ground

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

譯者: Samantha Jian 審譯者: Jephian Lin

So if you've been following the news,

如果你有在注意新聞，

you've heard that there's a pack of giant asteroids

你應該有聽說有一個大群小行星

headed for the United States,

正往美國飛來，

all scheduled to strike within the next 50 years.

將會在未來的50年內到達撞擊。

Now I don't mean actual asteroids made of rock and metal.

現在我要說的不是由石頭和金屬組成的行星。

That actually wouldn't be such a problem,

事實上那不會是個問題，

because if we were really all going to die,

因為如果我們都快要死了，

we would put aside our differences, we'd spend whatever it took,

我們會把我們之間的歧異放在一旁， 我們會不計任何代價，

and we'd find a way to deflect them.

我們會想出辦法來使這些行星轉向。

I'm talking instead about threats that are headed our way,

而我要說的是我們即將面臨的威脅，

but they're wrapped in a special energy field

但是這些威脅被包在一個會讓我們分裂、

that polarizes us, and therefore paralyzes us.

進而使我們癱瘓的特殊的能量場裡。

Last March, I went to the TED conference,

去年三月，我參加TED會談，

and I saw Jim Hansen speak, the NASA scientist

我看到Jim Hansen的演講，他是一個NASA的科學家

who first raised the alarm about global warming in the 1980s,

也是第一位在1980年代提出對於全球暖化的警訊的人，

and it seems that the predictions he made back then

似乎他當時做的預測

are coming true.

將會成真。

This is where we're headed in terms of global temperature rises,

以全球暖化來說，這是現在我們正朝向的地方，

and if we keep on going the way we're going,

如果我們繼續往這個方向走，

we get a four- or five-degree-Centigrade temperature rise

全球溫度在這個世紀末將會上升攝氏四到五度。

by the end of this century.

全球溫度在這個世紀末將會上升攝氏四到五度。

Hansen says we can expect about a five-meter rise in sea levels.

Hansen說海平面預計將會升高五公尺。

This is what a five-meter rise in sea levels would look like.

這是當海平面升高五公尺時的樣子。

Low-lying cities all around the world will disappear

在我們下一代的有生之年，世界上低海拔的城市都會消失。

within the lifetime of children born today.

在我們下一代的有生之年，世界上低海拔的城市都會消失。

Hansen closed his talk by saying,

Hansen用以下的話來結束他的演講：

"Imagine a giant asteroid on a collision course with Earth.

「想像一個巨大的小行星正往地球飛來。

That is the equivalent of what we face now.

那就像我們現在面臨的危機。

Yet we dither, taking no action to deflect the asteroid,

但是我們猶豫慌亂，沒做任何事在使這個小行星轉向，

even though the longer we wait,

即使我們等得愈久，

the more difficult and expensive it becomes."

要解決所需要花的力氣和花費就更大。」

Of course, the left wants to take action,

當然，左翼的想做些事，

but the right denies that there's any problem.

但右翼的卻否認問題的存在。

All right, so I go back from TED,

好了，所以我參加完TED會談回去，

and then the following week, I'm invited to a dinner party

在一個禮拜後，我受邀參加一個在華盛頓特區的晚宴

in Washington, D.C., where I know that I'll be meeting

而我知道我將會見到一群保守派的知識份子

a number of conservative intellectuals, including Yuval Levin,

其中包括Yuval Levin，

and to prepare for the meeting, I read this article by Levin

而為了和他們見面做準備， 我讀了Levin發表在National Affairs

in National Affairs called "Beyond the Welfare State."

的一篇文章，叫做"Beyond the Welfare State"。

Levin writes that all over the world,

Levin寫道現在世界各國

nations are coming to terms with the fact

都面臨到一個

that the social democratic welfare state

國家社會民主福利制度

is turning out to be untenable and unaffordable,

都將無法維持和無法負擔的狀態，

dependent upon dubious economics

因為其依賴於未來不可預測的經濟

and the demographic model of a bygone era.

和過去的人囗統計模型。

All right, now this might not sound as scary as an asteroid,

好，現在也許聽起來並不像小行星一樣的恐怖，

but look at these graphs that Levin showed.

但是看一下Levin提供的圖表。

This graph shows the national debt

這個圖顯示國債

as a percentage of America's GDP, and as you see,

佔美國GDP的百分比，如你所見，

if you go all the way back to the founding,

如果我們回到美國創立時期，

we borrowed a lot of money to fight the Revolutionary War.

我們借了很多錢來打獨立戰爭。

Wars are expensive. But then we'd pay it off, pay it off, pay it off,

戰爭很費錢。 但是我們慢慢地還債，還債，還債，

and then, oh, what's this? The Civil War. Even more expensive.

然後，哦，這是什麽？ 南北戰爭。花的錢更多了。

Borrow a lot of money, pay it off, pay it off, pay it off,

借了很多錢，還債，還債，還債，

get down to near zero, and bang! -- World War I.

幾乎快還完了，然後，砰！──第一次世界大戰。

Once again, the same process repeats.

再一次地，又重複一次借錢還錢。

Now then we get the Great Depression and World War II.

然後我們到了經濟大蕭條和第二次世界大戰。

We rise to an astronomical level, around 118 percent of GDP,

負債比高到變成天文數字，到達了約GDP的118%，

really unsustainable, really dangerous.

到了真正的無法維持、 真正危險的地步。

But we pay it off, pay it off, pay it off, and then, what's this?

但是我們還債，還債，還債， 然後，這是什麽？

Why has it been rising since the '70s?

為什麽負債比從70年代就一直上升？

It's partly due to tax cuts that were unfunded,

一部份是因為沒有財源支持的減少稅收方案，

but it's due primarily to the rise of entitlement spending,

但是主要是因為各項津貼支出的增加

especially Medicare.

特別是醫療津貼。

We're approaching the levels of indebtedness we had at World War II,

我們快接近在二次世界大戰時的舉債程度，

and the baby boomers haven't even retired yet,

更何況嬰兒潮時代出生的人還沒退休，

and when they do, this is what will happen.

當他們退休時，這將會發生。

This is data from the Congressional Budget Office

這是美國國會預算辦公室的資料

showing its most realistic forecast of what would happen

顯示他們依據現今之情況、期望、趨勢加以延展， 實際上最可能會發生的預測。

if current situations and expectations and trends are extended.

顯示他們依據現今之情況、期望、趨勢加以延展， 實際上最可能會發生的預測。

All right, now what you might notice is that these two graphs

好，現在你也許注意到這兩個圖表

are actually identical, not in terms of the x- and y-axes,

實際上是一模一樣的， 不是在它們的x軸和y軸，

or in terms of the data they present,

也不是指它們所呈現的資訊，

but in terms of their moral and political implications, they say the same thing.

而是就它們在道德和政治上的含義， 它們是一樣的。

Let me translate for you.

讓我翻譯給你聽。

"We are doomed unless we start acting now.

「我們注定完蛋了，除非我們現在開始行動。

What's wrong with you people on the other side in the other party?

你們那邊另一派的人到底有什麽問題？

Can't you see reality? If you won't help, then get the hell out of the way."

你們看不見現實嗎？ 如果你們不幫忙的話，那就不要擋住我們的路。」

We can deflect both of these asteroids.

我們可以讓這兩個大行星轉向。

These problems are both technically solvable.

這些問題都是技術上能被解決的。

Our problem and our tragedy is that in these hyper-partisan times,

我們的問題和我們的悲劇是在那些偏激黨派時代，

the mere fact that one side says, "Look, there's an asteroid,"

是只要一邊說： 「你看，有小行星！」

means that the other side's going to say, "Huh? What?

另一邊就會說：「什麽？

No, I'm not even going to look up. No."

沒有的事，我連抬頭看都不要。沒有。」

To understand why this is happening to us,

要了解為何這樣的事會發生在我們身上，

and what we can do about it, we need to learn more about moral psychology.

和我們能做些什麽事，我們需要更了解道德心理學。

So I'm a social psychologist, and I study morality,

我是一個社會心理學家，我研究道德規範，

and one of the most important principles of morality

在道德規範裡一個最重要的原理是

is that morality binds and blinds.

道德規範約束人們也使人們帶去判斷力。

It binds us into teams that circle around sacred values

道德規範讓我們圍繞著神聖的價值約束成一個團體

but thereby makes us go blind to objective reality.

但是卻也因此使我們失去了面對客觀事實的能力。

Think of it like this.

你可以這樣來看。

Large-scale cooperation is extremely rare on this planet.

大規模合作的例子在這個星球上是極少的。

There are only a few species that can do it.

只有少數幾種生物能做到。

That's a beehive. That's a termite mound, a giant termite mound.

這是蜂窩。 這是白蟻丘，一個巨大的白蟻丘。

And when you find this in other animals, it's always the same story.

當你在別的動物上發現這種大規模的合作時， 這都是同樣的模式。

They're always all siblings who are children of a single queen,

他們都是兄弟姊妺、 都是單一一個女王的子孫，

so they're all in the same boat.

所以他們都在同一條船上。

They rise or fall, they live or die, as one.

不是一起壯大就是一起衰弱、 不是一起活就是一起死。

There's only one species on the planet that can do this

這個星球上只有一種生物 可以在沒有親屬關係下做到

without kinship, and that, of course, is us.

而那，當然，就是我們。

This is a reconstruction of ancient Babylon,

這是古巴比倫的重建、

and this is Tenochtitlan.

這是特諾奇提特蘭城。

Now how did we do this? How did we go

我們當初是如何做到的？ 我們是如何

from being hunter-gatherers 10,000 years ago

從一萬年前的獵人和採集者

to building these gigantic cities in just a few thousand years?

在短短地幾千年裡做到建造這些巨大的城市？

It's miraculous, and part of the explanation

這是非常神奇的，而其中一個解釋

is this ability to circle around sacred values.

是這個能環繞神聖的價值的能力。

As you see, temples and gods play a big role in all ancient civilizations.

如你所見， 神廟和眾神在所有的古文明中扮演一個很大的角色。

This is an image of Muslims circling the Kaaba in Mecca.

這是穆斯林教徒在麥加圍繞克爾白的照片

It's a sacred rock, and when people circle something together,

這是一個神聖的石頭，然後當人們一起圍繞一個東西時，

they unite, they can trust each other, they become one.

他們團結，他們可以相信彼此，他們變成一體。

It's as though you're moving an electrical wire

這就像你在一個磁場裡

through a magnetic field that generates current.

移動一個電線，這會產生電流。

When people circle together, they generate a current.

當人們環繞在一起時，他們產生電流。

We love to circle around things.

我們喜歡環繞東西。

We circle around flags, and then we can trust each other.

我們會圍繞旗子，然後我們可以相信彼此。

We can fight as a team, as a unit.

我們可以如同一個團隊、一個單位來戰鬥。

But even as morality binds people together into a unit,

但是即使道德規範約束人們形成一個單位、

into a team, the circling blinds them.

形成一個團隊， 這樣的約束使他們帶去客觀的判斷力。

It causes them to distort reality.

這使得他們去扭曲事實。

We begin separating everything into good versus evil.

我們開始把所有的東西分成好跟壞。

Now that process feels great. It feels really satisfying.

這個過程感覺很好。 它令人感覺很滿足。

But it is a gross distortion of reality.

但是那是對於現實一個很嚴重的扭曲。

You can see the moral electromagnet operating in the U.S. Congress.

你可以看到這個道德的電磁鐵正在美國國會裡運作。

This is a graph that shows the degree to which voting

這張圖表顯示美國國會投票 落在左右兩派這條軸上的程度，

in Congress falls strictly along the left-right axis,

這張圖表顯示美國國會投票 落在左右兩派這條軸上的程度，

so that if you know how liberal or conservative someone is,

所以如果你知道某人是自由主義派或保守派的話，

you know exactly how they voted on all the major issues.

你完全知道他們在主要議題上會投票支持哪一邊。

And what you can see is that,

然後你可以看到的是，

in the decades after the Civil War,

在美國南北戰爭後的數十年內，

Congress was extraordinarily polarized,

美國國會是非常兩極化的，

as you would expect, about as high as can be.

誠如你所預期的，其程度大到不能再大了。

But then, after World War I, things dropped,

但是在一次世界大戰後，程度下降了。

and we get this historically low level of polarization.

我們到達歷史上分裂兩極化程度最低的地方。

This was a golden age of bipartisanship,

這是兩黨合作的黃金時期，

at least in terms of the parties' ability to work together

至少就黨派間互相合作 然後解決國家的問題上

and solve grand national problems.

至少就黨派間互相合作 然後解決國家的問題上

But in the 1980s and '90s, the electromagnet turns back on.

但是在80和90年代，電磁鐵又開始運作了。

Polarization rises.

兩極化程度增加了。

It used to be that conservatives and moderates and liberals

曾經在國會裡，保守黨和現代黨和自由黨

could all work together in Congress.

可以一起合作。

They could rearrange themselves, form bipartisan committees,

他們可以改組，成立兩黨合作的委員會，

but as the moral electromagnet got cranked up,

但是當道德規範的電磁鐵開始變大時，

the force field increased,

能量場增大，

Democrats and Republicans were pulled apart.

民主黨人士和共和黨人士被分離。

It became much harder for them to socialize,

他們變得愈來愈難有社交活動，

much harder for them to cooperate.

愈來愈難一起合作。

Retiring members nowadays say that it's become like gang warfare.

現今的退休國會會員說 那變成了像幫派間的戰爭一樣

Did anybody notice that in two of the three debates,

有沒有注意到在三次競選辯論中有兩次，

Obama wore a blue tie and Romney wore a red tie?

歐巴馬戴籃色的領帶而羅姆尼載紅色的領帶？

Do you know why they do this?

你知道為何他們這麽做嗎？

It's so that the Bloods and the Crips will know which side to vote for. (Laughter)

這樣血幫和瘸幫（美國加州幫派） 會知道要投那一個。（笑）

The polarization is strongest among our political elites.

我們的政治精英之間 兩極化的程度是最強大的。

Nobody doubts that this is happening in Washington.

沒有人懷疑這正在華盛頓特區裡發生。

But for a while, there was some doubt as to whether it was happening among the people.

但是有一陣子，有人懷疑是否 這種兩極化的情況也在一般大眾間發生。

Well, in the last 12 years it's become

好吧，在過去12年裡

much more apparent that it is.

情況已經變得愈來愈明顯。

So look at this data. This is from the American National Elections Survey.

所以來看這個資料。 這是來自美國全國選舉調查機構。

And what they do on that survey is they ask

他們的問卷調查是詢問

what's called a feeling thermometer rating.

他們稱之為感覺溫度計的評分。

So, how warm or cold do you feel about, you know,

所以就是你對於各種美國社會裡的族群的感覺 是有多暖還是多冷，你知道的，

Native Americans, or the military, the Republican Party,

美國原住民、或是軍方、共和黨、民主黨。

the Democratic Party, all sorts of groups in American life.

美國原住民、或是軍方、共和黨、民主黨。

The blue line shows how warmly Democrats feel

藍色這條線代表民主派人士覺得對於民主派人士

about Democrats, and they like them.

感覺有多溫暖，他們喜歡他們。

You know, ratings in the 70s on a 100-point scale.

你知道，評比是在100分裡得到70多分。

Republicans like Republicans. That's not a surprise.

保守派人士喜歡保守派人士。這並不驚訝。

But when you look at cross-party ratings,

但是當你去看跨黨派的評比，

you find, well, that it's lower, but actually,

你會發現是比較低的，但是事實上，

when I first saw this data, I was surprised.

但我第一次看到這個資料，我感到驚訝。

That's actually not so bad. If you go back to the Carter and even Reagan administrations,

這其實沒有那麼差。 如果你回來看卡特甚至是雷根執政時期，

they were rating the other party 43, 45. It's not terrible.

他們對於另一派的評比是43、45。 這沒有很糟糕。

It drifts downwards very slightly,

評比有向下滑了一點，

but now look what happens under George W. Bush and Obama.

但是現在來看在小布希和歐巴馬執政下發生了什麼事。

It plummets. Something is going on here.

評比垂直下滑。這裡頭有問題。

The moral electromagnet is turning back on,

道德規範的電磁鐵又被開啟了，

and nowadays, just very recently,

現在，到了最近，

Democrats really dislike Republicans.

民主派人士真的不喜歡保守派人士。

Republicans really dislike the Democrats. We're changing.

保守派人士真的不喜歡民主派人士。 我們正在改變。

It's as though the moral electromagnet is affecting us too.

這就像道德規範電磁鐵也正在影響我們。

It's like put out in the two oceans and it's pulling the whole country apart,

這就像把國家放在兩大海洋上 而這電磁體正在把整個國家拉扯分裂，

pulling left and right into their own territories

把左派和右派分離到他們各自的領域。

like the Bloods and the Crips.

就像血幫和瘸幫一樣。

Now, there are many reasons why this is happening to us,

為何這會發生在我們身上是有很多原因的

and many of them we cannot reverse.

其中很多原因我們是無法回頭的。

We will never again have a political class

我們再也不會有一個政治群體

that was forged by the experience of fighting together

是由一次世界大戰中 一起對抗共同敵人的經驗所打造而成。

in World War II against a common enemy.

是由一次世界大戰中 一起對抗共同敵人的經驗所打造而成。

We will never again have just three television networks,

我們再也不會只有三個相對中間派的 電視網路了。

all of which are relatively centrist.

我們再也不會只有三個相對中間派的 電視網路了。

And we will never again have a large group of conservative southern Democrats

還有我們再也不會有一大群保守主義的南方民主派人士

and liberal northern Republicans making it easy,

以及自由主義的北方保守派人士來產生大量的交集、

making there be a lot of overlap for bipartisan cooperation.

並使得兩黨合作變得容易。

So for a lot of reasons, those decades after the Second World War

所以由於很多原因，二次世界大戰後的數十年

were an historically anomalous time.

成為歷史上非常異常的一個時代。

We will never get back to those low levels of polarization, I believe.

我相信，我們的兩極化再也回不去那麼低的程度。

But there's a lot that we can do. There are dozens

但是有很多我們可以做的事。 有很多很多

and dozens of reforms we can do that will make things better,

改革我們可以做來讓事情變好，

because a lot of our dysfunction can be traced directly

因為很多我們的功能障礙可以直接追溯到

to things that Congress did to itself in the 1990s

美國國會在90年代裡對它們自已做的事，

that created a much more polarized and dysfunctional institution.

這些事產生了一個更兩極化和有更多功能障礙的機構。

These changes are detailed in many books.

這些改變在很多書裡有詳細說明。

These are two that I strongly recommend,

這裡有兩本我強力推薦，

and they list a whole bunch of reforms.

它們列了很多改革。

I'm just going to group them into three broad classes here.

我把改革分門別類成三大類。

So if you think about this as the problem of a dysfunctional,

所以如果你把這想成是 功能障礙、超兩極化的機構的問題，

hyper-polarized institution, well, the first step is,

那麼，第一步是，

do what you can so that fewer hyper-partisans get elected in the first place,

盡其所能地讓更少的偏激黨派人士在一開始時被選上，

and when you have closed party primaries,

在封閉式初選裡，

and only the most committed Republicans and Democrats are voting,

只有最忠誠的保守派和民主派人士來投票，

you're nominating and selecting the most extreme hyper-partisans.

你就任命和選擇了最極端的偏激黨派人士。

So open primaries would make that problem much, much less severe.

所以開放初選可以使這個問題輕微許多。

But the problem isn't primarily that we're electing bad people to Congress.

但是問題主要不是在於我們推選錯的人進國會。

From my experience, and from what I've heard from Congressional insiders,

從我的經驗和我從國會內部人士裡得知，

most of the people going to Congress are good, hard-working,

大部份進入國會的人都是好的、認真工作的人，

intelligent people who really want to solve problems,

都是些聰明的、真的想要解決問題的人，

but once they get there, they find that they are forced

但是當他們進入國會，他們發現他們被迫

to play a game that rewards hyper-partisanship

玩一個對支持偏激黨派之爭的人給予讚許

and that punishes independent thinking.

而對獨立思考的人給予懲罰的遊戲。

You step out of line, you get punished.

你不守規矩，你得到懲罰。

So there are a lot of reforms we could do

所以有很多我們可以做的改革

that will counteract this.

來抵制這種事。

For example, this "Citizens United" ruling is a disaster,

例如，這個「公民聯合」裁決是一個災難，

because it means there's like a money gun aimed at your head,

因為那就像說有一把附帶著錢的槍指著你的頭，

and if you step out of line, if you try to reach across the aisle,

如果你不守規矩，如果你試圖和不同黨派的人妥協，

there's a ton of money waiting to be given to your opponent

你的對手就會收到很多錢

to make everybody think that you are a terrible person through negative advertising.

用負面的廣告來讓每個人認為你是一個很糟糕的人。

But the third class of reforms is that we've got to change

但是第三種改革是我們必須去改變

the nature of social relationships in Congress.

國會裡社交關係的本質。

The politicians I've met are generally very extroverted,

我所遇過的政治人物通常都是非常外向的、

friendly, very socially skillful people,

友善的、有很好社交手腕的人，

and that's the nature of politics. You've got to make relationships,

而那正是政治學的本質。你必須得建立關係、

make deals, you've got to cajole, please, flatter,

進行交易、 你必須要哄騙、討好、奉承、

you've got to use your personal skills,

你必須利用你的個人技能，

and that's the way politics has always worked.

而那正是政治圈裡運作的方式。

But beginning in the 1990s, first the House of Representatives

但是從90年代開始，先是眾議院改變了

changed its legislative calendar

他們的立法日程表

so that all business is basically done in the middle of the week.

如此所有的日常工作基本上是在一個禮拜中結束。

Nowadays, Congressmen fly in on Tuesday morning,

現在，國會議員在星期二早上搭機抵達，

they do battle for two days, then they fly home Thursday afternoon.

他們爭辯兩天，然後在星期四下午飛回家。

They don't move their families to the District.

他們不會把家人搬到（華盛頓）特區。

They don't meet each other's spouses or children.

他們不會和彼此的配偶或小孩見面。

There's no more relationship there.

再也沒有關係了。

And trying to run Congress without human relationships

然後試著經營沒有人和人之間關係的國會

is like trying to run a car without motor oil.

就像試著開一台沒有引擎油的車。

Should we be surprised when the whole thing freezes up

當整個東西變冷起來然後落入癱瘓並兩極化時 我們應該驚訝嗎？

and descends into paralysis and polarization?

當整個東西變冷起來然後落入癱瘓並兩極化時 我們應該驚訝嗎？

A simple change to the legislative calendar,

在立法日程表上的一個簡單的改變，

such as having business stretch out for three weeks

像是讓日常工作長達三個星期之久

and then they get a week off to go home,

然後放一個禮拜回家，

that would change the fundamental relationships in Congress.

就可以改變現在國會的基本關係。

So there's a lot we can do, but who's going to push them to do it?

所以有很多我們可以做的，但是誰要來推動他們來做？

There are a number of groups that are working on this.

有一些團體正在做這件事。

No Labels and Common Cause, I think,

No Labels和Common Cause，我想，

have very good ideas for changes we need to do

對於我們需要做的改變有非常好的想法

to make our democracy more responsive and our Congress more effective.

來讓我們的民主制度更能因應變化， 和讓我們的國會更有效率。

But I'd like to supplement their work

但是我想要以一個小小的心理的招術來

with a little psychological trick, and the trick is this.

幫忙他們的工作，這個招術是這樣的。

Nothing pulls people together like a common threat

沒有什麼能像一個共同的威脅 或是攻擊可以把人們團結在一起，

or a common attack, especially an attack from a foreign enemy,

特別是像一個來自一個外國敵人的攻擊，

unless of course that threat hits on our polarized psychology,

當然除非那個威脅是落在 我們易被兩極化的心理上，

in which case, as I said before, it can actually pull us apart.

這樣的話，如同我之前說的， 那實際上會把我們分離。

Sometimes a single threat can polarize us, as we saw.

如同我們看到的，有時候單一一個威脅可以分裂我們。

But what if the situation we face is not a single threat

但是如果我們面對的不是一個單一的威脅

but is actually more like this,

而是比較像這樣的，

where there's just so much stuff coming in,

就是有太多東西即將到來，

it's just, "Start shooting, come on, everybody,

就會是，「開始射擊，快點，每個人，

we've got to just work together, just start shooting."

我們必須要一起合作，就是開始射擊就對了。」

Because actually, we do face this situation.

因為事實上，我們的確面臨這種情況。

This is where we are as a country.

這是我們現在身為一個國家所處的情況。

So here's another asteroid.

然後這裡有另一個小行星。

We've all seen versions of this graph, right,

我們都曾看過這個圖表，對吧，

which shows the changes in wealth since 1979,

這顯示自1979年以來財富的改變，

and as you can see, almost all the gains in wealth

如你所看到的，幾乎所有財富的增加

have gone to the top 20 percent, and especially the top one percent.

都在前百分之二十的人手裡，特別是前百分之一的人。

Rising inequality like this is associated

像這樣增加的財富不均是和

with so many problems for a democracy.

民主國家裡的許多問題是有關連的。

Especially, it destroys our ability to trust each other,

特別是這破壞了我們信任彼此的能力、

to feel that we're all in the same boat, because it's obvious we're not.

去認為我們都在同一條船上的能力， 因為很明顯地我們不是。

Some of us are sitting there safe and sound in gigantic private yachts.

我們之間有一些人坐在巨大的私人遊艇裡安然無恙。

Other people are clinging to a piece of driftwood.

其他人卻得緊抓著浮木不放。

We're not all in the same boat, and that means

我們不在同一條船上，而這代表

nobody's willing to sacrifice for the common good.

沒有人會願意犧牲來換取大眾共同的利益。

The left has been screaming about this asteroid for 30 years now,

左翼已經抱怨這個小行星有長達30年了，

and the right says, "Huh, what? Hmm? No problem. No problem."

而右翼說「什麼？ 嗯？ 沒有問題，沒有問題。」

Now,

現在，

why is that happening to us? Why is the inequality rising?

為何這會發生在我們身上？ 為何財富不均日漸擴大？

Well, one of the largest causes, after globalization,

其中一個最大的原因，在全球化之後，

is actually this fourth asteroid,

實際上是這第四個小行星，

rising non-marital births.

未婚生子數量增加。

This graph shows the steady rise of out-of-wedlock births

這個圖表顯示自從60年代起非婚生子數量 的穩定成長。

since the 1960s.

這個圖表顯示自從60年代起非婚生子數量 的穩定成長。

Most Hispanic and black children are now born to unmarried mothers.

大部份現在西班牙裔美國人 和非裔美國人小孩都是非婚子。

Whites are headed that way too.

美國白人也正朝這個趨勢走。

Within a decade or two, most American children

在未來的十到二十年內，大部份的美國小孩

will be born into homes with no father.

都會出生在沒有父親的家庭裡。

This means that there's much less money coming into the house.

這代表家庭的收入會更少。

But it's not just money. It's also stability versus chaos.

但是這不只是錢。 這也會造成不是穩定就是混亂的狀態。

As I know from working with street children in Brazil,

從我和巴西的流浪兒童合作裡知道，

Mom's boyfriend is often a really, really dangerous person for kids.

媽媽的男朋友通常是對於小孩子而言非常非常危險的人。

Now the right has been screaming about this asteroid since the 1960s,

現在右翼已從60年代就抱怨這個小行星，

and the left has been saying, "It's not a problem. It's not a problem."

而左翼卻一直說「這不是個問題，這不是個問題。」

The left has been very reluctant to say

左翼一直都不情願說

that marriage is actually good for women and for children.

婚姻事實上對女人和小孩是好的。

Now let me be clear. I'm not blaming the women here.

現在讓我說清楚。 在這點上，我不是在責怪女人。

I'm actually more critical of the men

我實際上是會更批評那些

who won't take responsibility for their own children

不對他們自已小孩負起責任的男人

and of an economic system that makes it difficult

和一個讓很多男人難以賺到足夠的錢

for many men to earn enough money to support those children.

來支持這些小孩的經濟系統。

But even if you blame nobody, it still is a national problem,

但是即使不怪任何人，這仍然是一個全國性的問題，

and one side has been more concerned about it than the other.

而一派一直是比另一派更關心這個問題。

The New York Times finally noticed this asteroid

紐約時報終於注意到這個小行星

with a front-page story last July

並在去年七月出了一個頭版

showing how the decline of marriage contributes to inequality.

顯示結婚率的降低是如何導致財富不均的問題。

We are becoming a nation of just two classes.

我們正形成一個只有兩個等級的國家。

When Americans go to college and marry each other,

當美國人去上大學，和彼此結婚，

they have very low divorce rates.

他們有很低的離婚率。

They earn a lot of money, they invest that money in their kids,

他們賺很多錢，他們投資很多在他們的小孩身上，

some of them become tiger mothers,

他們其中一些人變成虎媽，

the kids rise to their full potential,

他們的小孩發揮他們最大的潛力，

and the kids go on to become

然後這些小孩再度變成

the top two lines in this graph.

這個圖表的最上面這兩條線。

And then there's everybody else:

然後剩下的就是所有的其他人：

the children who don't benefit from a stable marriage,

沒有從穩定婚姻裡獲益、

who don't have as much invested in them,

沒有得到很多資源、

who don't grow up in a stable environment,

沒有在穩定的環境裡成長的小孩子，

and who go on to become the bottom three lines in that graph.

會成為這個圖表的下面三條線。

So once again, we see that these two graphs are actually saying the same thing.

所以再一次地， 我們可以看到這兩個圖表事實上說的是同一件事。

As before, we've got a problem, we've got to start working on this,

如同之前我們有一個問題一樣，我們必須要開始去解決，

we've got to do something,

我們必須做一些事情，

and what's wrong with you people that you don't see my threat?

到底你們這些沒有看到我的威脅的人是有什麼問題？

But if everybody could just take off their partisan blinders,

但是如果所有的人可以把他們那矇住眼的黨派眼罩拿下來，

we'd see that these two problems actually

我們就可以看到這兩個問題實際上

are best addressed together.

最好是一起被解決。

Because if you really care about income inequality,

因為如果你真的關心財富不均的問題的話，

you might want to talk to some evangelical Christian groups

你也許想和一些正在找尋方法來

that are working on ways to promote marriage.

提倡婚姻的福音派基督團體聊一下。

But then you're going to run smack into the problem

但是你就會遇到一個問題，

that women don't generally want to marry someone

就是女人通常不想嫁給

who doesn't have a job.

沒有工作的男人。

So if you really care about strengthening families,

所以如果你真的想要加強家庭關係的話，

you might want to talk to some liberal groups

你也許會想要和一些

who are working on promoting educational equality,

正在提倡教育平等、

who are working on raising the minimum wage,

正設法提升最低薪資、

who are working on finding ways to stop so many men

正設法阻止許多男人被刑事司法系統吸入

from being sucked into the criminal justice system and

而從婚姻市場離開一輩子

taken out of the marriage market for their whole lives.

的自由主義團體聊一下。

So to conclude, there are at least four asteroids headed our way.

最後總結，至少有四個行星正往我們飛來

How many of you can see all four?

你們有多少人可以看見這四個？

Please raise your hand right now if you're willing to admit

請現在舉起你的手，如果你願意接受

that all four of these are national problems.

所有這四個都是全國性的問題。

Please raise your hands.

請舉起你的手。

Okay, almost all of you.

好的，幾乎所有的人。

Well, congratulations, you guys are the inaugural members

那麼，恭喜，你們都是行星俱樂部的

of the Asteroids Club, which is a club

創始會員，這是一個

for all Americans who are willing to admit

給所有願意接受另一派 事實上也許有對的觀點的美國人。

that the other side actually might have a point.

給所有願意接受另一派 事實上也許有對的觀點的美國人。

In the Asteroids Club, we don't start by looking for common ground.

在行星俱樂部裡，我們不從建立共同的基點開始。

Common ground is often very hard to find.

共同的基點通常很難找到。

No, we start by looking for common threats

不，我們從找共同的威脅開始

because common threats make common ground.

因為共同的威脅建立共同的基點。

Now, am I being naive? Is it naive to think

我現在是很天真嗎？

that people could ever lay down their swords,

認為人們可以放下他們劍，

and left and right could actually work together?

且左翼和右翼可以一起合作是很天真嗎？

I don't think so, because it happens,

我不認為，因為這發生過，

not all that often, but there are a variety of examples that point the way.

不是很常發生，但是有一些例子顯示這可以發生。

This is something we can do.

這是我們可以做的。

Because Americans on both sides care about the decline in civility,

因為左右兩派的美國人都關心彼此關係上的減弱，

and they've formed dozens of organizations,

他們已成立數十個全國性的機構，

at the national level, such as this one,

例如像這個，

down to many local organizations,

下至許多地方性的機構，

such as To The Village Square in Tallahassee, Florida,

例如佛羅里達州的To The Village Square in Tallahassee，

which tries to bring state leaders together to help facilitate

這個是試圖把州顉袖們聚在一起來促進

that sort of working together human relationship

那種人與人之間的合作關係，

that's necessary to solve Florida's problems.

那是在解決佛羅里達州的問題上是必要的。

Americans on both sides care about global poverty and AIDS,

左右兩派的美國人都關心全球貧窮和愛滋病，

and on so many humanitarian issues,

和其他許多人道主義議題，

liberals and evangelicals are actually natural allies,

自由主義派和福音派事實上是個自然的盟友，

and at times they really have worked together

而且有時他們真的一起合作

to solve these problems.

來解決這些問題。

And most surprisingly to me, they sometimes can even see

而最讓我驚訝的是，他們有時候甚至對於

eye to eye on criminal justice.

刑事司法的看法一致。

For example, the incarceration rate, the prison population

例如，監禁率、監獄人囗

in this country has quadrupled since 1980.

在這個國家從1980年起已增加到四倍。

Now this is a social disaster,

這是一個社會上的災難，

and liberals are very concerned about this.

自由主義人士對此是非常擔憂的。

The Southern Poverty Law Center is often fighting

The Southern Poverty Law Center經常抨擊

the prison-industrial complex, fighting to prevent a system

監獄產業集團，並爭取防止一個

that's just sucking in more and more poor young men.

只是把更多更多貧窮年輕男人納入的系統。

But are conservatives happy about this?

但是保守派人士對這高興嗎？

Well, Grover Norquist isn't, because this system

嗯，Grover Norquist不高興，因為這個系統

costs an unbelievable amount of money.

會花費不可置信的錢。

And so, because the prison-industrial complex

所以，因為監獄產業集團

is bankrupting our states and corroding our souls,

正在使我們的州政府赤貧，並損害我們的心靈，

groups of fiscal conservatives and Christian conservatives

一群財政保守黨人士和基督教保守黨人士

have come together to form a group called Right on Crime.

已聚在一起成立一個團體叫做Right on Crime。

And at times they have worked with the Southern Poverty Law Center

他們曾經和Southern Poverty Law Center合作

to oppose the building of new prisons

來反對建造新的監獄

and to work for reforms that will make the justice system

和一起做改革來讓司法制度

more efficient and more humane.

更有效率和更有人性。

So this is possible. We can do it.

所以這是有可能的。 我們可以做的。

Let us therefore go to battle stations,

所以讓我們現在去戰鬥基地，

not to fight each other,

不是和彼此戰鬥，

but to begin deflecting these incoming asteroids.

而是開始把那些快到達的小行星偏移。

And let our first mission be to press Congress

我們首要的任務是訴求國會

to reform itself, before it's too late for our nation.

改革他們自已，在一切都太遲之前。

Thank you. (Applause)

謝謝大家。 (掌聲）