就在New Hampshire选前三天,共和党候选人展开最新一轮辩论。讲台最右端的大胖子,便是New Jersey 州长 Chris Christie。仅仅四年之前,几十位不满Romney的共和党金主们,攥着大额支票,苦苦哀求刚上任州长声望如日中天的Christie出山参选总统,但未能说服。不料时过境迁,因为在Hurricane Sandy救灾过程中和Obama总统代价昂贵的亲密合影,加上下属公报私仇酿造的"大桥门"事件,Christie的民望一落千丈。本次大选,他本想通过直截了当的说话风格打动选民,不料却遭遇更直截了当的Trump, 民调一直低落。绝望中的Christie,将充满杀气的目光投向正冉冉上升的Rubio.
开辩后不久,Christie便指责Rubio和Obama一样没有经验,空谈误国。Rubio连续两次阐述Obama并非浑浑噩噩,而是系统地有意地往民主党方向改变这个国家。Christie嘲笑他只会背"25-Second Speech"。这时不可思议的事情出现了,仿佛为了证明Christie的观点,Rubio又背诵了一遍关于Obama的台词,被Christie抓个正着:"There It Is. The Memorized 25-Second Speech!" 不料刚过不久,Rubio又第四次重复类似观点,结果全场哗然。
亿万富豪川普哥Trump,不说大家都知道,You are FIRED! 你被解雇了,这句话就是他给大众最初的印象。他的电视剧“学徒”举世闻名。上次,在爱荷华,他的支持者只是想着看脱口秀,觉得老大反正民调领先,肯定会赢,投票不积极,结果反而只拿了第二。知耻近乎勇,他立马调整策略,呼吁支持者踊跃投票,今天,他如愿以偿,在新布罕什州初选取得全面胜利!紧随着他的党内第二名第三名加起来都没有他的得票率高。
三德子将要给美国带来什么样的冲击?看看一位华尔街朋友的信息你便可窥一二。“民主党新罕布什尔初选桑德斯击败希拉里,这位社会主义者正发表演讲:大学全免费,最低工资十五美元一小时,Tax on Wall Street(对华尔街征税)。我靠,这哥们要是当选,我们就准备集体海归回国投奔资本主义吧”。他表示,他之前从未听过三德子的演讲,他发出了“我的妈呀”的感慨!
知名政治学家亨廷顿(Samuel Huntington)在其最后一部作品《我们是谁?》(Who Are We?)中写道,这种国家认同有两个重要组成部分。其中一个组成部分是美国的盎格鲁-新教传统,由于美国目前存在众多文化和宗教传统,安格鲁-新教传统无可避免会褪色。另外一个组成部分是美国理念,这是美国人独一无二的东西。正如历史学家霍夫施塔特(Richard Hofstadter)所言:“美国是一个没有意识形态的国家,它本身就是一种意识形态,这是我们的宿命。”
(本文作者默里(Charles Murray)供职于美国企业研究所(American Enterprise Institute),是该研究所的W.H. Brady学者。他撰写过多本书籍,例如《民治:重建自由,无须得到许可》(By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission)和《分崩离析:美国白人五十年来(1960-2010)的变化》(Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010)。) 作者: pp_dream 时间: 2016-2-20 04:54 标题: 回复 19楼pp_dream 的帖子
People are angry because they’ve been betrayed by their (establishment) political representatives. 作者: pp_dream 时间: 2016-2-25 04:22 标题: 转:自由主义者在美国的乌托邦计划
从那时候起,这个叫做“自由州计划”(Free State Project)的网站一直在征集参与者。每个加入的人需要签署一份个人声明,承诺在总签名人数达到两万之后,自己将在五年之内搬家前往新汗布什尔州定居,并在那里全力参与建设一个以保护个人生命、自由和财产为最大责任的政府。(I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the State of New Hampshire within 5 years after 20,000 Participants have signed up. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of individuals' life, liberty, and property.)
索伦斯的研究生课题就是西方的这种自立社会和分离运动。经过几年的探讨,他最后认定在州一级的行政领域进行自由主义的实践是最有效也是最现实的。(他最初设想是在某个州集中足够的选票从美国分离、独立,但后来放弃了这一想法。)因此他发起这一计划,号召不要再继续等待,“在我们这辈子实现自由”(Liberty in Our Lifetime)。该运动的标志则是一只背上长满硬刺的豪猪,警告包括政府的各种势力不要来招惹(Don't Tread on Me)。
在美国五十个州中,新汗布什尔是东北部的一个小州,领土上排倒数第五,人口则是倒数第九。但即便如此,她也拥有一百三十多万人口。区区两万自由主义者的到来并不能改变其政治格局。但“自由州计划”之所以选择这个州,是因为其居民已经有极强的自由主义倾向。该州的座右铭便是“不自由,毋宁死”(Live Free Or Die),是当初最早反抗英国统治者、建立自己的政府的殖民地。那里至今还保留着许多独立战争时期的传统,州宪法明确规定公民有革命的权力。州政府也是美国最小的之一,州议员的工资一百多年没涨过,还是每年仅一百美元。该州也是最不依赖于联邦政府拨款的州之一。
Bloomberg View
Home
Editorial Board
Columnists
Topics
QuickTake
More
<p>The stakes are high.</p>
Photographer: Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesTHE STAKES ARE HIGH. PHOTOGRAPHER: CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES
2016 ELECTIONS
The Risk I Will Not Take
MAR 7, 2016 5:00 PM EST
By Michael R. Bloomberg
a A
Americans today face a profound challenge to preserve our common values and national promise.
Wage stagnation at home and our declining influence abroad have left Americans angry and frustrated. And yet Washington, D.C., offers nothing but gridlock and partisan finger-pointing.
Worse, the current presidential candidates are offering scapegoats instead of solutions, and they are promising results that they can’t possibly deliver. Rather than explaining how they will break the fever of partisanship that is crippling Washington, they are doubling down on dysfunction.
Over the course of American history, both parties have tended to nominate presidential candidates who stay close to and build from the center. But that tradition may be breaking down. Extremism is on the march, and unless we stop it, our problems at home and abroad will grow worse.
Many Americans are understandably dismayed by this, and I share their concerns. The leading Democratic candidates have attacked policies that spurred growth and opportunity under President Bill Clinton -- support for trade, charter schools, deficit reduction and the financial sector. Meanwhile, the leading Republican candidates have attacked policies that spurred growth and opportunity under President Ronald Reagan, including immigration reform, compromise on taxes and entitlement reform, and support for bipartisan budgets. Both presidents were problem-solvers, not ideological purists. And both moved the country forward in important ways.
Over the last several months, many Americans have urged me to run for president as an independent, and some who don’t like the current candidates have said it is my patriotic duty to do so. I appreciate their appeals, and I have given the question serious consideration. The deadline to answer it is now, because of ballot access requirements.
My parents taught me about the importance of giving back, and public service has been an important part of my life. After 12 years as mayor of New York City, I know the personal sacrifices that campaigns and elected office require, and I would gladly make them again in order to help the country I love.
I’ve always been drawn to impossible challenges, and none today is greater or more important than ending the partisan war in Washington and making government work for the American people -- not lobbyists and campaign donors. Bringing about this change will require electing leaders who are more focused on getting results than winning re-election, who have experience building small businesses and creating jobs, who know how to balance budgets and manage large organizations, who aren’t beholden to special interests -- and who are honest with the public at every turn. I’m flattered that some think I could provide this kind of leadership.
But when I look at the data, it’s clear to me that if I entered the race, I could not win. I believe I could win a number of diverse states -- but not enough to win the 270 Electoral College votes necessary to win the presidency.
In a three-way race, it’s unlikely any candidate would win a majority of electoral votes, and then the power to choose the president would be taken out of the hands of the American people and thrown to Congress. The fact is, even if I were to receive the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, victory would be highly unlikely, because most members of Congress would vote for their party’s nominee. Party loyalists in Congress -- not the American people or the Electoral College -- would determine the next president.
As the race stands now, with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz. That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.
I have known Mr. Trump casually for many years, and we have always been on friendly terms. I even agreed to appear on “The Apprentice” -- twice. But he has run the most divisive and demagogic presidential campaign I can remember, preying on people’s prejudices and fears. Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party, appealed to our “better angels.” Trump appeals to our worst impulses.
Threatening to bar foreign Muslims from entering the country is a direct assault on two of the core values that gave rise to our nation: religious tolerance and the separation of church and state. Attacking and promising to deport millions of Mexicans, feigning ignorance of white supremacists, and threatening China and Japan with a trade war are all dangerously wrong, too. These moves would divide us at home and compromise our moral leadership around the world. The end result would be to embolden our enemies, threaten the security of our allies, and put our own men and women in uniform at greater risk.
Senator Cruz’s pandering on immigration may lack Trump’s rhetorical excess, but it is no less extreme. His refusal to oppose banning foreigners based on their religion may be less bombastic than Trump’s position, but it is no less divisive.
We cannot “make America great again” by turning our backs on the values that made us the world’s greatest nation in the first place. I love our country too much to play a role in electing a candidate who would weaken our unity and darken our future -- and so I will not enter the race for president of the United States.
However, nor will I stay silent about the threat that partisan extremism poses to our nation. I am not ready to endorse any candidate, but I will continue urging all voters to reject divisive appeals and demanding that candidates offer intelligent, specific and realistic ideas for bridging divides, solving problems, and giving us the honest and capable government we deserve.
For most Americans, citizenship requires little more than paying taxes. But many have given their lives to defend our nation -- and all of us have an obligation as voters to stand up on behalf of ideas and principles that, as Lincoln said, represent “the last best hope of earth.” I hope and pray I’m doing that. 作者: pp_dream 时间: 2016-3-16 18:19