英国《金融时报》2006年11月9日社评:伊拉克战争的政治代价

伊拉克战争的政治代价
 
 
英国《金融时报》社评
2006年11月9日 星期四
 
 
总的来说，这是一个令人满意的结果。美国人民终于开始“清算”共和党领导层和布什(George W. Bush)政府，惩罚他们的无能和对法律的漠视，将美国的声誉拖入中东的泥沼。

对伊战乱局负有主要责任的唐纳德•拉姆斯菲尔德(Donald Rumsfeld)宣布辞职，这是一个可喜迹象，表明布什政府意识到世界上还有“责任”这回事。在布什及其盟友的“领导”下，民主美国与神权政体的伊朗相比，竟被全球多数国家视为更大的威胁。这些选举应证明，这种看法并不正确，美国政治体系中的权力制衡仍在发挥作用。

尽管有各种各样的操纵，尽管美国过去5年形成了极端主义和威胁恐吓的风气，但美国普通人已明确表态：他们受够了。

民主党目前已赢得众议院的控制权，而且可能会以微弱优势夺得参议院的控制权，因此美国可能出现政策“塞车”现象。但共和党的许多立法项目本来就陷于停滞；作为布什第二个总统任期首要计划的社保改革，也石沉大海达一年之久。其它目标（比如，把财政上不负责任的减税举措永久化），如果不能实现的话，也不是坏事。

众议院新议长（也是有史以来首位女议长）南希•佩洛西(Nancy Pelosi)当选后立即作出的承诺，大部分也是切合实际的。例如，提高目前显然已不适当的最低工资水平，或者结束共和党对干细胞研究的否定。

但是，鉴于美国公众生活已极度两极分化，因此本届党派色彩最浓的政府能否与民主党合作，仍有待观察。从政治边缘地带“爬”回来的民主党，必须抵制住“算旧账”的诱惑。

民主党承诺将恢复国会对行政部门的监督，尽管这很有必要，但它可能会重新导致激烈争执——特别是在伊拉克和中东问题上。民主党在这两个问题上能否提出更连贯的政策，目前还很不明确。

此外，下一届总统竞选将在大约一年后拉开帷幕。届时，民主党必须在公众心目中确立可信的领导人。如果他们打算通过迎合选民中的民粹主义人群来达到上述目的，那么结果可能是灾难性的。

例如，民主党的保护主义派若与那些决心扫除布什遗留政策的人结盟，可能就会投票反对延长总统的“快速”贸易谈判授权。

那种反应也许令人“满足”，但却是自我毁灭的。本次选举表明，美国人所寻求的，是能够重振美国信心与声誉的愿景和政治才能。

译者/刘彦

A VERY GOOD DAY FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
 
 
Editorial
 
Thursday, November 09, 2006
 
 
It was, all in all, a satisfactory outcome. Americans have at last started to hold to account the Republican leadership and the administration of George W. Bush for their incompetence and disdain for the law, and for the way they have dragged America's reputation through the mud and muddle of the Middle East.

The resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, the man most responsible for the Iraq fiasco, is a welcome sign that the administration also recognises there is such a thing as accountability. Under the stewardship of Mr Bush and his allies, democratic America has come to be regarded as a greater threat than theocratic Iran in most of the world. These elections should demonstrate that that perception is perverse, and that the checks and balances in the US system still work.

For all the gerrymandering, and in spite of the culture of extremism and intimidation fostered over the past five years, ordinary Americans have made clear they have had enough.

With Democrats in control of the House of Representatives and conceivably, by a whisker, the Senate, there could be policy gridlock. But much of the Republican legislative programme was already stalled anyway; the flagship of the Bush second term, Social Security reform, sank a good year ago. That other aims, such as making fiscally irresponsible tax cuts permanent, are now beyond reach is no bad thing.

The immediate pledges of Nancy Pelosi, the new (and first ever woman) Speaker of the House, for example to raise a minimum wage that has become manifestly inadequate or to end Republican repudiation of stem-cell research, are also mostly sensible.

But what remains to be seen, given how polarised US public life has become, is whether this most partisan of administrations can work with Democrats who, having clawed their way back from the political margins, must resist the temptation to settle scores.

The Democrat promise to restore congressional oversight of the executive, while much needed, could degenerate into pitched battles – especially over Iraq and the Middle East, where it is far from clear the Democrats have a more coherent policy to offer.

The next presidential campaign, moreover, will open in about a year. In that time, the Democrats have to establish credible leaders in the public mind. It would be disastrous if they sought to do so by pandering to the more populist elements of their constituency.

The protectionist wing of the party, for example, allied with those determined to deny Mr Bush even a residual legacy, is likely to vote against the renewal of the president's “fast-track” trade negotiating authority.

That sort of response would be satisfying but self-destructive. What this vote has shown Americans are looking for is the vision and statesmanship that will restore the country's confidence and reputation