Chapter 14 Confusing public opinion -1

Brother Lu: Hello! This year's US election is finally approaching.I want to finally talk to you about the factors that affect the choices of the American people.The reason I didn't bring this up until the last minute is obviously because the topic is exhausting. You must remember that when I tried to introduce the United States to you last year, I introduced the background of immigration in the United States at the beginning, and how magnificent it is that people from all over the world live together. Americans have different skin colors, hair colors and "eye colors", different languages, cultural backgrounds, and even native identities that have nothing to do with nationality.At the same time, they live in a country that requires no unity of thought except obedience to the law.To conduct elections in such a place, to figure out which indicator the voters will take as the primary consideration is really a university question.Don't say I struggle to read such topics, even presidential candidates and their campaign experts sometimes don't know what to do.

For example, one of our monk friends, Francis, whom I told you about last year.During this year's general election, we asked him how he was voting.He told us that in his monastery everyone except himself voted for the Republican candidate Toure.why?The reason is entirely because the Republican Party advocates anti-abortion, and their monastery belongs to the Catholic system, and these devout Catholics are firmly opposed to abortion.It's that simple. In front of them, all of President Clinton's economic efforts and major domestic and foreign policy guidelines have all been wiped out. They only have a simple starting point of religious belief.However, they also each have a vote in their hands.

So why did Francis vote for Clinton?This is because in the United States, the general church has little control over its own believers.They come together out of a common belief, and the church preaches the doctrines of the sect to them, but does not force and control believers.Churches are places of social education for people in the community and play a very important role in community life.Therefore, even in a Catholic monastery, when it comes time to vote for the president, everyone still goes to the polling station to vote according to their own choice.The monks were not persuaded to make any elections in advance.They are completely free to do what they want.From the perspective of religious belief, Francis is also against abortion. However, he feels that the election of the president still needs a comprehensive balance, so he made the choice to vote for Clinton.Interestingly, the other monks actually knew that Francis voted for Clinton, but they didn't accuse him of violating the canon. We only saw that the monks who were close to him made fun of him as a liberal monk.Notwithstanding such a monastic exception as his, we see that considerations of faith play a considerable part in the majority of believers.

You don't think this is an unusual situation.The number of churches and believers in the United States is far beyond our imagination.According to the American Civil Liberties Union, there are 1,500 different religious entities and 360,000 churches, mosques, yodais, or Buddhist temples in the United States.Moreover, the large number of believers is not only the number of people, but also the variety of sects.For example, the Christian Baptist Church can be seen everywhere. There are about 75 different denominations. Few people can figure out the difference between them, but most people know that there is a distinction between Southern Baptists and Northern Baptists.According to surveys in the early 1960s, 90% of Americans declared that they believed in God, 40% said they worshiped God daily, and 63% were members of churches.Things have changed a lot through the great upheavals of the 1960s, but experts say that the basic trend of religious belief is a very stable component of social factors.It is estimated that most people still believe that they have religious beliefs, but the difference may be that religious beliefs are more relaxed and tolerant.Religion and superstition are two different things and should not be confused.According to a recent study, 40% of American scientists consider themselves to believe in God, and this belief has helped their scientific careers.My friend David, whose father is a Baptist priest, doesn't go to church because he says he goes to church too much with his father.But when I asked him if he was a Christian, he pondered for a moment and gave me a clear answer in the affirmative.I also have some very liberal young friends, but they also pray before meals according to Christian rules, but the content of their prayers includes ideals such as world peace, protection of the earth, and prosperity of all things.Many Americans have their own thinking orientation in terms of religion or life beliefs, and these beliefs often determine their presidential election.

Nor do you think that the issue of abortion here is simply an issue related to the Catholic faith.The issue of abortion here is an issue that concerns almost everyone and forms an important part of one's basic position.And here, the discussions are very emotional, emotional, and even violent.This is definitely a major issue that American presidential candidates dare not ignore. Yet in such a diverse America, there are some big trends.These big trends can help us understand the US election, and they can also help us understand this country. First of all, we have seen that in the general elections in the United States, the election is basically a choice between the two major parties, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.To put it simply, the two major parties in the United States do not actually have major differences such as "what path to take" like their political opponents in some countries.The fundamental ideals of the two major political parties in the United States are quite close.Therefore, there is such a phenomenon that a large number of people drift between the candidates of the two parties during the election, and it is often a small deviation at a certain point that makes them change the direction of voting.Just like the monks I mentioned earlier, they believe that whether Clinton or Doerr is elected, the United States will still be the United States they like, but there will be essential differences on the issue of abortion.

Here, for many people, whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power, although there are differences, there will definitely be no earth-shaking changes.For these two parties, losing the general election does not mean losing the country.There is no "life and death" struggle between them.Both political parties subscribe to the Constitution, and both uphold the most fundamental ideals of liberty in this country.Therefore, you can see the ever-changing appearance of the United States, but for the vast majority of Americans, although some people joined this country halfway through their lives, the basic spirit of this country's founding has always been the goal they pursue.

The difference between the two major parties in the United States lies in how to achieve such a goal.Then, the propositions of these two major parties basically represent the affiliation of the two major ways of thinking among the people.These are the so-called conservatives and liberals we can hear all the time in the United States.It is generally believed that the Republican Party in the United States represents the trend of conservatives among the people, while the Democratic Party represents the trend of liberals.However, it must be explained that no matter whether it is a conservative or a liberal, in terms of name, they are not the same as the "conservative" and "liberal" that we commonly understand in China.The most important thing is that neither of these two names has any connotation of praise or derogation in the United States.

Since there is such a basic division, why is it still confusing?Because it's still very complicated.Even the same conservative can be divided into radicals and non-radicals, and radicals can also be divided into degrees.There are also a large number of people who basically agree with a certain faction, but agree with another faction on some issues. Although it is difficult to fully understand such a complex issue related to the way people think, a basic understanding of the conservatives and liberals that Americans talk about every day is still very helpful to understand this country And the understanding of the American way of thinking also helps to understand the two major parties in the United States participating in the election.Because the election contest is ultimately a contest of ideas.

After we have stayed here for a long time, sometimes we jokingly say that when we meet an American, we can basically tell whether this person tends to be conservative or liberal without talking. View.Both tendencies manifest themselves in almost every area of ​​life. Let's find a simple entry point first, let's talk about the abortion issue we just mentioned.We've said that basically conservatives are anti-abortion and liberals are pro-abortion.Abortion here refers to voluntary abortion, and passive abortion is an issue that cannot be considered by any faction here.However, why has the issue of voluntary abortion become a major issue in the United States that has caused disputes between the two parties and divided the public?

When we first got here, we also had a hard time understanding why abortion had become such a big issue in America.We come from a country with a large population like China, where the population problem has been pushed to the chin like a gun barrel, and hundreds of thousands of people are eagerly waiting to come up with a clever strategy to control it immediately.There is no way to talk about sitting down steadily and discussing a series of theoretical issues involving the origin of human beings.Therefore, in our impression, it seems that these problems no longer exist, or have never existed.What we are discussing is a specific operational problem.How to do it will be able to control the population more effectively, or in other words, how to do it can control the population more reasonably.

The United States is a country with a very strong Christian tradition. Of course, many people's attitudes are related to religious attitudes. However, even many religious believers in the United States do not simply "follow religion", but have their own very Philosophical thinking.This is also the first time we really realized it at a gathering with Brother Francis and his relatives and friends. We had always known about Francis' anti-abortion stance, but we had never discussed the issue in depth, although we were good friends.Because we all know that Pope Vatican's position is anti-abortion, and the Catholic Church all follow Vatican.So, we attribute his position very simply to his "religious affiliation". At a gathering of relatives and friends of Brother Francis, everyone naturally talked about this topic that everyone cared about.His relatives are basically liberal and pro-choice.Francis can be said to be quite liberal in other views, but on the issue of abortion, he has different ideas from everyone else.As a result, a very heated debate arose. That's when we discovered that his views can be said to represent the thinking of rational conservatives on the issue of abortion.To understand this way of thinking, we must go back to the basic ideals of Americans expressed in the "Declaration of Independence", that is, "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."In the American way of thinking, respect for every individual's life has become the most basic starting point. This is also the starting point for understanding the American treatment of prisoners of war.Americans have always believed that when officers and soldiers have done their best in a war and are in a desperate situation, it is not advisable to continue to resist and just hurt the lives of soldiers for no reason.Therefore, in this case, surrender is the right choice.No one thinks such a surrender and becoming a prisoner of war is a shameful thing.When some Americans become prisoners of war, everyone will worry about his life and situation. When a prisoner of war returns to his motherland and hometown, he will never feel disheartened. He will undoubtedly be welcomed as a hero, just like Just like the general who returned to court after victory.These phenomena all stem from Americans' basic views on respecting life. In the same sense of humanity, Americans recognize the right of man to fear and fear.This is natural and understandable.Therefore, although everyone knows that Americans worship heroes the most, and American movies are full of images of heroes, they do not think it is a shameful thing to have fear and fear. We have experienced such a thing with Americans.An American plane of the United Nations peacekeeping force was shot down by Serbs while on a mission in Bosnia.Both sides knew that an American pilot had parachuted and landed in the jungle.Serb guerrillas are desperately trying to catch him.At this time, the biggest news that everyone cares about every day is the safety of the pilot.Finally, after several days and nights, based on a simple signal generator equipped on the soldiers, the US troops dispatched helicopters from warships to follow this weak signal, almost under the nose of the Serb guerrillas, Hang him out of the jungle. As the news came, we saw indescribable excitement in America.The White House is non-smoking. At this moment, I saw Clinton happily walking out of the White House, smoking a cigar on the lawn, and his relief was beyond words.After the soldier came back, he was seen on TV with the president across the White House lawn into the White House, where Clinton specially invited him to have a meal there.The soldier was interviewed with his sister on Riley King's talk show on prime-time evening television. What strikes us the most during the entire interview is how openly he talks about his fears and fears as it happened.He talked about how terrified he was when he was hiding in the jungle, and soldiers searching for Serb guerrillas walked past him many times, thinking that it was over for him.He only expressed the real weakness of human beings, but people all over the United States were moved to tears together there.The American way of thinking that admiring heroes and acknowledging weakness coexists is also based on their most basic views on life.This concept has been deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, and has become the basic basis for the vast majority of people here to get along with each other. The reason why I broke away first and talked about some topics that seem to have nothing to do with abortion is just to explain that the "right to life" is an important concept that is ubiquitous in the United States, and it has been dissolved in people's blood.It is actually part of this way of thinking that Americans place a great deal of care on children.Therefore, in the United States, some families intend to adopt a disabled child.This is by no means an uncommon phenomenon, and a fair number of adoptive families do so.This is something that is almost incomprehensible and impossible elsewhere.They believe that children are the weakest stage of human life, so all people should have the responsibility to help such a weak life.The sentence for harming children is very, very heavy in the United States. Recently, a very sensational case happened in the United States.It was a pair of young lovers in high school, both came from affluent families with relatively strict tutoring, and they were usually good students with both good character and academic performance.After the unexpected pregnancy, they were afraid of their parents' reprimand, and kept hiding it from their families.It happened to be the time when they entered their first year of college, and they lived away from home and successfully escaped their parents.In college, a pregnant girl of course has her own right to privacy. If she doesn't say anything, others will not come to ask.In labor, they checked into a motel and gave birth to the baby themselves.Then, according to their whims, they threw the child into the trash.When someone found the child, the child was dead. Now, the young couple, whose lives have just begun, face the death penalty.I once told you that the death penalty is very rare in the United States, but the laws of many states make the death penalty for the crime of killing a child.Now, looking at the photos of the young couple in the newspapers, especially those who knew them, of course feel very sorry.However, no one can save them.They committed first-degree murder, and they killed a child. Along the way, you can understand why the life-threatening issue of abortion is so pervasively disturbing here.Now, when we look at the views of American conservatives, there is nothing strange about it. Conservatives in the United States believe that the fetus itself is already a life, and abortion is not only a special question of "whether abortion is allowed", but a part of the question of "whether murder is allowed".When I came here, it was the first time I heard people equate "abortion" with "murder", and I really wondered if there was something wrong with their thinking.However, soon I began to understand the logic and seriousness of their thinking. If you question whether a fetus is a life on par with a baby, well, they do have rigorous scientific evidence.If you say the line is before birth versus after birth, then, as I told you before, ultra-conservative talk shows charge that it's tantamount to saying that there's only a two-inch difference in the legality of murder.He will ask you, if a baby after birth is not murderable, why should a baby about to be born be murderable?You do have to acknowledge the fact that a pre-labor baby is fully grown and basically the same as a newborn. If you draw the line even further, it's the difference between early pregnancy and late pregnancy.Well, modern science has indeed been able to successfully survive a very early fetus outside the body.One day science will be able to make a baby from a fertilized egg completely outside the body, at which point the distinction between a fetus and a baby will cease to exist at all.In the face of a continuous living body, you can no longer even find an excuse for the two-inch distance between the inside and the outside.Their reasoning makes it impossible for you to deny that abortion is tantamount to taking a life, tantamount to murdering a baby. So, the question is, who has the right to kill a life like a fetus, a life weaker and helpless than a child, a baby after birth?Should the parents of this life have such rights?Why would society not allow the murder of a baby after birth, but allow such a murder? At that gathering, Francis asked everyone, rather emotionally, if we have lost respect for life and we have admitted the murder of life, then since we agree that parents have the right to murder a fetus, do parents also Can a baby be murdered for some reason?Like, if they have a baby girl they don't want, do they have the right to throw her away at birth? When Francis' brother-in-law mentioned that after the population explosion, there may be a general decline in the quality of life, and there may be a big famine, which will also lead to the death of a large number of people. But, Francis said, ethically, if you agree for a reason, say, for other people to have more food and to avoid famine, a very practical reason like that, agree Murder of babies, but what about older children, even adults?Is it possible to murder some people under a very practical excuse, such as people with defects and people who are considered bad people by society?Is it permissible to solve other people's problems like hunger by means of murder?And who is to make a judgment about who should live and who should die? Under such a logical deduction, it is also difficult for various American liberals who agree with abortion to different degrees to fight against it under the same logic. Therefore, generally speaking, they approach it from another angle.For example, this is a woman's personal freedom, and others have no right to interfere. "My body is mine" is a slogan often carried aloft at pro-abortion marches.There are also some liberals who agree with "limited abortion," arguing that at least one raped woman has the right not to have a child resulting from it. During the campaign, President Clinton and Vice President Gore bypassed it in this way during the campaign debate.They said that deciding whether to have a child should be a matter within the scope of personal privacy. If a couple decides not to have a child, how can we make a choice for them in the form of government legislation? Forcing them to be born?What's more, for some sick pregnant women, childbirth will endanger the life of the pregnant woman. In this case, how can the mother's life be ignored and she is not allowed to have an abortion? Therefore, I feel that on this issue, the two factions in the United States have not been confronting each other head-on. Going a little further, our friend Francis argues that abortion is an act that encourages the hastening of humanity's alienation from nature.Human beings should be a part of nature, but in the process of development, they constantly resist nature. The alienation of human beings has caused the disappearance of many species, and now it has developed to the point where it wants to kill its own children. What dignity do you have?What else is there to be in awe of?What he is worried about is that after a major breakthrough in ethical concepts, after completely losing respect and reverence for life, human beings will quickly rush towards the road of alienation.The consequences of this alienation cannot even be predicted by humans themselves. The debate over abortion in the United States has so far been inconclusive.The current law allows abortion.The more radical liberals favor a woman's right to an abortion for any reason, such as she simply doesn't want the child.This point of view also ties in with the feminist movement.The more moderate liberals only support limited abortion, and they also partially accept the views of conservatives. They just feel that there is no two-way solution in this world. Among conservatives, of course, there are varying degrees of radicalism on this issue.In the United States, radical conservatives have shot at abortion clinics several times, injuring or even killing abortion doctors and women who came for abortions.When we don't fully understand the conservative point of view, we will find such behavior very absurd and unreasonable.Since you are advocating not to harm the fetus, why would you kill an adult instead? If you understand their starting point and push it in an extreme direction, you will find that such behavior is also within their logic.Because they think such an abortion clinic is tantamount to a slaughterhouse for killing babies.The current laws of the United States do not interfere with such "murder".Therefore, they can only come out to "do justice for the sky", punish the murderer, and prevent human beings from continuing to kill fetuses.However, the vast majority of conservatives do not approve of such a small number of excesses.Of course the law will not let them go. We sometimes jokingly say to Americans that you are so lucky, at least there is still a lot of room to discuss such issues.Indeed, compared with other populous countries, the United States looks empty.It has not been pushed to a dead end by the population problem.But when I think about it in retrospect, everyone has had enough space, but the people are not used to discussing such the most basic philosophical and ethical issues related to human beings in such a wide range. We have seen such intense discussions among ordinary people in the United States countless times, and we don't know what the outcome of the discussions will be.But I think everyone admits that the relationship between human beings and nature is already very uncoordinated, and human beings are alienating from nature at an unforeseen acceleration, because the development of science and technology has an acceleration.After the development of science and technology, the original basic ethics of human beings may be subverted.Nature may be irreparably damaged by a careless human action.In this world, if all people can seriously think about and even worry about every step they take, instead of just taking an attitude of being completely eager for quick success and instant benefits, maybe at least they can slow down the pace of human alienation. On the issue of environmental protection, the two major factions in the United States also have major differences of opinion.why?Because environmental protection and individual rights in the United States sometimes conflict.In fact, like the abortion issue, this is a new issue that has emerged after the development of the times. Private property in the United States is inviolable, an individual right enshrined in the Constitution.This can be said to be deeply ingrained in the American way of thinking.In the agricultural society, it has been safe and sound for many years.However, after the development of science and technology and large-scale industry, people finally woke up one day and found that the world has been ruined by human beings.People have long forgotten what the world should look like, and have become numb to the point of standing on land that should have been a forest, but looking happily at a factory chimney, and muttering "developed, developed" to themselves. So in the United States, when they came to their senses, some environmental protection laws came out quickly one after another.It should be said that this is a good thing, but it did bring a lot of unprecedented confusion.Owners of land, for example, suddenly lost some of their traditional rights.For example, in the United States there is a rare redwood tree that is far older than the history of human civilization. It takes dozens of people to hug it, and every tree that is cut is one less.But logging hasn't stopped since the technology developed to cut down such huge trees.Until the Americans became aware of environmental protection and began to legislate to prohibit it. Once banned, the problem will come out.Many of these trees grow on private land. According to the absolute respect for private property in the past, the owner of the land has the right to everything that grows on the land, and others have no right to interfere.One such tree is cut down, and the wood is worth tens of thousands of dollars, and a few trees are cut down to be very rich.As soon as the environmental protection law came out, the tree owner could only look at the tree and sigh.For him, the reasons are also very sufficient. First, the government has violated his personal rights. Second, he has to pay property taxes to the government every year, but the government does not allow him to get rich by selling his property. On this issue, American conservatives support the individual rights of landowners.Liberals, on the other hand, advocate government legislation to intervene in environmental protection.Here, you can also clearly see that the power of the government is actually cut from the hands of individuals.Radical liberals have also often taken action on issues of environmental protection.Last year, a landowner with redwood trees finally got permission to cut two redwood trees on the grounds of clearing the forest.As a result, outraged by liberals, some people stormed the field, surrounded the trees to stop the cutting, and eventually alerted the police. There are many such conflicts.Another example is that there are a large number of swamps in the United States. For the same reason of ecological protection, the US government prohibits landowners from changing the existing state of wetlands, but gives certain preferential treatment when paying property taxes.In other words, if you own a wetland, you cannot develop and build on that land.Since the land can only be seen but not used, its value has of course been greatly reduced, and it is difficult to find a buyer again.In this way, viewed from another angle, of course, the individual rights of landholders are damaged. In the United States, incineration of garbage on private land is not only limited by fire factors, but also limited by environmental protection issues.Random burning is punishable.For this reason, conservative talk shows are outraged.Liberals believe that burning the national flag is a form of people's dissatisfaction, a right of free expression, and a category of freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.Conservatives firmly believe that this country was ruined by liberals, and the flag can be burned, but the garbage cannot be burned.By the way, American conservatives in general are strong "patriots" here. The rule of the Americans is that once the law is enacted, the offenders must be severely punished.A few years ago, an Asian-American man bought a large piece of land with the intention of turning it into a farm.Unexpectedly, when clearing the trees, a rat animal was killed, and this small animal happened to be a rare animal explicitly protected by legislation.As a result, the farm had not yet been fully developed, and a lawsuit was involved first.And there are huge fines.Such things were, of course, unheard of before the Environmental Protection Law came out.It is very natural that people who are accustomed to traditional life cannot accept this, so the anger of conservatives is definitely not without reason. Although in our eyes, the environmental protection here is quite good.Many of us, including us, have had the experience of driving a car and colliding with a wild deer.However, the liberals here are much more sensitive to environmental protection issues than we imagined.Most young people are like this, and this has a lot to do with American education over the years.Since environmental awareness has been awakened here, it has played a huge role in education.For a long time, I always felt that this kind of education was different from some of the environmental propaganda we saw, and then I discovered that their education on environmental protection started from the affinity between man and nature. I've only been here a few days, and I'm attending a snake festival at a local park.In this festival, many parents bring their children to participate.Of course there are introductions about poisonous snakes and non-venomous snakes, and there are different species of snakes on display, but to my surprise, at this snake festival, the organizer asked those who kept snakes as pets to bring their snakes baby bring. The owners of these snakes are black, white, Asian, and there are girls.They hugged their snake and stood there happily answering questions, with parents encouraging their children to pet or hug the snake.Encourage them to ask questions of interest.On the grass, blankets were laid out, and snake-like hats were given to the children, so that they could crawl forward without using their hands and feet, and experience the feeling of being a snake. This is also the first time I know that snakes also have feelings for their masters.A little girl told me that every time the snake-feeding sister came home, their snake would come to greet her and swim with her sister.Afterwards, I encountered snakes here many times, but no one called them to beat them.Young people will try to move the snake to a safer place such as the woods.What's even more amazing is that once we found a snake lying on the chair outside the door where we were working. As a result, an American girl named Zina, who graduated from the Department of Mathematics, greeted the snake softly while catching it Gently lifted and lowered into the woods.Then say that this method is learned from school. The film industry also plays a big part in educating people in this area.They made a lot of movies with animal actors, even movies with pure animal actors.At the same time, because the nature protection work in the United States is relatively good, children have relatively more opportunities to come into contact with various animals and plants.The distance between American children and the natural world has been greatly shortened.They are obsessed with all kinds of animals, even snakes, which are not acceptable in the general concept, let alone other animals.From insects to mammals, everything inclusive, there is nothing they don't like, they are all their treasures. When I was working with some young friends, someone would often cover something in the palm of their hand, beckoning everyone to look at it mysteriously, it turned out to be a small frog or a small bug, and then everyone praised its beauty and cuteness in unison.They can say a lot.Lydia is a master of arts, but she told me about spiders. The radial lines of the spider web are not sticky, only the concentric lines are sticky. The spider silk is not spit out from the mouth, but after it is discharged from the back Hook it up with one hind leg and put it on top of the other wires.At this time, in order to demonstrate to me, I saw the lively and lovely Lydia raised her feet, flicking and flicking like a spider weaving a web.Our part-time job was often monotonous and tiring. After we left, when our good friends who worked part-time got together again, in retrospect, we agreed that the time when we all watched small bugs and animals together was the happiest time in our part-time job career. This kind of education and ethos surpasses the utilitarian preaching that human beings protect nature in order to protect themselves.That kind of preaching seems to make people think that human beings are a special force that transcends nature. They can "conquer nature" for themselves, and they need to "protect nature" for themselves.However, the way the United States cultivates students' environmental awareness is emotional, which makes them have deep feelings for animals and the natural world, and makes them strengthen the concept that "man is just a part of nature".This kind of education has been going on for a long time, so it is very effective.This makes a new generation of young people who have grown up completely deny that human beings have the right to conquer nature as they please. Organizations that are most likely to get donations from the younger generation in the United States are organizations related to environmental protection.At this point, they are very sensitive and impulsive.Therefore, on the issue of environmental protection, it is really difficult for American conservatives to win the approval of the younger generation.In contrast, both Clinton and Vice President Al Gore are active advocates of protecting the environment.高尔还出过一本环境保护方面的书。在这方面，他们就相当受年轻一代的欢迎。 环境问题确实在当今人类生活中已经非常突出。保守派也很难直接从正面与之对抗。以至于一些极端保守派在电台里，有时干脆否认环境问题存在。他们在“谈论节目”中说，那些所谓的大气臭氧层空洞之类的“恐怖故事”，都是自由派为了剥夺土地持有者的权利，故意编造出来的。这里还必须说明的是，在美国并不是保守派才持有土地。拥有房地产的比例，在这里高达百分之六十以上。 应该说，这里绝大多数的美国人都热爱大自然，也热爱自己的土地，保守派的美国人也不例外。问题在于保守派不能接受这样的结论，就是在环境保护法与个人权利冲突的时候，要个人权利完全让路。自由派在理论和实践上，也都没有为更好解决二者的冲突开出良方。看上去也只是在回避这个两难问题。 克林顿在今年大选之前，又把美国的一大块区域划为自然保护区。当然，从自然保护的角度，从人类长远利益的角度，无疑都是有益的。但是，肯定也影响了这个区域的大量民众的生活。因为这么一来，这个区域就不能再搞建设，会影响到许多人的私人经营。 这个决定一宣布，就遭到保守派的猛烈攻击。我们前面已经提到过，联邦政府是没有干涉一个地区民众生活的权利的。但是，自从一系列的环境保护法出来以后，“环境”压倒一切。环境保护成了一个非常特殊的理由。对于保守派来说，环境问题已经成了自由派肆意扩大政府权利，干涉人民自由的一个巧妙借口。 因此，对于保守派来说，这不是一部分人的生活受到影响的问题，这是捍卫美国宪法所保护的人民基本权利不受政府侵犯的大原则问题。他们不允许这个大原则出现一个突破口。 这样的讨论对于美国当然是必要的。因为在这里，个人自由和环境保护一样，也同样是一个与生命同等重要的话题。在这个对话中，美国的自由派和保守派也基本上是在从不同的角度探讨，至今不能达成一致的看法。 给我们留下深刻印象的，就是一切问题的可讨论性，以及讨论的激烈和深入的程度。持反对态度的一方，甚至可以以此作为他们政治纲领的一部分，以求民众的支持。这样，对于一切与民众密切相关的问题，就可以在大家面前全方位地彻底摊开。各方面的利弊，有可能发生的前景，都使大家有一个清楚的认识，然后，请人们自己作一个选择。选择的最重要方式之一，就是去投票站投下自己的一票。 我刚才曾经提到过，美国的保守派基本上都是“爱国主义者”。但是，需要说明的是，在美国，国家和政府完全是不同的概念。对于这一点，在美国的保守派这里是最典型不过的了。在对待联邦政府的态度上，美国的保守派基本上是反对“大政府”的。他们始终在要求联邦政府缩小规模，不要对经济过多干预，并呼吁联邦政府“还权”给各个州，还权于民。极端保守派几乎就是“爱国反政府”。去年在奥克拉荷马市的联邦政府大楼放置炸药的两个，就是极端保守派中的激进分子。 保守派的美国人确实非常爱国，他们特别喜欢用美国国旗作装饰品。你到处可以看到国旗图案的衣服，国旗的胸针，汽车上国旗图案的粘贴标志，等等。在家里挂国旗的也特别多。就是刚才讲的那两个到联邦政府机构放炸药的激进分子，他也绝对不承认他不爱国。事实上，他们正是为了他们理想中的美国，才去放这车炸药的。因为他们认为联邦政府控制了美国的自由，正在毁灭美国。 联邦政府权限和规模，是美国的保守派和自由派的重大分歧所在，也是美国两大党的争执焦点。那么，为什么会造成这样的分歧呢？ 美国的两大党基本上是代表了不同社会阶层的利益。共和党一向认为，必须始终给私营经济以最好的发展空间和条件。不要对他们进行过多的干涉。这当然直接符合大企业主的利益。但是，他们同时相信，只有在这种情况下，整个经济高度发展，社会上才会人人受益。限制太多，搞得经济没有活力了。对谁也没有好处。而提倡高福利，只是民主党看中普通人手里的选票而搞的花招，因为企业经营者，尤其是大企业主总是少数，普通民众总是多数。共和党认为，高福利只是有毒的糖果，具有极大的欺骗性。看上去是关心穷人，但是从长远来说，在损害经济发展的同时也损害了穷人的利益。 而民主党一向被称为是穷人的党。他们的具有代表性的理想就是我上封信已经提到过的罗斯福总统推行的“新政”。把联邦政府推上了干预经济的舞台。也使得美国的福利制度被真正建立起来。极端的自由派主张有政府出面达到社会公平，缩小贫富差距，几乎就是社会主义者了。 这两个党的观点向着两个不同的方向扯，最终取得的是一个平衡。而这两种观点如果不偏激的话，实际上都有一定的道理，所需要的正是一个平衡点。因此，你很难说究竟是哪个党更有道理。真理多走几步，都会走进谬误。这两种观点一旦走极端，都可能会带来灾难性的后果。因此，严格地说，并不是哪一个政党给美国社会带来了两百年的稳定发展，而正是这两大政党不停地激烈争执和互相攻击，把美国向两个方向“拔河”所形成的动态平衡，才造成了这样的稳定发展。 从美国两大党所代表的经济利益的话，可以基本上象前面这样归类。但是，他们的争执基本上还是在于，究竟应该通过什么样的方式，可以使所有的美国人过得更好。同时，如我在前面提到的堕胎和环境保护带来的争执，这两大党不仅在经济政策上代表了不同社会阶层，还在观念上代表了美国社会不同的思维方式。 所以，美国民众中的保守派和自由派，并不是说保守派都是富人而自由派的都是穷人。例如，那个在联邦大楼放炸药的保守派激进分子，就是一个生活并不富裕的平民。美国的这两大派，基本上还是观念上的差异。 持保守派观点的美国人，一般来说生活比较稳定，行为方式比较中规中矩，穿着比较规整，上教堂的比例更高。他们比较习惯于六十年代以前的平稳的生活方式。他们对于近几十年来生活方式发生的剧烈变化很难接受。 他们从感情上无法接受突如其来的如此之高的离婚率，如此之多的单亲家庭，还有大量的同性恋，触目的女权运动，震耳欲聋的摇滚乐，根本就不成画的现代美术，不成体统的服装，等等，等等。对于他们来说，这个世界仿佛一下子打开了潘多拉的盒子，“妖魔鬼怪”都一起跑了出来。他们把这一切都归之于自由派的罪恶，因此，尤其是极端保守派，提起自由派几乎总是咬牙切齿，因为“好端端的美国就是毁在他们手里”。 当然保守派美国人也是各式各样的。他们几乎包括了两个极端，有富裕高雅的或生活安排得很好，似乎从老电影里走出来的，非常迷恋老时光的一个阶层，以及生活在乡村传统生活中，很难接受新事物的一个阶层，他们中间包括有文化水平很低，甚至举止十分粗鲁的人。 他们中间很多人喜欢美国传统的乡村音乐。乡村音乐很能够代表美国以前平和稳定的生活。你也可以看到，他们的反堕胎，反对侵犯土地持有者的权利，这些也都在他们传统的思维习惯范围之内。 至于自由派美国人，则是非常复杂，涵盖面极广，五花八门。大概从教育程度非常高的“雅皮”的一代，一直到大量的青年学生，艺术家音乐家，甚至流浪汉和街头小混混大概都可以说有自由派的风格在里面。他们并不是都认同同样的东西，所以自由派是颇费琢磨的。 正因为如此，在比较保守的地区，你可以看到以“保守派”作为自己竞选标志的，但是，没有一个实际上是偏向自由派风格的竞选者，在自己的竞选牌子上打出“自由派”的旗号。因为自由派的弹性太大了，这样的标志完全可能吓走大量原来还可以争取的选民。因为，谁也不知道你这个“自由派”的自由边际在哪里，是不是“自由无边”。 但是，自由派毕竟不是“放浪形骸”的代名词，自由派是一种新的思维方式。比如说，自由派提倡多元文化。那些自由派的年轻人会对世界各个国家的文化都非常感兴趣，所以在宗教上也就会表现得很杂。他们会宣称自己是信佛教，或者印度教，喇嘛教，等等。会在家里挂上一幅佛像，但是你细细一问，会发现他还搞不清佛教究竟是怎么一回事。正是有了自由派的美国人，日本茶道，花道，剑道，柔道，空手道，中国功夫，瑜伽，太极拳等等对于保守派美国人来讲是怪里怪气的东西，才会在美国有一定程度的流行。在亚特兰大一年一度的亚洲文化节上，你每年都可以看到金发碧眼的美国人一板一眼地跟着日本人学茶道，年年不拉下，一年比一年有长进。每年表演和讲解古老的日本箭道的，则是清一色的白人，讲起这种古老仪式的年代，起源，功能，规则，头头是道，恭恭敬敬。这个亚洲文化节规模不大，在美国各地无数文化节中名不见经传，但是很多亚洲的东西，我这个亚洲人是在这个节日上才第一次得知的。你想想，你也喝了一辈子茶了吧，我们有几个人知道点儿日本茶道的？我这一问一定让爱国心切的人跳起来：“中国是茶的故乡，干吗要去知道日本茶道？”这回答正在点子上，保守派美国人所持的就是这种态度。 如果你必须跟保守派就文化多元打交道，有时候就很没劲。 然而，承认多元文化还不仅仅是对一些“新奇玩意儿”的好奇心，它包含了相当彻底的平等思想。尤其是对于种族问题，美国的自由派更多地表现了对其他民族的尊重。他们认为，没有一种文化是更为优越的，只是价值体系的不同。就是说，在白人文化的价值体系内，也许认为黑人文化的一些东西在价值上是落后的，野蛮的。但是同样，相对来说，在黑人文化的价值体系内，白人文化的一些部分也可能是无意义的，低能的。因此，他们得出结论，不同的文化，不同的价值体系是不可比的。它们各自有自己存在的价值，没有什么高低上下之分。 这样一来，就从根本上铲除了种族歧视的基础。尽管种族问题是一件非常复杂的事情。在美国如此众多的种族在一起发生相当密切的联系，各种冲突是难以避免的。尤其是，许多问题的产生是基于个人的经历和生活的经验。每一个民族生活在这里，实际上都有入乡随俗和尊重他人，尊守一个多民族社会的公德这样的问题。如果，人们来到“中国城”，总是发现非常脏乱和不讲礼貌的情况，基于个人经验，也就会产生对这个民族的偏见，在这种情况下，很难说责任是只是一方的。 例如，我们的邻居杰米老头，是个非常好心的保守派的美国老人。他们夫妇年龄很大了，但是对于我们这样新搬来的亚洲人，还是竭力予以关心照顾。有一次，他特地关照我们：要尽量避免和黑人打交道，“他们很坏”。他这样说绝对是善意的，怕我们遇到什么麻烦。我们也相信，他的看法基本上来自他曾经有过和某些黑人打交道的不愉快经验。 相对来说，我们遇到的一些自由派的年轻人就更为理性。他们受到根深蒂固的多元文化和平等思想的影响，因此他们竭力去超越自己的个人经验，而坚持维护这样一种理想。我们有个叫戴维的年轻朋友，他是个艺术家，画得相当好。当我有一次和他谈起种族问题的时候，他告诉我，他住在佛洛里达的时候，曾经有一次被四个黑人抢劫，他们用手枪顶着他，抢走了他身边所有的钱，还拿走了他的衣服。总之，当时他感到极为惊恐，而且非常狼狈。此后，有相当长一段时间，他遇到黑人，几乎是条件反射地感到害怕。 他作了很大努力让自己恢复正常的心态，并且仍然说服自己并且坚持相信，这件事情的发生只能说明，抢劫的这几个黑人，他们个人是罪犯，但是，与黑人这个种族并没有关系。他还告诉我，有一次他被抽中成为一个黑人抢劫案件的陪审团候选人，在初选的时候，他在约谈中被问到，他个人是否有被抢劫的经历。他如实回答之后，司法部门没有让他进入陪审团，这是司法部门的通常做法，就是要避免有因为个人经历而形成偏见的人进入陪审团，以免影响公平审判和损害被告人的公民权利。戴维对我说，实际上，他倒是个例外，如果让他进入陪审团的话，他一定会保持公正，他坚信自己能够做到这一点。我也很相信他。然而，他能够这样超越个人经历而保持理性，确实非常不容易。