Chapter 10 The "Baby Boomer" President is Here

Brother Lu: Hello! I originally planned to wait for a while before writing to you, but your letter prompted me to write ahead of time, because your letter raised many questions.First of all, I'm glad you can understand why you asked me to introduce this year's US election, but I first told you a story about a US president twenty years ago.Actually, this is based on my own experience.The understanding of a complete "Watergate Incident" gave me a more essential understanding of the US election.At least, in this way, one knows "what" the President of the United States is, and also understands his exact position in the power structure of the US government, as well as his relationship with the other two branches of power.Because "Watergate" is a shortcut to understand these issues.Then you go to watch the presidential election, and you can gradually transition from "watching the excitement" to "watching the doorway".

You said in your letter that my introduction seemed to come to a "short stop" and I felt a little unfinished. You hoped to know "what happened after the Watergate incident" ended.This is indeed a very interesting question. After President Nixon resigned, of course he was no longer president.However, no one, whether in the political circles or the common people, intends to attack him in the style of "pursuing and beating the dog in the water".When he returned to his hometown, in addition to gradually recovering from psychological adjustments, he began the very busy life of a retired president.

So, what is he up to?Like other outgoing presidents, he established a Presidential Memorial Library in his hometown, in which, in addition to various memorabilia of the president, a large number of his private documents during his tenure were stored for people to consult.He too, like other outgoing presidents, began writing his memoirs.It seems that he is indeed the same as other outgoing presidents in terms of treatment and living conditions. However, in his memorial library, videos of Nixon answering people's questions have been playing. In these conversations, Nixon also frankly answered various questions raised by people about the "Watergate Incident".Nixon told the curious people who came here that his biggest lesson was that it is not terrible to make mistakes, the terrible thing is to "cover up mistakes."

Of course, an important part of Nixon's memoirs after he left office is also "Watergate".Because people are very interested in Nixon's own explanations and reflections after resignation, I believe that his memoirs also earned him more royalties than other presidents. This actually reflects some very important phenomena in the United States.The first is that the lives of retired presidents of the United States are all well-off and rich.Their pensions, of course, look very meager in comparison with the salaries of great business executives.However, it is enough to maintain a comfortable life.They also attend some social activities to obtain income and adjust the pace of life by writing books and speeches, etc.At the same time, the love of nature is extremely common among Americans, and politicians are no exception.The fascination with the mountains, forests, rivers, flowers and trees in his manor is regardless of the government and the people.The work of "cleaning up the mountains and rivers" consumed the energy of many retired politicians, and also balanced a large part of their psychological state.

When I was in China, I heard a report about former US President Carter, who liked to do some carpentry after retirement.I thought he was very special.Although Carter is indeed a very civilian president, after arriving in the United States, he found that no matter which retired politician he is, if he likes to be a gardener, carpenter, etc., it is not unusual.This is normal for everyone in the United States.Except that this is a normal person, it does not explain any special problems. As for some retired politicians in their prime of life, they often choose to continue their career before entering political life or start a new career after retiring from politics.The most typical example here is President Kennedy's Secretary of Defense McLamara.He was the president of the World Bank at the time, and he was definitely not under the Secretary of Defense of the United States in terms of status or income.When Kennedy asked him to be secretary of defense, his only consideration was an opportunity to do something for his ideals and his country.Unfortunately, he got involved in the Vietnam War by mistake, got involved more and more sincerely, and made many big mistakes by himself.Until last year, in his memoir, he expressed his reflection and regret. "We were wrong, terribly wrong." His old voice resounded heavily in the hearts of many American people.After retiring from politics, he continued as president of the World Bank.For him, the few years in politics were just a difficult and painful experience.

That said, in the U.S. in general, life choices are vast, and this is the same for up and down.The only difference is that the direction of some choices of upper-level characters is different from that of ordinary people.But that essential variety is all the same.These factors, which seem to have nothing to do with the political system, actually play a very important role in forming a virtuous cycle of peaceful political power transfer.Even the fact that it is easy to own a large private estate in the United States, as well as the general obsession with nature and the temperament of "forgetful landscapes" in the United States, these natural and cultural environments that seem to be far from political issues, all make It is easier for politicians to return to ordinary people in the original sense, rather than alienating them into political animals that panic like bereaved dogs when they leave political office.And a stable political system must have the ability to restore politicians to ordinary people.

Furthermore, we have seen that what the American people care about is a healthy government agency.Because for them, this is the key that is closely related to their basic interests.If any government official violates his contract with the public, everyone will make every effort to get him out of office so as to maintain the normal state of this government operating agency.However, this does not mean that the public's attention is focused on a certain individual.For any official who has committed a crime, as soon as he resigns from his post, that is, when his personal behavior no longer becomes a threat to the public interest, everyone immediately disperses and goes to his own business.No one thinks that there is any need to "beat the dog in the water", nor does anyone have any interest in this regard.

The rest will be left to the system to worry about by the public.If the departing official has a crime that cannot be pardoned by law, he has his own judicial system to deal with it.Such news will of course appear in the newspapers, but the people who read it just skim through it and lack interest.If the outgoing official has been pardoned, everyone will only say "good luck" to his new life after leaving office, hoping that he will find his place in the new life as soon as possible.Here, it is easier for the public to treat politicians with the same eyes as ordinary people. I don't know if this is because politicians talk too much when they run for office.In short, no one will regard them as "Superman".

Everyone knows that Nixon's living conditions after his pardon were actually much better than that of ordinary civilians.Yet there is hardly a single person to be found in all of America who is aggrieved by it.Because Nixon's pardon and his subsequent life treatment are all within the scope stipulated by the Constitution and laws.That is to say, none of them exceeded the limits of the original contract between the people and the government. This was recognized by everyone long ago, so they were calm. So, can the Democratic Party, as the rival political party, take this opportunity to "hunt down" Nixon and seize power?In fact, no such thing happened.This is not to say that the politicians here are all "soft-hearted".Let's imagine that if there is a ruthless and ambitious Democratic Party, it is impossible for him to make any big moves.Because the Constitution stipulates that after the president steps down, he can only be succeeded by a vice president who is also a Republican. If anyone tries to change this, then he is risking the same unconstitutional risk as Nixon.Besides, there is no need for him at all, because instead of taking a big risk to "seize power", it is better to run for election normally. Anyway, the president has a four-year term, and it is not that "time will never come again" if he loses an opportunity.

In fact, this also reflects the American tradition of "focusing on individuals" from another angle.Everyone must be responsible for his "personal actions".This is true no matter who they are, regardless of their status.If there is a mistake or a crime, from the perspective of the person concerned, you cannot arbitrarily deduce the responsibility. When the day comes to legal investigation, you can only "be a good man and do things like a good man". In this way, both arbitrary crimes by public officials and large-scale public crimes under the pretext of belief are avoided.You cannot put the blame on a popular movement or on a leader, because when the law is being cleaned up, the leader is the leader's guilt, and the individual, as a member of the public, also has personal guilt.

As you have seen, the same goes for the president, Nixon being Nixon.His actions are first and foremost personal.After he commits a crime, he cannot easily shift the responsibility to his political party, even though he is a candidate promoted by the party; just like he cannot shift the responsibility to the country, even though he is the president of the country.He cannot evade responsibility under the pretext of safeguarding the interests of the political party or the interests of the country. From another perspective, this also maintains the normal operation of party politics here.Just because Nixon is Nixon, in his "Watergate Incident", there are only a few people involved.Since this is not the overall behavior of any political party, the parties on the opposite side cannot use the "Watergate Incident" as an excuse to try to destroy the entire Republican Party.In this way, there will be no vicious hunting and killing between political parties. As for Nixon, after stepping down, it can be said that he did not worry about any retaliatory "killing" for a day.No one can limit his freedom.Once he resigns from the presidency, he becomes an ordinary citizen, protected by the constitution, and enjoys all citizenship rights stipulated in the constitution.As an ordinary citizen, if he wishes, he can still act in the political arena and even seek a "comeback" without any interference.If he is treated unfairly, he can seek justice through normal legal channels. It was true for Nixon, and it was true for everyone else. The "Watergate Incident" was concluded as a criminal case. Therefore, except for Nixon who was exempted by the new President Ford with the constitutional amnesty, the other involved parties were of course subject to varying degrees of criminal punishment.In addition to the direct intruders of the Watergate building, there were also those involved in the administration.Many of them just participated in the "cover-up" and became criminals of "obstruction of justice". Nixon's secretary Chapin was sentenced to 8 months in prison.Coulson, the White House special adviser, was sentenced to seven months in prison.Heideman, Nixon's former White House chief of staff, served 18 months in prison.Dean, Nixon's presidential counsel, was only jailed for four months, which was a shorter sentence in exchange for his account of the entire case to prosecutors.Judging from the extent of his involvement in the case, this is already quite good.Errichmann, Nixon's domestic policy adviser to the president and head of "The Plumber," got 18 months.Errichmann's deputy, Klaug, a member of the "Plumbers", was sentenced to four and a half months. Kambacher, Nixon's personal lawyer, was involved in raising "gag money" and spent six months in prison for it.Former Minister of Justice Credist, because of the "Watergate Incident", Li Di came to ask for accommodation. Although he refused, but as the Minister of Justice, he did not report the knowledge and also served a month in prison.Former Attorney General Mitchell, later chairman of the Republican "Presidential Re-election Committee," was sentenced to 19 months in prison.Mitchell really has nothing to complain about. As the former Attorney General, he can be said to be the most typical criminal who knows the law.Lalu, Mitchell's chief adviser, was sentenced to five and a half months. Li Di, a member of the White House "plumber", was sentenced to 52 months in prison. In this case, Li Di received the longest sentence.As I have mentioned several times before, he is indeed the most idealistic of these people, no matter how messed up.Therefore, from beginning to end, he kept his promise and refused to explain the case.Therefore, Judge Silica seems to have fulfilled his promise and gave him a longer sentence within the sentencing range. White House adviser Hunter, the guy who guarded the hotel with Li Di and fled in a hurry on the night of the "Watergate case", was sentenced to 33 months in prison.McGruder, Republican "president re-elected committee vice-chairman, seven months. McGruder's aide, 30 days. Segreti, who advised Nixon's illegal campaign moves, four and a half months . However, these people involved also started their new lives after serving their sentences.As I told you earlier. Li Di, the on-site conductor of the "Watergate incident", is now one of the most conservative "talk show" hosts here, and the number of people who admire him is beyond count.He still attacks the Democratic president on his radio show, eloquent and eloquent, punctual and on time, all day long.When Watergate was mentioned in his remarks, he was still proud that he was the only one who kept his word and kept his mouth shut.Such "famous mouths" are all high-income, and it is probably not too much to say that he is making money every day. Dean, the legal counsel who played an important role in the "cover-up" of the "Watergate Incident", and finally "lost the pawn" and left Nixon, later entered the banking industry in Los Angeles. Leedy's direct boss in the "Watergate Incident", McGruder, the vice chairman of the Republican "Presidential Re-election Committee", took a different path and became a clergyman in Lexington, Kentucky. Errichman, the head of the White House "Plumbers" group, did not know whether he was inspired by the secret operations of the "Plumbers" group, and he began to write detective novels.During the period, I was also invited to do an advertisement for an ice cream company, but the sales of ice cream dropped after the advertisement aired, so the broadcast was stopped soon. ... Therefore, when a huge political turmoil passed with the resignation of the president, everything quickly calmed down.There was no political fight or social turmoil. In addition to receiving criminal punishment according to law, those involved in the case were not subject to retaliation or political persecution from the opposition party.Nothing happened. So your question is actually on point, and the "what next" of Nixon's removal is indeed an important part of looking at how the system works.It is precisely this "nothing happened" that makes us feel interesting. However, as one of the most important historical events in the United States, the "Watergate Incident" had a profound impact on the United States.There is an example to get a glimpse of it, that is, since then, all scandals at the highest level of the government's administrative branch have been dubbed "so-and-so".This "gate" is, of course, the "gate" of "Watergate".That is to say, since then, people will immediately associate the "Watergate Incident" and Nixon with the problems in the White House system. Americans have a long tradition of distrusting the government.I remember our friend Daniela told us that her grandmother told her never to trust the government since she was a child.Don't think that this is a rare example. In the United States, in school textbooks, the necessity of "balance and check" among the three branches of government is explained to students again and again. Its root is based on " The government is unreliable" such a concept. Of course, in the textbooks of the United States, they are also very proud to introduce their founding fathers to generations of young people, and introduce some great presidents in the eyes of Americans, such as President Washington, President Lincoln, President Roosevelt, and so on.However, the concept that "the president is unreliable" was greatly strengthened after Nixon.Since then, when a new president took office, Americans seldom associate the adjective "great" with the current "president".On the contrary, he is always alert to the president. Therefore, in the years after Nixon, there were some movies and novels in the United States that described the conspiracy of the White House and the conspiracy of the government's executive branch.In the ending of these literary works, the heroes who expose the conspiracy always go to Congress, the judiciary and the press.Some movies are full of thrilling twists and turns, but the ending is very simple, that is, the hero who exposes the conspiracy walks into the congressional hearing, sits down, and then stands up and swears, "I will tell the truth", and the movie is over .Such literary and artistic works not only reflect Americans' distrust of the president and the White House, but also reflect that through Nixon's "Watergate Incident", they have strengthened their confidence in this system.They believe that once the "balance and check" supervision mechanism is activated, they can rest assured that the film can end. Now, it's really time for me to get back to President Clinton's re-election campaign. To talk about this year's general election, we have to briefly talk about Clinton's first election in 1992 and his four-year presidential career that is close to the end of his term.Because this year is the election year for Clinton to seek re-election, the success of his campaign is closely related to his various performances in the previous four years. Clinton won the 1992 election.The general election that year was indeed very special, because in addition to Clinton and President Bush, who was seeking re-election, there was also an unexpected guest Perot, forming a rare three-legged situation.When Perot first came out, as a billionaire, he declared that he would run with all his own money to maintain his independence.He is independent of party and affiliation, making voters feel refreshed and in the limelight.However, the three-legged Perot is still short after all. After a few "tricks" in the election, the more people look at him, the less he looks like a president. For example, this year I started school while working part-time in order to make a better living.The teacher of my "public speaking class" laughed when he mentioned Perot and said that Perot's speech style, from a professional point of view, was really "terrible."Campaigning, campaigning, is mostly about convincing voters to vote for you.It is difficult for a candidate with a "terrible" speech style to become the President of the United States.Of course, there are many reasons why Perot did not become president, and this is just one of the small factors. Therefore, four years ago, don't see three presidential candidates, but in essence it is no different from previous elections.The real contest is between Republican Bush and Democrat Clinton.In that year's campaign, voters were far more excited than this year.why? After the Republican Reagan served two terms and eight years, Bush took over for four more.That is, the Republican Party had been in power for 12 consecutive years at that time.In the simplest terms, the Republican Party has been able to be in power for 12 consecutive years. It always has its reasons, and it always has its voter base, and it also has its "inertia" during the campaign.Therefore, it takes a lot of effort to stop this inertial state.At that time, the Democratic Party launched young presidential and vice presidential candidates, Clinton and Gore.Compared with the aging Republican presidents in 12 years, they look young and vigorous. But when it comes to running for president, strengths and weaknesses are always twins.Old age is of course easily associated with frailty and lack of energy, but it also reminds people of rich experience and calmness in handling things.Of course, being young seems to be creative, but it also gives people a feeling of "having no hair on the mouth and not being able to do things well". The reason why Bush finally left office four years ago was related to the mood of many Americans seeking change at that time.The reason why the old Reagan was able to be re-elected was related to the economic prosperity at that time.The economic prosperity of the Reagan era was more or less "false prosperity".Because during this period, his prosperity was associated with high national debt.Prosperity is on the surface, but the government deficit is setting a scary record. Therefore, Reagan's successor, Bush, is a bit like Reagan.The cooling after the overheating of the economy made it difficult for Americans who were used to the good life of the Reagan era to accept it all at once.Although, even economists today admit that President Bush has actually been effective in improving the US economy, which has recovered during the Bush era.However, according to some economists, not only will the economic recovery itself take some time, but the public's perception of the economic recovery will be slow.The term of a president is only four years, and the delay in this half-time has delayed Bush's re-election as president. At that time, many people were dissatisfied with the economic situation at that time, and they were impatient with leaving the government's executive agencies to Bush.Therefore, Clinton played the "change" card, attacking the status quo during Bush's administration, claiming that in his hands, the United States will undergo changes.To be honest, it's not that everyone believes in his various grand plans, but that Americans have always had an attitude towards the president, that is, if you do a good job, you can take another term, and if you can't, try another one. Manager. So, before the 1992 general election, voters were relatively more emotional than this year's general election.On the one hand, a group of people who hope that Bush will come down are actively going to vote in order to achieve the purpose of "trying another one".My friend Selina had abstained from voting in the general election years before, "It doesn't matter who you choose, I like none of them."But at that time, she declared early that she wanted to mobilize her parents, siblings, and sisters to vote for Clinton. The reason was the slogan she posted on her car, "Don't give Bush another four years."On the other hand, people who support President Bush and dislike Clinton, the more they realize that Bush's re-election is at stake, the more they must actively vote to prevent Clinton from taking office. It seems that people's psychology of "seeking change" still prevails.Therefore, Clinton, who is less than fifty years old and feels like a symbol of a new generation, finally got his wish and entered the White House.I want to talk about it later, apart from these superficial factors, this result also reflects deeper social changes in terms of the renewal of American society as a whole. So how did President Clinton fare in the next four years?When Clinton first entered the White House, a Republican predicted that it would not be long before we could send Clinton out of the White House through some "gate".What does it mean?I guess what he meant was that with Clinton's style of conduct, it would be easy to expose leaks like "Watergate".At that time, he should step down like Nixon. Is this a baseless malicious speculation by the opposition party?I find it hard to say that, because this "prophecy" is not completely unreasonable.In fact, the White House during President Clinton's administration probably had the most stories of what people call "the so-and-so door". Why can people make such predictions in the first place?This has to start with what sets Clinton apart from other presidents. Clinton was the first U.S. president born after World War II.After the Second World War, the soldiers returned to their hometowns.After that, the whole world is a period of high birth rate, which is called "baby boom".Clinton is one of the "baby boomers".And President Bush is a veteran who returned from the battlefield of World War II. In the United States, this is almost synonymous with a hero.They are completely the relationship between "father's generation" and "children's generation". They are living symbols of two generations and two different eras. I once said that the United States around the 1960s had a completely different look.In the 1960s, it was the age when the "baby boomer" generation entered their youth and formed their thinking style.For good or ill, they have since ushered in a new era, distinctly different from their fathers.If you can describe the generation of Americans represented by President Bush, it is difficult for you to describe and judge this "new generation", because if they have characteristics, they are "diverse". However, it is precisely the product of a "baby boomer". The Clinton who grew up in the 1960s, which can be described as "a mess" in the eyes of the older generation of Americans, can find a lot of problems by the way without a magnifying glass. , defeated Bush, a World War II hero, in the election, and entered the White House.In any case, the result of this election does have unusual significance in the United States. Clinton did not walk into the White House by himself, he was elected by American voters.So people suddenly realized that those successive "new generations", whether you agree with them or not, are actually taking over from the "old generation".As time goes by, their number is increasing, and they all have their own votes in their hands.You cannot ignore their presence. The difference between Clinton and Bush is really too great.No matter how weak President Bush may be in his re-election campaign, Clinton will not be able to match him until the old era is basically over.For example, Clinton was a youth in the 1960s. Almost all young people at that time had tried the taste of marijuana.Therefore, at that time, questioning whether Clinton had smoked marijuana became a hot spot for the Republican Party to vilify Clinton during the campaign. In the United States in the sixties, marijuana was quite common.Some of our American friends who were college students at that time once told us that in those days, if you visited a professor’s house, it was very normal for him to ask you to smoke a marijuana, just like smoking a cigarette. Nothing special. However, since marijuana was declared illegal in the United States, it has been elevated to the status of drugs such as heroin and cocaine.Smoking marijuana, selling marijuana, growing marijuana, etc., all marijuana-related behaviors have become felonies connected with drugs.The marijuana mentioned here is the general traditional marijuana leaf.It is said that there are new varieties that are specially bred and very toxic, but that is beyond the scope of what I am talking about now. In America, that's it, it's based on the law.Once declared as a prohibited product, it really becomes something that cannot be touched.That is, once the legislation is passed, you can only enforce it.Whether you understand it or not, you have to implement it.The police are subordinate to the executive branch and have nothing to do with legislation. Their task is to enforce the law.Courts belong to the judicial branch, and of course they have nothing to do with legislation.There is nothing to dispute with these two parts.If you think it is unreasonable, the only way is to appeal to the legislative branch.But until the legislation changes, it can only be implemented as such. Compared with other illegal drugs, however, marijuana's status has always been the most controversial.The National Science Foundation of the United States produces an annual report recommending that legislatures consider legalizing marijuana.why?According to their report, there has never been any clear scientific evidence that marijuana is addictive.Moderate amounts of marijuana are no more harmful than cigarettes.Of course, anything, if you use it in excess, can be harmful to the body.Therefore, a large number of Americans who oppose drugs also call for the legalization of marijuana. Attitudes towards cannabis also vary in the Western world, for example in Australia it is legal for a person to grow or possess a dose of cannabis for personal use.Here, what people are most worried about is that since tobacco can be legal, why must marijuana be illegal?Therefore, there are a lot of rumors in the United States, saying that the reason why marijuana was declared illegal was the result of the lobbying of cigarette companies in Congress. They were afraid that the popularity of marijuana would take away the cigarette market, so they exaggerated the harm of marijuana and convinced Congress enacted this law. After the law is enacted, the attitude of American law enforcement officers towards marijuana is one size fits all.For this law, Americans also paid a considerable price.At present, about 40 percent of the inmates in American prisons are related to drugs.Of course, a considerable number of people were locked up because of marijuana.All costs of marijuana-related detection, trials, incarceration, and of course taxpayer money.We live in the country, and people here own a lot of land, and quite a few people have grown marijuana many years ago.We often see police helicopters specially monitoring marijuana cultivation flying over us.The human and material resources spent on prohibiting marijuana are indeed great.This is also one of the important reasons why many people oppose the inclusion of marijuana as a drug.What's more, if marijuana was legal, many young people would not have to stay in prison. Because of the controversy over marijuana, today's college students and ordinary young people prefer to take two sips of marijuana to express their "rebellious spirit".I've asked all my young friends, and I've yet to meet a single one who claims to have never smoked a pot.Most of them suck very little.Just light a marijuana cigarette at a party, and each person takes a puff or two.This dose has no effect at all, it seems to be just a "posture".Express their opposition to a law they consider "unreasonable".It's just that this form of "opposition statement" cannot be seen by the police, otherwise, it will be a big trouble. We have seen a young freelance writer we know who planted two marijuana plants in flowerpots indoors at his home, and was approached by the police.The police searched his house and confiscated two lamps used for lighting plants as "criminal tools", and of course two marijuana plants growing as tall as a person were also confiscated.Planting two marijuana plants carries a maximum sentence of ten years in prison. In this controversial situation, clothing and accessories patterned with cannabis leaves are ubiquitous in the United States.Selling merchandise marked with marijuana leaves, which is part of freedom of speech and expression in the United States, is a legal gesture of attitude, and of course there will be no trouble. Recently, two states in the United States have legislated to open medical marijuana.Because marijuana, like opium, has certain medical effects when used in moderation.But everyone sees this state legislation as a breakthrough in the legalization of marijuana.Because the medicinal effects of marijuana were not discovered today.In the past, the dominant position in the United States was to reject the medicinal effects of marijuana, but also to absolutely block it. This is because, in view of the increasingly serious problem of drug abuse in modern society, there is of course a large section of public opinion in the United States that insists on a "zero tolerance" attitude towards drugs. "Prohibition" means "absolute prohibition", and no excuses or room for flexibility are allowed.Since marijuana has been placed in the list of drugs by law, of course it cannot be "resurrected".Otherwise, if a gap is opened, maybe other drugs will take the opportunity to come out together.This kind of view is not an exaggeration, because some people in the United States call for the lifting of all drugs. When the drug problem in the United States is still quite serious and there are many controversies, marijuana bears the brunt and becomes the focus of disputes.Attitudes to marijuana have also become a major headache for politicians running for office.Strict drug prohibition is definitely popular in the United States today.But the attitude towards marijuana is very "technical".Because there are two groups of people who have attitudes towards marijuana, and their numbers are changing.Therefore, during the election, the general candidates express a firm attitude towards drug prohibition, and try to avoid disputes over marijuana. In the Clinton-Bush campaign four years ago, marijuana sensitivities were pushed to the forefront.This is because the Republican Party looked at such a new generation of Clinton at the time, and it was probably very strange.One obvious feature that sets him apart from previous candidates is that there are so many shortcomings that can be attacked.Of course, they must have also noticed Clinton's background as a member of the "baby boomer". Young people who have come from this era say that they have never smoked marijuana, and they will definitely be suspected of being a liar.Therefore, the "marijuana issue" has become one of the breakthroughs for the Republican Party. So the question was raised: Mr. Clinton, have you ever smoked marijuana? That's a really good question.If Clinton repudiates, categorically denies that he has ever smoked marijuana.Not only will he be abandoned by Americans who despise "liars" the most, but his "cowardice" will also be looked down upon by some of his contemporaries who should have been his supporters.Maybe, seeing Clinton's "betrayal behavior", in a fit of anger, those classmates of his back then would jump out from some corner to testify to the public, confirming that they saw Clinton smoking marijuana with their own eyes.If it really leads to such excitement, marijuana or marijuana is not important, and Clinton's policy agenda will be ignored. In the scuffle, Clinton will only have to deal with it. If Clinton says he has smoked marijuana, then the Republican Party obviously has a lot of offensive weapons waiting for him.They will tell the majority of voters, what is marijuana?Marijuana is a drug.一个总统候选人自己就曾经是一个吸毒者，你还打算指望他以积极态度为这个国家扫毒吗？更何况，你们能够信任一个吸毒者做你们的总统吗？再说两个人竞争的时候，贵在一个对比，难道你们能够想象布什总统会吸毒吗？这么一比，两个人截然不同的形象马上就显得反差更大了。 为了大麻，克林顿的确伤透了脑筋。他很想回避这个棘手的问题，但是，既然问题已经提出来了，那么，不论是对手党，不论是新闻界，还是对这个问题感兴趣的民众，都不会让他绕着过去。 终于，克林顿出来给这个吃力的问题作出了一个回答。他承认，他在年轻的时候试过抽大麻，他吸了，但是没有把烟吞下肚去就吐出来了。他说，这个尝试使他发现他不喜欢大麻，从此，他就再也没有碰过这一类的东西。这个回答显然不是完美的，你甚至可以说是幽默的。从此，克林顿抽大麻却没吞下去，成了年轻人的一个笑料。但是，他到底逃过了一劫。 毕竟，他是变相地承认了自己有过抽大麻的尝试，其次，多数人也相信，他只是在年轻的时候，在当时的风气之下，浅尝即止。因此在一定程度上，他还是基本说了实话。笑料归笑料，克林顿的大麻风波，也就这样在人们的笑声中过去了。 可是，克林顿的“婴儿潮”特征还不止于大麻。同时被端出来的还有“逃兵役”。What's going on here?这也是困扰那个时代的年轻人的一个大问题。这个问题就是越战。二次大战归国的士兵在美国人的心目中的地位是很高的。而越战的状况第一次使得美国的年轻人，产生很大的心理压力和困惑。 他们从服从国家的号召，到心里充满疑虑，直到他们中的很多人走向反战的立场。越战在美国是一个大历史课题。我也不可能在这里三句两句就把它讲情楚。可是，有一点是肯定的，越战在美国也是一个容易使人冲动的敏感话题。顺便提一下，位于美国首都华盛顿中心地带的越战纪念碑，它的设计者是当时才21岁，还在建筑系念书的一个娇小的华裔女孩。 她曾经谈到她的纪念碑设计思想的产生。她在设计之前先去看了即将安放纪念碑的现场。她站在那里，想到这场战争带来的死亡和失落。她觉得，对于美国人来说，尖锐的痛苦虽然随着时间逐步减轻，但是从来没有被治愈。她突然产生一个象征性的构思：用一把利刃剖开大地，而随着时间的逝去，凄凄芳草将会医治创伤。 因此，越战纪念碑的位置是切入地下的。这是一座黑色的刻满了阵亡士兵姓名的花岗岩挡土墙。每天大量的参观者中，还有阵亡者亲属和战友前来探望。他们用铅笔在纸上拓下阵亡亲人的姓名，在姓名前，放下一束花，一件纪念品和非常令人感动的几句话。很多人留下的纸条写着，欢迎你回家。一个老兵带来一瓶啤酒，留下一张纸条，写着，这是我们当时在战场上最想喝的啤酒，今天我给你带来了。有人留下了一双当年的旧军靴，也许里面有一段战场上的故事。所有这些留在纪念碑前的物品和纸条，每天纪念碑的管理人员都会收起来，所有的东西都被妥善保存。 我记得在这个纪念碑前的一个纪念仪式上，那个叫做玛雅的华裔女设计师在讲话中说，不是我的设计，而是你们所有人的感情，使得这块纪念碑活了起来。在美国的近代史上，确实从来没有一个纪念碑，掀起那么多人的感情波澜。 当然，阵亡将士的生命在牵动大家的心，但是，远不仅如此。在这个纪念碑设计征稿的时候，就明确要求，这个纪念碑对于这场战争本身不作任何评价。可是，这么多年来，人们一直在对这场战争进行反思。来到这里以后，我们才知道，那些活着回来和没有回来的美国年轻人，就和我们现在的青年朋友一样，他们是怀着崇高正直的理想，怀着要帮助别人的善良信念去奉献自己的青春和生命的。越战以后，美国这一代年轻人遇到前所未有的迷茫和精神危机。这场战争不仅有着生命的逝去，还有无尽的价值观的失落和重新寻找。由此引起的争执，讨论，反思，至今没有停止。当我在冬日暮色苍茫时来到纪念碑前，我看到一位牺牲士兵的妻子留下的鲜花和字条。这位女士至少应该五十来岁了。夜幕下还有公园局的三位职员手持厚厚的名册协助人们找到碑上自己亲朋好友的名字。我在那儿久久停留。没有任何一个纪念碑给我如此强烈的精神震撼，这是超越政治，超越国籍，超越文化背景的灵魂洗涤。我这辈子只有站在这个纪念碑前的一霎那，相信世界大同的人类理想是有可能的。 这场战争不仅造成了两代人的争执，也分裂了同代人。那些从战场上经历了腥风血雨的老兵，他们中虽然也有人加入了国内的反战行列。例如我的朋友，黑人画家莫利斯，就是一个越战老兵。他就是持坚决反战的态度的。但是，仍有很多越战老兵，回家以后无法与反战的同龄人沟通。总之，这场战争不论从哪一个角度去看，都显露出其浓厚的悲剧色彩。 美国实行义务兵役制。适龄青年除了主动要求参军的之外，如果需要而被征兵，也是履行公民义务。拒服兵役是违法的。在六十年代的反战集会中，有不少年轻人焚烧兵役证，也属违法行为之列。可是在那个时候，抗议的浪潮之中，群情激忿之下，很多人是宁可受法律制裁，也无法抑制自己做出不计后果的事情来。那么，这和克林顿又有什么关系呢？ 克林顿当时也在服兵役的年龄。那么克林顿去烧征兵证了吗？No.他好象是没有那么冲动。他也是反战的，至少他不想去越南。他只是采取了一个合法的，或者说更为聪明的做法，他干脆离开美国，跑到欧洲去读大学。当时，有相当一部分人是这样做的。而且，在国外读书期间，他还参加和组织了反对越战的游行。 对于从二次大战的战场上回来的老一代美国战士来说，这无疑就是逃服兵役的怯弱行为。尽管在法律上无可挑剔，但是，他们虔诚地相信，当祖国需要你的时候，你却偷偷溜走，无论如何不算是一个合格公民。可是，对于年轻的一代来说，他们很矛盾，他们也想成为英雄，至少不是懦夫。然而，这是越战。这是一场如此有争议的战争，甚至有理由认为这是一场错误的战争。他们尊重每一个在越战流过血的士兵，他们同样尊重焚烧征兵证的反战者的勇气，也许他们不知道该如何评价青年克林顿躲避越战出走国外的选择。但是有一点是肯定的，他们与老一代相比，对当时逃避越战的人，会取更为宽容的态度，对于反对越战的行为，也会取更为赞同的态度。 因此，在这一点上，布什和克林顿又形成鲜明的对照。一个是二战英雄，而另一个却是逃避越战的年轻人。 克林顿还让人十分起疑的就是他的私生活。在这个问题上大家也在报纸上可以看到各种版本的故事，从婚外恋到性骚扰，应有尽有。尽管克林顿本人一口否认，可是一般民众对这些故事虽说并不全信，也不能说一点不信。人们一般的做法，是把报纸上的这些故事打一个折扣之后接受下来。在这方面，克林顿给人的印象肯定不是完美的。 而布什的家庭生活给人一种老年夫妇特有的相依相扶平稳温馨的感觉。布什夫人由于一种慢性病，看上去比正常同样的年龄老得多，甚至看上去比布什总统更衰老一些。当在布什就任总统期间，他的夫人芭芭拉却仍然被评上最受美国人喜爱的妇女。 克林顿的夫人希莱利，至今为止，在美国还是一个备受争议的女人。希莱利完全是新一代职业妇女的形象。她和克林顿同是耶鲁大学法学院的高材生，我在前面提到过，她在读大学的时候，就曾经参与过司法部门调查尼克松的材料分析。毕业以后，她作为一个律师的成就甚至高于克林顿。因此，在克林顿刚刚开始竞选的时候，甚至打过“选一个，送一个”的口号。 因为，美国的总统夫人在传统上总是总统的私人秘书，却不拿工资。当时，年轻的克林顿希望塑造一个未来总统夫人能干助政的新形象，开一代新风。可是，他们很快收起了这个“买一送一”的竞选口号。他们发现，在这个方面，美国人还远没有这么“新潮”。美国人似乎仍然希望第一夫人就是第一夫人，不要在政治和国家管理上出来越俎代庖搅混水。 在1992年的竞选中，事实上希莱利和他们12岁的女儿，着实帮了克林顿的大忙。他们时时出现在克林顿的身边，表现一个家庭的支持。那年克林顿出来竞选，一个重要的竞选口号是重建美国的“家庭价值”。而报纸上有关他的故事和反对党的攻击，使他的这个口号很容易显得虚假和尴尬。可是，不管别人怎么攻击，夫人孩子扎扎实实站在身边的效果，比什么反驳都要有力。为了加深印象，克林顿还在演说中深情地回忆女儿出生带给他的激动和喜悦。使得民众相信，即使他曾经出轨，那也已经是遥远的过去了。 总之，无需作多么深入的了解，匆匆一蔽，你就可以看到两位总统候选人的风格是多么地不同。布什总统在选民面前几乎是一个道德完人，而克林顿却带着各种动荡和变化的时代留给他的印记。 当然，总统竞选，应该说选的是各自的理念，施政纲领，等等。而人们也常常说，各个大的利益集团也都尽量游说和用自己的力量去推出一个总统来。但是，美国总统选举的全民直选方式，毕竟是一个不可忽视的最大力量。没有人能够去左右美国这样分散的，庞大的，变化多端的民众群。在这些一个个的百姓来到投票箱前的时候，他所最关心的，是你所选定的治国政策是否符合他的利益，还有，他要对候选人有一个基本的信任，至少没有什么特别令他反感的地方。这也是共和党把攻击克林顿的“品格问题”，放在一个极其重要的位置的原因。 在美国的总统竞选中，还是有一个大家所公认的原则，就是认同“正面竞选”，而不鼓励“负面竞选”。就是尽量以正面宣传自己的政见和施政纲领赢得选票，而尽可能避免以攻击对方的方式竞选，尤其是恶意的人身攻击是很不得人心的。否则，竞选成了一场互相攻击的混战，就失去意义了。 但是，以对一个美国总统传统的品格要求去看克林顿，他的毛病够多的了。而在这方面布什有着绝对的优势，所以，共和党无论如何不想放弃这样一个对比的效果。可是，正因为美国人有“正面竞选”的原则，所以，在布什出来作竞选演说的时候，尤其在总统和副总统候选人辩论的时候，他们对于克林顿的品格问题的质疑还是非常温和的。有些问题，例如克林顿的私生活问题，甚至是以暗示的方式提出的。因为如果布什摆出过分的攻击姿态，那么，他就很可能适得其反，反而把自己的形象给毁了。 也正因为有“正面竞选”的原则，因此，美国的大选热闹归热闹，却始终是有限度的，有一定的文明规范在那里暗暗起作用的。所有的候选人都暴露在受过文明教育的公众面前，维持自己起码的风度，是被公众接受的基本起点。 在1992年的竞选中，布什总统最终没有成功。我们在前面提到过，里根时代留下的经济问题是一个很重要的原因。而克林顿的策略是在展现一个可能的变革的前景。同时，克林顿提出一些大胆的，但是确实是民众所关心的改革，例如医疗制度改革等等。但是，我在这里想告诉你的，并不是美国的政策分析，你知道，我并不是这方面的专家。同时，如果你要了解美国的国内政策，你也可以在中国找到大量的资料。我想在这里告诉你的，是从美国大选中所反映出来的一些美国社会状况。 从克林顿战胜布什上台，这一结果所反映的不仅仅是一个政策的较量，还反映了战后新一代，已经在美国的政治生活中开始显示他们的力量。而共和党在整个竞选中的策略，反映了他们对于一个新时代的来临，反应足足慢了一拍。 老一代和新一代的美国人，他们的交替是一个缓慢的，复杂的过程。在漫长的岁月中，老一代的人数在逐步减少，新一代也在逐步分化，各自形成他们自己的一套观点。有承继前人的部分，也有抛弃前人的部分。只有一点是不会错的，就是美国在变化之中。 如果说在多年以前，这样一个克林顿很可能根本无法让人们接受，在他的“品格前提”下，人们甚至没有兴趣去了解他提出了什么政策。那么，在今天，人们却有可能因为对克林顿的“品格”指责，反而觉得布什总统不够宽容，甚至落伍了。 例如，在当时的总统候选人辩论中，布什总统提到克林顿在越战期间跑到国外，并组织反战示威的问题。他提出至少克林顿应该对大家认个错。可是，克林顿干脆当场直率地宣称他反对这场战争，但是他认为这并不意味着他不爱这个国家。这样的对话非常典型地反映了两代人不同的价值观，但是，在大多数听众眼里，布什总统肯定没有能够占上风。 新一代的美国人更倾向于赞同这样的观点，选总统是在选一个理念，而不是选一个完人。当然，如果克林顿现在还抽大麻，家庭不和，那么，在现在的美国，他还是绝对不可能入选美国总统的。但是，新一代的美国人承认，他们会考虑选一个虽有过错失但已经纠正了的人，做他们的总统，如果他的理念能够基本被他们所接受的话。 新一代的美国人在潜意识中，也越来越渴望在最稳定的传统的政治上层，出现一些新鲜的感觉，出现一些“新思维”。他们很难仅仅满足于传统的说教。克林顿和高尔来自底层，十分平民化的风格，很得罪了一批“看不惯”他们的美国人，但是，也赢得了很多人的喜爱。 我仍然要强调的是，这一代美国人选了克林顿当总统，并不意味着他们对他放心。他们只是愿意给他一个机会，让他试试能不能如他在竞选演说中讲的那样，把这个国家管得更好一些。如果他的作为一个政治家的品格真的发生问题，他们知道政府还有两个分支在监管着总统，情况并不是处于失控状态。他们选的毕竟是个总统，而不是一个皇帝。 那么，接下来的四年，克林顿是怎么度过的呢？ 今天已经太晚了。下次再接着写吧。盼来信。 wish it is good! Linda