Chapter 13 follow public opinion

Brother Lu: Hello! You wrote, remembering that at the beginning of this year, you asked me my opinion on whether Clinton could be re-elected, and I said that as long as there are no accidents, Clinton will definitely be re-elected.But after reading my letter now, I feel very strange about my statement.Since Clinton had so many "problems" in his first term, why do I still have confidence in President Clinton's election? In fact, my answer at the time was not at all farsighted, because I believe this was the view of most people in the United States at the time.Therefore, although this year's U.S. election still looks "vigorous" Wittgenstein (Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1889-1951) Austria, but in fact this is a rather boring election, because before the election, people have basically been like me. As said, the outcome of the election was predicted.

But how to explain all this? Two years ago, there was a mid-term election in the United States. As mentioned earlier, during the mid-term election, all members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the senators in Congress must participate in the election.As a result, in that midterm election, the Republicans regained their long-lost majorities in both chambers.That time, it dealt a considerable blow to Clinton.why? Because all presidents are limited-term.The four-year term has passed in a hurry, and no president hopes to be proved by history that he is a president with little political achievements.Where does political achievement come from?Generally speaking, the quality and quantity of legislation passed by a president during his tenure is usually an important measure.

In the measurement of the US president's political achievements, in the absence of wars and other extraordinary circumstances, the proportion of foreign relations is very small. As long as foreign relations do not make any major mistakes, they will be able to get by.The main thing to look at is the contribution to the development of the president of the United States itself. According to the design of the U.S. government structure, the president himself is only an administrator. Although he has the power to issue executive orders, he does not have the power to make any strategic deployment for the country with his own power.Therefore, if the president tries to implement a new policy and reform, and fulfill a promise made to voters during the campaign, he must persuade Congress to cooperate.In other words, if he wants to make any changes to the United States, he must submit a proposal to Congress and persuade Congress to establish his ideas in the form of legislation.Otherwise, even if the president has a grand plan, he can only stay at the level of rhetoric and cannot implement it at all.

Originally, the presidency of the United States is very short-lived. Even if his idea is accepted by Congress and passed legislation, the president of the United States is not as lucky as the leaders of many other countries.Those leaders can personally direct the realization of the blueprint they have drawn, and even receive people's cheers and admiration after everything is completed.And if the president of the United States can have a few ideas passed by Congress, it would be a blessing, and he will step down in a hurry.Even if the idea turned out to be fruitful, it was no longer his business.It's really "predecessors plant trees, future generations enjoy the shade".

What's more, there are some presidents who have never been able to get the understanding of Congress for their full-bodied economics, so they have never been able to pass legislation, and can only watch their brilliant ideas die in their womb.They can be said to have missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to govern the country. However, no matter what the reason is, when four years come, they can only brush away their ambitions and return to their identities as civilians.Such a president can only regret for life.Therefore, for an American president to win the election, it can be said that he has just completed the first step in the long march.

It seems that such a design seems quite absurd, almost setting up obstacles for the development of this country.You think, a president who has worked so hard to get elected to power with the ambition to change the face of this country.However, this system is tying his hands and feet.Is there anything more incomprehensible than this? However, they have their own set of reasons, which sounds very simple.The design of the system is based on the fundamental concept that the constitutional constitution of government is a contract between the people.Such persons are elected by common consent, including a President as executive, to manage public affairs.Of course, the executive can put forward ideas on how to manage it, but this country does not belong to the president, it belongs to everyone.The president is just a public servant.He has only one right to suggest which direction the country will take. Whether he wants to go in this way depends on everyone's own opinions.

Congress, the legislative branch of the U.S. government, has become the embodiment of public opinion in a larger sense.Therefore, in the United States, people rarely have the opportunity to see the operation process of the White House and the president.However, the specific operations of discussions, debates, voting, etc. in the Congress are always exposed to the public. As long as they turn on a specific channel on the TV, all their work will be in front of the camera.These congressmen represent his part of the people there, and he must also obey this part of the public opinion, otherwise they cannot continue to sit in Congress.

Therefore, whether the president's proposal can become the legislation of Congress is essentially transformed into such a question.That is, the administrators at this stage put forward a vision for the road the United States is taking, and the American people make a decision after consideration, whether they are willing to go in this direction, and how far they can go. Of course, such a system design may have stifled the grand ambitions of a great visionary political man, and may have also deprived the American people of some historical shortcuts to "take off".But the reason they are willing to pay these prices is that they are not willing to risk losing their right to control their own destiny.They still go back to an original worry, they worry about the alienation of government and public servants, they worry about losing their basic rights, that is, the "right to life, liberty" written by Thomas Jefferson in the "Declaration of Independence" two hundred years ago rights and the right to the pursuit of happiness".

If when a president brings good luck to the people, everyone is willing to give up their own judgment and completely passively accept the arrangement of power, then they must also accept the bad luck that power may bring to them.In other words, if the people are willing to give up their right to choose in the face of the gift of power today, then if the power suffers a bitter fruit tomorrow, not only will there be nothing to complain about, but there will be no room for struggle.That's why Americans believe that if you lose a system that guarantees people's rights, you will lose everything.They cannot live solely on their trust in a president.They will say, isn't the president also a mortal?And people are unreliable.

Now, you must understand why in the mid-term elections two years ago, most of the seats fell into the hands of the opponent Republican party, which would be a heavy blow to Clinton.Although absolute partisanship is frowned upon in America.When it comes to voting on a bill, each congressman still has his own independent attitude.Otherwise, the president would not be able to get Congress to pass any bills, as in the United States, where the president and the majority of seats are often divided between two different parties.This drama in the United States has long since ceased to sing. Having said that, I have to say that, based on my personal experience, what we Chinese are most likely to misunderstand in terms of understanding the American political system is their political party organizations and activities.There is a big historical and cultural gap here.Western political party organizations are basically produced in response to the needs of Western parliamentary democracy.At the source of Western democratic traditions, during the period of direct democracy in Athens, there were no political parties.“Plaza democracy,” where all citizens vote on everything, does not need political parties.During the period of absolute monarchy, power was concentrated in the hands of the royal family, and there was no need for political parties.The first political parties under modern parliamentary democracy were in Britain at the end of the seventeenth century when the parliament was powerful enough to rival the king.In the British Parliament, there were Whigs who advocated the right to Parliament and Tories who opposed the weakening of the king.Since then, the main differences between the two parties have been about what the government should do and how strong it should be.A hundred years later, when the people of the American continent rose to demand independence, the Whigs sided with the American Revolution, while the Tories supported the King to crush the "rebellion."The differences between the two parties in those days are more or less inherited by Americans today.

There were no political parties in the early days of the American Revolution.In his presidential farewell address, Washington earnestly exhorted the American people to oppose any "sect".The famous Federalist Alexander Hamilton believed that "sects" were evils that must always be guarded against. However, the form of representative democracy predestined the necessity of party organization and activities.Beginning in 1787, advocates of a strong central government called themselves Federalists, while anti-Federalists who gathered around Thomas Jefferson called themselves Democratic-Republicans.However, we must pay special attention to the fact that since then, political parties in the United States have inherited the tradition of party formation under the representative democracy system: a political party is a place for individuals to express their political views, and there is no need and should not have a strict organization.Thomas Jefferson said in 1789, "If I have to be with a party to get into heaven, I would rather not get into heaven at all." Because of this tradition, in the next two hundred years, the trend of the times fluctuated, political views advanced and retreated, and party organizations changed with the times, but there was only the inheritance and transformation of views, without a graspable organizational clue.I used to follow the habit of trying to figure out the history of the two major parties in the United States. It took me a lot of effort to get rid of my fixed thinking in China and realize a fact: Although there were two major parties in most of the history of the United States, But don't expect the name to imply that the two parties are not the two parties.To understand American party activity and its role in the power structure, one must remember that they were quite different from our modern Chinese habits in favoring ideas over organization.Of course, the "mafia" is an exception, because the mafia is not a political party, but organized crime.Americans with broad freedom of association are suspicious and wary of any more tightly organized associations. Only when we understand this point can we understand why Americans who are good at business can turn everything into a profitable and decent business, but neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has any party-run business.Not to mention party-run industry and commerce, there is not even a party-run radio and television station. Election advertisements have to be paid for by private radio and television stations. They don't even have a party newspaper. Now let's talk about Clinton. The reform plans introduced by Clinton generally represent the views of the Democratic Party, and some of the plans themselves reflect the completely different political views of the two political parties.With Republicans in both houses of Congress, it is much more difficult for Clinton to get some of his policies passed by Congress. Ordinarily, such fluctuations in the seats of the two parties are normal. Why did this surprise everyone this time?Because in the past 40 years, despite the fact that the Republican Party has won the presidential election frequently, for example, before Clinton, the Republican Party had been in charge of the White House for 12 consecutive years.However, for four full decades, the majority of seats in Congress has always been in the hands of the Democrats.How did this happen?Which side are the common people helping? In the United States, the selection of congressmen and the election of the president are designed differently in terms of the system.The fundamental starting point of the way of electing members of Congress is how to reflect the public opinion of different parts.In this kind of design, it can only be gradually improved and perfected as much as possible.In order to achieve the purpose of reflecting public opinion, even the election methods of US representatives and senators are different. The U.S. House of Representatives has a total of 435 seats, which are allocated based on population-based constituencies.It is guaranteed that a certain number of people will always be represented by one person to go to Congress to express their opinions.Roughly speaking, a constituency of hundreds of thousands of people can elect one member of the House of Representatives.That is to say, if there are about 200, 300,000 people, no matter how alien they are from other Americans, if they can gather together to form a majority in a constituency, they can elect a representative to go to Congress to issue their bill. sound.It's useless if you don't like it.No one can stop them.Therefore, in theory, each representative is only responsible to the voters in his constituency.He does not represent the people of the country, nor does he represent the entire state. The representatives of the House of Representatives are allocated in proportion to the population. Isn't the voice of a state with a small population weak?In order to make up for this shortcoming, the allocation of one hundred seats in the U.S. Senate is divided according to the state. Regardless of whether the state is large or small, each state produces two senators.Senators are elected by the people of the state.This setting is particularly important for the United States. Because the United States is a confederated country, each state is equivalent to a small country with its own set of independent systems, ranging from state constitutions to state governments.The point is, its state governments have no hierarchical relationship with the federal government.The people of a state can completely decide how they live their lives.This is the largest division among the various divisions of power in the United States.The Senate seats are evenly distributed by state, which is equivalent to giving the same right to speak to those "small countries" with small populations. Therefore, here, what people want to see is that all kinds of opinions can be expressed through one channel.Sometimes, a congressman with very "different views" will still be elected, and he will still express different and radical opinions in Congress. This is especially easy to happen in the House of Representatives.Because, this congressman, he doesn't have to think about what the whole of America thinks at all, he only needs to care about the expression of public opinion in his small constituency.As long as his voters are satisfied, he will still be elected in the future, still work in Congress, and can be re-elected until his life.Relatively speaking, a senator has much more to consider. He must take into account the public opinion of a state. As for the president, it is elected by the people of the whole country, one person, one vote.But if you read the U.S. Constitution, the president of the United States is elected by a large electoral college in the constitution. What is going on here?It sounds complicated, but it is actually very simple.When the People's Republic of China was founded, under the original technical and political conditions, it was difficult for the people to elect the president with one person, one vote.Therefore, it is stipulated to take two steps: the number of electoral colleges in each state is allocated according to the proportion of population. First, the states elect the electoral college, and then the electoral college elects the president.The Electoral College acts as a messenger and has no other powers except to vote on behalf of the state.In each state, each party to the campaign launches its own electoral college, and the party that has the majority of the votes sends out its own electoral college, which of course votes unanimously for its own presidential candidate.This is the origin of "the winner gets all and the loser gets nothing" in the US presidential election today. Later, when technical and political conditions allowed, the Americans implemented one-person-one-vote direct election of the president, which is a progress that Americans are proud of.However, the form of the electoral college still exists. Therefore, if a certain candidate obtains a majority in a certain state, he will get all the votes of the electoral college, which means that the people of the whole state have elected him.In theory, there is such a possibility that a candidate who narrowly wins a few large states and loses by a wide margin in other small states may end up with a majority of the electoral college votes and be elected. The total number of votes for him is not the majority.The possibility is unlikely but it exists and has happened.This is where the US presidential election system has been criticized a lot.But why do Americans stick to the old ways and not change it?The Electoral College is purely "deaf ears", why not abolish it? There are many explanations for this.For example, it motivates candidates to spread their views widely, regardless of size, in states large or small, especially those with dispersed populations, and so on.But I think the most important thing is that the original constitutional provisions involve the "dual sovereignty" of the federal and state, and it is not easy to change. Here, I thought of the usual Chinese-English translation.In fact, the translation of this "state" is also the place where many misunderstandings are caused.The Chinese translation of the full name of the United States is "United States of America", and this translation may be more accurate.It means that some small countries united together.The "country" of the "United States" is actually the same word as the "state" in English.It was only when it was translated into Chinese that one was translated as "country" and the other was translated as "state".Rather than language differences, it is better to say that cultural differences have caused such Chinese translation results. From my own experience, the translation of "zhou" has given me a lot of trouble, because it is easy to correspond to China's "province", but in fact, the "state" here and China's "provinces" are two completely irrelevant things.Perhaps, if there must be a difference in translation between these "small countries" and the "country" of the "United States", then the translation as "state" may be a little closer. For Americans, both are "countries" and both have independent sovereign meanings.It's just some small "countries" who have negotiated and are willing to unite to form such a united structure.However, it is very important that they each have their own lives.The concept of Americans is very clear.The Civil War in the North was a moral war against slavery, but in the South, it was "The South's War for Independence" on monuments all over towns and cities in the South. However, the relationship between the federal government and the states in the United States has also undergone great changes.In the first more than a hundred years after the birth of the United States, the state and federal governments were completely independent, or even divided, and the relationship between them was very weak. The independence of the "state" as a small country is stronger than it is now.In the nearly 100 years since then, due to the rapid development of the national power of the United States, the centralized power required by the federal government has become stronger and stronger, and the federal government has also expanded rapidly.More and more powers were ceded from the states. For example, I remember Bruno, an old American in his eighties, who once talked to us about the changes he experienced in America.He said that when they were young, the federal government was completely out of economic life.Of course, after the birth of the United States, for a long period of time, it was basically an agricultural country, and it did not have a large economic scale.All small operators, everything is in their own hands. However, with the development of history, the economy of the United States is developing rapidly, and the scale of enterprises is expanding rapidly.Then came the Great Depression of the 1930s.It is difficult for the originally extremely weak government to adapt to such a situation.Bruno told us that as a teenager during the Great Depression, his family was not short of food, but he was very worried about his father.Because the unemployment rate was as high as 20% at that time, and the economy was in a recession, and it was possible to lose a job at any time.Since the government has little power to intervene in the economy, there is no government welfare system related to unemployment benefits today.In such a situation, if the job is suddenly lost, the situation of the whole family will become very miserable. During a transitional period of development, labor-management relations also became very tense.Industrial society has arrived at a speed that no one expected.President Roosevelt actually saw this historical trend and made many efforts to strengthen the power of the federal government, especially the ability to intervene in the economy, but suffered repeated setbacks.He could not get the support of the other two branches of the government. When people are now praising President Roosevelt for his sharp vision and his ability to grasp the key points at important historical junctures, I also think that the Supreme Court, which is accused of being too conservative, seems to be out of step with the times. is not meaningless.At the moment of rapid changes and major changes, someone must be there to "drag a hand", there must be such a reducer.This decelerator is that when society is changing rapidly, someone must reconsider how the new changes fit with the most basic principles. The limited and moderate expansion of the federal government's power will benefit the American people, while the unlimited expansion of the federal government's power will devour the fundamental interests of the American people.Therefore, the historical tasks of the three branches are different, and it is inevitable that they respond differently during the historical transition period. It is this kind of "balance and restriction" and the slow change that several branches are involved with each other that ensure the stability of the change. More importantly, it makes the country not only continuously present a brand-new historical appearance, but also preserve the people's most basic life. The basic ideal of the original. Under this system, President Roosevelt did not achieve drastic success. However, as long as his efforts follow the trend of history, some of his ideas will gradually be realized step by step later.There is another key point here, that is, for any idea, no matter whether it is the party who launched the idea, or the party who is cautious or even opposed, the dispute between them must be a dispute of ideas, not a party under some banner disputes or political interests.For this, Americans have always been highly vigilant. Beginning in 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court finally agreed to federal power to regulate the economy.For Americans, this is a considerable concession to the government.The concept of Americans is this: power belongs to the people.Due to the needs of living together, they reached a contract to transfer some of their personal power to a common management agency, that is, the local government.The power of the federal government is transferred by the local government. Fundamentally speaking, it is a part of the power transferred by everyone for the common benefit, or the benefit of the vast majority of people.Therefore, the people have the right to care about this.They must ensure that basic power remains in their own hands, instead of being taken over by a highly centralized government under some pretext and controlling everything. Bruno told us that his life has changed considerably since the government intervened in the economy.The biggest change is that both benefits and taxes have increased simultaneously.That is to say, with the development of industrial society, the Americans finally reached a new contract.Everyone contributes a sum of money to support some of the economy when there are problems, and to subsidize some people when they are in trouble, so as to stabilize the society in which everyone lives together. Bruno said that when he was young, banks were open for a long time to try to attract customers. However, during the economic depression, a large number of bank failures made many people lose everything overnight and felt very insecure.The U.S. banks we see now are all guaranteed by the federal government.The bank remains privately owned, but its operations are regulated by law.Ordinary people have a much stronger sense of security. Bruno also recalled that when he was young, the elderly in the United States relied on their children’s financial assistance to a certain extent in addition to using their own savings for retirement.Society does not assume this benefit.But now in the United States, the life of the elderly is basically completely dependent on a set of social welfare systems.Children no longer have to take on the lives of their parents.He is an ordinary retired engineer who has worked hard all his life, and now he often feels that his living conditions are no worse than those of young people who are working.This is just a change that the average old American feels in his own life. The government's legal intervention in labor-capital relations only gradually deepened after the Great Depression in the 1930s.Americans traditionally regard the labor-employment relationship as a voluntary contract between the two parties. Either party can terminate the contract at any time, and it is easy to "fire" and "change jobs".Bosses think there is nothing unfair about this, but if you feel unfair, you can also be your own boss.But in real life, labor is often at a disadvantage in labor relations.So the law balances that out.The current law guarantees workers the right to organize trade unions, to strike, and to negotiate with management in an organized manner. However, the law imposes some important restrictions on management. In particular, employment and promotion cannot be discriminated against, and workers’ safety and health must be guaranteed. I knew this all too well when I was unemployed.It only took half a minute for the boss to suddenly announce that I was fired, and my life was lost.The American colleague said, go to the Ministry of Labor.At the office of the state Department of Labor in our small city, a black official showed me the reasons my boss fired me.Of course the boss has to find some reason, because if he doesn't, he will get into a lawsuit.The officer asked if I had anything to say and I said I didn't think I was at fault.Then the black official typed his judgment on the computer in only five minutes, and calmly announced to me: According to the law, if the employee is at fault, the burden of proof is on the employer.Now that the employer has not been able to provide proof, the employee is not at fault as claimed by the employer.Therefore, you will be entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits, although the employer is free to hire you or not.Unemployment insurance is usually required by employers to pay for all employees according to law.This unemployment insurance allowed me to live worry-free for half a year, and for the first time after arriving in the United States, I could sit in the library all day long!You see, it is very important for the poor to come forward to say something for the weak at this time. Of course, the impact of the federal government's intervention in the economy on the United States is much more profound than the experience in personal life.The entire face of America is no longer the same.This has led to a relaxation of labor relations.In times of conflict, there are more sophisticated ways of reaching compromise.The economy of society as a whole is no longer like a wild horse.Once every few months, interest rates are raised or lowered by the Federal Reserve Board of the United States.We sometimes feel as if the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is even more majestic than the president. One sentence will immediately cause great fluctuations in the global stock market, and the president does not have such awe.But my economics textbook says that while almost all industrialized nations had central banks before 1900, Americans were as always suspicious of any central monopoly, so the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 established The Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States, actually set up not one central bank, but twelve Federal Reserve Banks scattered in twelve Federal Reserve districts across the country.The one dollar bills in my wallet are printed by the Federal Reserve Banks in Atlanta, New York, Boston, Richmond, and San Francisco.Isn't it wasteful to repeat the settings like this?But Americans are almost Sexually feel scattered and reassuring. However, all of this has positive and negative effects.For example, an increase in welfare will inevitably lead to an increase in taxes.Moreover, they are often not within their means.In the blink of an eye, welfare spending will skyrocket and government budget deficits will suddenly spiral out of control.The bigger the federal government, the harder it is to handle.Economic intervention itself is very complicated, and there is a question of whether it is appropriate or not from time to time. The expansion of federal powers, once questioned by the U.S. Supreme Court, has not yet reached the threshold of a fundamental change.However, due to the transformation of an agricultural society into an industrial society, the essential changes in society caused this door to be finally broken through.After a breakthrough, the expansion of the power of the federal government and the expansion of the size of the federal government itself are astonishing, even independent of people's will. The American people finally had the opportunity to see for themselves why the Founders feared.The government is like a monster hand-fed by everyone, its self-expansion ability is beyond its master's prediction. This expansion of federal powers has caused growing unease among the American people. The results of the 1992 midterm elections also reflected some of this unease.Because the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States have different basic attitudes and wills to the size of the government.The Republican Party has always called for reducing the scope of the federal government and returning power to the states.Relatively speaking, the Democratic Party is more inclined to the role of "big government". However, the self-government power of the states is one of the important contents of the "Bill of Rights" in the United States.The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "All powers not vested in the Government of the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the Governments of the States and to the people of the States."The maintenance of the independent self-government of the states as a "nation" has been an important part of liberty as Americans understand it from the beginning. Therefore, in the first law class after I entered school, the first sentence my law teacher said was that you are citizens of two countries at the same time. You are citizens of the United States of America and the "small country" where you live. citizen.He believes that if you want to learn American law, this is the first concept you must master. Under this basic concept, Americans in all regions have gained the freedom to choose their own way of life.Only very basic issues of these "States" as members of the United States have been covenanted into federal law, as Common laws that cannot be violated by the "states" of the country.For example, the Mormons in Utah allow polygamy in their teachings, but they must abide by the federal law of monogamy. But the federal government has no right to intervene in most matters of way of life.In every general election, in fact, in addition to voting for the president and congressmen, voters must also vote on many proposals in their state.For example, they vote to decide whether to issue lotteries and even open casinos within their own state.Casinos in the United States are located in a limited number of places, because people in other states prefer the latter between the high profits of casinos and a peaceful life.In effect, they are voting on their own way of life.The federal government has no right to decide where to open a casino. For Americans, all the power originally belonged to their own small countries.It was the establishment of the federal government that made everyone transfer part of their power.Therefore, if the federal power is infinitely expanded, it means that they will lose their freedom.Therefore, the existence of the United States and the existence of the federal government are necessary only on the condition that this union and the work of the federal government enable the states to obtain without loss of liberty. benefit of the people.Therefore, the United States has always been in a discussion on how to "balance".Different eras also bring different problems to this balance. Although in our eyes, the United States is already a country with a very high degree of local autonomy.However, here, from the beginning of the founding of the country to the present, the biggest issue of debate is how much power the federal government can have, and the specific division of power between the federal government and the states is still being discussed there.This kind of full discussion is very important in itself, and Congress has become a place for discussion and a channel for the people of the states to express their wishes. It is this unimpeded channel for expression of will and the basic satisfaction of full self-government that has enabled the United States to obtain the greatest peace since the Civil War. No state is willing to be independent.Because, if they can basically live according to their own wishes and ways, and can get the benefits brought about by the unity and strength of the United States, and there is a federal government that takes care of those troubles and saves them a lot of trouble, why not for what? Such fifty states, that is, the union of fifty small countries, are also a contract between the people.Its stability depends on the existence of their united common interests, not on the retention of them in the Commonwealth by force and force.Therefore, how to reflect their different voices in a timely manner and how to fight for their respective interests in the United States must be guaranteed through the electoral system.Members of Congress elected by various regions must ensure that they are representatives of public opinion in the region to which they belong. Today's Americans, everyone has the same share of votes.All ordinary people have votes for direct elections. The votes in their hands directly determine the candidate for the president, directly elect the senator who represents his state in Congress, and directly elect the representative in Congress. MP for his constituency. The inevitable result of such an election is to bring different voices from people in different parts of the United States to Congress.This will inevitably make Congress "there will be no peace".They will inevitably continue to argue fiercely, and there will never be a unified voice.They must also coordinate and compromise for common interests, and then there will be new contradictions and new compromises.The U.S. Congress will never look modest and unanimous, yet America is peacefully unified just because of it.在国会大厦里，我为美国人这种使不同的意志和理想妥协共存的本事叹服不已。国会大厦的大厅里，陈列着众多华美的雕塑，那是每个州送来的本州英雄的塑像，每州两座。这样，和公认的大智大德的历史人物在一起的，出了不知多少英雄人物的弗吉尼亚送来了南北战争中的“叛军”，南军的著名将领李将军的塑像，而密西西比州送来的居然有南北战争时南方自己的总统杰弗逊戴维斯的塑像。 我现在还是回到两年前的中期选举。一般认为，一旦国会席位的局面改变之后，也会有一个惯性，共和党占领的多数议席状态也会持续一段时间。但是，如果长期的局面发生大的突变，总是有一定的原因。外界评论多半把这个原因寻根溯源归到克林顿那里。 对于那次中期选举的结果，克林顿自己也十分沮丧地出来表示，民主党失去四十年来的多数议席，他具有无法推卸的责任。说白了，就是在克林顿开始的两年中，他的总统没有当好。如果在那个时候，你提出今年大选结果的预测问题，大概很少有人相信克林顿会取得连任的。 首先是“旅行门”和“白水门”确实造成很强烈的冲击。因此而反映出来的整个白宫的作风，给人的感觉很不舒服。第一夫人希莱利在白宫的比重也使人琢磨不透。克林顿在竞选期间最大的诺言，医疗制度改革甚至都没有被他所属的民主党还占着多数席位的国会通过。克林顿在这一个阶段，不乏给大家提供种种疑点和“靠不住”的感觉，却没有在政绩方面有什么突出的举措。只有经济恢复的形势已经比较清楚，虽然缓缓迈进，但是已在路途之中。 这位年轻的总统在竞选时表现出来的勃勃生气，和当选之后所表现的不成熟，形成了一种令人疑惑的联系。人们怀疑，这位美国的第一个“婴儿潮”总统，是不是还“欠火候”？人们是否还是应该更倾向于一个稳健的风格？这次中期选举，可以说是美国民众给了两个政党一个很强的信息。然而，如何去理解和消化这个信息，两个政党却得出了完全不同的结论。也正是这种不同的解读方法，终于使得美国今年的大选局势又发生了一个逆转。 中期选举之后的共和党可以说是完全陶醉在胜利之中。在中期选举之前，他们提出了一个名为“与美国契约”的目标方案，其实就是一系列法案，许诺如果美国人民让他们在国会中占多数，他们就将在限期内实现这些目标。此后他们宣布完全如期完成。尽管后来有的人指责他们只是有折扣的实现目标，但是，也并不否认他们至少完成了其中的一多半。这一切，都如同给了1992年失去大选的共和党一剂强心针。 中期选举之后的一年里，共和党丝毫不怀疑他们即将在不久之后的大选中，夺回暂时被克林顿夺去的总统桂冠，毕竟，在此之前的十二年里，都是共和党人担任总统，他们觉得自己完全有理由相信，克林顿的上台是一个偶然事件，是民众被克林顿的巧舌所迷惑了。而这一次中期选举，真正反映了民众的觉醒。 有一项提案略为扩大了总统的权力，一般来说，这样的提案都是要经过非常吃力的反复才会得到国会的通过，但是，这一次却通过得十分顺利。新闻界普遍认为，这是因为共和党议员们坚信他们马上就要回到白宫，才通过得这么“痛快”的。此刻，共和党给外界的印象几乎是喜形于色。 然而，这些获胜了的共和党政治家们，几乎已经忘记了在一旁静静观望的，看上去土头土脑的美国老百姓。他们在想些什么呢？这种忘却，哪怕是十分短暂的忘却，有时也是致命的。因为，选票还都捏在老百姓们的手上，还没有投出去呢。 共和党占据多数席位的国会，确实使得克林顿第一任期的最后两年显得十分艰难。他和国会之间的关系始终非常紧张。在立法问题上，白宫和国会经常发生意见不合。对于国会试图通过的法案，克林顿也一连否决了好几个。 根据美国宪法的设计，总统对于国会自行提出通过的法案所具有的否决权，也是平衡与制约原则的一部分。处理由人的因素参与其中的制度设计是不可能完美的，只能说是要尽可能完善。否决权的设计还是很有道理。因为虽然国会更多地体现了民意，但还是可能产生偏激和异化，而国会手中的立法权又是非常大的一个权力。 因此，除了我们前面提到过的，最高法院对于国会立法有一个司法复审权之外，总统也有一个对国会立法的否决权，但是，这个否决权并不是绝对的。如果把对立法的绝对否决权交给总统，总统的权力又显得太大了。所以，总统否决之后，国会还有一次机会强行通过这项法案。 但是，国会第一次通过一项法案的时候，只需要半数以上的赞成票，而在总统否决以后的强行通过，就需要三分之二的赞成票了。在一般情况下，国会取得三分之二的赞成票还是相当困难的。但是，如果总统的否决绝对没有道理而很不得人心，那么三分之二的赞成票也是完全可能的。就在这样的反复推敲之中，最终被确立的法案也就比较顺应民意了。 然而，如果白宫和国会这两个分支发生过多的冲突，这也是不正常的。在这个时候，由于他们之间的争论是公开的，民众对于问题究竟是出在哪一方，也会有一个他们的判断，这种判断也会在大选的时候被选票反映出来。 其中国会与行政分支发生的最大的一个风波，就是去年年底的美国政府关门了。记得当时我正在给你写信，也随便向你谈到了美国人对于“政府关门”处变不惊的态度。他们早就习惯了这种政府的两个分支产生对立的状况。 那一次的“政府关门”是由“平衡预算”的问题引起的。就是我前面提到过的，里根时代实行的“寅吃卯粮”经济政策，当时给美国带来了繁荣，而留下的最大后遗症就是天文数字的政府赤字。必须消除这个后患，达到政府的平衡预算，已经成为全美国人民的基本共识。因此，在这个问题上，民主，共和两党并没有什么分歧。 问题在于，如此庞大的赤字一时半会儿是根本解决不了的，必须在政府的开支预算中逐年扣除出来。那么，怎么扣，减少那些方面的开支，减少多少，分几年扣清，当然都成了问题。 说实在的，美国政府的预算到了每年都以几千亿美元计的地步，这时候，他们之间的争论又是在几十亿美元的上下，你让老百姓怎么算得过来？老百姓怎么可能判断出个谁是谁非呢？这时，民众基本上是在依赖这个制度。依赖于白宫和国会这两个分支的互相监督。这两个分支都有大量专家组成的预算委员会，尤其是国会的两党结构，使得两个分支必定要作出认真测算，不致产生勾结而有意挥霍纳税人的血汗钱。 结果，克林顿和以共和党占多数的国会，在去年年底，他们双方的预算始终无法达成一致意见。由于政府行政分支的所有年度开支都必须由国会通过预算，才能拨出钱来，所以，尴尬的僵局终于形成了。行政机构一年的钱花完了，拨钱的时候到了，预算却没有通过，当然钱也就拨不出来了。政府的所有行政机构，除了实在关不得的少数机构之外，其余一律由于没有经费没有工资而关门了。当时正值圣诞节，克林顿总统十分狼狈地自己掏钱付电费，才使得首都华盛顿著名的“第一圣诞树”的彩灯没有熄灭。克林顿因此而产生的麻烦当然不止是为“第一树”支付电费。 所谓的政府关门，基本上就是克林顿手下的行政这一摊关门，关门之后庞大的政府雇员队伍拿不到工资，给民众也带来巨大的不便。所有的国家公园，国家博物馆等著名旅游点全部关闭，游客怨声载道，旅游点周围私营的服务设施也全都没了生意。领事馆签证停止，影响商人出国经商，甚至影响到国外。停止签发出口许可，造成出口商巨额出口损失，等等。这些压力当然直接落到问题发生的部门，也就是落到克林顿的行政分支头上。 美国民众并不认为政府关门就一定是什么了不起的事，可是，由于这些具体问题激起的民怨，很自然是先集中到克林顿那里。然而，这个僵局维持的时间太长了，民众也开始试着琢磨这场政府停摆的门道。 那么，在这场行政分支和立法分支的重大分歧中，美国民众既然对于几十亿美元出入所造成的是非很难判断，那么他们究竟如何拿出他们的意见呢？这个时候，新闻界起了相当大的作用。 新闻界一方面竭尽全力向民众解释这几十亿美元的分歧所在，另一方面对于政府这两个分支紧紧地跟踪报导。几乎每天都要报导双方的谈判进展和发表的谈话。每天，大家都在电视里看着这两拨人，是如何在解决国家遇到的这个难题。 克林顿当时的确已经不堪重负。政府关门所引起的全部问题，他都必须设法解决。我们前面已经提到过，美国是没有总理这个角色的，所以克林顿就得自己想办法担着了。为了应付“内困”，他甚至取消了极为重要的出访计划。当时，国会谈判中最“露脸”的，就是当时共和党在参众两院的领头人杜尔和金格里奇了。杜尔则在今年最终被共和党推选为总统候选人，成为克林顿的竞选对手。可是，人们在电视里看到，杜尔和金格里奇在预算谈判破裂之后走出白宫，却是一付喜滋滋的模样。正是这付藏不住的笑容，使人们渐渐开始对他们的“监督”诚意心存疑问。 结果，人们证实这种疑问不见得就完全没有道理。新闻界终于披露，众议院议长，共和党的金格里奇承认，他们送交克林顿的一份维持政府临时开支的法案，确实比较“苛刻”。原因之一居然是嫌克林顿在前往以色列参加拉宾葬礼的飞机上，没有对他和杜尔表示充分的礼貌。这个“不礼貌”不仅包括没有在飞机上主动和他们讨论政府预算的问题，也包括在下飞机的时候，他们没有被安排从飞机的前门下机，而是从后门下的飞机。 这条消息一经证实，很多美国民众对这个“政府关门事件”，反而开始偏向于他们原来所抱怨的行政分支。尽管，这个预算之争，根本上还是反映了两个政党对于联邦政府的规模，联邦与州之间权力财力划分的重大分歧，应该说，还是各有各的道理。最终的解决也还是依靠双方的妥协和让步，达到一个平衡。但是，在解决这个争端过程中，共和党时不时表现出来的过强的党派性，在一定程度上摧毁了民众对他们的政治诚意的信心。 一个政党提出一个被人们所赞同的政治理想当然是重要的，而他们提出一个理想的目的，究竟是真正为公共利益服务，还是为藏在他们身后的政治利益服务，这也是美国民众时时关心的一个问题。在这次一个月内美国政府两度关门，而且关门事件长达近一个月的风波中，共和党在国会的两个领袖所表现出来的过分党派性，成为大选前共和党声望下降的一个转折点。这种过度的党派表现，也许，也反映出共和党在中期选举后的胜利气氛中，一直没有真正清醒过来。 然而不论是什么原因，在美国看上去似乎是不可琢磨的民意，也不是丝毫没有道理的。至少是政治家们不可忽略的。此后的大选民意测验中，共和党候选人杜尔的声望虽然由于各种原因时上时下，却再也没有达到过一个满意的民众支持率。中期选举成了共和党昙花一现的胜利花朵。 相反，克林顿总统在中期选举民主党失利之后，好象是认真进行了一些反思。一方面他开始走向稳健，白宫的那群“顾问们”似乎也随之有所约束。另一方面，克林顿开始不再考虑一下子抱个大金娃娃，一下子作出“医疗制度彻底改革”这样过于复杂的大手术。而是谨慎地与国会合作，一小步一小步地推出一些切实可行的立法。例如在同样的医疗制度改革问题上，他和国会取得共识，先通过一项立法，使得离开原来工作岗位的人，可以保留原来的医疗保险，而不必重新申请。立即有大量民众直接受惠。 同时，经济的复苏在今年大选之前已经形势十分清楚。尽管克林顿总统依然受到已经发生的诸多案件的困扰，但是，这些事情基本上发生在他1992年当选总统之前，或是当选之后的最初两年，在中期选举之后，已经不再象过去那样频出状况。例如“档案门”的曝光是在今年夏天，但是，事情是发生在两三年之前。在中期选举之后，外界普遍感觉，在屡屡碰壁之后，92年初入白宫时的克林顿春风得意的模样已经一扫而光，步子迈得稳多了。 中期选举之后的第一夫人，也似乎开始重新给自己定位。有一次，我们和一个美国朋友谈起克林顿的诸多麻烦，我们问他，你觉得在那些给克林顿带来麻烦的案子里，哪一个是最难对付的呢？他笑笑说，给克林顿带来最大麻烦的是他的妻子希莱利。 确实，在克林顿所钻进去的那些“门”里，无时不刻都可以看到希莱利的影子。在国会调查和司法调查的时候，甚至往往第一夫人所占的份量比总统还大。尽管至今为止，还没有确切证据表明希莱利有什么违法行为，但是，各种疑点几乎象影子一样，一直跟在她的身后。这实在不平常。我们可以回想一下当初的“水门事件”，事情闹得再大，也没听说有尼克松夫人什么事儿。 在美国历史上，希莱利确实是一个很不一般的第一夫人。似乎同克林顿一样，这个第一夫人也象征着一个“婴儿潮”的新一代。在耶鲁大学读书的时候，她已经是“水门事件”调查中的一名司法助理。在成为白宫的女主人之前，她曾被评为全美最出色的一百名女律师之一。 在克林顿进入白宫之后，我看到过这样一个笑话。说是在克林顿当选总统之后，他们夫妇有一次外出，在加油站加油时，他们遇到过去希莱利的一个追求者，此刻他正是这个加油站的老板。走出加油站之后，克林顿就笑着说，幸亏你嫁给了我，否则，现在你就只是一个加油站的老板娘，而不是美国第一夫人了。希莱利回答说，那可不一定，如果我嫁的是他，没准儿今天的美国总统就是他而不是你了。 这个笑话的作者大概是克林顿的一个反对者。他既影射了希莱利可能在影响白宫的政治生活，又嘲笑了克林顿的无能，是靠着夫人才有了今天。可以说是一箭双雕。笑话当然只是一些反对克林顿的人的情绪表达，但是这个笑话也反映了克林顿执政的前两年中，希莱利在民众心中非常突兀的印象。 在克林顿的第一个任期刚刚开始的时候，他们自己也吃不准将如何处理这个第一夫人的位置才是恰当的。人们可以感觉到，克林顿也强烈地意识到自己是新一代的总统，他好象很想开创出白宫一个新的风貌。他有一个公认的能干的妻子，为什么不让她也在这四年之中也发挥一些超乎常规的作用，也一显身手呢？ 于是，希莱利在克林顿一上台之后，就令人瞩目地被委以主持医疗改革的重任，频频作为一个重量级人物在公众场合曝光，吸引了很大的注意力。当然这样的安排，引起不少的攻击，但是，一开始，许多人都持观望的态度，甚至也有不少人乐观其成。 最终，医疗改革并没有成功，希莱利带着一帮人辛辛苦苦搞出来的改革方案过不了参众两院的关，白白辛苦一场。但是，对于第一夫人希莱利的逐渐不满，却和医疗改革的失败没有太大的直接联系。人们更多的疑惑还是来自希莱利在“旅行门”，“档案门”，“白水门”中所扮演的角色。尽管至今为止，还没有确切证据认定，但是，从已经公布的一些证据中，尤其从“旅行门”公布的一些材料中，人们倾向于相信希莱利在白宫中管了一些超出她的职权范围的事情，对这些事件负有或多或少的责任。 我不知道克林顿夫妇是如何重新思考这一切的。但是，相信围绕希莱利所发生的一切争论，并不能完全归咎于美国民众对于第一夫人形象的保守要求。在美国，总统第一夫人确实有一个大家所习惯的贤妻良母的传统形象。但是，时代在发展，人们也逐渐理解，象希莱利这样的“新女性”，你要求她在克林顿可能是整整八年的任职期间，完全浪费自己的能力和放弃自己的事业追求，彻底成为克林顿总统的一个陪衬，似乎对她也不公平。 尽管历来的惯例，美国的总统夫人就是一个不支薪的总统秘书。然而，希莱利承担一个诸如医疗改革这样一个具体的工作，不论成败与否，人们都有可能接受。但是，她必须有她非常清楚的职权范围。克林顿处理希莱利位置的失败，并不在于她领导了一次失败的医疗改革计划，而是，他没有使民众建立起这样的信心，相信第一夫人不会在白宫的政治生活中不恰当地四处插手。 所以应该说，克林顿总统试图对于美国第一夫人形象作一些改变，并不是一件不能为民众所接受的事情，只是这样的改变一开始就走得不够谨慎，使得人们对于夫人过度参政的疑惑压倒了一切。 在事情已经到了这一步，希莱利已经成了公众对白宫不信任的因素之一的时候，总统夫妇检讨之后所能够做的，大概只有“纠往过正”了。中期选举以后，希莱利竭力回到传统的白宫女主人的角色，致力于妇女儿童事业，大力修正形象。她在报纸上开辟的专栏，经常谈到她的孩子和家庭生活。她甚至潜心写作和亲自朗读制作了一部有声图书“集全村之力”，教育人们如何养育子女，在书中，她也大谈自己养育女儿的经历。情深意切，使人闻之动容。尽管还是有人攻击她的这种变化是“作姿态”。但是，她的“有声书”十分畅销，这本书刚出来就赚了四十万美元，她把它全捐给了慈善事业。 克林顿总统改变作风的另一个重要部分，是他开始在他宣扬的政见里，开始吸收一部分共和党的主张，也就是更多地考虑妥协。在改革福利制度等问题上，他终于和共和党人占多数的国会达成一个协议。福利制度也是一个涉及面广，一直需要不断调整的复杂问题。 在发达国家中，美国的福利一向是低得出名的。但是也有很多人相信，这是美国充满活力的原因之一。然而，具体制定福利制度的分寸，一直是非常艰难的事情。在这个问题上，我甚至觉得，听政治家们的辩论往往是没有意义的。因为在他们宣扬自己主张的时候，往往是强调一个侧面，听哪一面都是振振有辞。而实际上，这却是一个寻找平衡点的困难的“技术活儿”。 福利过紧，影响大量底层民众的生活，福利过高，经济不发展，最终也是损害大多数人的利益。这实际上不是什么美国问题，找出福利的平衡点是全世界各个国家都伤透脑筋的事情。最终，平衡点的确定往往还是依靠实践的结果，实行一个时期，根据结果再作调整，但是已经在实行的政策都有一个强大的惯性，要作出调整都不是轻而易举的。尤其是要把过高的福利调下来的话，立即涉及到已经在原来的制度中受益的千家万户，你很难说服人们为了一个构想的长远利益，而放弃他们已经得到的“胜利果实”。 因此在事实上，主张提高福利的一方总是更容易受到底层民众的欢迎。克林顿以前所留给人们的印象，在福利问题上，是比较坚决地站在穷人的立场上，赞同政府的大幅度干预。当然也颇有蛊惑民众之嫌，这也是共和党提到克林顿非常不屑的原因之一。因此，在大选之前通过的美国福利制度改革的法案，看上去象是克林顿向中间路线迈出去的较大一步。因为在这个福利改革中，一些已经被联邦政府掌握多年的福利经费和权力都还给了各个州。因此，人们相信克林顿在签署这个福利改革法案的同时，也在修正过激的联邦“大政府”的观点。 总之，四年一度的美国总统大选逼近了，美国主要的两个党派，共和党和民主党都在顺着自己对于民意的了解往前走。谁的理解正确就必须在大选的时候见分晓了。在美国这样一个民众散漫的国家，要琢磨准确民意，真还是要费一番功夫呢。 今天就写到这儿。 wish it is good! Linda