希拉里與特朗普 保守派該選誰

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

對唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)來說，已經鎖定共和黨總統候選人提名。而希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)也十有八九會成爲民主黨的提名人。於是，美國的保守主義者突然面臨一個詭異而意料之外的兩難境地：他們應該支持誰？在這輪選舉中，誰是更保守的候選人？

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

當然，答案在一定程度上要看“保守”的含義是什麼。儘管共和黨始終是個成員廣泛的政黨，但近年該黨發生了巨大變化，它接納了陰謀論者，還發展出了曾經支持過莎拉•佩林(Sarah Palin)、如今又支持特朗普的民粹主義派別，並失去了包括我在內的許多曾經的支持者。不過，對那些依然留在共和黨、相信一套明確的保守主義理念的人來說，他們深陷兩難境地之中。

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

對一部分共和黨人來說，前景是黯淡的。如果你是真正的“社會保守主義者”，相信一套十分嚴格的傳統道德標準，那麼這次選舉中根本沒有適合你的候選人。希拉里支持同性戀權益，支持墮胎，她還使用社會保守主義者不喜歡的女權主義措辭。

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

然而，另一位是個什麼樣的人呢？特朗普是離過兩次婚的花花公子，在談到自己的子女時，他不只發表大男子主義的言論，甚至還會說些帶有性意味的話。他曾向一位採訪者表示：“如果伊萬卡(Ivanka)不是我女兒，也許我會與她約會。”沒有證據表明他去教堂或信上帝。多年來他既自稱反對墮胎，也說過自己支持墮胎，因此對單純反墮胎的人來說，他也是非常討厭的人。

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

從另一方面來說，如果你是美國人所謂的“財政保守主義者”，贊成預算平衡和量入爲出，那麼你的選擇要容易得多：希拉里是適合你的候選人。從特朗普的言談判斷，他就預算和開支提出的方案要麼十分荒謬，要麼從數學上就不可能做到。

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

相反，他近日暗示說，他也許可以通過拒絕向美國的債權國償付債務來節省資金，帶領美國走阿根廷式的違約道路。相比之下，希拉里則自帶可能是最好的廣告：她的丈夫當總統時，美國不僅實現了預算平衡，甚至還有盈餘。根據希拉里網站的說法，她將債務視爲“國家安全威脅”，反對增加債務。

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

對“自由貿易保守主義者”來說，兩者的差別比較細微，不過希拉里仍會勝出。特朗普從一開始就呼籲向中國和墨西哥徵收關稅。他利用人們的排外情緒，煽動民衆反對外國人和對外貿易。他還反對美國與亞洲和歐洲正在磋商的自由貿易協議。

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

希拉里過去一直支持這些協議，而且和她的丈夫一樣，長期以來她一直是自由貿易的倡導者。然而，最近她卻發出了不同的聲音。在這個反貿易民粹主義正在贏得選票的年頭，她在措辭上有所緩和。不過，如果你擔心出現貿易壁壘、擔心保護主義迴歸，那麼希拉里仍是你的最好選擇。

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

對“國家安全保守主義者”來說——不論你是務實派還是干預派，兩者的區別是涇渭分明的。如果你相信如下基本事實：美國在世界舞臺上扮演重要的角色；美國的同盟關係是國際穩定局勢的來源；美國軍事和政治影響力確保了歐洲自由和亞洲和平——那麼希拉里就是唯一可能的候選人。她有着長期從事外交政策工作的履歷，幹過四年的美國國務卿。儘管你可能不喜歡她的部分決定，在四年的國務卿任期內她致力於北約事務、與核威懾有關的問題、以及與美國在亞洲的傳統盟友打交道。

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

至於特朗普，沒理由認爲他當選後會支持上述任何做法。相反，一旦當選後他或將成爲二戰後首位奉行孤立主義的美國總統。他不僅曾批評北約對美國的依賴，還質疑過北約的根本宗旨。

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

在2000年寫的一本書中，他宣稱歐洲的衝突“不值得美國人付出生命代價。撤出歐洲每年能爲美國省下數百萬美元”。

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

他呼籲日本和韓國應擁有核武器，不在乎亞洲出現核軍備競賽的可能性。他對民主不感興趣，對獨裁也無所謂。他不會向世界宣揚美國價值觀，因爲他自己也不信這些價值觀。

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

不過，保守主義者會順應常理支持希拉里麼？從我個人來說，我覺得這個決定並不難做出。然而，衆議院議長、兩位前共和黨總統以及多位領導人仍然沒有下決心這麼做。

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

相反，他們要麼拒絕支持特朗普，拒絕參加共和黨全國代表大會，要麼拒絕做任何表態。距11月大選還有6個月，他們仍有時間仔細思量，做出唯一負責任的符合保守主義理念的選擇。