希拉里与特朗普 保守派该选谁

The way is clear for Donald Trump to become the Republican party’s nominee for the presidency of the US. In all probability, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. As a result, American conservatives are suddenly faced with a strange and unexpected dilemma: who should they support? Who is actually the more conservative candidate in this election?

对唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)来说，已经锁定共和党总统候选人提名。而希拉里•克林顿(Hillary Clinton)也十有八九会成为民主党的提名人。于是，美国的保守主义者突然面临一个诡异而意料之外的两难境地：他们应该支持谁？在这轮选举中，谁是更保守的候选人？

Part of the answer depends, of course, on what is meant by “conservative”. Though always a broad church, the Republican party has transformed itself in recent years, accommodating conspiracy theorists, acquiring the populist wing that backed Sarah Palin and now Mr Trump, and losing a lot of former supporters, myself included. But for those inside the party who still believe in a set of recognisably conservative ideas, the dilemma is profound.

当然，答案在一定程度上要看“保守”的含义是什么。尽管共和党始终是个成员广泛的政党，但近年该党发生了巨大变化，它接纳了阴谋论者，还发展出了曾经支持过莎拉•佩林(Sarah Palin)、如今又支持特朗普的民粹主义派别，并失去了包括我在内的许多曾经的支持者。不过，对那些依然留在共和党、相信一套明确的保守主义理念的人来说，他们深陷两难境地之中。

For one subset of the party, the outlook is bleak. If you are a genuine “social conservative”, a person who believes in a narrowly defined version of traditional morality, then you have no candidate in this election at all. Mrs Clinton supports gay rights. She is pro-choice. She uses feminist rhetoric that social conservatives do not like.

对一部分共和党人来说，前景是黯淡的。如果你是真正的“社会保守主义者”，相信一套十分严格的传统道德标准，那么这次选举中根本没有适合你的候选人。希拉里支持同性恋权益，支持堕胎，她还使用社会保守主义者不喜欢的女权主义措辞。

But what is the alternative? Mr Trump is a twice-divorced philanderer who makes not just sexist but sexual comments about his own offspring: “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her,” he told an interviewer. There is no evidence that he goes to church or believes in God. He has called himself both pro-choice and pro-life over the years, so for single-issue opponents of abortion he is anathema.

然而，另一位是个什么样的人呢？特朗普是离过两次婚的花花公子，在谈到自己的子女时，他不只发表大男子主义的言论，甚至还会说些带有性意味的话。他曾向一位采访者表示：“如果伊万卡(Ivanka)不是我女儿，也许我会与她约会。”没有证据表明他去教堂或信上帝。多年来他既自称反对堕胎，也说过自己支持堕胎，因此对单纯反堕胎的人来说，他也是非常讨厌的人。

If, on the other hand, you are what Americans call a “fiscal conservative”, a person who believes in balanced budgets and careful spending, then the choice is much easier: Mrs Clinton is your candidate. Judging by what he has said, Mr Trump’s budget and spending proposals are either absurd or mathematically impossible.

从另一方面来说，如果你是美国人所谓的“财政保守主义者”，赞成预算平衡和量入为出，那么你的选择要容易得多：希拉里是适合你的候选人。从特朗普的言谈判断，他就预算和开支提出的方案要么十分荒谬，要么从数学上就不可能做到。

This week he suggested he might save money by refusing to pay America’s creditors, instead leading the country down the Argentinian road to default. By contrast, Mrs Clinton comes with the best advertisement possible: when her husband was president, America had not just a balanced budget but a surplus. According to her website, she sees debt as a “national security threat” and opposes an increase.

相反，他近日暗示说，他也许可以通过拒绝向美国的债权国偿付债务来节省资金，带领美国走阿根廷式的违约道路。相比之下，希拉里则自带可能是最好的广告：她的丈夫当总统时，美国不仅实现了预算平衡，甚至还有盈余。根据希拉里网站的说法，她将债务视为“国家安全威胁”，反对增加债务。

For “free-trade conservatives” the contrast is more nuanced but Mrs Clinton still wins. Mr Trump has called for tariffs on China and Mexico for starters. He has used xenophobia to whip up crowds against foreigners and foreign trade. He opposes the free trade agreements with Asia and Europe which are now under negotiation.

对“自由贸易保守主义者”来说，两者的差别比较细微，不过希拉里仍会胜出。特朗普从一开始就呼吁向中国和墨西哥征收关税。他利用人们的排外情绪，煽动民众反对外国人和对外贸易。他还反对美国与亚洲和欧洲正在磋商的自由贸易协议。

Mrs Clinton has supported these deals in the past, and, like her husband, has long been an advocate of free trade, but she has lately made different noises. In a year when anti-trade populism is winning votes, she has tempered her rhetoric. Nevertheless, if you fear trade barriers and the return of protectionism, then Mrs Clinton is still your best bet.

希拉里过去一直支持这些协议，而且和她的丈夫一样，长期以来她一直是自由贸易的倡导者。然而，最近她却发出了不同的声音。在这个反贸易民粹主义正在赢得选票的年头，她在措辞上有所缓和。不过，如果你担心出现贸易壁垒、担心保护主义回归，那么希拉里仍是你的最好选择。

For “national security conservatives”, whether realist or interventionist, there is no nuance at all. If you believe in basic things — that America’s role in the world is important, that America’s alliances are a source of inter¬national stability or that American military and political influence has kept Europe free and Asia peaceful — then Mrs Clinton is the only possible candidate. She has a long foreign policy record: she was secretary of state for four years. While it is possible to dislike some of her decisions, during those four years she was committed to Nato, to nuclear deterrence, to America’s historical allies in Asia.

对“国家安全保守主义者”来说——不论你是务实派还是干预派，两者的区别是泾渭分明的。如果你相信如下基本事实：美国在世界舞台上扮演重要的角色；美国的同盟关系是国际稳定局势的来源；美国军事和政治影响力确保了欧洲自由和亚洲和平——那么希拉里就是唯一可能的候选人。她有着长期从事外交政策工作的履历，干过四年的美国国务卿。尽管你可能不喜欢她的部分决定，在四年的国务卿任期内她致力于北约事务、与核威慑有关的问题、以及与美国在亚洲的传统盟友打交道。

There is no reason to think that Mr Trump, if elected, would support any of those commitments. If elected, he would instead be the first isolationist American president since the second world war. He has not only criticised Nato for its reliance on America, he has questioned its fundamental purpose.

至于特朗普，没理由认为他当选后会支持上述任何做法。相反，一旦当选后他或将成为二战后首位奉行孤立主义的美国总统。他不仅曾批评北约对美国的依赖，还质疑过北约的根本宗旨。

In a book he wrote in 2000, he declared that European conflicts “are not worth American lives. Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually.”

在2000年写的一本书中，他宣称欧洲的冲突“不值得美国人付出生命代价。撤出欧洲每年能为美国省下数百万美元”。

He has called for Japan and South Korea to acquire nuclear weapons, and is not bothered by the prospect of a nuclear arms race in Asia. He is neither interested in democracy nor bothered by dictatorship. He could not promote American values in the world because he does not believe in them himself.

他呼吁日本和韩国应拥有核武器，不在乎亚洲出现核军备竞赛的可能性。他对民主不感兴趣，对独裁也无所谓。他不会向世界宣扬美国价值观，因为他自己也不信这些价值观。

But will conservatives take the logical step and support Mrs Clinton? Personally, I do not find this a hard decision. But the speaker of the House, two former Republican presidents and a host of leaders still cannot bring themselves to do it.

不过，保守主义者会顺应常理支持希拉里么？从我个人来说，我觉得这个决定并不难做出。然而，众议院议长、两位前共和党总统以及多位领导人仍然没有下决心这么做。

Instead they are either refusing to endorse Mr Trump, refusing to attend the Republican convention or refusing to say anything at all. With six months to go until November, there is still time for all of them to do the calculations and make the only responsible conservative choice.

相反，他们要么拒绝支持特朗普，拒绝参加共和党全国代表大会，要么拒绝做任何表态。距11月大选还有6个月，他们仍有时间仔细思量，做出唯一负责任的符合保守主义理念的选择。