◆ The Learning Grove 林间拾穗
民主党外交政策的裂痕与反思清算 The Ezra Klein Show 2026-06-09

民主党外交政策的裂痕与反思清算

foreign-policy political-rupture accountability electoral-politics

摘要

对话探讨了加沙冲突及拜登政府政策引发的民主党外交政策内部裂痕。对话者指出多场党内初选受该议题影响，呼吁对支持该政策的高级官员进行问责，并探讨了左翼外交政策理念以及外交政策如何服务国内社区等议题。
发布时间
20 节

民主党外交政策的裂痕

我认为我们可能正处于民主党外交政策破裂的时刻。这让我想起多年前伊拉克战争重塑民主党的情形。正是伊拉克战争促成了巴拉克·奥巴马在 2008 年初选中击败希拉里·克林顿，从而改变了美国政治的走向。

英文原文 I think we may be in a moment of foreign policy rupture in the Democratic Party. It reminds me of years ago when the Iraq war remade the Democratic Party. The Iraq War, which is why Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary, changing the course of American politics.

因为我将提供鲜明的对比——作为从一开始就从未支持过这场战争、认为这是个坏主意的人。我不仅想结束这场战争，而且想终结最初让我们陷入战争的那种思维方式。这就是我将要倡导的领导力。

英文原文 >> Because I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war, thought it was a bad idea. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place. That's the kind of leadership I'm going to promote

眼下，以色列和加沙在我看来正成为类似裂痕的中心。对我来说，这一切始于几周前夏威夷州民主党参议员布赖恩·沙茨（Brian Schatz）。人们常常谈论他可能会成为查克·舒默之后的下一任参议院民主党领袖。所以这是一个对党内脉搏有着极其敏锐把握的人。他在推特上写道：“我并不赞同把任何人列入未来在各自专业领域工作的黑名单，但我确实认为，希望下一届民主党政府有一批全新的外交政策幕僚是合情合理的。总不可能只有这同样的 120 个人才通晓一切吧。” 随后，在党内同样备受尊敬、非常处于主流地位的参议员克里斯·范霍伦（Chris Van Hollen）为《泰晤士报》撰写了一篇评论文章，阐述他认为民主党对以色列的政策需要发生多大的转变，以及他认为拜登政府的政策失败得有多彻底。接着他继续写道：“初选选民不会信任任何在这些问题上缺乏道德和战略清晰度的民主党总统候选人，特别是如果该议员在立法者任内投票给内塔尼亚胡先生运送炸弹，即便当时他的政府已对加沙实施了全面封锁。他们也不会支持那些打算重新起用在拜登政府期间掩盖真相并拒绝承认自身共谋责任的资深民主党决策者的候选人。”

英文原文 >> right now. Israel and Gaza feel to me like they are becoming the center of a similar rupture. The thing that started here for me was a few weeks ago Brian Shots who is a Democratic senator from Hawaii. He's often talked of as maybe the next Senate Democratic leader after Chuck Schumer. So a guy with an incredible sense of the pulse of the party. He tweeted, "I'm not into blacklisting anyone from future work in their area of expertise, but I do think it's fair to want a whole new crop, a whole new crop of foreign policy staffers in the next Democratic administration. It's not like the same 120 people are the only people who know anything." Then Senator Chris Van Holland, again very well respected in the party, very much someone in its mainstream, he wrote an opinion piece for the Times, laying out how different he thinks the Democratic Party's policy on Israel needs to be, how badly he thinks the Biden administration's policy failed. And then he went on to say, "Primary voters won't trust any Democratic presidential candidate who does not have a record of moral and strategic clarity on these issues, especially if, as a legislator, he or she voted to send Mr. Netanyahu bombs, even as his government imposed a total blockade on Gaza. Nor will they support a candidate who plans to reinlist the senior Democratic decision makers who whitewash the truth during the Biden administration and refuse to acknowledge their complicity.

在民主党内部的争论中，“共谋”是一个分量很重的词。接着我们看到若干场民主党初选开始在加沙问题上产生分歧。这已经成为密歇根州民主党参议员初选的关键议题，阿卜杜勒·埃尔-赛义德（Abdul El-Sayed）在许多最新民调中领跑。

英文原文 Complicity is a strong word in a intern democratic fight here. Then we've seen a number of Democratic primaries beginning to split over Gaza. It has become an essential issue in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary where Abdul Elsad leads in many of the new polls.

你看到民主党人以最极端的姿态曲意逢迎，为战争辩护。他们就像在说：“这是一场非法的战争，但如果他们要求我，我还是会出资。”如果你连指出种族灭绝这种道德败坏行为的勇气都没有，那你一开始又有什么勇气去指出什么呢？对我们党来说，这是一场道德上的罗夏墨迹测试。

英文原文 >> You're watching Democrats bend over backwards in the most pretzel-like way to justify the war. They're like, "This is an illegal war, but if they asked me, I'd fund it." If you don't have the courage to call out the moral abomination of a genocide, then what do you have the courage to call out in the first place? This is a moral roarshock test for our party.

这在新泽西州的众议院初选中表现得非常明显，曾赴加沙救治伤员的医生阿丹姆·哈米（Adam Hamawy）刚刚获胜。

英文原文 >> It was very present in the New Jersey House primary that Adam Hami, a doctor who had treated the injured in Gaza, just won.

我的竞选纲领非常简单，就是我们应该把钱花在医疗保健上，而不是炸弹上。我们应该把钱花在本地社区，比如在新泽西、在美国，呃，而不是资助海外的炸弹用于暴行和种族灭绝。我们不应该继续资助我们所目睹的无休止的战争。

英文原文 >> I was running on something very simple is that we should be spending on healthc care, not bombs. we should be spending on our communities here, you know, in New Jersey, in America, uh, and not funding bombs overseas for, you know, atrocities and genocide. We should not be funding the endless wars that we're seeing.

这也是我在纽约所在选区的众议院初选的核心议题，布拉德·兰德（Brad Lander）正向现任议员丹·戈德曼（Dan Goldman）发起挑战。兰德的大部分抨击都集中在戈德曼对以色列的支持上。

英文原文 >> It's been at the center of the House primary in my district in New York, where Brad Lander is running against the incumbent, Dan Goldman. And much of Lander's attack is centered on Goldman's support for Israel.

戈德曼众议员并不认为那里正在发生的事情属于种族灭绝。自 1990 年以来，我一直在抗议以色列对约旦河西岸和加沙的占领，呃。我从未听他在这一背景下说过“占领”这个词。

英文原文 >> Representative Goldman does not view what's happening there as a genocide. I've been fighting against Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza uh since 1990. I've never heard him say the word occupation in that context.

兰德在最近的民调中也遥遥领先。伴随着这一切的，还有特朗普在伊朗的战争——一场他与以色列并肩作战的战争，以及他的关税和外交政策的普遍失败。因此，这使得眼下成为了一个真正可能孕育出新事物的时刻。民主党不会回到拜登主义，也不会试图照搬特朗普主义。那么，除了加沙之外，某种不同的道路究竟会是什么样子？当然也包括加沙在内，它会有哪些不同的做法？马特·达斯（Matt Duss）是国际政策中心（Center for International Policy）的执行副总裁。他曾在卡内基国际和平基金会和美国进步中心工作。他曾担任参议员伯尼·桑德斯的外交政策顾问，并曾向众议员亚历山德里娅·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯（Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez）提供咨询。因此，达斯确实处于民选左翼外交政策思想的核心。我想邀请马特共同探讨一个我认为可能会决定 2028 年初选的问题：左翼的外交政策会是什么样子？它在世界上究竟会试图做些什么？一如既往，我的邮箱是 ezrakline show@nytimes.com。

英文原文 >> Lander 2 is well ahead in recent polls. Into all of this comes Trump's war in Iran, a war he has fought alongside Israel and just the general failure of his tariff and foreign policy. And so it's made this moment a moment when something new really could emerge. The Democratic Party is not going to go back to Bidenism. It is not going to try to replicate Trumpism. So what would something different actually look like beyond just Gaza though? Of course, including Gaza, what would it do differently? Matt Dus is the executive vice president at the Center for International Policy. He's worked at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Center for American Progress. He served as Senator Bernie Sanders foreign policy adviser and he's advised Representative Alexandria Cosiocortez. thus is really at the center of foreign policy thinking among the elected left. I want to have man to explore a question that I think might come to define the 2028 primary. What would a left foreign policy look like? What would it actually try to do in the world? As always, my email escline shown times.com.

马特·达斯，欢迎来到本节目。

英文原文 >> Matt Dus, welcome to the show.

谢谢你。你最近在《国家》（The Nation）杂志上撰文指出，民主党人无法回避就加沙问题进行反思清算。这种清算究竟是什么？

英文原文 >> Thank you. So, you wrote a piece in the Nation recently saying that Democrats can't avoid a reckoning on Gaza. What is that reckoning?

嗯，我认为首先需要认识到，呃，随着党向前推进，我们无法绕过加沙这个议题。呃，我确实认为加沙的争论、加沙的溃败、加沙的种族灭绝，呃，代表了我们政治中存在的许多问题。我认为，如果民主党人想要就自己将如何施政提出令人信服的替代愿景，他们确实需要展开讨论、进行辩论，呃，对拜登政府的所作所为进行反思清算——不仅针对其政策本身，而且针对伴随该政策的一场在我看来显然是虚假信息的宣传行动。这将涉及一些非常艰难的对话。这将需要把聚光灯打在某些曾在拜登政府任职的关键官员身上，呃，其中有些人可能还希望能再次任职，而他们很可能不应再得到这种机会。

英文原文 >> Well, I think first it involves understanding that um we're not going to sidestep Gaza as an issue as as the party moves forward. Um I do think the Gaza debate, the Gaza debacle, the Gaza genocide um stands for a lot that is wrong with our politics. And I think if Democrats are going to be able to offer a compelling alternative vision of how they're going to govern, they really need to have a discussion, have a debate, have a reckoning um with what the Biden administration did, not just with the policy, but with the the campaign of what I think was clearly disinformation that accompanied that policy. And that's going to involve some very tough conversations. that's going to be putting um you know a spotlight on some key officials who served in the Biden administration um and some of whom probably hope to serve again and probably should not get to.

你所说的虚假信息宣传行动是指什么？

英文原文 >> What do you mean by a campaign of disinformation?

我是指，你看，拜登政府的表态方式，呃，白宫，你知道的，国务院，不断重复着这样的论调：“噢，我们没有看到这种情况。我们还没有做出这一评估。在向加沙提供人道主义援助方面，我们尚未做出评估或得出他们违反了国际人道法的结论。”

英文原文 >> I mean I'm looking at you know the way that the Biden administration talked um the White House, you know, the the State Department, you had this constant um refrain of, oh, we're not seeing that. We've not made that assessment. We have not made an assessment or drawn the conclusion that they are in violation of international humanitarian law when it comes to the provision of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.

“鉴于哈马斯将自身与平民混杂在一起、利用平民作为人体盾牌的历史记录，呃，我们无法就违反国际人道法的问题做出确定性结论。我们目前尚未评估他们——以色列人违反了美国法律。”

英文原文 >> Given the nature of Hamas's track record of colllocating itself with civilians, using civilians as human shields, uh we're unable to make a conclusive uh determination uh as it relates to violations of international humanitarian law. We at this time have not made an assessment that they're that the Israelis are in violation of US law.

很明显，他们是在选择对正在发生的事情视而不见。世界上其他所有人都能看到这些事情正在发生。巴勒斯坦人自己也在报告这些事情正在发生。以色列和巴勒斯坦的人权组织、国际非政府组织都在报告这些事情正在发生。我认为真正突显这种脱节的一件事是：拜登政府在 2022 年 2 月俄罗斯入侵乌克兰的一个月之内就做出了评估。在短短一个月内，呃，国务卿布林肯就站出来评估认为俄罗斯正在犯下战争罪行。

英文原文 >> And it was clear that they were choosing not to see things that were happening. Everyone else in the world could see these things were happening. Palestinians themselves were reporting these things were happening. Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups is international NOS's reporting that these things were happening. This is one of the things that I really I I think underlines this disconnect here is the Biden administration made an assessment within a month of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Within a month, uh, Secretary of State Blinken came out and made an assessment that Russia is committing war crimes.

昨天，拜登总统表示，在他看来乌克兰境内已经发生了战争罪行。就我个人而言，我表示同意。认为他们无法对一支美国对其行动拥有远多得多的能见度的军队做出类似评估的想法，我认为简直、简直就是不可信的。

英文原文 >> Yesterday, President Biden said that in his opinion, war crimes have been committed in Ukraine. Personally, I agree. The idea that they could not make a similar assessment of a military into whose operations the United States has vastly more visibility I think is just just it's just not credible.

你认识拜登政府中的许多人。你跟他们交流过。

英文原文 >> See you know many of the people in the B administration. You've talked to them.

你认为到底发生了什么？当我和你探讨时，我是带着非常具体的意图来问的。你认为那一整套执念或价值观是什么——因为这些人自认为有着深刻的执念和深刻的价值观——

英文原文 >> What do you think happened? And and when I ask I mean it in a very specific way. What do you think were the set of commitments or values because these people see themselves as having deep commitments and deep values

在你看来是哪里出了问题，从而导致了我们现有的政策？是的，我的意思是我认为首先这确实归结于乔·拜登，尽管不仅是乔·拜登。呃，但我认为乔·拜登抱有一种非常特殊的观念，呃，既关于美国对中东政策、也关于美国对以色列政策应当如何运作，而且他有着极其坚定的信心，呃，呃，我会说是盲目的信心，但他对自身如何运用美国外交政策的判断力有着巨大的信心。呃，他对美以关系持有一种观点，他曾多次表示美以之间不应有任何缝隙。如果存在意见分歧、政策分歧，那些分歧应该在私下表达，而公开场合……

英文原文 >> that in your view went wrong and led to the policy that we had? Yeah, I mean I think first this really does come down to Joe Biden, not only Joe Biden. Um but Joe Biden I think had a very particular conception um both of how US policy toward the Middle East, how US policy toward Israel should work and he had a a very serious confidence um uh I would say misplaced but he had great confidence in his own judgment about how to use US foreign policy. Um he had a view of the US-Israel relationship which he he said many times there should be no daylight. If there were differences in opinion, differences in policy those should be expressed privately whereas in

公开场合……呃，美国基本上应该与以色列政府的任何行动保持统一步调。我认为他长期以来一直持有这一观点。嗯，他的看法是：好吧，我们……你知道，我们会对以色列这里那里的某些做法表达一些分歧，但我们不会真正对他们施加任何实际压力来迫使其改变政策。你知道，作为一名前国会幕僚，我自己深知，一旦老板确立了自己愿意去以及不愿意触碰的界限参数，我认为幕僚们就会倾向于去顺应，你知道，大家就不再争辩了，而是说：“好吧，这就是防护栏，这就是护栏”，然后你开始在这些护栏之内去制定政策。拜登反复明确表明了这一点，实际上他在2020年党内初选期间就已表明，当时参议员桑德斯引发了关于对以色列设定军事援助前置条件的辩论。我是说，拜登当时称那是一个荒唐透顶的想法。也许……曾有那么一次，他扣留过一批2000磅级炸弹的运送，但除此之外，对于全世界都能看到的这一连串持续发生的暴行，实际上没有产生任何后果。关于这点我有个疑问，也许你知道答案，因为它一直让我感到困惑。我想在当前这个节点可以说，对于左翼而言，加沙就算不是拜登政府最核心的失败，也是其主要失败之一。而且我同意你的看法，这在很大程度上要归咎于乔·拜登本人。

英文原文 public uh the United States should remain essentially in lock step with whatever the Israeli government was doing. And I think he has had that view for a very long time. Um his his view was okay we're you know we're going to express some differences with what Israel is doing here and there but we're not really going to put any real pressure on them to change policy. You know, as a former staffer um myself, I know that once the boss has kind of laid down the parameters um of where he or she is willing to go and not go, I think staffers start to tend to shape, you know, you stop arguing and you say, "Okay, this is these these are the guardrails um and you start to shape policy within those guardrails." And Biden made clear repeatedly and he made clear actually during the 2020 primary uh when Senator Sanders kicked off a debate about conditioning military aid uh to Israel. I mean Biden at the time called that a preposterous idea. There was maybe there was that one time when he withheld one shipment of uh 2,000lb bombs, but other than that there really no consequences for what the entire world could see was an ongoing set of atrocities. I have a question about this that that maybe you know the answer to because it's always confused me. I think it's fair to say at this point for the left Gaza exists as a if not the central failure of the Biden administration. And I agree with you that much of that comes down to Joe Biden himself.

当时拜登面临被逼退选的压力，

英文原文 >> When Biden was being pushed to step down,

最极力抵制这种逼退努力、试图维持拜登地位的人，其中包括伯尼·桑德斯和AOC。

英文原文 >> the some of the strongest people fighting that effort, trying to keep Biden in place were Bernie Sanders and AOC.

我一直没能完全理解为什么。你比我更了解他们，尤其是考虑到加沙问题如今的核心重要性，而且显然在2024年也同样如此，当时究竟是怎么回事？

英文原文 >> And I never quite understood why. you know them better than I do particularly given like the centrality of Gaza now and obviously that was true in 2024 what was going on there

我可以谈谈我所知道的，从我的视角来看，我认为他们的看法是：你知道，他们了解拜登，显然他们并不赞同加沙政策，他们是对加沙政策发声最严厉的批评者中的两位，但他们深知，一旦涉及到国内经济政策、贸易政策等其他政策时，他们在白宫内部至少是有能倾听自己意见的人的。乔·拜登及其团队一直愿意在外交政策之外的诸多广泛议题上与他们沟通探讨、深入接触。但我也必须说，我觉得还有一种务实的考量，这纯属我个人的推测，我并没有任何内幕消息。我认为这合乎情理：听着，如果有人要把乔·拜登逼退，那绝不能是进步派左翼。他们非常清楚，我认为民主党内的所有进步派都意识到，我们面对的是一个始终在寻找借口将我们斥为破坏团结之人的建制中间派。所以，我认为这也导致了他们的顾虑与犹豫。

英文原文 >> I mean I can say what I know what I from my perspective I think their view was you know they knew Biden obviously they disagreed with the Gaza policy they were two of the most vocal critics of the Gaza policy but they knew that when it came to other policies in domestic economic policy trade policy they at least had an ear in in the White House. Um Joe Biden um and his team had been willing to talk with engage with them on a whole range of issues beyond foreign policy. But I also I got to say I feel like there was also I think a pragmatic sense and this is just my suspicion. I'm not you know this I don't have any inside information. I think it makes sense like listen if someone's going to push Joe Biden out it's not going to be the progressive left. They're very aware. I think all progressives in the Democratic party are aware that we have a centrist establishment that is always looking for reasons to call us, you know, disunifying records. So, I think that kind of played into their hesitance as well.

对以援助政策的转变与民主党立场

那么让我问问你有关这项政策发生转变的方式。正如你所说，在2020年大选期间，伯尼·桑德斯发起了一场关于为援助设定条件的辩论，

英文原文 >> Let me then ask you about the way the policy was changing as you say that in the 2020 campaign, Bernie Sanders kicked off a debate on conditioning aid,

这种设限在民主党内部长期以来一直被视为大忌。突然之间，它不再是大忌了。我认为参议员克里斯·范霍伦撰写的那篇评论文章是一个相当重要的时刻。是的。

英文原文 >> which is something that has been anathema in the Democratic party for a long time. All of a sudden, it's not. I thought the op-ed by Senator Chris Van Holland was a pretty significant Yeah.

那个时刻。我是说，他是一位建制派人物，

英文原文 >> moment. I mean, he's a

一位建制派人物，

英文原文 >> an establishment figure

呃，长期以来他在以色列问题上一向直言不讳。这一点值得提及。

英文原文 >> uh who's been very outspoken on Israel for a long time. It's worth saying.

让我直截了当地问：在你看来，民主党对以色列的立场应该是什么？这里正确的政策应该是什么？

英文原文 >> Let me ask it directly. What in your view should the Democrat's position towards Israel be? What is the right policy here?

好的，我认为首先是停止援助。我是指停止……以色列是一个富裕的国家。呃，美国纳税人真的完全没有必要继续补贴他们的国防预算。我是说，那是AOC提出的立场，我认为大概五分钟之后拉姆·伊曼纽尔也紧接着跟进表态。这非常有意思。这两个人代表了党内截然不同的两极。但我确实认为我们正在接近这一点。呃，但不仅止于此，我认为不仅是援助，还有军售。我们现行法律中确实有明确规定。我是说，正因如此，我才觉得整个关于为援助设定条件、为军售设定条件的辩论是如此不可思议，它竟然被当作某种类似于奇怪惩罚的方式来对待。我们的现行法典中白纸黑字地规定，要依据一系列原则对每一个国家的援助设定条件，无论是《莱希法案》，还是《武器出口管制法》。现有法律明文禁止或限制向具有确凿人权侵犯记录的军队或军事单位出售武器。我们只是根本没有去执行这些法律。多届政府纯粹就是无视了这些法律。再次强调，这就是我刚才谈到的拜登政府的做法。

英文原文 >> Well, I think first of all, it's to end aid. It's to end I mean, Israel is a wealthy country. Um there's there's really no need for American taxpayers to continue to subsidize uh their defense budget. I mean that's a position that was put out there by AOC and I think about 5 minutes later Rahm Emanuel came up right behind. So very interesting. These are two people who kind of represent different polls in the party. But I do think we're getting close to that. Um but then moving from that I think it's not just aid, it is sales. And we do have laws on the books. I mean this is why I found the whole conditioning aid conditioning arm sales debate so bizarre the way it was treated as some kind of you know kind of weird punishment. We have laws on the books that condition aid to every country according to a set of principles whether it's the Lehey law whether it's the arms export and control act. There are existing laws that you know prohibit or restrict the sale of arms to militaries or military units that have a proven record of human rights abuses. We have simply not upheld those laws. multiple administrations have simply simply ignored them. And again, this is what I was saying about the Biden administration.

我们……我想问你一个问题。你会说我们大体上是遵守这些法律、唯独对以色列破例，还是说我们总体上就不遵守它们？

英文原文 >> Do we I have a question for you. Would you say we follow those laws in general and make an exception for Israel or do we not follow them in general?

我认为涉及某些国家——以色列是其中之一，还有埃及等我们相关的其他国家，以及沙特阿拉伯。嗯，是的。我是说，听着，军火游说集团是一个极其强大的势力。推动这些军售顺利通过存在着强烈的诱因。

英文原文 >> I think there are certain countries, Israel being one, Egypt, others, countries that we have, Saudi Arabia. Um, yes. I mean, so I think listen, the arms the arms lobby is an extremely powerful one. There is a strong incentive to just kind of push these sales through.

你认为这是源于军火游说集团，还是你认为源于美国的外交政策建制派或总统出于其他考量认为与这些国家的联盟关系至关重要？

英文原文 >> Do you think it comes from the arms lobby or do you think it comes from the American foreign policy establishments or the president's feeling that the alliances with these countries are important for other reasons?

我认为所有这些因素兼而有之。我是说，在某些情况下，可能是某一个因素比另一个更大，但我确实认为这触及了一个更大的问题，那就是安全国家、军工复合体，无论我们现在用什么词来称呼它。我是说，这是一个真正的顽疾。这也是我们卷入这场与伊朗荒谬战争的部分原因。但回到民主党在以色列问题上应该采取什么立场，我认为，是的，首先，你知道，在军售问题上要恪守我们现有的法律；但同时，让我们真正提出一项政策，去赋权给以色列和巴勒斯坦双方当中最好的行动方，而不是最坏的行动方，因为不幸的是，据我观察，这正是我们过去二十多年来的政策一直在做的事情。

英文原文 >> I think it's all those things. I mean, in in some cases, it might be one more than the other, but I do think this gets to a much bigger problem is that the security state, the military-industrial complex, whatever word we're going to use now. I mean, this is a real problem. This is how we part of how we ended up in this ridiculous war with Iran. But getting back to what the Democrat's position should be on Israel, I think yes, first of all, you know, uphold our existing laws when it comes to arm sales, but also let's really tee up a policy that empowers, you know, the best actors um toward in Israel and Palestine rather than the worst ones because unfortunately, as I see it, that is what our policy has been doing for the past 20 plus years.

你能描述一下它是如何造成这种局面的，以及替代方案会是什么样吗？

英文原文 >> Can you describe how it's done that and then what the alternative would look like?

好的。我是说，我认为我们的政策基本上是把所有的后果、抑制手段、惩罚和所谓的“大棒”，都集中在其中一方身上——并非完全如此，但主要是这样。也就是落在实力较弱的一方，巴勒斯坦人身上。嗯，他们要获取援助总是会被加上某种新的限制条件。而且，你知道，平心而论，这其中有些是合理的。显然，我们确实应该针对恐怖主义施加后果。我是说，这确实是无可争辩的。嗯，但与此同时，对于更强大的一方——也就是以色列一方，却从未施加任何后果，任何真正实质性的后果。我认为这种互动格局确实让以色列产生了一种非常符合其算计的信念，即他们完全可以径直推进事实上的吞并——这在我们交谈的当下就正在发生——永久巩固他们对以色列和巴勒斯坦全境土地的控制，并将巴勒斯坦民族运动削弱、压缩为大以色列范围内一个完全受其控制的属民群体。这就是我们目前所处的处境。而这种局面之所以持续朝一个方向滑退，是因为根本没有任何因素去阻拦它。我是说，以色列越来越多的极端主义领导人提出并实施更极端主义的政策，却完全不必承担任何后果。与此同时，你知道，巴勒斯坦人看到这一切，再看看自己那软弱无能、腐败的领导层，他们就会觉得：“这算什么？”他们看到的只有更多的占领，这便强化了极端主义的声音，那些声音在说：“不，争取自由的唯一途径是靠枪杆子。”嗯，这就是我所说的，我们的政策事实上赋权给了那些不想要和平的最坏的行动方。嗯，

英文原文 >> Right. I mean, I think we've had a policy where basically all the consequences and disincentives and punishments and sticks, so to speak, have been focused on one side, not entirely, but mostly. That's on one side, the less powerful side, the Palestinians. Um, there's always some kind of new condition that's placed on them to receive aid. And, you know, and again, some of this is is legit. Obviously, we we should impose consequences for for terrorism. I mean, that that that that is true. Um but at the same time there are zero consequences that are imposed any any real meaningful consequences that are ever imposed on the more powerful side uh the Israeli side. And I think this this this dynamic has really, you know, given Israel a very reasonable belief that they can just press forward with with de facto annexation which is ongoing as we speak with entrenching their control over all of the land of Israel and Palestine in perpetuity and to weaken and diminish the Palestinian national movement to just, you know, a completely, you know, controlled subject population within a greater Israel. That's the situation we're in right now. And the reason this keeps ticking in one direction is because there's no reason for it not to. I mean, there are no consequences for more and more extremist leaders in Israel to raise and implement more extremist policies. At the same time, you know, Palestinians look at that and they look at their own kind of ineffective corrupt leadership and they're like, "What is this?" They they see only more occupation and it empowers extremist voices who are saying, "No, the way to get our freedom is through the gun." Um, and that's what I mean when like we have pursued policies that have empowered uh some of the worst actors who don't want peace. Um,

那么请具体说明一下，这些政策是什么，它们的可选方案或相反做法又会是什么样？

英文原文 >> so be specific for me. What are these policies and what would their alternative or opposite look like?

好的。我是说，我想首先看看加沙。你首先需要……治理基础……你知道，加沙正如我确信你的听众所了解的那样，我是说，它现在已经是一片废墟。它依然是一连串的帐篷城。嗯，但……

英文原文 >> Yeah. I mean, I would say first of all, let's look at Gaza. You need um first of all, governance basic, you know, Gaza as as as I'm sure your your your listeners know, I mean, it's it's a ruin now. It's still it's a series of tent cities. Um, but the

巴勒斯坦治理与哈马斯

……带来秩序的方式、为民众提供服务的方式、实现真正控制的方式，就是由巴勒斯坦人来治理。归根结底，这是你能够……的唯一途径。

英文原文 way to bring order, the way to bring services to people, the way to to bring real control is to have it governed by Palestinians. That's ultimately the only way um that you're going to be able to

这能包括哈马斯吗？

英文原文 >> Can that include Hamas?

我认为这必须包括与哈马斯达成某种默契。众所周知，哈马斯仍然留在加沙，并未被消灭。所以他们依然是一支不可忽视的力量。但我认为我们必须认识到的是，在占领状态下，哈马斯的缴械是绝不可能发生的。唯有在合法的巴勒斯坦自治状态下，才有可能想象其实现。

英文原文 >> I think it has to include some kind of tacid agreement with Hamas. As we as we all know, Hamas remains in Gaza. Um, it has not been destroyed. Um, so they they continue to be a relevant force. But I think what we have to come around to is just understanding that, you know, the the disarmament of Hamas will never happen under a situation of occupation. It will only conceivably happen under a situation of legitimate Palestinian self-governance.

对以政策与影响力困境

那么在另一方，情况是怎样的？过去的这些政策是什么样的，未来对以色列的政策又该如何？

英文原文 >> And what does it look like on the other side? What what have these policies been and what would they be towards Israel?

我的意思是，首先，我们要开始为这些政策设置阻碍。我们要明确声明定居点是非法的，支持定居点并为其扩张提供便利的官员应该承担后果，应该面临制裁。我认为拜登政府在以巴问题上做得极少数的好事之一，就是制裁暴力定居者，但我认为那只是冰山一角。不过我认为，一旦你表明这些政策需要付出真正的代价，局面就会开始发生转变。

英文原文 >> I mean, first off, let's start to create disincentives for these policies. Let's let's state plainly that these the settlements are illegal. um that that officials who who support them and facilitate their growth um should face consequences. They should face sanctions. I think you know one of the very few good things that the Biden administration did on Israel Palestine was you know sanctions against violent settlers but I think that's just the tip of the iceberg but I think it will start to shift the dynamic once you show that there are real costs for these policies.

让我向你请教一下这里面的张力。拜登政府的官员经常对我说——包括在这个节目中有时也会提到——他们对内塔尼亚胡的施压或约束是有限度的，他们认为保持对话、对以色列政府保留一定的筹码是更好的选择。说来有趣，刚才你谈到了为什么AOC和伯尼可能希望拜登留在选票上，尽管他们在加沙问题上与他存在极大的分歧。

英文原文 >> Let me ask you about attention here. Something Biden administration officials often told me was, and including on this show at times, was that there was only so far they could push or restrain Netanyahu, and they thought it was better to remain in conversation, to remain with some leverage over the Israeli government. It's funny when you were talking about why AOC and Bernie might have wanted Biden to stay on the ticket despite deeply disagreeing with him on Gaza.

嗯，他们能跟他说得上话。

英文原文 >> Well, they had his ear.

嗯。而且你看，即使在眼下，以色列反对派也提出了大量的批评，指责内塔尼亚胡过于听从唐纳德·特朗普，没有对黎巴嫩发动他承诺过的、也是他们希望他发动的那种规模的攻击。所以，哪怕内塔尼亚胡似乎对特朗普做出的极其微小的妥协，在以色列国内也已经变成了他的政治包袱。因此，在维持沟通渠道以及可能对以色列决策施加影响，与被认为在某种程度上成了同谋之间，确实存在着张力。

英文原文 >> Mhm. And you know, even right now, there is huge amounts of criticism from the Israeli opposition that Netanyahu is listening too much to Donald Trump and not launching the scale of assault on Lebanon that he has promised and that they want him to launch. So like even the incredibly modest level >> of uh concession Netanyahu appears to be making to Trump has become a political liability for him in Israel. So there is some tension here between kind of maintaining, you know, the line of communication and the possible, you know, influence over Israeli decisions, but then you're complicit in them arguably.

确实。

英文原文 >> Yeah.

你怎么看待这一点？

英文原文 >> How do you think about that?

也门先例与对以联盟的反思

是的。嗯，我想说三点。第一，即便你完全没有改变他们的行为，你至少不再为一个种族灭绝提供武器了。我认为这本身就算是一场胜利。第二，那种认为“好吧，没有我们他们也能照样推进”的想法——我的意思是，我们有足够多的以色列安全官员，不仅是最近的，还可以追溯到许多年前，他们都说：听着，没有美国的支持，我们根本无法继续下去。以色列的安全高层就是这么认为的。第三，关于他们保持接触只是为了发挥影响力的说法，我并不买账。我不买账的原因是，我要把时间拨回到我记得应该是2019年，当时我正与桑德斯参议员就针对也门的战争权力决议展开合作。当时美国卷入了对阿联酋和沙特在也门战争的支持中。当时出现了大规模的人道主义危机，那是当时世界上最严重的人道主义危机。桑德斯参议员与克里斯·墨菲参议员、迈克·李参议员共同提出了一项战争权力决议，其基本内容是总统在没有获得国会适当授权的情况下将美国带入了一场冲突。当时，一些前奥巴马政府官员发表了一封信，我们对此非常赞赏，信中说他们犯了一个错误，因为这场战争是在奥巴马执政时期开始的。最初，奥巴马总统及其团队支持这场战争，原因正如同你刚才谈到以色列时所说的，也就是说，好吧，我们不一定喜欢这场针对也门的战争，但与沙特和阿联酋的所作所为保持接触并给予支持，会让我们对这场战争如何进行拥有一定的影响力。他们在信中坦言那是一个错误。我们根本无法发挥有意义的影响力。事实上，我们所做的只是为一场可怕的战争提供了认可。而签署那封信的部分人员后来进入了拜登政府任职，现在却在这里拿出完全相同的论调，来论证为什么继续支持内塔尼亚胡、以色列以及在加沙的行动是更好的选择。我并不买账。

你有时会从民主党人那里听到另一种论调，而从共和党人那里则更为普遍，那就是以色列是美国的盟友。我们要和盟友站在一起。以色列是该地区重要的战略伙伴，涉及情报、合作以及其他方面。

英文原文 >> Yeah. Well, I would say three things. One is first of all, even if you don't change their behavior at all, you are at least no longer providing arms for a genocide. I count that as as a win in and of itself. Second of all, this idea that okay, they could just move forward without us. I don't I mean, we have enough um you know, Israeli security officials, not just recently, but going back many years saying, listen, without US support, we could not we simply could not continue. I mean, that is what this the Israeli security echelon believes. And third, this idea that they were just staying engaged to have influence. I don't buy that. And the reason I don't is I'm going to go back to I believe it was 2019. And this is when I was working with Senator Sanders on a war powers resolution on Yemen. Uh the United States was involved in support of the Emirati and Saudi war on Yemen. Um massive humanitarian crisis at that time the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. And Senator Sanders and along with Senator Chris Murphy, Senator Mike Lee offered a war powers resolution which basically says the president has taken the United States into a conflict without the appropriate authorization uh from Congress. And at the time, a number of former Obama administration officials published a letter, which we really appreciated, saying that they had made a mistake because this war started under the Obama administration. And initially, President Obama and his team supported it for exactly the reason you just said in Israel, which was to say, okay, we don't necessarily like this war on Yemen, but staying engaged and staying supportive of what the Saudis and the Amiradis are doing will give us some influence in how this war is conducted. They said in that letter that was a mistake. We were not able to have meaningful influence. And in fact, what we did was just give affirmation to a terrible war. And some of the people who signed that letter went on to serve in the Biden administration and are now out here offering the exact same argument for why it was better to continue supporting Netanyahu and Israel and Gaza. And I don't buy it. The other argument you'll hear this sometimes from Democrats very often from Republicans is that Israel is an American ally. We stand with our allies. Israel is a important strategic partner in the region and intelligence and cooperation and other things.

所以这其中存在着一种美国战略利益，相比于基于价值观的视角，这更像是一种现实主义的视角……

英文原文 >> And so there is an American strategic interest more of a realist take than a values-based take

……主张保持紧密的联盟关系。你认同这个吗？

英文原文 >> in maintaining a tight alliance. Do you buy that?

我的意思是，我们目前从与中东的关系中获益了吗？究竟发生了什么？我们有从这种关系中获益吗？是的，我经常听到这种论调。这在华盛顿几乎就像是金科玉律一般。但我确实对此存疑。是的，拥有盟友是好事，拥有民主盟友是好事。我认为美国应该与盟友合作，捍卫他们合法的安全利益。我认为以色列一直在做的事情根本谈不上合法。当我听到人们提起：噢，我们在科技领域是否有合作？我的回答是：那又是为了什么呢？显而易见，这对以色列非常非常有利。这种联盟对以色列来说一直非常非常有利。但是，当我审视美以关系在战略、伦理、道德、政治和外交上的成本与收益时，我认为它对美国并不划算。我认为这取决于当下正在进行的一场关于什么应该驱动美国外交政策的更宏大的外交政策辩论。

英文原文 >> What I mean are we benefiting from our our relationship to the Middle East right now? What's happening? are we benefiting from this relationship? I mean, yes, I hear this argument a lot. It's it's kind of almost it's like a holy rit in Washington. Um, but I I I I do question it. Yes, it's good to have allies. It's good to have democratic allies. I think the United States should work with with allies uh to defend their legitimate security interests. I think what Israel has been doing is not remotely uh legitimate. Um, when I hear people bring up, oh, like do we have this cooperation on technology on on on tech? And my answer is, well, well, for what? You know, obviously this is very very good for Israel. This alliance has been very very good for Israel. But when I look at the costs and benefits both strategically, ethically, morally, politically, diplomatically to the USIsrael relationship, I don't think it works out in the US's favor. I think it's up to a larger foreign policy debate that is happening right now about what should drive American foreign policy.

基于价值观的外交政策

当我倾听左翼那些阐述这一点的人士时——其中有些人你曾担任过他们的顾问，比如AOC……

英文原文 >> And when I listen to some of the people, some of whom you have advised who are articulating this on the left, AOC,

伯尼·桑德斯，以及像克里斯·墨菲、众议员杰森·克劳等人……

英文原文 >> Bernie Sanders, people like Chris Murphy and Jason Crowe, congressman,

他们关注的核心是：我们的外交政策应该建立在价值观之上。

英文原文 >> something they center is that our foreign policy should be based on values.

听到很多关于利益的讨论，但他们会谈论很多关于价值观的内容。到底是什么价值观？拥有基于价值观的外交政策意味着什么？

英文原文 >> Hear a lot talk of interest, but but they will talk a lot about values. What values? What does it mean to have a values-based foreign policy?

嗯，我会说民主是其中之一。自治，一个为其人民谋福祉的政府。这听起来很简单。确实简单，但我想把问题拉回到关于外交政策究竟是为什么而存在的根本原则上。任何国家的外交政策都是为了促进该国人民的安全与繁荣。这就是美国外交政策的目的。我认为作为一名进步派人士，我还会在其中加上“团结”这个词。我的意思是，我不仅希望与自己国家的人民团结在一起，也希望与我们国境之外的社群团结在一起。我觉得，即使我们没有能力去拯救世界，但我认为我们一开始能做到的就是减少伤害。在某些地方，美国已经造成并且正在继续造成巨大的伤害。这绝不是我们外交政策的全部故事。我认为在过去的几十年里，美国做出了巨大的贡献，我认为在未来我们也能做出巨大的贡献。我还要说——这也是你从克劳众议员、从AOC、当然还有从伯尼、从墨菲参议员，也就是你刚才提到的那些人那里听到过的——我们需要一种真正为美国工薪家庭谋福利的外交政策。我认为我们需要触及核心问题。而且你看，我并没有频繁称赞特朗普的习惯，但我确实认为他提供了一个机会，或者至少揭示了一个机会，通过挑战关于战后单极霸权时刻美国主导地位的一些极基本的预设观念，使得我们能够展开辩论，而我们必须进行这场辩论。

所以，我想探讨……

英文原文 >> Well, I would say democracy is one. Um, self-government, a government that that delivers, you know, for its people. Um, and that sounds simple. It is, but I would I would kind of take things back to some very first principles about what foreign policy is for. Any country's foreign policy is is meant to advance the the safety and the prosperity of that country's people. That's what American foreign policy is for. I think as as a progressive I would add the word you know solidarity to that. I mean I want to be in solidarity not only with people in my country but communities outside our country and I feel like even though we have don't have the ability to to fix the world um I think what we can do at the start is to do less harm. Um there are places where the United States has done and is continuing to do enormous harm. That's not the entire story of our foreign policy by any means. I think the United States has done enormous good. um over the past decades. I think there's enormous good we can do into the future. I would also say, and this is something you've heard um you know, from people like Congressman Crow, from AOC, obviously from Bernie, um from from Senator Murphy, the people you mentioned, is you know, we need a foreign policy that that really delivers for America's working families. Um I think we need to take take things down to the wheel, so to speak. And you know, I'm not in the habit of really complimenting Trump all that much, but I do think he has provided an opportunity or at least revealed an opportunity um by challenging some of the very basic kind of preconceptions of, you know, post-war, you know, unipolar moment American primacy um that is enabling us to have a debate and we have to have it. So, I want to explore

那样的外交政策会是什么样子。我认为，一个很好的切入点是来自科罗拉多州的前陆军军官克劳（Crowe）议员在美国进步中心（Center for American Progress）发表的一场演讲。我想那是去年十月的事。我想在这里放一段那场演讲的音频片段。

英文原文 what that foreign policy would look like. And I think a good place to start is a speech that Congressman Crowe, who's from Colorado, former Army officer, gave at the Center for American Progress. I think it was last October. I want to play a clip of it here.

我目前看到的最大的分歧，以及我们如何看待这个问题，在于那些认为唐纳德·特朗普是其起因的人，与那些认为唐纳德·特朗普是其症状的人之间。

这需要回顾过去的30年，并通过我在中西部上游一个工薪阶层小镇共同长大的人们的视角来看待它。

那些曾与我并肩作战的人，以及我现在所服务的人。

在过去的30年里，我们经历了超过20年的失败军事干预，3万亿美元，300万次作战部署，超过7000名我们自己的人牺牲，数万其他人死亡。

而那些数字中没有体现出来的，是工薪阶层所承受的不平等负担。他在那篇演讲中继续说道，我们常常误以为这里的核心辩论是一场政策对话，但它实际上是一场关乎信任的对话。

英文原文 >> The biggest divide that I see right now and how we view this problem is those who believe that Donald Trump is the cause of it versus those who believe that Donald Trump is a symptom of it.

And that requires looking back over the last 30 years and looking at it through the lens of the people that I grew up with in a workingclass town in the upper Midwest.

Those who I fought with and those who I now serve.

In those last 30 years, we've had over 20 years of failed military interventions,

$3 trillion,

three million combat tours, over 7,000 of our own dead, tens of thousands of others dead.

And what's not in those numbers is the unequal burden that was borne by the working class. He goes on to say in that speech that we often mistake the core debate here for being a policy conversation, but what is is a conversation about trust

外交政策建制派已经失去了信任。它失信了。所以你算是半只脚在那个建制派里，半只脚在外面。

英文原文 >> and that the foreign policy establishment has lost trust. It has broken faith. So you're sort of half in and half out of that establishment.

我认为一个很好的切入点是，你如何看待这个信任问题？如果是失去了，它是怎么失去的，又是什么能重建它？

英文原文 >> I think a good place to start is how do you see this question of trust? How how was it lost if it was and what builds it?

信任危机与体制问题

是的。嗯，再次声明，我的意思是，克劳（Crow）议员刚才说的关键分歧在于把特朗普视为问题还是把特朗普视为症状，我认为是完全正确的。我……我认为这解释了目前的很多辩论。我非常倾向于症状那一派，而且我认为，你知道，缺乏信任。我的意思是，这真的可以归结为特朗普说过的、其他人也用过的一句话，那就是体制被操纵了（the system is rigged），而特朗普之所以能获得号召力，是因为他是对的——体制确实被操纵了。

美国人能看出来。他们能从对自己生活缺乏掌控感中体会到这一点，包括对自己的经济生活、政治生活、嗯、社会生活。

嗯，他们觉得，我的意思是，我认为他们面对着旨在诱捕他们的技术。他们感到被各种各样的成本所剥削，你知道，就是从他们迈出的每一步、每种疾病的每一种症状、孩子们参加的每一场体育比赛中榨取最大的财富。我认为这延伸到了外交政策上，因为其中一个重大的，你知道，无论是伊拉克战争——那场战争，你知道，再次是对美国人兜售的，依据的是人们现在所明白的错误陈述或彻底的谎言。嗯，还有2008年的金融危机，那再次不一定是一场外交政策危机，但我认为它的全球影响，当然还有它的国内影响。所有这些加在一起，构成了呃，你知道，一个要么不知道自己在做什么，要么纯粹是在谋求自身利益的精英建制派。

我认为我经常引用的演讲之一是 JD·万斯（JD Vance）在2024年共和党全国代表大会上的演讲，嗯，他在演讲中谈到了自己的个人经历，你知道，就像克劳议员在那场演讲中所做的那样。但是 JD·万斯，我认为讲得非常非常有力，你知道，作为一个像他那样在呃在在偏远美国乡村长大的人，以及那些去工业化的社区所遭受的痛苦。嗯，关于新自由主义贸易经济学、北美自由贸易协定（NAFTA）、以及他曾服役过的伊拉克战争所撒下的谎言。嗯，他讲述了一整套关于精英失败、关于对像他一起长大的那些工薪阶层撒谎的故事。

英文原文 >> Yeah. Um well again I mean what what Congressman Crow said right there about the the key divide being between those who see Trump as the problem and Trump as a symptom I think is right on. I I I think that explains a lot of the debate right now. I'm very much on the symptom side and I think you know the lack of trust. I mean it really does come down to this one line from Trump that others have used and that is the system is rigged and Trump gets traction with that because he's right the system is rigged.

Americans can see it. They can feel it in the lack of control that they feel over their own lives, over economic lives, political lives, um social lives.

Um they feel, I mean, I think confronted by technology that is designed to ent trap them. They feel kind of exploited by different, you know, costs, you know, to you know, to extract the maximum amount of wealth of every step they take, every symptom of every disease, every, you know, every game that their kids play in sports. And I think that attaches to foreign policy because one of the big, you know, whether it's, you know, the war in Iraq, which was, you know, again, sold to the Americans on what what people understand now were misstatements or outright lies. Um, you had the the, you know, financial crisis in 2008, which again, not necessarily a foreign policy crisis, but I think its global impact and certainly its domestic impact. All of these things add up to uh, you know, an elite establishment that either doesn't know what it's doing or is simply looking after its own interests.

And I think one of the speeches that I've referenced a lot is um the speech that JD Vance gave at the Republican National Convention in 2024 um where he talked about his own personal story, you know, as Congressman Crow did there. But but JD Vance, I think, spoke very very effectively about, you know, someone who grew up uh in in in rural America as he did and and what communities de-industrialized communities suffered. um the lie that was told about, you know, neoliberal trade, economics, NAFTA, the war in Iraq that he served in. Um he laid out a whole story of elite failure of of lies that were told to working people like the ones that he grew up with.

在像我所在的俄亥俄州小镇，或者隔壁的宾夕法尼亚州或密歇根州，在全美各地的州，工作岗位被送往海外，我们的孩子被送上战场。而在所有这些问题上，不知怎么的，一位来自纽约市、名叫唐纳德·J·特朗普的房地产开发商是对的，而拜登是错的。

英文原文 >> In small towns like mine in Ohio or next door in Pennsylvania or Michigan, in states all across our country, jobs were sent overseas and our children were sent to war. And somehow a real estate developer from New York City by the name of Donald J. Trump was right on all of these issues while Biden was wrong.

而且我认为民主党人真正必须做的——我认为克劳议员在那个我认为非常好的演讲中开始谈到的——是，你知道，民主党人首先需要承认美国人所感受到的真正问题，但同时要提供一个引人注目的愿景。好，这就是我们实际的执政方式，能够改变你的生活并让它变得更好。

英文原文 >> And I think what Democrats really have to do and I think what Congressman Crowe was starting to talk about in that speech with I think was a really good speech is, you know, Democrats need to come up first of all with an acknowledgement of the real problem that connects with the one that Americans are feeling, but offer a compelling vision. Okay, this is how we're actually going to govern in a way that can change your life and make it better.

你提到了2024年竞选中的 JD·万斯。我

英文原文 >> You mentioned JD Vance in the 2024 campaign. I

的意思是，万斯在竞选中非常明确地表达了一种观点，

英文原文 >> mean, Vance ran that campaign very much articulating a view

即唐纳德·特朗普是反战候选人，

英文原文 >> that Donald Trump was the anti-war candidate

即唐纳德·特朗普意味着结束这些对外卷入、这些愚蠢的战争。

英文原文 >> that Donald Trump meant an end to these kinds of foreign entanglements, these dumb wars.

现在显然，我们

英文原文 >> Now, obviously, we are

卷入了伊朗。

英文原文 >> imshed in Iran.

发生了什么？

嗯，事实证明唐纳德·特朗普在撒谎，嗯，这是发生的事情之一。但你说得对。我的意思是，万斯和特朗普两人，嗯，在2024年选举日之前的几个月、尤其是几周内，都在大力宣传这种反战信息。特朗普是一位支持和平的总统。我们将摆脱这些愚蠢的无休止战争。这其实也是他在2016年竞选时的纲领。而且，嗯，你知道，我认为非常有趣的是，如果你回顾冷战结束以来的每一次选举，在每一次选举中，从1992年开始，除了2004年那一次例外，更反战的候选人都赢了。嗯，我并不是要说他们是因为反战才赢的。嗯，但我确实认为这是一组非常有趣的数据，我认为它至少说明，对美国在世界上的角色采取一种远没有那么军国主义的愿景是有受众基础的。我的意思是，甚至乔·拜登在2020年也是以结束无休止战争的承诺参选的。呃，他是在一个远没有那么军国主义的纲领下参选的，而他在2024年最终为卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kla Harris）准备的也是这套纲领。特朗普利用了这一点。民主党人直接放弃了反战赛道，把它彻底空出来留给了特朗普。再次强调，我没有——我当时就说过，我现在也这么说，显然没人应该相信特朗普，但我确实认为他至少有政治智慧去认识到那是一个有吸引力的信息，我认为民主党人真的需要理解这一点。

英文原文 >> What happened? Well, it it turns out that Donald Trump lies um that is one of the things that happened. But you're right. I mean, both Vance and Trump um in in in the months and and especially the weeks before election day 2024 leaned in hard on this anti-war message. Trump was a pro peace president. We were going to get out of these dumb endless wars. That's actually something he ran on in 2016 as well. And um you know I think it is very interesting if you go back um every election since the end of the cold war in every election including starting with 1992 with the one exception of 2004 the the more anti-war candidate has won. Um I'm not going to say that they won because they were anti-war. Um, but I do think that is a very interesting set of data which I think says at the very least that there is an audience for a much less militaristic vision of America's role in the world. I mean, even Joe Biden in 2020, he ran on a pledge to end the forever wars. Uh, he ran on a much less militaristic uh platform that he ended up teeing up for Kla Harris in 2024. And Trump took advantage of that. Democrats just abandoned the anti-war lane and left it wide open for Trump. Again, I didn't I said then and I say now obviously no one should believe Trump, but I do think he had at least the political intelligence to recognize that that was an attractive message and I think Democrats really need to understand that.

让我试着为另一方辩护一下，对吧？撇开谁在选举中表现好以及他们为什么表现好这个问题不谈，因为我认为这有点复杂，嗯。你以拜登为例。我认为拜登觉得自己吸取了一些重要的教训。而且他的人一直在吹嘘的一件事就是，他是相当一段时间以来第一位没有派美军卷入新战争的总统。他们结束了阿富汗战争。人们至少讨厌当时那种场面。正是在那时，拜登的支持率跌破了50%，并且再也没有恢复。

英文原文 >> Let me try to make the case for the other side of this, right? Putting aside the question of who performs electorally because I think that's kind of tricky um and why they perform. You take Biden as an example. I think Biden thought he had learned some important lessons. And one thing that his people always bragged about was that he was the first president in some time to have not committed American troops to new wars. They ended the Afghanistan war. People hated the way that looked at the very least. That's when Biden's approval rating fell beneath 50% and never recovered.

但随后入侵乌克兰的并不是乔·拜登。

英文原文 >> But then it wasn't Joe Biden who invaded Ukraine.

那是俄罗斯。我的意思是，你之前提到了基于民主的左翼外交政策的最核心价值，对吧，你面对着俄罗斯入侵一个民主国家。我认为拜登在这一时期一直在试图调整对此的应对方式，既不卷入美军，但又不过度放弃乌克兰给弗拉基米尔·普京。你知道，哈马斯在10月7日的袭击，这是拜登所应对的另一件事，而不是他制造出来的事情。从这个角度来看，你如何看待这些情况？也许不是加沙战争最终走向了何方，而是这些最初的时刻，因为很多外交政策并非总统主动决定去做的。而是某些事情发生了，

英文原文 >> It was Russia. I mean you named earlier the very first value that a left foreign policy based on democracy right you have Russia invading a democracy Biden I think is trying through this period to calibrate a response to that that does not in mesh American troops but but nevertheless does not abandon Ukraine to Vladimir Putin you know Hamas attacks on October 7th it's another thing Biden responds to as opposed to something he is creating how do you think about those from this perspective maybe not where the Gaza war eventually went but but but these early moments because a lot of foreign policy is not what the president decides to do. It is something has happened

而现在他不得不做出决定，

英文原文 >> and now he has to make a decision,

对吧？我的意思是，让我们把所有这些都拿出来看。嗯，你知道，首先，是的。我的意思是，就个人而言，我认为综合考虑所有因素，嗯，他对俄罗斯入侵乌克兰的应对是一个很好的应对。他受到了来自右翼的批评，那些人认为他应该立即向乌克兰提供所有武器。嗯，左翼也有一些人说不，我们一直在挑衅俄罗斯。我的意思是，我自己的看法是，是的，俄罗斯入侵了乌克兰。帮助乌克兰自卫是合理的。嗯，我认为存在合理的批评，即拜登政府本应该更愿意沿途与普京展开会谈。我仍然不相信普京曾有过结束这场战争的意向。我认为他现在也对此不感兴趣。显然，他拥有一张关键的投票权，

英文原文 >> right? I mean, let's take all of those. Um, you know, first, yes. I mean, personally, I think all things considered, um, his his response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was was a good one. He's gotten, you know, criticism from his right, those who believe that he should have just given Ukraine all the weapons immediately. um some on the left who say no he we we were provoking Russia. I mean my own view is like yes Russia what invaded Ukraine. It was reasonable to help Ukraine defend itself. Um I think there are legitimate you know criticisms that the Biden administration should have been more willing to you know get into talks with Putin along the way. I am still unconvinced that Putin was ever interested in ending this war. I don't think he's interested in it right now. Obviously, he gets a key vote,

但我觉得，你知道，把那个和加沙相提并论，而且我认为他在2023年10月发表的那场演讲中，把乌克兰和以色列捆绑在一起，犯了一个巨大的错误。

英文原文 but I think, you know, comparing that to Gaza, and I think he made a huge mistake in twinning Ukraine uh with with Israel in the speech he gave in October of 2023.

哈马斯和普京代表着不同的威胁，但他们有一个共同点。他们都想彻底消灭一个邻近的民主国家。彻底消灭。

英文原文 >> Hamas and Putin represent different threats, but they share this in common. They both want to completely annihilate a neighboring democracy. completely annihilated

加沙冲突与中东政策

因为是的，你知道，加沙战争——后来演变成加沙种族灭绝——的导火索是10月7日的袭击，但如你所知，那场战争并非始于10月7日。我是说，它并不是凭空出现的。额，你知道，以色列并不是就静静地待在那里管好自己的事。在巴勒斯坦领土上，驱逐、种族清洗和暴力的行动一直在持续，而且已经持续了很多年。拜登进入中东时曾承诺重返伊朗核协议。他上台后，或多或少维持了特朗普的政策。“我们将继续对他们施压，试图达成一项更长久、更有力的协议。”我认为这是基于一种理念，你知道，一种认为需要维持美国作为中东地区安全保障者地位的信念。我认为那是一个巨大的错误。所以我觉得仅仅说他只是在回应10月7日的事件并不完全准确。我认为他的政府采取了一些……导致了10月7日事件的举措。显然哈马斯应当……

英文原文 >> because yes, the precipitating factor for you know the Gaza war, what became the Gaza genocide were the attacks of October 7, but that war did not begin on October 7 as you know. I mean it did it did not come out of nowhere. Um you know is the you know Israel was not just sitting quietly minding its own business. There was an ongoing campaign of expulsion, of ethnic cleansing, of violence that existed in the Palestinian territories that and had done so for many years. Biden came into the Middle East having promised to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal. He came in and more or less kept Trump's policy in place. We're going to keep pressure on them to try to get a longer and stronger deal. And I think this was based on a, you know, a belief of the need to maintain the US's position as the regional security guarantor in the Middle East. And I think that was a huge mistake. So I don't think it's quite right to say just that he was responding uh to the events of October 7. I think his administration had taken steps um that led to October 7. Obviously Hamas deserves

这是一个很大的论断。当你说是他们采取的举措导致了10月7日事件时，再多说说你的意思。

英文原文 >> that's a big claim. Say more what you mean by that when you say they took steps that led to October 7th. I

我确实认为，通过认同那种理念——我是说，我们得明白，《亚伯拉罕协议》关乎很多事情，但其中有一点就是把巴勒斯坦问题边缘化。

英文原文 >> I do think by buying into the idea I mean let's understand the Abraham Accords were about a number of things but one thing they were about was sidelining the Palestinian issue.

你想简要描述一下这些协议吗？它们——因为它们始于唐纳德·特朗普时期，而不是乔·拜登。

英文原文 >> Do do you just want to describe these quickly? They because they started under Donald Trump not Joe Biden.

没错。不。所以，《亚伯拉罕协议》是在2020年8月宣布的。额，首先是以色列和阿联酋之间的一项协议。额，我想在某种程度上是由特朗普政府斡旋的，尽管他们总是喜欢揽下我认为超出他们实际应得的功劳。巴林很快也加入了，但这些协议很重要，因为这是很长一段时间以来，首次让以色列与该地区阿拉伯政府实现关系正常化的协议。它们被描绘成，你知道，重大的和平协议，尽管阿联酋其实从未真正与以色列交战过。尽管如此，以色列和阿联酋之间这种在水面下持续了多年的关系如今公开化了，额，这毫无疑问是一项成就。但从内塔尼亚胡的角度来看，而且我认为从内塔尼亚胡在美国的支持者的角度来看，这之所以算是一项成功，部分原因在于它在某种程度上证明了他们长期以来的论点，即我们不需要先解决巴勒斯坦问题。额，正如许多人声称的那样，可以把这个问题推到一边，继续向前推进，与该地区其余国家建立正常关系。额，而且我认为很清楚的是，尽管《亚伯拉罕协议》并不是10月7日事件的直接导火索，但它是促成哈马斯思考为何需要采取行动的因素之一——毫无疑问是骇人听闻的行动——额，某种程度上是为了把巴勒斯坦问题重新推回地区和全球议程。

英文原文 That's right. No. So, the Abraham Accords were announced in August of 2020. Um, an agreement first between Israel and the UAE. Um, brokered, I guess, to some extent by the Trump administration, although they always like to take more credit, I think, than than they really deserve. Quickly joined by Bahrain, but they were significant because these were, uh, the first agreements in a very long time that normalized relations between Israel and regional uh, Arab governments. They were presented as, you know, major peace agreements despite the fact that the UAE had never really been at war with Israel. Still, the fact that this relationship between Israel and the UAE, which had gone on for years under the surface was now public, um was was an achievement. There's no doubt. But from Netanyahu's perspective, and I think from Netanyahu's supporters perspective in the US, part of why this was a success is that it kind of kind of demonstrated their long-standing argument, which was that we don't need to solve the Palestinian issue first. um as many have claimed who can kind of just push this to the side and move forward and and have normal relations with the the the rest of uh the region. Um and I think it's it's it's pretty clear that even though the Abraham Accords weren't like the precipitating factor for October 7, it was one of the factors that led to Hamas's thinking about why they needed to take um action, horrific action, no doubt, uh to kind of put the Palestinian issue uh uh back on the regional and global agenda.

虽然我还想就此问一些更广泛的问题，但先在这里停留一分钟：你认为拜登政府在10月7日之后应该立即采取什么行动？因为我的意思是，那次袭击是一次——是的——

英文原文 So to stay there for a minute although I want to ask broader questions about this. What do you think the Biden administration should have done immediately after October 7th because I mean that attack is a yes

我是说，这不仅仅是一次骇人听闻的袭击。

英文原文 >> I mean it is a more than horrific attack.

是的。

英文原文 >> Yes.

这是一场不折不扣的战争行为。这绝对是战争罪行——

英文原文 >> It is a genuine act of absolutely war. It is war crimes

而且在那个时刻，受害者无疑是美国的一个盟友。

英文原文 >> and done to an American ally certainly at that moment.

当时应该作何回应？我是说，我认为最初的回应是正确的，那就是表现出，你知道，对以色列、对以色列人民的坚定支持，对于……我认为乔·拜登亲自前往那里。额，但他没有利用这种公信力去做我认为他本应该做的事，那就是非常迅速地——额，在几周之内，当然，我认为到11月中旬——额，就已经极其明显地表现出这已经不再是一次自卫行为了。这是一系列的暴行，额，目的就是为了彻底摧毁加沙，额，并且杀害平民。我是说，我认为核心的理解在于，你知道，拜登政府以及华盛顿许多人谈论这个问题的方式，就是把平民受难、平民伤亡当作是整体正当目标下一个令人遗憾的附带后果。并不是这样的。平民受难正是这项政策的一部分，我认为这一点最迟在11月就变得非常非常清楚了。

英文原文 >> What should the response have been? I mean, I think the response initially was the right one, which was to show, you know, strong support for Israel, for the people of Israel, for um I I think Joe Biden going there himself. Um but he didn't use that credibility to do what I think he should have done, which was very quickly uh within weeks, certainly, I would say by the middle of November, um it was abundantly clear that this just was not an act of self-defense anymore. this was this was a series of atrocities um meant to just obliterate Gaza um and and and and to kill civilians. I mean, I I think this is kind of the core understanding is that, you know, the way that that the Biden administration and many in Washington talk about um this issue is that they treat civilians suffering, civilian casualties as if it's a regrettable um you know, kind of consequence of an overall just objective. It is not. civilian suffering is part of the policy and I think that became very very clear certainly by November.

外交政策中的控制力与民众情绪

我觉得到了拜登总统任期结束时，

英文原文 >> I think by the end of Biden's presidency

许多美国人对他的感觉，

英文原文 >> the feeling many Americans have about him

倒不是说他们极力反对他的某一项具体决定。当时公众在以色列和加沙问题上的看法是有分歧的。它无论朝哪个方向都不是一个稳赢的议题。

英文原文 >> is not so much that they dramatically disagree with any one of his decisions. The public opinion on Israel and Gaza is split at that point. It's not like a winning issue in one direction or another.

乌克兰是一个比较复杂的问题。而是他们不喜欢美国似乎把精力集中在这些对他们来说并不重要的地方。

英文原文 >> Ukraine is a kind of complicated issue. It's that they don't like the way America seems focused on these places that are not important to them.

国内物价高企，而我们却花所有这些钱去武装乌克兰。我们以某种方式卷入了以色列在加沙发动的这场战争，这看起来一团糟，看起来很可怕，你在手机上看到那些暴行，某种程度上，我认为人们到头来所厌恶的拜登主义，就是世界感觉失控了。

英文原文 >> Prices are high here and yet we're spending all this money arming Ukraine. were engaged in somehow this war in that Israel is waging in Gaza that seems like a mess that seems horrible that you're seeing on your phone, the atrocities of and like in some way I think what people hated about Bidenism by the end was that the world felt out of control.

克里斯·墨菲参议员最近在Substack上写过一些话。他写道：“如果我们仅仅把唐纳德·特朗普的外交政策说成是沙文主义或排外主义，我们就会误读其中的许多基本要素，因为他谈论的很多内容实际上关乎权力。他的信息是：那些一再被告知完全超出我们控制的全球力量，是可以处于我们控制之内的。”嗯。我认为这实际上是一个相当重要的见解，因为我认为美国外交政策、尤其是美国公众对外交政策看法中的紧张关系之一就在于：一方面，我们确实感受到一种责任感。我们不希望世界上其他地方发生坏事，特别是其中的某些事情，我们觉得我们应该参与其中。另一方面，我们又不想介入太深。然后当我们真的介入了，事实证明我们无法以可承受的代价去控制它们，或者可能就像我们在伊拉克或阿富汗发现的那样，根本无法以任何代价去控制，我们就会对此感到愤怒。

英文原文 >> There's something Chris Murphy, Senator Murphy wrote on the substract just recently. He wrote, "We would be misreading a lot of the essential elements of Donald Trump's foreign policy if we just said it was about jingoism or xenophobia because a lot of what he talks about is really about power. His message is that these global forces that we are endlessly told are just out of our control can be inside of our control." Mhm. I think this is actually a pretty important insight because I think one of the tensions of American foreign policy and particularly American public opinion towards foreign policy is on the one hand we do feel a sense of responsibility. We don't want bad things to happen elsewhere in the world and particularly some set of them we feel that we should engage in them. On the other hand, we don't want to engage too much. And then when we do engage and it turns out we cannot control them at an acceptable cost or maybe as we found in Iraq or Afghanistan at any cost, we get angry about that.

这种既想要控制却又无法控制的紧张感，我认为是一个真正的死结，处于这里外交政策政治的核心。我很好奇你对此怎么看。

英文原文 >> And this tension of wanting control but not having it is, I think, a real knot at the center of the politics of foreign policy here. And I'm curious how that lands for you.

是的，我是说，我确实认为墨菲参议员真的是一位——你知道，他显然是外交政策上的一位强有力的声音，但正如你刚才指出的，我认为他也对目前我们政治中的深层问题有着非常有力且令人信服的理论。额，我赞同这一点。虽然我认为这其中的一部分——你知道，想要做好事、想要掌控局面与失去控制之间的紧张关系——我是说，只要我们的外交政策继续由维持美国霸权、维持美国作为全球霸主的地位所驱动，这种局面就会不断发生。

英文原文 Yeah, I mean I do, you know, I think Senator Murphy has really been a he's he's one of these he, you know, obviously he's a strong voice on foreign policy, but as you noted there, I think he always he also has a very uh strong compelling theory of of the deeper case um of of what of of the problems in our politics right now. Um and and I would I I would agree with that. Although I think part of this, you know, the tension between wanting to do good, wanting to have control and and losing control, I mean, that's going to keep happening as long as we have this this foreign policy that is driven by, you know, sustaining American primacy by trying to sustain America's role as a global, you know, hedgeimon.

你这话是什么意思？因为我们这里讨论的事情，我其实不相信我们在乌克兰所做的是为了维持美国作为全球霸主的角色。我也不相信我们在加沙所做的是为了维持美国作为全球霸主的角色。我认为拜登政府自己不是这么向自己辩解的。我认为他们真的不是这么想的。所以，要么你不同意那是他们真正的意图……

英文原文 >> What do you mean by that? Because the things we're talking about here, I actually don't buy that what we were doing in Ukraine is trying to sustain America's role as a global hegeon. I don't buy that in Gaza what we were trying to do is sustain America's role as a global hegeimon. I don't think that's how the Biden administration justified it to themselves. I don't think that's really how they thought about it. So either do you disagree that that's what they were really trying to do.

在乌克兰问题上，我多少会更赞同你一些。我确实认为存在思维定式，额，特别是来自拜登的，额，你知道，他甚至都不是一个后冷战时期的产物，而是一个冷战时期的产物。所以，我确实认为，你知道，美国帮助对抗俄罗斯这种想法，在某种程度上是

英文原文 >> I I would I would agree with you a bit more on Ukraine. I do think there were habits of mind um especially from Biden um you know who who's not even a a person not a creature of the postcold war is a creature of the cold war. So, I do think that, you know, this idea of the US helping to confront Russia was something that was kind of

深深植根于他的外交政策基因之中。而且我认为，我们在加沙所看到的部分情况，以及导致这一局面的前因，正如我刚才所说，在一定程度上是由通过《亚伯拉罕协议》、通过这项提议中的美沙以和平协议所做出的努力推动的；这项协议将涉及，你知道，对沙特阿拉伯的安全保证。在我看来，这基于维持美国作为地区安全保障者的角色，并且也是为了将中国排挤出该地区。我的意思是，因为那可以说是乔·拜登外交政策最压倒一切的重点。如果我们回想一下，我想那是在——是在 2021 年 6 月吗？当时他与普京举行了一次峰会。我认为拜登最初对俄政策的目标就像是说：“好吧，我们先把俄罗斯和普京搁在一边。我们不会和他们维持太好的关系，但我们希望为这种关系带来某种可预测性，这样我们就能集中精力应对真正的问题，也就是中国。”而且我确实认为，对中国的关注，你知道，对与中国进行战略竞争的那种执念，我确实认为其背后潜藏的是维持美国，你知道，全球首要地位的努力。

英文原文 deep in his foreign policy DNA. And I think part of what we saw in Gaza and what led up to it um as I was saying was driven by uh an effort through the Abraham Accords through this proposed US Saudi Israel peace agreement which would involve you know security guarantees with Saudi Arabia was based in my view on on sustaining America's role as a regional security guarantor and and also to box China out of the region. I mean, because that was kind of the overriding focus um of Joe Biden's foreign policy. And if we remember going back, I think it was was it June 2021 where he had um a summit with Putin. I think the goal um of of Biden's Russia policy initially was to be like, "All right, let's just park Russia and Putin over here. We're not going to have a great relationship with them, but we want to kind of bring some predictability to the relationship so we can focus on the real problem, uh which is China." And I do think the China focus, you know, the the the kind of obsession with strategic competition with China, I do think that what underlies that is an effort to sustain America's, you know, global primacy.

所以在这点上我是同意的。在中国问题上我同意这点。但我认为所有这些都有点不同。我认为这种区分之所以可能很重要，显然是因为人们的目标至关重要。

英文原文 >> So I do agree with that. I agree with this on China. But I think all these are a little bit different. I think the reason this distinction might be important is that obviously people's goals matter

而我对这些不同事件、卷入的理解是，对俄罗斯亚［侵略］的反应，实际上是对乌克兰和欧洲的一种看法，

英文原文 >> and the way I read these different events involvements is the reaction of the Russian Asia was really a view about Ukraine and Europe

以及美国在其中扮演什么角色，不想任由普京开始夺取领土，因为那会对世界造成不稳定，而我们必须这么做是因为没有其他人能做。我认为，如果是欧洲更有能力去，你知道，扮演乌克兰的弹药工厂，美国本会很乐意让他们去承担，至少在某种程度上是这样。

英文原文 >> and what America's role was in that and not wanting to allow Putin just begin taking territory because that would be destabilizing for the world and we had to do it because nobody else could. I think uh if it was the case that Europe was more capable of, you know, being the uh munitions factory for Ukraine, America would have been happy to have let them do at least to some degree.

我、我不知道。我希望他们现在正在这么做。我的意思是，我希望他们正在这么做。是的，因为归根结底这才是事情需要走向的方向。

英文原文 >> I I don't know. I hope they are doing that now. I mean I mean I hope they're doing that. Yeah, because ultimately that's that's where this needs to go.

在以色列问题上，我认为很大程度上是由乔·拜登对以色列实打实的承诺所推动的，

英文原文 >> On Israel, I think a lot was driven by Joe Biden's actual commitment to Israel,

这也是你之前提到过的一点。然后在涉及中国时，我认为那里有一组关于美国首要地位的非常现实的不同问题。

英文原文 >> which is something sort of you said earlier as well. And then China, I think there's a a different set of questions that are are very real there about American primacy.

但我之所以对此聚焦片刻，是因为我认为在外交互策中经常存在一种被混为一谈的区别，而我们在其两端摇摆：我们试图去做的，究竟是履行那些也许——

英文原文 But the reason I'm I'm I'm focusing on this for a minute is that I think that there is a difference that gets conflated often in foreign policy and we move on different sides of it between is what we are trying to do uphold responsibilities that maybe

不，我们并不是真的想去做，美国人民并不是真的想去做，但在长远来看由某个人来承担对全球体系更有利的事情；

英文原文 >> no we don't really want to be doing the American people don't really want to be doing but in the long term it's better for the global system that somebody is doing it

还是说，我们实际上是在试图主导这个体系、使其向有利于我们的方向倾斜、阻止竞争对手崛起？这算是两个不同的问题。因为从一个层面上说，如果你说我们应该停止一味试图确保美国的霸权——我认为这和首要地位也有点不同，对吧，霸权是一种控制，首要地位是一种领导力——我认为很多人会点头表示赞同，我也可能会点头赞同；

英文原文 >> versus are we actually trying to dominate the system bring it in our favor keep competitors from rising up and those are sort of two different problems because on the one level if you say we should stop just trying to ensure American hegeimonyi which I think is like also a little bit different than primacy right hgeimani is a control primacy is a leadership I think a lot of people like nod and and and agree and I probably nod and agree

而在另一方面，我只是觉得，比如说乌克兰是个棘手的问题，

英文原文 >> and on the other hand I just think say Ukraine is a hard problem

我们并不是真的想去做这事，但世界上发生了很多我们不喜欢的事情，我们不得不围绕它们做出一些艰难的决定。但我不确定，你知道，在其中一些情况下，伯尼·桑德斯总统、AOC［亚历山德里娅·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯］总统、克里斯·墨菲总统就能摆脱美国责任的牵引。那种觉得如果我们不阻止某件事发生，

英文原文 >> and that we don't really want to be doing this but a lot of things happen in the world that we don't like and we have to kind of make kind of tough decisions around them. But I'm not sure that, you know, in some of these cases that a president Bernie Sanders, a president AOC, a president Chris Murphy would be free from the pull of American responsibility. the sense that if we don't stop something from happening,

它就会发生，然后我们就会受到指责——你知道，这里的“他们”、“我们”指的是这个假想的政府——要么受到不喜欢刚发生之事的美国人民的指责，要么世界上会发生坏事，最终落到我们自己的家门口。

英文原文 >> it'll happen and then we will be blamed both, you know, they we here being this imaginary administration by either the American people who don't like what just happened or bad things will happen in the world which will eventually end up on our doorstep.

美国霸权、对外干涉与国内代价

我认为那完全——我的意思是我同意这点。我是说，确实存在某些事情，你知道，是超出美国控制范围的。并不是——你知道我从未说过、也不相信这一切是某种宏大计划的一部分。嗯，当时出现了很多突发情况，许多不可预见的事态，比如俄罗斯入侵乌克兰，拜登政府当然不希望看到其发生。嗯，正如我所说，我认为综合考虑所有因素，他们的应对是相当合理的。嗯，但我确实认为，当你纵观拜登外交政策的全貌时，你知道，可以说体现在——你知道，他在上任之初前往欧洲时所说的话之一：“美国回来了。”你知道，“我们已经度过了与唐纳德·特朗普这个怪人之间短暂的小波折，现在美国回来了，继续做美国该做的事，大家都可以安心了。”嗯，“而且美国重新回到了帮助维持全球体系运转的轨道上。”而我认为，无论就美国的能力而言，还是就世界上其他人的兴趣而言，我们早就走过了那个阶段。所以，是的，我当然同意。有些时候，截至目前，确实只有美国，你知道，拥有这种能力——无论是在武器方面、在召集能力方面、在影响力方面、在经济实力方面，还是在外交实力方面——来帮助解决和处理某些问题。但我认为争论必须在于：好，那些情况具体都是些什么？嗯，我们在那些情况下应该动用什么工具？

英文原文 >> I think that's all I mean I agree with that. I mean there are certain things, you know, that are that are beyond the US's control. It's not I've you know never said and I don't believe that it's all part of some grand plan. Um, there were a lot of contingencies that popped up, a lot of unforeseen events like the Russian invasion of Ukraine that the Biden administration certainly did not want to happen. Um, and as I said, I think all things considered, they responded to that pretty reasonably. Um, but I do think that when you look at the sweep of Biden's foreign policy, you know, kind of captured in, you know, one of the things that he said upon taking office when he went to Europe, America is back. you know, we've gotten past this brief little hiccup with this this weirdo Donald Trump and now America's back doing America things and everybody can chill. Um, and America's back in the business of helping you know the global system run. And I think we had already moved beyond that both in terms of what America was capable of, what others in the um, you know, others in the world were interested in. So yeah, I would certainly agree. There are times when only the United States, as of right now, certainly the United States, you know, has the capacity, whether it's in arms, whether it's in convening capacity, whether it's in influence, whether it's in economic power, whether it's in diplomatic power to help solve and address certain problems. But I think the debate has to be okay, what are those situations? Um, and what tools should we deploy in those situations?

让我从更广泛的角度来看待美国全球霸权的问题。你说过，美国外交政策建制派经常问一个问题：我们怎样才能更好地向美国人民推销继续维持美国全球军事霸权，而不是去倾听美国人其实对此并不那么感兴趣的声音。你说过，美国人只是对全球军事霸权没那么大兴趣，因为它具有破坏性。它是浪费的。它加剧了不平等。它从工薪阶层手中偷走金钱，并将其向上输送给极少数无需承担问责的精英。我认为这比乌克兰、加沙乃至中国的问题更为广泛。我认为左翼存在一种更广泛的看法，即美国对自己世界角色的看法，以及为了维持该世界角色所投入的代价，是具有破坏性的。

英文原文 Let me take the American global hegemony question from a broader perspective. You said that the American foreign policy establishment often ask a question. How do we better sell continuing American global military hesge money to the American people rather than hearing that Americans just aren't that into it. Americans, you said, are just not that into global military hgeimani because it's destructive. It's wasteful. It increases inequality. It steals money from the working class and it funnels it upward to a tiny unaccountable elite. I think there's a broader than Ukraine or Gaza or even China. I think there's a broader view on the left that America's view of its role in the world and what it puts into maintaining that role in the world is destructive.

所以请向我阐述那个更广泛的论据，以及在我们的外交政策中转变摆脱那一套会是什么样子。

英文原文 >> So make that broader case to me and what it would look like to to turn away from that in our foreign policy.

好的。我的意思是，我认为你知道美国人希望他们的国家强大、有力量、在世界上发挥重要作用。我认为任何国家的人民都希望如此。嗯，不仅如此，我想说我认为美国人希望自己的国家在世界上做有益的事。这就是我的感受。我认为这种想法是具有广泛共识的。但我确实认为我们必须非常非常认真地审视，全球军事霸权——无论你想用什么词来称呼它——究竟实际上带来了什么。这也就是我要回顾 J·D·万斯在 2024 年共和党全国代表大会（RNC）上的演讲的地方。我们经历了一场又一场战争。我们现在仍有战争在进行。嗯，它们规模不像当年的伊拉克和阿富汗那么大。嗯，但我们有很多美国军队部署在世界各地执行反恐任务。嗯，为了保障自身安全，我们真的需要所有这些吗？我们在这上面花了多少钱？而且、而且利益到底真正落到了谁的头上？嗯，我认为很多美国人在看到自己的社区经历了去工业化，嗯，他们的孩子面临着比他们更糟糕的未来时，所提出的问题是：好吧，我希望美国做有益的事。我希望美国强大。嗯，但是同样，正如你早些时候在谈话中所说的那样，我不明白这些冲突以及我们卷入其中究竟如何切实做到了那一点。

英文原文 >> Yeah. I mean I think you know Americans want their country to to be strong, to be powerful, to play a major role in the world. I think any country's people do. Um, and more than that, I'll say I think Americans want their country to do good in the world. That's how I feel. I think that is that's that's broadly shared. But I do think we have to look really really take a very very hard look at at what this what global military hegemony, global whatever term you want to use for it is actually delivering. And this is where I would go back uh to JD Vance's speech uh at the at the 2024 RNC. We've had just multiple wars. We have them ongoing right now. Um they're not as big as as as Iraq and Afghanistan were. Um but we have we have many American troops deployed um around the world on counterterrorism missions. Um do we actually need all of this to keep us safe? How much are we spending on this? And and to whom are the benefits really acrewing? Um I think the question a lot of Americans ask when they you know they see their communities having been de-industrialized. um their children face a worse future than they do is okay. I want America to do good. I want America to be strong. Um but again, as you said earlier in the conversation, I don't understand how these conflicts and our engagement in them is actually doing that.

你有这样一句话：精英免责是我们政治危机的核心。告诉我你那是何意。

英文原文 >> You have this line that elite impunity is at the core of our political crisis. Tell me what you mean by that.

我指的是这样一种感觉：富有者、有权者、人脉深厚者、有影响力者不用付出代价。他们依据的是一套与我们其余人不同的规则。这是政治腐败的一部分。这是失去控制的一部分。它是制度被操纵的一种体现。

英文原文 >> I mean the sense that the wealthy, the powerful, the well-connected, the influential don't pay a price. they operate according to a different set of rules uh than the rest of us. This is it's part of political corruption. It's part of the loss of control. It's it's it's a reflection of the system being rigged.

所以存在这种广泛的版本，但、但你也提出过这个观点，而且我也看到其他人在围绕外交政策建制派以及围绕人们开始提出这个观点

英文原文 >> So there's that broad version of it, but but you've also made this point and I've seen others begin to make this point around the foreign policy establishment and around people

在民主党政治中，在共和党政治中。来自夏威夷的参议员布莱恩·沙茨（Brian Schatz）最近发了这样一条推文，他说：“听着，我并不是想把任何人列入黑名单，

英文原文in Democratic politics, people in Republican politics. Brian Shots, uh, the senator from Hawaii, recently put out this tweet where he said, "Look, I'm not trying to blacklist anybody,

但我认为下一届民主党政府的外交政策团队应该进行某种彻底的大换血。”

英文原文>> but I think that the next Democratic administration should have sort of a full turnover in, uh, its foreign policy staff."

你知道，我看到你把这与对加沙问题进行清算的必要性联系了起来。那么，这究竟意味着什么？

英文原文>> You know, I've seen you sort of connect this to the need for a reckoning around Gaza. So, so what what does it actually imply?

我想这有两层含义。其一，你看，从沙茨参议员的言论来看，我认为存在这样一种感觉：一直以来就有这么一群民主党外交政策专业人员，他们往往在各届民主党政府中进进出出，并且不断晋升到下一个职位；而我们需要接触更广泛的人才库。在华盛顿内外，有许多非常聪明的年轻外交政策人才，他们渴望参与进来。我们需要吸引他们加入这个进程，这样我们才不会一直重复、不断翻炒同样的政策和同样的方式。但我认为还有第二层含义，我认为克里斯·范霍伦（Chris Van Hollen）参议员在沙茨参议员发推文几天后写给《纽约时报》的专栏文章中，更尖锐地指出了这一点，那就是涉及拜登政府内部的具体当事人，他说这些人不应该在未来的政府中任职。我认为这也是问责制的一部分。我们会有政策争议、政策分歧、政策辩论。我确实认为拜登政府的加沙政策已经超出了单纯的政策争议范畴。那是一项支持种族灭绝的政策。我认为，如果恢复问责制的一部分，就是明确执行该政策的高级官员不应该再在政府任职。那么，这里的加沙问题是否正在演变成——我的意思是我在初选中关注到了这一点，我认为这是眼下正在发生的一件相当重要的事情。你在密歇根州的参议院初选中看到了它。你在纽约这里也看到了，布拉德·兰德（Brad Lander）和丹·高德曼（Dan Goldman）正在彼此竞争。你在新泽西州的国会初选中也看到了。

英文原文>> I mean, I think there's two things about that. one is um you know from from Senator Shatz's comment I think there's a sense that there has been just this kind of kind of group of Democratic foreign policy professionals that tend to cycle in and out of of Democratic administrations and they move up to the next job and that we need to reach out to a much broader pool of talent. There are a lot of very smart uh young foreign policy folks in Washington and beyond who want to get engaged. We need to to be a we need to draw them in to the process. uh so we don't keep repeating and you know regurgitating the same policies and the same approach. But I think there's also a second piece of it and I think uh Senator Chris Van Holland got to it a bit more sharply in the op-ed that he wrote in the New York Times a few days after Senator Shatz's tweet and that had to do with specific actors inside the Biden administration um who he said should not serve uh in future administrations. And I think this is part of accountability as well. Um, we're going to have policy disputes, policy disagreements, policy debates. Uh, I do think that the Biden administration's Gaza policy was beyond just a policy dispute. It was a policy of supporting genocide. Um, and I think if if you know part of restoring accountability is is making clear that the senior officials uh who carried out that policy um should not work in government again. So, so does Gaza here become is it becoming I mean I'm sort of watching this in primaries and I think it's a a pretty important thing happening right now. You see it in the Michigan Senate primary. You see it here in New York where Brad Lander and Dan Goldman are running against each other. You saw it in New Jersey um congressional primary.

加沙问题在民主党内部会不会变得有点像伊拉克战争？

英文原文>> Does Gazier become sort of like the Iraq war in the Democratic party?

还是说民主党人在这个问题上的分歧比他们在伊拉克战争上的分歧更大？我的意思是，确实存在这样的问题：民主党人会因此分裂吗？同样地，我也在唐纳德·特朗普之后的共和党人身上思考这个问题。我的意思是，以色列以及对以色列的支持，在我看来确实是一个正在从内部撕裂两党的问题。

英文原文>> Uh or Democrats more divided on that than they were on the Iraq war? I mean, there there is this question of like, do Democrats split over this? In the same way that I wonder about this for Republicans after Donald Trump, I mean, Israel and support for Israel really seems to me to be a a question that is splitting both parties internally.

我希望它不要变得像伊拉克战争那样，因为我认为并没有人真正为伊拉克战争付出代价，至少执行它的官员们没有。我希望能看到执行加沙政策的人承担一些后果。我是说，就辩论而言，我确实认为是的，这正在成为一块试金石。你在加沙问题上的立场，确实关乎公信力。一个人选择如何谈论这个问题，例如卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris），她所使用的措辞——“哦，死去的平民太多了，我们正在敦促停火”——这根本说服不了任何人。即使对于那些也许并不怎么关心这个问题的人来说，他们也能看出这并非出自真心。而且我认为，对于佐兰·马姆达尼（Zohran Mamdani）来说情况恰恰相反。顺便说一句，他并没有主动提起加沙问题。加沙问题是他的批评者提出来的，因为他们认为这是一个削弱和批评他的有效途径，他们这么做是因为他们不识时务。他在重重压力下坚守了一套原则，我认为即使对于那些可能不太了解或者也许不那么关心这个问题的人来说，他们看到了这一点，而这也增加了他的公信力。所以我确实认为，是的，对于许多民主党选民来说，他们中的很多人关心这个问题，他们希望自己的领导人站在这件事正确的一边，但这也关系到一个大得多的问题，即：我能信任这个人吗？他们是认真的，还是只是打算老调重弹建制派通常的那套说辞？

英文原文>> I hope it doesn't become like the Iraq war because I don't think anybody really paid a price for the Iraq war, at least, you know, the officials who who carried it out. Um, I want to see some consequences for the people who carried out the Gaza policy. I mean, in terms of the debate, um, you know, I I do think yes, this is becoming a litmus test. Um, your position on Gaza, you know, it really does go to credibility. Um, the way someone chooses to talk about this, for example, you know, Kla Harris, um, the way she, you know, the language she used, oh, too many civilians have died and and we're pressing for a ceasefire. it just it didn't convince anyone. Um even for people who perhaps didn't care about the issue all that much, they could tell that this was not genuine. And I think, you know, the reverse is true, I think, for Zoran Mandani. Uh the way that he he didn't raise Gaza, by the way. I mean, Gaza was raised by his critics, um because they thought it would be an effective way, uh to weaken and criticize him, and they did that because they don't know what time it is. he stood firm on a set on a set of principles um under fire and I think even for people who probably don't know or maybe care about the issue as much they saw that and that added to his credibility. So I do think yes for a a lot of Democratic voters many of them care about the issue they want their leaders to be on the right side of it but it also gets to a much larger you know idea of can I trust this person? Are they for real or are they just going to regurgitate the usual set of establishment talking points?

基于规则的秩序

所以，我想在这里播放奥卡西奥-科尔特斯（Ocasio-Cortez）众议员在慕尼黑所说的一段话。

英文原文>> So, I want to play here something that uh Congresswoman Okasiocortez said at Munich.

“所以，我不知道这是否一定意味着我们曾处于一个——如果我们正处于一个后基于规则的秩序之中。我认为我们有可能一直处于一个前基于规则的秩序之中，并且我们有机会去探索一个如果我们维护民主、人权，维护真正以工人阶级为中心而不是将贸易利益绝大部分聚集给最富有阶层的贸易的世界会是什么样子。”

英文原文>> So, I don't know if it's necessarily that we were in a post if we are in a post rules-based order. I think it's possible that we were in a pre- rules-based order and we have an opportunity to explore what a world would look like if we upheld democracy, human rights, trade that actually centers workingass people instead of acrewing overwhelmingly the benefits of trade to the wealthiest.

跟我谈谈我们实际上处于“前基于规则的秩序”这个观点吧。

英文原文>> Tell me about that idea that we were actually in a pre-ruules-based order.

好的。我是说，我认为这是一句很棒的话。当我在谈论所谓基于规则的秩序时，我常常会提到——我想那是甘地被问到他对西方文明有何看法时的评论，他说：“我认为那会是一个极好的主意。”这就是我对基于规则的秩序的看法。我认为这也是那位女议员在那里的意思。是的，二战后的秩序有很多令人钦佩、非常乐观的地方。其中确实有些要素我们绝对应该努力去复兴和挽救。我认为国际层面——联合国以及在其框架下运作的所有各类组织都非常重要。拥有一个全球中心，让人们可以在那里商讨他们的问题而不是为此动戈，作为一个理念是极其重要的。但我确实认为我们已经到了这样一个地步：双重标准和虚伪已经变得如此触目惊心，以至于这个体系彻底失去了合法性。而对于国际体系，我们究竟能真正复兴和加强哪些方面，以至于我们可以不带讽刺意味地使用“基于规则的秩序”这个词？所以你一直在提到J·D·万斯（JD Vance），而且我认为右翼和左翼之间——甚至在对过去20或30年外交政策产生的怀疑态度上——出现的一个有趣区别是，在右翼，它表现为对规则的批判，

英文原文>> Right. I mean, I think it's it's it's a great line. I mean, what I've you know, when I'm in conversations about the the so-called rules-based order, um I've often referred to um you know, I think it was Gandhi's comment when he was asked what he thought about Western civilization. He said, "I think it'd be a great idea." Um that's what I think about a rules-based order. And I think that's what the congressman was getting at there. Yes, there is a lot about the postw World War World War II order that is admirable, that's very optimistic. There are elements of that elements of it that we definitely should try to revive and save. I think the international, you know, the the United Nations and all the various organizations that work under its umbrella are very important. Having a um, you know, you know, a global center where people can talk about their problems rather than than fight over them um is hugely important as a concept. Yet I do think we've gotten to a point where the double standards and the hypocrisies had gotten so stark um that the system has just lost legitimacy. And you know what about the international system can we really divi revive and strengthen um such that we can use the term rules-based order unironically. So you've been bringing up JD Vance and and I think one interesting difference between the way even skepticism of the foreign policy of the past 20 or 30 years emerges on the right and the left is on the right it has taken shape as a critique of rules

我认为尤其是唐纳德·特朗普坚持认为，美国不应该受到规则的约束，不应该受到机构的约束，如果受到约束，我们就应该建立由我们以更彻底的方式主导的属于自己的机构。我认为J·D·万斯在特朗普及其开展这项计划上当然一直给予支持。而在左翼，我认为更多的是这样一种观念：实际上规则对我们的保护可能比我们想象的还要多。

英文原文>> and Donald Trump I think in particular holds to the view that America should not be bound by rules should not be bound by institutions to the extent we are we should just create our own that we dominate in a more thoroughgoing way. I think JD Vance has certainly been supportive of Donald Trump and his project to do that. I think on the left there's more of this idea that actually the rules might protect us more than we think they do.

允许我们自身受到它们的约束，会比我们现在的处境更好。那本可以让我们远离伊拉克，对吧？因为我们实际上无法让联合国赞同配合。所以我想请你就此进一步深入谈谈：当你说好，比如如果我们确实尝试这种基于规则的秩序，如果我们在这类缓慢、令人沮丧的、俄罗斯和中国可以在联合国安理会行使否决权的多边机构中受到规则的约束，那么在

英文原文>> That allowing oursel to be bound by them would be better than where we have ended up. That it would have kept us out of Iraq, right? Because we cannot in fact get the UN to go along. So I'd like you to go a little bit further with this when you say okay like if we did try this rules-based order if we were bound by rules in these slow frustrating multilateral institutions where Russia and China can veto things on the UN security council there is a a tension between

积极约束与受制于坏参与者的议程之间就存在一种张力。你是怎么看待这个问题的？

英文原文>> positive restraint and then being subject to um the agendas of bad actors. How do you think about it?

是的，我认为你刚才阐述得很对。这基本上是一种零和批判与正和批判的对立。我的意思是，对于特朗普、对于万斯来说，正如你所说，完全在于美国应该能够为所欲为。如果我们获得了一笔划算的交易，其他人就必须受损，反之亦然。但这也是支撑国际体系建立的那种正和原则。即各国（包括美国在内）同意接受一套规则的约束这一观念。而这最终会让我们更加安全。我认为这就是核心所在。但是重新树立国际秩序的概念、树立国际规则概念的进程与计划，我认为是我们必须承担的一项任务。这不是一届政府就能完成的。为了做到这一点，我认为我们必须

英文原文>> Yeah, I mean I think what you just laid out there is right. It's it's basically a zero- sum critique versus a positive sum critique. I mean, for for for Trump, for Vance, it's as you said, it's all about America should be able to do whatever we want. Um, if if we're getting a good deal, others have to lose and vice versa. But also, this is the kind of positive sum kind of, you know, principle that kind of undergurtded the creation of the international system. The idea that countries, including the United States, will agree to be constrained by a set of rules. Um, and that ultimately makes us uh safer. I mean, I think that that's it right there. Um, but the the the process and the project of of reacrediting the concept of international order, the concept um of of international rules, I think, is is one we have to undertake. It's not going to be one administration. Um, and and in order to do that, I think we have

重新在美国人民中树立信誉。所以我希望我们能有候选人，并且，你知道，希望能有一位总统。

英文原文 to reacredit it with the American people. So, I hope that we'll have candidates and, you know, and and hopefully a president.

这样做可行吗？我的意思是，在这里我注意到了墨菲所说的话，因为在我看来，这是这里深层的矛盾之一。我认为人们——我认为美国人并不想要我们最终搞出来的这些东西。

英文原文 >> Is that possible to do? I mean, here I'm mindful of what Murphy said because this to me is one of the the the deep contradictions here. I don't think people I don't think Americans want what we've ended up doing.

而且，我的意思是，华盛顿在基于规则的国际秩序可以说更稳固的那个时代，我就已经在那里了。

英文原文 >> And also, I mean, I was around in Washington at a time when the rules-based international order was stronger, let's call it.

而那曾是一个非常不受欢迎的选择。我的意思是，我们走到今天这一步所经历的路径，我认为源于90年代，人们觉得联合国等机构让对种族灭绝——卢旺达和南斯拉夫——做出回应变得几乎不可能。嗯，接着到了9/11事件后的乔治·W·布什时期，以及那种觉得美国必须采取一切必要行动、不能受阻碍的情绪。我认为那显然是一个可怕的错误。

奥巴马政府时期曾有一个令人惊奇的时刻，他说如果在叙利亚阿萨德使用化学武器，那就是一条红线；然后到了最后一刻，他说如果我要这么做，我希望得到国会的授权，而他最终没有行动。

英文原文 >> And it was a menu was very unpopular. I mean, we got here on a pathway that comes, I think, from in the '9s, people feeling that the UN and others made it almost impossible to respond to genocides and, you know, Rwanda and Yugoslavia. Um, it goes to to sort of George W. Bush after 9/11 and and and the feeling that America just has to do whatever it needs to and it can't be held back. And that I think was obviously a terrible mistake.

There's a sort of amazing moment in the Obama administration where he says there's a red line if in Syria Assad uses chemical weapons and then the last minute he says I want congressional authorization if I'm going to do this and he doesn't do it.

我支持那一举措。我认为他做出了正确的决定。但我认为，当然在华盛顿，他为此受到了持续不断的巨大批评，顺便说一句，包括来自唐纳德·特朗普的批评——

英文原文 >> And I supported that. I thought he made the right call. But I think certainly in Washington he got an enormous amount of ongoing criticism from it including by the way from Donald Trump

呃，批评他软弱。

英文原文 >> uh for being weak.

对。这就涉及到了更广泛的一点，比如关于控制权的争夺——

英文原文 >> Right. And this goes to to this broader point of like the fight over control

因为你其实在对人们说：

通过放弃控制权，你会获得更好的结果；

英文原文 >> because what you're kind of saying to people is

you will get better outcomes by giving up control

通过将你自己以及你所拥有的权力与这些规则以及你没有完全权威的机构相捆绑，你可能最终无法去做那些你认为是好主意、你当选去完成的事情。

呃，并且你知道，在眼下这个时刻，面对一个我认为完全不负责任、行事极其飘忽不定、鲁莽专断的总统，突然之间大家产生了很多兴趣，你知道，比如国会是否应该收回其战争权力——

英文原文 >> by binding yourself and the power you have to these rules and these institutions that you do not have full authority over and you might end up not being able to do things that you think are a good idea that you were elected to do.

uh and you know in the teeth of this moment where we have a completely I think unaccountable president acting wildly erratically recklessly all of a sudden there's a lot of interest in you know should we should Congress retake its war powers

我们是否应该，你知道，重新向联合国和世界银行以及你知道的所有这些机构投入精力——

英文原文 >> should we you know reinvest energy in the UN and the World Bank and you know all these organizations

但感觉就像是我们最终只是有点像钟摆一样晃动——

英文原文 >> but it feels like we just end up a little bit on this pendulum

而我认为这个钟摆再次与控制权息息相关。那么，你如何向人们推销这样一种观念：把美国的力量束缚在即便我们不想受其束缚时也会约束我们的规则之中——

英文原文 >> and this pendulum I think is is very much again about control. So how do you sell people on the idea that binding American power in rules that will bind us even when we don't want to be bound

是一个好主意？

英文原文 >> is a good idea.

控制权、程序与外交政策的权衡

是的。我的意思是，首先你必须向人们展示，他们必须能够感受到这是真实的。嗯，说实话，我不认为一场选举必然会因为这个论点而输赢。你知道，既然你提到了那条红线的言论，嗯，我认为这切中了我们现在所看到的国会掌控控制权和承担责任方面的许多问题。

嗯，你知道，正如我们所见，有些——大多数甚至全部共和党人，对于让唐纳德·特朗普继续这样推行下去觉得完全没问题。我的意思是，他们有过多次机会去对战争权力决议进行投票，无论是在委内瑞拉问题上，无论是在伊朗问题上，还是现在在古巴问题上。我的意思是，他们选择不承担起主导责任。嗯，并且我认为这涉及到一个更深层的问题。这不是一位总统或一届政府的问题。嗯，我认为这确实关乎一个更深层的政治问题，即我们如何让——军事暴力的使用已经变成了一种如此寻常的事情，并且我认为人们确实存在一种天生的理解，即事情本不该是这样的，因为事实确实不该如此。这是克罗众议员在CAP发表演讲时真正强调的一点，我认为那确实非常正确。

英文原文 >> Yeah. I mean first of all you have to show people that they have to be able to feel that it's true. Um and let's be honest I don't think um an election is necessarily going to be won or lost on this argument. you know, it's, you know, just since you mentioned the uh the red line comment, um I think that gets to a lot of what we're seeing right now in terms of Congress taking control and taking responsibility.

Um you know, there are some, as we see, most of, if not all, Republicans are fine with letting Donald Trump just carry forward. I mean, they have had multiple opportunities to vote for war powers resolutions, whether it's on Venezuela, whether it's on Iran, whether it's now on Cuba. I mean, they're choosing not to take ownership. Um and I and I and I think this goes to a much deeper problem. It's not a problem of one president or one administration. Um I think it really goes to the deeper political problem of how we've just you know the use of military violence has become just such a regular occurrence and I and I think people do have an kind of I think an innate understanding that it is not supposed to be this way because it is not. This is something that uh Congressman Crowe really emphasizes in that speech he gave at CAP that I think is really correct.

在国会议员开始谈论外交政策之前，你最应该问他们的第一个问题是：你是否愿意收回你的外交政策权力？

我们的建国先贤认为，从贸易到条约，从战争权力到拨款，国会在我们的外交政策中扮演着根本性的角色。

几十年来，国会已经割让并放弃了其中的许多权力。

我们的建国先贤深知，这些事情太重要了，不能仅仅托付给行政部门，

因为这需要向那些与人民最亲近的人负责。

英文原文 >> The first question you should ever ask a member of Congress before they ever start talking about foreign policy is are you willing to reclaim your foreign policy powers?

Our founders believed that Congress had fundamental role in our foreign policy from trade to treaties to war powers and to appropriations.

For decades, Congress has seated and given up many of those powers.

Our founders knew that these things were too important to be entrusted simply to the executive

because it needed accountability to those closest to the people.

我想，我的意思是，我们先设定一个前提：伊拉克战争是一场彻头彻尾的浩劫；而我反思了导致伊拉克战争的辩论，以及导致伊朗局势时辩论的缺失。

英文原文 >> I think I mean let's premise here the Iraq war is a absolute unmitigated catastrophe and I think about the debate that led to it and the absence of debate that led to Iran.

而且我认为，鉴于当时对伊朗行动的支持是如此之少，你本不可能在国会通过那项投票。

所以我并不是说拥有国会把关就总能阻止你做出愚蠢的决定。归根结底，国会确实曾授权布什在伊拉克发动战争，但尽管如此，它至少迫使——它延缓了进程，迫使产生一场辩论，迫使走一个我认为很有价值的程序。而且我认为外交政策往往显得非常，嗯，难以捉摸，因为一会儿是乌克兰，一会儿是加沙，一会儿是中国，一会儿是委内瑞拉。我的意思是，所有这些都是不同的局势。

但我认为将其中很多局势联系在一起的一点是，它们的运作缺乏一个约束总统的程序。

在我看来非常奇怪的是，鉴于阻挠议事、两极分化的国会以及许多其他因素，目前总统在大多数国内政策上能做的事情少之又少。然后我们却在外交政策上赋予了他所有这些权力，这当然也会给总统造成一种激励：当他在国内无法取得多少成果时，就会开始试图通过雄心勃勃的外交政策——对吧——

英文原文 >> And I think that given how little support there was for Iran, you could not have gotten that vote through Congress.

And so I'm not saying that having Congress will always stop you from making dumb decisions. Ultimately, Congress did give uh Bush power to go to war in Iraq, but nevertheless, it at least forces it slows things down and forces a debate and forces a process that I think is valuable. And I think foreign policy can often seem very um like hard to pin down because well it's Ukraine, it's Gaza, it's China, it's Venezuela. I mean all these are different uh situations.

But I think something connecting many of them is they're operating without a process that restrains the president.

It's very strange to me how little the president can do on most domestic policy right now given the filibuster and a polarized Congress and much else. And then we give him all this power on foreign policy, which of course also creates an incentive for the president when he can't get much done domestically to start trying to create a legacy, right,

冒险主义来树立政治遗产。

英文原文 >> through ambitious foreign policy

uh adventurism.

这在我看来像是一个可能发生真正变革的有趣切入点。我已经在伯尼·桑德斯、罗·康纳、AOC以及其他人身上看到了这一点。他们真正把焦点放在国会应该，你知道，在这里收回自己的角色上，因为至少要迫使事情通过这个更具代表性的机构，让美国公众在当下拥有更多发言权。

英文原文 >> And that feels to me like a like an interesting place where something could really change. And I've seen it from Bernie Sanders, from Okana, from AOC, from others. A real focus on Congress should, you know, reclaim its role here because at least forcing that through the more representative body where the American public has more say in the moment.

呃，你可以把它想象成一种更加基于程序的——

英文原文 >> Uh you can imagine that as a kind of more procedurally based

是的。

英文原文 >> Yeah.

秩序，至少，你知道，在它约束我们的范围内，是在国内约束我们。

英文原文 >> order that at least, you know, to the extent it binds us, it binds us domestically.

我的意思是，我认为这是对的。嗯，但这并不是全部。我们不要，你知道，把太多东西都寄托在程序上。程序确实重要。但我确实认为，有些人对围绕战争权力的论点提出的批评——我也倾向于认同——在于，你知道，例如，伊朗战争的问题不在于特朗普未能提交适当的文书文件。嗯，它从一开始就是一个显而易见的愚蠢主意。嗯，我认为记住这第二部分是非常重要的。我需要领袖。我需要领袖。是的，重申国会对军事暴力的宪法权力很重要，但我们需要领袖站出来阐明为什么这纯粹是一个可怕的主意。

英文原文 I mean, I think that's right. Um, it's not the whole story. Let's not, you know, put too much into the process. The process matters. But I do think that the criticism that some have made of arguments around war powers, and I tend to agree, is that, you know, for example, the problem with the Iran war is not that Trump failed to file the appropriate papers paperwork. Um, it is a manifestally stupid idea uh from the beginning. Um, and I think keeping that second part um in in mind is really important. I want leaders. I want leaders. Yes, it's important to reassert Congress's constitutional authority over military violence, but we need leaders out there articulating why this is just a horrible idea.

但这就是你的全部论点。我的意思是，我同意我们需要领袖站出来阐明为什么这是一个可怕的主意。但我认为你的全部论点，或者至少基于规则的论点的某一部分，在于有时你就是会遇到愚蠢的想法。

英文原文 >> But this is your whole argument. I mean, I agree that we need leaders articulating why it's a horrible idea. But I think your whole argument, or at least some of the rules-based argument, is that sometimes you're going to have stupid ideas.

是的。

英文原文 >> Yes.

而且有时你就是会遇到愚蠢的领导人。

英文原文 >> And sometimes you're going to have stupid leaders.

是的。而设立规则和程序的意义所在——

英文原文 >> Yes. And the point of having rules and processes

就在于你并不相信自己永远都会由最明智的哲学王来治理。

英文原文 >> is because you don't believe you will always be governed by the wisest of philosopher kings.

绝对如此。完全没错。

英文原文 >> Absolutely. That's right.

为中产阶级服务的外交政策

我从桑德斯等人那里听到的许多外交政策论点的另一个维度，是这样一种观念：你需要一种以工人阶级为中心的外交政策，并且外交政策在某种程度上就是国内政策。我们制造的这种划分并非真实存在。乔·拜登也曾这么说过，他说他要推行一种为中产阶级服务的外交政策。那是他和杰克·沙利文等人用来表明自己有别于以往政策转向的一个重大方式。那么，比起拜登和他的团队在宣布这种转变时所做的事情，你以及民主党左翼的其他人在构想这一点时有什么不同呢？

英文原文 >> The other dimension of a lot of the foreign policy arguments I've heard from people like Sanders is the idea that you you need a foreign policy that centers the working class and that foreign policy is domestic policy on some level. That that this kind of division we've created is not real. Now, Joe Biden also said that he said he was going to have a foreign policy for for the middle class. That was a big way that he and Jake Sullivan and others expressed themselves as having a pivot from what had come before. So, what is different in the way that that that you and others more on the Democratic party's left flank are imagining this compared to what Biden and his team were doing when they sort of announced this right

transformation?

是的。我确实认为为中产阶级服务的外交政策我认为是好的。我的意思是，那是我——我确实认为值得赞扬的事情，比如对于——你知道特朗普在2016年获胜让所有人都感到震惊，而我认为为中产阶级服务的外交政策有点像是代表了一种真正的努力去进行真正的——

英文原文 >> Yeah. And I do think that the foreign policy for the middle class I think was good. I mean that's something I I I really think that deserves praise like to the you know Trump shocked everyone by winning in 2016 and I think that the foreign policy for the middle class kind of represented a real effort to a real

两种经济路线与全球最低工资

一种自我审视的努力，去探究我们在美国人对外交政策相信什么、不相信什么的问题上遗漏了什么。我的意思是，用戒瘾康复的行话来说，第一步是承认自己有问题。我认为这项努力就是对真正问题的承认。我认为它的各种结论体现在杰克于 2023 年 4 月在布鲁金斯学会发表的一场演讲中。这很有趣，因为这是一位国家安全顾问在实质上发表了一场关于全球经济、美国贸易政策的演讲。它代表着翻过了所谓的旧新自由主义时代那一页。

英文原文 self-critical effort to say what have we missed about what Americans believe and don't believe about foreign policy. I mean, in the language of recovery, um the first step is admitting you have a problem. And I think that that those that that effort was a recognition of the real problem. And I think it's it's kind of um conclusions were represented in a speech that that Jake gave at Brookings uh in April 2023. And this was interesting because it was the national security adviser offering essentially a speech on the global economy, America's trade policy. And it represented a turning of the page so to speak from the old neoliberal era.

首先承认支撑那个时代的许多理论——那种认为如果我们直接免除税收，某种程度上放任自由贸易、让人做买卖赚钱，并在某种程度上限制国家施加限制和监管，那么所谓的“水涨船高”——承认那其实并非事实，是一个重要的认识。它造成了许多非常糟糕的后果，将我们带到了此刻。但我认为问题在于，既然承认了这一点，既然重新接受了政府在塑造和引导经济方面发挥主要作用是正确且恰当的这一理念，那么问题是，目的是什么？

英文原文 So recognizing first of all that a lot of the theories that underly that era the idea that okay if we just get rid of taxes and we kind of let you know free trade people trade and make money and kind of constrain states from from imposing you know restrictions and and regulation um then you know rising tide will lift all boats so to speak. That was an important recognition that yeah you know that turns out that's not really true. It's produced a lot of very bad consequences that have led us to this moment. But I think the question is having acknowledged that and having come back to the idea that yes, it is right and appropriate for governments to play a major role in shaping and guiding the economy. Um the question is to what end?

我认为显而易见，主要目的之一是为了美国人民的安全和繁荣。但回到我们谈到的将中国作为拜登政府外交政策的核心焦点，从那场演讲出发，我认为本可以走两条路。其一是，我们如何真正投资于一个切实更加公平的全球贸易秩序？我们如何投资并建立一个不仅保护美国劳工、还赋予包括中国在内的全世界劳工权力，且不把美国劳工和中国劳工置于彼此零和竞争中的秩序？

英文原文 And I think obviously the one of the main ends is to benefit the safety and prosperity of the American people. But going back to what we've talked about with China being the kind of guiding focus of of the Biden administration's foreign policy, um, you know, I think there are a couple ways you could have gone from that speech. One is how do we really invest in a genuinely more equitable global trade order? How do we invest it, you know, build an order that protects workers not just in the United States, um, but empowers workers around the world, including in China, and does not pose American workers and Chinese workers, as as in a kind of zero sum competition with each other.

然后是另一条路，我认为他们走的就是这条路，即表示：“好吧，现在我们重新介入经济，是因为我们正处于与中国的战略竞争中，我们现在把贸易视为工具箱中用来在这场竞争中确立美国地位的又一件武器。”我认为那是错误的选择。我认为我们应该选择选项 A。

英文原文 Um and then there's the other path which I think they took which to say okay now we're getting back involved in the economy because we are in this strategic competition with China and we now see trade as yet another weapon in in in a toolbox uh to kind of assert America in in this competition and I think that was the wrong choice. I I I I think we need to go with with option A.

那么选项 A 在具体实践中会是什么样子？他们会不做哪些他们已经做了的事，或者会做哪些他们还没做的事？

英文原文 >> So what would option A have looked like in practical terms? what would they have not done that they did or what would they have done that they didn't do?

我觉得是某些构想，比如全球最低企业税是他们推进过的一件事。我认为讨论全球最低工资是另一个例子，那是参议员桑德斯首先提出过的事情，因为我认为我们面临的部分挑战在于，我们面对着一个不管我们想用什么词称呼的发展中国家或全球南方，这里拥有非常年轻的人口。他们已经在参与塑造全球议程。美国需要与这些国家建立关系。显然，中国已经做了大量工作在这些国家建立自己的关系。我不想把这些国家仅仅当成美中竞争的竞技场。但我认为我们需要以正和的方式来对待这件事。

英文原文 >> I think certain ideas I mean the global um minimum corporate tax is one thing that they they worked on. I think discussing a global minimum wage um is another thing just for an example that's something that Senator Sanders um has proposed uh for starters um cuz I think part of the challenge that that we face is you know we have you know a developing world if we can whatever term we want to use global south you know that is you know has very young um populations. Um they are already engaged in in in shaping the global agenda. The United States needs to have um a relationship with these country. Obviously, China is has done a lot of work to build its own relationships in these countries. I don't want to treat these countries um as simply an arena for US and China competition. But I think we we we need to approach this in a positive some way.

全球最低工资会是什么样子？你如何把它应用到一个国家？不久前我去了肯尼亚。肯尼亚有极其庞大的一部分属于非正式经济，

英文原文 >> What would the global minimum wage look like? How would you apply that to a country? I was in Kenya not long ago. I mean huge amount of Kenya is in the informal economy

这个国家的大部分地方都非常非常贫穷，对吧，当然它还不是非洲最穷的国家，

英文原文 >> uh country where much of the country is very very poor right and certainly not the poorest country in Africa

当你向这些国家强加全球最低工资时，想必伴随着某些大棒手段，比如美国的贸易机会，

英文原文 >> uh when you're imposing a global minimum wage on these countries presumably with some of the stick being American trade opportunities

这实际上会是什么样子？

英文原文 >> what does that actually look like

是的，我不知道它看起来是什么样，但我说的是……

英文原文 >> yeah I don't know what it looks like um but I'm saying the

这是谁的职责？

英文原文 >> whose job is this

我是指，促使美国提出这个方案，让美国处于这样的地位……

英文原文 >> I mean I mean getting the United States to to propose this and putting the United States in the position

但我想问的是，这是一个好主意吗？你得知道它会是什么样子，才能知道它是不是一个好主意。

英文原文 >> but I'm asking is it a good idea you to know what it would look like to know if it's a good idea.

是的。好的。问得很合理。它具体究竟是什么样子仍在推敲中。但我说的是去提议，让美国处于这样一种地位，即我们去那里不仅仅是为了攫取财富，我们不仅仅是为了给那些一直支配和剥削你们的人赋权。

英文原文 >> Yeah. Okay. Fair question. Still still working on what it exactly looks like. But what I'm saying is proposing, you know, putting the United States in the position of we are not just there to extract wealth. We're not just here to empower the people that have been dominating and and and exploiting you.

我想也许我想要探究的问题是——因为你的切入点让我觉得很有意思——我认为我试图追问的是，全球最低工资究竟是一项旨在保护美国工资水平的努力，还是一项旨在提高其他国家工资水平的努力？因为这两者实际上是截然不同的两项计划。

英文原文 I guess maybe the question I was getting at because it's interesting to me where you went with that. I think the question I was getting at there is, is the global minimum wage an effort to protect American wages or to raise other countries wages? because those are two actually quite different projects.

我认为这是基于这样一种理念：美国人的安全与世界各地其他人的安全与繁荣紧密相连。这不仅仅是一句冠冕堂皇的说辞。我确实认为，作为一名进步左翼人士，我带来的理解是，如果我们能够减少世界各地其他社区的匮乏、疾病和苦难，最终那将转化为我们自身的安全。

英文原文 >> I mean, I think it's based on the idea that Americans security is bound up with the security and prosperity of others around the world. I mean, this is not just a, you know, a high flown bit of rhetoric. I do think it, I mean, as someone on the progressive left, that's an understanding that I bring is that if we can diminish deprivation, disease, and suffering in other communities around the world, ultimately that is going to acrue to our own safety.

我同意这一点。我认为我在这里质疑的是，美国以何种方式将工资标准强加给其他国家，

英文原文 >> I agree with that. I I think the the thing I'm pushing on here is in what way would America imposing wage standards on other countries

是的。

英文原文 >> Yeah.

美国对这些国家的经济并不真正了解，当然更谈不上直接管理。

英文原文 >> whose economies it doesn't really understand and certainly does not directly manage.

没错。当我在国外做经济报道时，尤其是在相对贫困的地方做报道时，

英文原文 >> Right. You know, when I do foreign economic reporting and probably when I do it from places that are poorer,

我总是深感震惊，让一个贫困国家——别说变富，哪怕只是达到中等收入——是多么令人发狂地困难。

英文原文 >> I am always struck with how maddeningly hard

确实是。

英文原文 >> it is to make a poor country, forget rich, just middle middle income.

所以，我能看到这件事的一种版本，即你实际上找到了另一种方式来谈论某种保护主义，

英文原文 >> And so it it's like I could see a version of this that is actually you've found another way to talk about a kind of protectionism

因为我们不会与那些能在工资上按一定幅度低于我们的国家进行贸易。这不会帮助那些国家，反而会伤害它们。我认为这没错。但归根结底，理想情况下，这不应该仅仅是美国单方面宣称我们在独自推行这个方案。这应该是美国可以与其他国家（包括中国在内）共同合作去提出的一项倡议。

英文原文 >> because we're not going to do trade with countries that can undercut our wages by a certain amount. That's not going to help those countries. That will hurt them. I think that's right. But ultimately, I ideally this wouldn't be just the United States saying we're doing this by ourselves. This would be something the United States could could work with other countries, including uh China on um to propose.

中产阶级外交政策的取舍与物价矛盾

但这也是拜登的中产阶级外交政策构想，以及我从桑德斯、AOC 等人那里读到的一些构想所面临的问题，

英文原文 >> But this is also a place where the foreign policy for the middle class ideas that Biden had, some of the ones I read from from Sanders and and AOC and others,

在我看来，人们并不总是能清晰界定中产阶级到底想要什么。而且我认为我们近年来看到的一件事是：是的，中产阶级、工人阶级、整个国家都想要好工作和好薪资，但他们同时也希望物价便宜。

英文原文 >> it it seems to me that people don't always define clearly what it is the middle class wants. And and one thing I think we've seen in recent years is yes, the middle class, the working class, the country wants good jobs and good wages and also they want things to be cheap.

嗯。

英文原文 >> Mhm.

人们现在把新自由主义时代说成是一种巨大的失败。而且我认为我们看到的一点是，

英文原文 >> And people talk about the era of neoliberalism now as a sort of a huge failure. And I think one thing we've seen,

不管它在某些方面算不算失败——我认为在很多方面确实算——

英文原文 >> is that whether it was a failure in some respects or or not, and I think in many respects it was,

人们过去喜欢便宜的商品。而在疫情之后经历的漫长时期里，接着又是特朗普的关税制度，还有俄罗斯入侵乌克兰对能源价格的影响，随后又是对伊朗的袭击，人们对商品变贵感到非常愤怒。我们在美国本可以拥有便宜得多的电动汽车，只要我们允许中国电动汽车进入。拜登政府对它们征收了巨额关税，以确保我们无法买到，

英文原文 >> people liked the cheap goods and being in this extended period where post pandemic and then in the Trump tariff regimes and you know the Russia invasion of Ukraine on energy prices and then the attack in Iran, people are very angry about goods getting more expensive and you know we could have much cheaper electric vehicles in this country if we would let the Chinese electric vehicles in. the Biden administration put huge tariffs on those to make sure we couldn't have those,

但在同一时期，人们也对汽车的昂贵价格极为不满。

英文原文 >> but then also people were very mad about the cost of cars uh in that same period.

因此存在着这样一种艰难的平衡：你实际上可以通过增加贸易难度，或者在我们的贸易机制中提高各种形式的标准、工资底线等，通过筑墙阻挡中国制造业巨头的部分产品，来在相当大程度上保护美国的就业和产业；但接着你让这里的物价变得更加昂贵，然后你又从另一面遭到冲击，中产阶级就会觉得“我快撑不住了”。

英文原文 >> And so there is this hard balancing of you can do quite a lot actually to protect American jobs and industries by making trade harder or raising the various forms of standards, wage floors, etc. within our trading regimes. um by walling off parts of the Chinese manufacturing juggernaut, but then you make things here more expensive and then you get hit from the other side and the middle class is like I feel stretched.

所以，作为参与过这些中产阶级外交政策讨论的人，你如何

英文原文 >> So how as somebody who's been part of these discussions about a foreign policy for the middle class, do you

平衡保护就业的努力、提高工资的努力，以及人们在可贸易商品价格上涨时所表现出的那种显而易见的愤怒？

英文原文 >> balance the effort to protect jobs, the effort to raise wages, and also the now demonstrated fury that people have when tradable goods increase in price?

是的。我的意思是，我认为部分原因在于这种观……

英文原文 >> Yeah. I mean, I think part of it is the ide, you know,

人们不仅是对物价上涨感到愤怒，而且对生活中处处都要被剥削克扣、斤斤计较感到愤怒，不管是医疗还是教育。嗯，正如我之前谈到的，我的意思是，每走一步，似乎都有人在你做的每一件事上榨取一点点价值。嗯，我认为要解决这个问题，我们真的必须更宏观地审视我们的整个社会安全网，或者审视安全网的缺失。我的意思是，我认为，你知道……

英文原文 people are outraged not just at the rising cost, but they're outraged at the idea they're being nickeled and dimed for everything, you know, whether it's for healthcare, whether it's for education. Um, as I talked about earlier, I mean, every step it seems like someone is extracting some little bit of value from everything that you do. Um, I think in order to address this question, we really have to take a a bigger look at our entire social safety net or lack of one. I mean, I think, you know,

在我看来，那像是在回避问题。我同意你的看法，我们需要完善我们的社会安全网，取消乱收费之类的事情。但是，但是在贸易这类问题上，你会面临一个直接的问题，比如你可以通过取消对华关税来让商品更便宜。

英文原文 >> that feels to me like a dodge. I I agree with you that we need to improve our social safety net and get rid of junk fees and things. But but on these questions like trade, you'll have a direct question like you can make things cheaper by letting by taking down the tariffs on China.

你也可以通过增加对华关税来让它们更昂贵。

英文原文 >> You could make them more expensive by increasing the tariffs on China.

这些举措可能会对美国的制造业就业和工资产生实质性影响。

英文原文 >> Those things might have meaningful effects on American manufacturing jobs and wages.

你在优先考虑什么，这感觉像是一个合理的问题。我认为这是一个合理的问题，而且我不认为这是回避，因为我确实认为我们现在缺乏的部分原因是一种共同愿景感。我的意思是，人们觉得自己只是在受害和被剥削。他们没有发言权。他们很容易受到像唐纳德·特朗普这样的煽动者的影响，他跑进来说：“听着，我将成为替你们伸张合理委屈的工具。”

嗯，所以重申一下，我并不是说我们可以抛出一个好的论点，恢复美国的——你知道，那种对美国事业的共同认同感——然后人们突然就不在乎商品价格上涨了。嗯，但我确实认为这属于答案的一部分，那就是去解决人们到处都觉得自己在承受各种成本压力的这种感受。这些问题由来已久，但我认为我们现在所处的危机是一场合法性危机。人们只是觉得生活于其中的制度并没有代表他们的利益，并没有真正为他们带来实效。我知道这是一个比我能给出答案的大得多的问题。但我认为，认识到我们正在进行的关于外交政策的对话——你知道，对于美国应该如何在世界上行事，我们可以提出所有我们想要的绝妙构想，但如果它们没有扎根于真正持久的政治共识之中，它们就会分崩离析。我认为一个有趣的——也许我们刚才讨论的部分内容的潜台词是，你在这里试图建立的是左翼民族主义还是左翼国际主义？

英文原文 >> The question of what you're prioritizing like feels like like that feels like a fair question. I I think it is a fair question and and I I don't think it's a dodge because I I I do think that part of what we lack right now is a sense of a a common project. I mean, people feel that they're just being victimized and exploited. They don't they don't have a voice. They are susceptible to demagogues like Donald Trump who come in and say, "Listen, I will be the instrument of your of your your righteous grievance."

Um, so again, I'm not going to say that we can tee up a good argument, restore America's, you know, the shared sense of the American project and people suddenly won't care about rising prices of goods. Um, but I do think that is part of the answer is just addressing the the idea that people just feel like they're they're getting hit with costs all over the place. These problems go back a long time, but I think the crisis that we're in right now um is is a legitimation crisis. people just don't feel that the the systems under which they live are representing their interests are really delivering for them. And I know this is a much bigger problem than I have an answer for. But I think that recognizing the conversations that we're having about foreign policy, you know, we can propose all the good ideas we want for how America should should act in the world, but if they're not rooted in an actual durable political consensus, uh they will fall apart. I think one interesting like maybe the the sub theme of some of what we've just been talking about is is what you're trying to build here a left nationalism or a left internationalism

我之所以这样问，是因为在某些时刻，我所听到的在很大程度上是“水涨众船高”，即美国可以在外面让其他国家更稳定、更富裕、更繁荣，这反过来也会给我们带来好处。嗯，你知道，然后还有一个关于我们共同愿景的问题。

英文原文 >> and it and and the reason I ask it like that is that there have been some moments where what I've sort of heard is a you know very much a rising tide lifts all boats that you know America can be out there making other countries more stable, richer, more prosperous that would you know rebound to our benefit as well. Um, you know, and then there's also a question about our common project.

我认为有很多政策工具——我的意思是，这并不全是零和博弈，但其中一部分确实关乎把美国工人的利益置于其他国家的人民之上。我认为对于一个国家共同体来说，这样做是非常合理的。把美国产业置于其他国家的产业之上。

英文原文 >> There are a lot of policy tools that I think are I mean, it's not all zero sum, but some of it is about privileging American workers over people in other countries. And I think that's a very reasonable thing for a national community to do. Privileging American industries over industries in other countries.

左翼国际主义与对华关系

呃，但在两种愿景的边缘存在着抉择。呃，你怎么看？我的意思是，我很大程度上把自己看作一个左翼国际主义者，但我也认识到，要发展出一种持久且团结的国际主义，它必须扎根于美国国内的政治共识之中。而很多美国人，可能是大多数美国人，出于非常充分的理由，主要关心的都是他们自己、他们的家庭和他们的社区。嗯，为了提出一种能够切实可行且让人们支持的外交政策，它必须——我必须展示，领导人也必须展示，我们必须展示出它正在回应这些关切。

英文原文 >> Uh, but but there are choices on the margin of these two projects. Uh, how do you see that? I mean, I see myself very much as a left internationalist, but I also recognize that to to develop a a a durable and solidaristic internationalism, it has to be rooted in an American domestic political consensus. And a lot of Americans, probably most Americans, for very good reason, are mainly interested in themselves, their family, their community. Um, and in order to to to kind of offer a workable foreign policy that people will support, it has I have to show and leaders have to show, we have to show that it is answering those concerns.

这对美国和美国人如何理解与中国的关系、竞争，或者无论你想怎么称呼它，意味着什么？呃，你知道，你之前有点在批评那种认为我们与中国的关系应该建立在维持美国主导地位之上的想法。呃，但如果不是那样，那又是什么呢？呃，比如你怎么理解我们对中国的诉求？

英文原文 >> What does that imply for how America and Americans understand the relationship, the competition, whatever you want to call it, with China. Uh, you know, you earlier were sort of critiquing the idea that our relationship with China should be built on maintaining America and primacy. Uh but if not that then then then what uh like what how do you understand what we want visa v China?

我的意思是，首先我们必须明白，我们需要与中国共存。中国拥有庞大的经济体量。在国际舞台上，它已经是一个主要参与者。而且我认为华盛顿有一种流派认为中国的终极目标是取代美国，并按照其自身的意图重塑全球秩序。嗯，我对这一点不那么确信。嗯，但对我来说，问题最终总会归结为：好吧，美国想要什么？我们将需要找到与中国合作的方式。嗯，会有我们存在竞争的领域。也会有我们存在冲突的领域。但我认为把这种关系定义为竞争的问题在于，呃，它最终会导致冲突。而且我确实觉得很有趣。我的意思是，唐纳德·特朗普，许多人都感到惊讶，包括我在内，因为在他的第一任政府中，他确实是那个把重点放在中国上的人。嗯，华盛顿非常非常迅速地把焦点转向了那里。拜登在他的总统任期内接过了接力棒。有趣的是，当特朗普再次回来时，相比于许多人根据他在第一任政府中对此议题的重视程度所做出的设想，他对中国的关注相对较少。嗯，我认为你在最近的峰会上看到了一些体现。嗯，如果说有什么的话，你知道，我认为我们应该采取和解姿态。嗯，他非常和解。呃，因为我认为习向他表明了中国手里有牌可打。美国根本无法将其意愿强加给中国。我认为这是华盛顿需要认清的一个客观事实：我们不能仅仅由自己来制定规则然后让中国遵守。与此同时，我并没有真正看到证据表明中国只是想要取代美国。我看到中国是在一个基本上由美国协助建立的秩序之内行事。嗯，我认为我们可以在此基础上开展合作。

英文原文 >> I mean first we have to understand we need to coexist with China. China has a a huge economy. It is already a major player um on the global stage. And I think there's a school of thought in Washington who believe that China's ultimate goal is to supplant the United States um and to reshape uh the global order uh in its image. Um I'm less convinced of that. Um, but for me, the question always comes down to, okay, what does the United States want? We're going to need to find ways to cooperate with China. Um, there are going to be areas where we have competition. There's going to be areas where we have conflict. But I I think the problem with with with defining the relationship as competition, uh, is one that eventually will lead to conflict. And I and I do think it's interesting. I mean, Donald Trump, a lot of people were surprised, including me, given that in his first administration, he is really the one who made China the focus. Um, and Washington very, very quickly shifted focus to that. And Biden picked up the ball um in his presidency. And interesting, Trump when he came back, relatively little attention on China um compared to what a lot of people assume would be the case given how prominent it was in his first his first administration. Um, and I think you saw some of that reflected in in the recent summit. Um, if anything, you know, I think we should be consiliatory. Um, he was very consiliatory. Uh, because I think Xi has shown him that China has cards to play. The United States simply cannot assert its will on China. And that's a real reality that I think Washington needs to to grasp is that we don't get to just set the rules and have China follow them. At the same time, I haven't really seen evidence that China just wants to supplant the United States. I see China acting within an order that the that the United States essentially helped develop. Um, and I think we can work with that.

美国的主导地位应该成为一个目标吗？

英文原文 >> Should American primacy be a goal?

我认为问题在于，美国的主导地位对于保持美国人的安全、繁荣与自由是必需的吗？我认为并不是。我的意思是，我希望有一个强大的美国。我希望有一个有影响力的美国。我希望有一个能够增进——你知道——美国人民安全的美国。而按照我对那种安全的理解，它涉及在世界各地的其他群体中促进安全与繁荣。

英文原文 >> I think the question is, is American primacy necessary to keep Americans safe, prosperous, and free? And I don't think it is. I mean, I want an America that is powerful. I want an America that is influential. I want an America that can advance, you know, the safety of the American people. And as I conceive of that safety, it involves, you know, promoting safety and prosperity in other communities around the world.

移民问题与左翼道德困境

那么，这会让你如何看待移民问题呢？你知道，我多年前对伯尼·桑德斯做过一次采访，那个采访总在流传，当时我问他关于开放边界的事，他回答说：“不，不，那是科赫兄弟的阴谋。”

英文原文 >> And then how does that make you think about immigration? You know, there's this interview I did many years ago with Bernie Sanders that always goes around where I asked him about open borders and he's like, "No, no, that's a Koch brothers plot."

我认为如果你极其严肃地对待全球贫困问题，它会把你引向一些在美国被认为超出政治界限的结论。比如大幅提高我们允许的移民水平，甚至达到开放边界的程度，关于大幅增加开放——

那是一项科赫兄弟的提议，当然，我的意思是，这是一项右翼提议，它实质上是在说不存在美国。

英文原文 >> I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit even up to the up to a level of open borders about sharply increasing open

that's a Koch brothers proposal the idea of course I mean that's a right-wing proposal which says essentially there is no United States

我认为人们以为我问他这个问题是因为我支持开放边界，而不是因为我想知道他会怎么说，但我之所以问他那个问题，是因为我一直认为移民问题在左派内部是非常困难的，因为如果你对其他国家的人民怀有同情与团结。那些正在……

英文原文 >> I think people thought that I was asking him that because I support open borders rather than I was interested in what he would say but the reason I asked him that is that I have always thought the question of immigration is very hard on the left because if you have solidarity with people in other countries. People who are

试图来到这里，因为他们的国家不安全。

英文原文 >> trying to come here because their countries are unsafe.

人们试图来到这里，是因为钱在这里，更好的工作在这里，因为你可以在这里为你的家庭创造更好的生活，而你确实相信所有人都拥有平等的尊严。这就变得很难去说：那么，我们凭什么不让你们进来呢？就像在道德层面上，移民的限制性原则是一个非常棘手的问题。而且我认为，当缺乏一种限定性的民族主义时，这在左翼内部会更加困难。

英文原文 >> People are trying to come here because the money is here because the better jobs are here because you can make a better life for your family here and you actually do believe in the equal dignity of all people. It becomes hard to say, well, why shouldn't we let you in? Like the limiting principle of immigration at a moral level is a very difficult one. And I think it's more difficult on the left when there's less of a a kind of bounding nationalism.

但我认为移民问题在我们……当中是一个核心得多的问题

英文原文 >> But I think immigration is a much more central question in our

……呃，政策，外交政策，比过去更甚。而且它非常紧密地……

英文原文

uh

policy,

foreign

policy

than

it

was.

And

and

it

is

very

tied

up

与面向中产阶级的外交政策联系在一起。我的意思是，它也与这种控制权的问题紧密相连。我认为拜登任内人们对边境感到反感的部分原因，就是边境失控了。

英文原文

with

a

foreign

policy

for

the

middle

class.

I

mean,

and

it's

also

tied

up

in

this

question

of

control.

I

think

part

of

what

people

hated

about

the

border

under

Biden

was

he

was

out

of

control.

是的。

英文原文

Yes.

移民政策与控制

那么左翼在移民问题上应该持什么立场呢？我的意思是，我认为左翼的立场应该是，你知道，我们需要一个合法且有序的系统让人们移民到这里。但是，这同样建立在一种理解之上，即长期以来我们一直是一个移民国家。而且我不认为这仅仅是一句口号。听着，我是移民的儿子。

英文原文

So

what

should

the

left's

position

on

immigration

be?

I

mean,

I

think

Le's

position

should

be

that,

you

know,

we

need

a

a

legal

and

orderly

system

uh

for

people

to

immigrate

here.

Um,

but

it's

also

based

in

understanding

that

we

have

long

been

a

nation

of

immigrants.

Um,

and

I

don't

think

that's

just

a

slogan.

Listen,

I'm

I'm

the

son

of

an

immigrant.

我也是。

英文原文

Me,

too.

这个国家给予了我的家庭很多。这个国家在我的家人逃离战争时接纳了他们。在当今的当下，许多其他家庭也是如此。那对我来说意义重大，在我的定义里，那就是成为美国人的一部分。此外，我认为有明确的证据表明，移民是经济增长的驱动力。因为有了移民，这个国家变得更强大、更繁荣。所以，我认为我们需要愿意正面提出这些论据的领导人，同时也承认：是的，当然，我们需要执法。我们需要人们依法申请庇护和移民。不幸的是，它已经沦为了众多似乎彻底变成了文化战争议题的事情之一。

英文原文

Um,

this

this this

this

country

gave

my

family

a

lot.

Um,

this

family

let

you

know,

this

country

let

my

family

in

when

they

were

fleeing

war.

Um,

that's

true

of

so

many

other

families

right

now

today.

that

means

a

lot

to

me

about,

you

know,

that's

part

of

being

American

as

I

define

it.

Um,

in

addition,

I

think

there's

clear

evidence

that

im

immigrants

are

are

a

driver

of

economic

growth.

Um,

this

country

is

stronger

and

more

prosperous

uh

because

of

immigrants.

Um,

so

I

think

we

need

leaders

who

are

willing

to

make

that

positive

case

while

acknowledging

yes,

of

course,

we

need

to

enforce

the

law.

um

we

we

need

people

to

apply

for

asylum

and

and

and

and

you

know

for

and

migration

legally.

Um

unfortunately

it

does

it's

one

of

these

many

issues

that

seems

to

have

just

become

you

know

just

an

issue

in

the

culture

war.

但我认为这里有两个艰难的问题，各派民主党人都必须给出答案。

英文原文

But

I

I

think

that

the

I

think

there

are

two

questions

here

that

are

hard

and

that

Democrats

are

going

to

have

to

come

up

with

an

answer

for

Democrats

of

all

stripes.

一个是理想情况下应该有多少人移民到这里，包括合法移民。在第一个任期内，特朗普经常把概念搅浑，分不清他指的是非法移民还是合法移民。

英文原文

One

is

ideally

how

many

people

should

immigrate

here

including

legally.

Uh,

you

know,

in

the

first

term,

Trump

would

often

fuzz,

was

he

talking

about

illegal

immigration

or

legal

migration?

现在很明显他说的是所有移民。对。他基本上不想让任何人进入这个国家。我的意思是，并非字面上的空无一人，但他们所说的封锁边境就是这个意思。

英文原文

Clear

now

he's

talking

about

all

immigration.

Yes.

Right.

He

doesn't

want

basically

anybody

coming

into

this

country.

I

mean,

not

literally

nobody,

but

they

have

what

they

meant

by

seal

the

borders.

南非白人是受欢迎的。

英文原文

White

South

Africans

are

welcome.

是的，南非白人是受欢迎的。

英文原文

Yeah.

White

South

Africans

are

welcome.

这是一个方面。还有拜登政府面临的问题。卡玛拉·哈里斯当时挨了批，因为她去公开表示——我在这里转述一下——我们给你们的信息是，现在不要来这里。

英文原文

So,

there's

that.

There's

also

the

problem

that

the

Biden

administration

faced.

I

mean

Kla

Harris

took

heat

when

you

know

she

went

and

said

like

our

message

to

you

I'm

paraphrasing

here

is

don't

come

here

right

now.

不，我认为那是原话。

英文原文

No

I

I

think

that's

an

actual

quote.

我想向该地区那些正考虑踏上前往美墨边境险途的人们明确表示：

不要来。

不要来。而且我认为我们在拜登政府时期看到的一点是，当普遍的印象是我们对来这里的移民非常非常友好时，就会有很多人涌来。

英文原文

I

want

to

be

clear

to

folks

in

this

region

who

are

thinking

about

making

that

dangerous

trek

to

the

United

States

Mexico

border.

Do

not

come.

Do

not

come.

And

one

of

the

things

that

I

think

we

saw

in

the

Biden

administration

was

when

the

broad

impression

was

that

we

were

very

very

friendly

to

immigrants

coming

here

that

a

lot

of

people

came

you

know

所以你看，特朗普关闭边境的部分手段是一种残忍的脉冲——

英文原文

and

so

you

know

part

of

how

Trump

closed

the

border

is

a

pulse

of

cruelty

就像一种持续的残忍脉冲——

英文原文

like

a

constant

pulse

of

cruelty

而对于拜登政府来说，他们失控的部分原因在于，我认为他们被夹在维持有序边境的愿望（他们确实有此愿望）与心存善意的信念之间，

英文原文

and

for

the

Biden

administration

they

lost

control

in

part

because

they

I

think

were

caught

between

the

desire

for

an

orderly

border,

which

it

did

desire,

and

the

belief

in

kindness,

这二者似乎更难平衡。

英文原文

like

that that

seems

harder

to

balance.

不，显然确实如此。我认为其中一部分还在于解决激发人们支持严厉打击移民的愤怒与委屈的源头。也就是人们认为这些移民过来不公地抢走了属于我的东西，他们过来改变了我的生活方式这种观念。我认为有办法解决这个问题。这必须成为我们关于重组移民系统辩论的一部分。

英文原文

No,

I

I

it

clearly

is.

Um

I

think

part

of

it

is

also

addressing,

you

know,

the

the

sources

of

of

anger

and

and

grievance

that

drive

support

for

dramatic

crackdowns

on

immigration.

This

idea,

you

know,

that

people

believe

that

these

immigrants

are

coming

and

taking

unfairly

taking

what's

mine.

They're

coming

and

and

and,

you

know,

changing

the

way

that

I

have

to

live.

Um,

I

think

there's

a

way

to

address

that.

That

has

to

be

part

of

of

the

debate

we

have

on

on

reordering

our

immigration

system.

反腐败作为外交与内政的核心

然后我想以此作为结尾，因为我认为这对民主党人来说已经是一个非常有凝聚力的想法，但如何将其落到实处却更难。你和许多其他人一样，都表示腐败，坦率地说是反腐败，应该置于外交政策的中心。

英文原文

And

then

I

want

to

end

on

on

this

because

this

is

already,

I

think,

a

very

unifying

idea

for

Democrats,

but

the

question

of

how

to

make

it

tangible

is

harder.

You,

like

many

others

I've

seen,

have

said

that

corruption

and

frankly

anti-corruption

should

be

at

the

center

of

foreign

policy.

我们应该将其理解为一个国内问题，也应该将其理解为一个外交问题。民主党人，尤其随着特朗普时代的持续，应该找到一种方式将其作为他们世界愿景的核心。那么，你如何将其作为你世界愿景的核心？按照你所描述的方式将其置于中心，具体会是什么样子？

英文原文

That

we

should

understand

that

as

a

domestic

question,

we

should

understand

it

as

a

foreign

question.

and

that

Democrats,

particularly

as

the

Trump

era

wears

on,

should

find

a

way

to

make

that

core

to

their

vision

of

the

world.

So,

how

do

you

make

that

core

to

your

vision

of

the

world?

What

what

does

it

look

like

to

center

that

in

the

way

you've

been

describing?

是的，我认为这又回到了我们之前讨论过的关键主张，即特朗普反复强调的体制被操纵了。再次强调，这个体制确实被操纵了。人们看得见也感受得到。我们有一些想法，并且已经提了出来，比如开展打击盗贼统治的国际行动，遏制国际洗钱——美国是洗钱的主要目的地之一。谁能想到南达科他州的信托基金会成为外国盗贼统治者藏钱的主要途径之一，但南达科他州显然非常受欢迎。但我认为在国内要从竞选资金开始，我知道这是一项艰巨的任务。我们有最高法院的裁决认定金钱等同于言论。但我认为开启关于国会究竟能做些什么来改变围绕竞选资金的法律的对话是很有必要的，这可能需要通过一项宪法修正案。再次重申，鉴于我们的政治极化，这听起来完全不切实际。但我认为美国人真的会对一个切实回应他们失控感的论点产生共鸣，即精英们为了自身利益而非整个国家的利益掌控了体制。我认为在这方面最好的传达者之一是佐治亚州的乔恩·奥索夫，他似乎每隔几个月就会发布一段极佳的视频探讨这个问题。我认为他几个月前说的一句话让我感触很深，他说即使在唐纳德·特朗普登场之前，美国就已经是现代最腐败的民主国家了。我认为那是真的。而且我认为把这个信息传达出去，是开始着手解决这一问题的一种方式。

英文原文

Yeah,

I

mean,

I

think

this

goes

back

to

the

the

kind

of

key

claim

that

we

discussed

earlier,

Trump's

refrain

that

the

system

is

rigged.

Um,

and

again,

this

system

is

rigged.

people

can

see

it

and

feel

it.

I

mean,

there

are

ideas

that

that

we

have

and

we've

put

out

there

as

for

like

international

efforts

against

kleptocracy,

closing

down

international

money

laundering

for

which

the

United

States

is

a

main

destination.

I

mean,

who

knew

that

trusts

in

South

Dakota

would

be

one

of the

main

ways

that

kleptocrats

abroad

hid

their

money,

but

South

Dakota

apparently

very

popular.

Um,

but

I

think

starting

here

um

with

campaign

finance,

and

I

know

that

is

a

tall

order.

We've

got

Supreme

Court

rulings

that

have,

you

know,

determined

that

money

equals

speech.

Um,

but

I

I

I

think

teeing

up

up

a

conversation

about

what

Congress

can

actually

do

to

change

the

laws

around

campaign

finance,

it

may

take

a

constitutional

amendment.

And

again,

given

given

our

political

polarization,

that

sounds

completely

unrealistic.

Um,

but

I

think

Americans

will

really

respond

um

to

an

argument

that

really

addresses

their

sense

of

of

loss

of

control

that

elites

have

taken

control

of

a

system

for

their

own

benefit,

not

for

the

of

a

country,

the

country

at

large.

And

I

think

one

of

the

best

messengers

on

this

has

been

George's

John

Oaf,

who

seems

to

drop

an

amazing

video

uh

on

this

every

couple

months.

Um,

and

I

think

something

he

said,

um,

you

know,

a

few

months

ago

that

really

struck

me,

he

was

like,

even

before

Donald

Trump

came

on

the

scene,

the

United

States

was

the

most

corrupt

modern

democracy.

And

I

think

that's

true.

And

I

and

I

think

um,

you

know,

getting

out

there

on

that

message

is

is

is

a

way

to

start

addressing

this.

所以，但我同意你的看法，国内层面的切入点是竞选资金改革。我也同意——

英文原文

And

so,

but

you

think

the

way

I

agree

with

you

that

the

way

to

start

in

the

domestic

scene

is

campaign

finance

reform.

And

I

also

agree

that

听着，修改宪法很难，改变最高法院也很难，

英文原文

look,

it's

hard

to

change

the

constitution,

hard

to

change

the

Supreme

Court,

但你可以像右翼推翻罗诉韦德案那样构建一种政治路径，

英文原文

but

you

can

build

a

politics

as

the

right

did

on

overturning

Row

依靠长期的持续努力来实现它，最终会取得成功，而且与此同时，在这个特定议题上你也有很多事情可以做。

英文原文

on

an

extended

long-term

effort

to

do

that

and

you

can

eventually

succeed

and

there's

a

lot

you

can

do

on

that

particular

issue

in

the

meantime,

too.

但在外交政策方面，

英文原文

But

in

terms

of

foreign

policy,

把它确立起来意味着什么？有没有我们不合作的对象？我记得在拜登政府时期看到的一件事是，他们与沙特阿拉伯保持着稍远一点的距离，接着油价就开始上涨。

英文原文

what

does

it

mean

to

make

that?

Are

there

people

we

don't

work

with?

I

mean,

you

know,

one

thing

I

remember

seeing

with

the

the

Biden

administration

was

that

they

were

holding

Saudi

Arabia

a

little bit

more

at

arms

length

and

then

oil

prices

started

to

go

up.

随后突然之间，他们觉得不能再保持距离了。于是所有关于侵犯人权和其他方面的问题都开始消解，

英文原文

Then

all

of a

sudden

they

felt

they

couldn't

anymore.

And

so

all

the

questions

of

human

rights

abuses

and

other

things

began

to

dissolve

那往往正是我观察到我们的外交政策偏离价值观的地方。人们有着良好的意图，但随后又出现了美国中产阶级所希望的其他东西，对吧？美国工人阶级想要廉价石油，而那意味着你得与高度腐败国家里的专制强人打交道。

英文原文

and

that

often

is

where

I

watch

our

foreign

policy

shift

away

from

values.

People

have

good

intentions,

but

then

there

are

other

things

that

the

American

middle

class

wants,

right?

the

American

working

class

wants

like

cheap

oil

that

uh

means

you're

working

with

autocratic

strong

men

in

highly

corrupt

国家。所以，当你希望在外交政策中提出并置于核心的价值观，与你认为美国人民所期望、且只有以他们想要的价格从与这些国家合作中才能获得的事物发生冲突时，会发生什么？

英文原文

countries.

So

what

happens

when

the

values

you

want

to

put

forward

and

and

and

center

in

your

foreign

policy

conflict

with

the

things

that

you

know

you

believe

the

American

people

want

and

can

only

be

got

at

the

price

they

want

you

know

from

working

with

these

countries.

这听起来又像是在回避问题，但我承认，是的，会有权衡取舍。你必须做出决定。有时你会把这些价值观放在优先位置，有时你不得不把它们稍稍置于次要地位。我想我必须看具体情况才能给出答案。但我会说在国际层面上，

美国是全球……的主要目的地，英国也是。我想说美英两国可以大有作为。即便从我们现在坐着的纽约这里来看，很多这样的建筑不过是不义之财的停泊地。伦敦也是如此。我认为美英两国只要整顿好自家内务，就能开始产生国际影响。我知道这与你正在问的问题有所不同，但我

英文原文

I

mean

again

it's

going

to

sound

like

a

punt

but

I'll

acknowledge

yeah

there's

going

to

be

trade-offs.

there

's

going

to

be

decisions

you

have

to

make.

Sometimes

you're

going

to

prioritize

those

values.

Sometimes

you're

going

to

have

to

kind

of

backfoot

them

a

little.

Um

I

guess

I'd

have

to

look

at

the

particular

situation

to

give

an

answer.

But

I

would

say

internationally

for

you

know

the

United

States

is

a

major

destination

for

for

global

as

is

UK.

Um

I

would

say

the

US

and

UK

can

do

a

lot.

I

mean,

even

from

where

we're

sitting

here

in

New

York,

um

you

know,

a

lot

of

these

buildings

are

just,

you

know,

they're

parking

spaces

um

for

ill

gotten

gains.

The

same

is

true

of

London.

I

think

the

US

and

UK

just

addressing

their

own

houses

um

could

start

to

have

an

international

impact.

I

know

that's

separate

from

the

question

you're

acting

you're

asking,

but

I

确实认为那是让反腐政策走向国际化的一种方式。

英文原文 do think that that is a way to internationalize an anti-corruption policy.

我想在我们讨论的其中一些问题中，它引出了这样一个疑问：内政与外交之间的界线究竟在哪里？尤其是当我们谈论服务于中产阶级的外交政策时，比如你如何看待什么该归入这一类、什么该归入另一类？哪些放错了分类？用“分类”甚至算是恰当的比喻吗？

英文原文 >> I think in some of these issues we're talking about, it raises this question of where is the line between domestic and foreign policy? particularly when we're talking about a foreign policy for the middle class like how do you think about what falls in one bucket what falls in the other what's in the wrong bucket is buckets even the right metaphor

是的，我对此没有一个极佳的答案。我认为我们谈论的很多事情——我是说我想这样说，我认为我们谈论外交政策的方式，往往连我们自己都没意识到那就是外交政策。比如当我们谈论移民时，

英文原文 >> yeah I don't have a great answer to it I think a lot of the things we talk about I mean I'll say this I think we talk about foreign policy in ways that we don't often recognize as foreign policy like when we talk about immigration

嗯，移民问题显然具有巨大的国际影响。气候问题，显然完全一样。美国的外交政策影响着这些方面。全球贸易、全球经济、本土就业，这些全都有外交政策的组成部分。所以，而且这一点又是我确实很欣赏的地方——比如当提到拜登政府的全球经济举措时，他们把那定位为外交政策的一部分；贸易并不是单列在这一块，外交政策单列在那一块，这些事物有着深度的联系。

我想我尝试去回答它的方式是说，无论何时我们在谈论外交政策，无论是在讨论中东，还是在讨论俄乌，至少要留意：好吧，这实际上是如何为美国社区服务的？即便并非每一篇演讲都必须包含那一段落，你也需要能够回答它。

对于那些——我正努力思考恰当的表述方式——并不服务于美国社区、但在其他地方很重要的领域，你怎么看？我这里想到的可能是人道主义危机中的干预，某些形式的对外援助。显然，特朗普政府严重削减了对外援助。

英文原文 >> um there are obviously huge international um implications for immigration climate obvious Obviously same thing um America's foreign policies impact these things global trade global economics jobs here these are all have a foreign policy uh component so and this is again something that I did appreciate about you know when I when I mentioned the Biden administration's global economic approach they seated that as a part of foreign policy trade was not over here and foreign policy over here these things are are deeply connected um I think I guess the way I would try to answer it is to say whenever we are talking about foreign policy whe whether it's about the Middle East whether it's about Russia Ukraine at least being mindful of okay how does this actually serve American communities even if every every speech doesn't necessarily have to have that paragraph you need to be able to answer it what do you think about places where

I'm trying to think about the right way to frame this that it doesn't serve American communities but it is important elsewhere And I'm thinking here about possibly interventions in humanitarian crisis, certain forms of foreign aid. Uh obviously the Trump administration has really gutted foreign aid.

当你某种程度上无法说——

英文原文 >> How do you think about those moments when you kind of can't say

“我们的外交政策实际上就是一项国内政策；我们实际上做这些事情是因为——”

英文原文 >> our foreign policy is actually a domestic policy? We're actually doing these things because

“在道德上我们认为这是好的。我们是一个富裕的国家。我们是一个强大的国家，我们将把其中一些力量用在其他地方。”你如何看待那些时刻？

英文原文 >> morally we think it is good. We are a rich country. We're a powerful country and we are going to use some of that power elsewhere.

是的，我认为会有那样的情况，我们需要一位能够向美国人民有力阐明这一点的总统。我认为很多美国人对此是能够接受的，但他们需要听到一个令人信服的论据，说明为什么这样做是正确的，哪怕最后并没有附带“这就是它将如何在你的社区创造新就业机会”。就像我说的，我认为美国人普遍希望国家行善。那并不意味着我们需要随时随地介入所有人的事务。但我认为，比如，我认为非常耐人寻味的是，尽管唐纳德·特朗普对乌克兰防务采取了与乔·拜登截然不同的态度——至少可以说截然不同——但对乌克兰防务的支持却保持得相当稳定。我认为，帮助一个国家抵抗更强大邻国的侵略，其所蕴含的正义与道德，是美国人能够理解的，哪怕他们可能无法将其与“这对自己、自己的社区和自己的家庭有什么好处”直接联系起来。

英文原文 >> Yeah, I think there are going to be cases like that and we need a president who's able to articulate that strongly to the American people. I think a lot of Americans are receptive to that, but they need to hear a convincing argument for why this is doing the right thing, even if that doesn't end with and here's how it's going to create new jobs in your community. Like I said, I think Americans generally want the country to do good. That doesn't mean we need to get up in everyone's business all the all over the place all the time. But I think when they're, you know, for example, I think it's very interesting how fairly steady support for Ukraine's defense has stayed despite Donald Trump taking a very different approach to it than Joe Biden to say the least. I think there is something about the the the justice and the morality of helping a country defend itself from the aggression of a more powerful neighbor that Americans get even if they might not connect it directly to how that's good for them and their community and their family.

书籍推荐

我想这是个很好的收尾之处。照例是我们的最后一个问题：你向听众推荐哪三本书？

英文原文 >> I think that's a good place to end. Always our final question. What are three books you recommend to the audience?

嗯，首先，你知道，我们提到了克里斯·墨菲参议员和他关于共同利益危机的新书。我刚一直在读，我真的很推荐它，因为正如我所说，我认为墨菲参议员一直是有力阐明了困扰我们政治的症结所在这套理论的人：社区意识的丧失；这些体制失控且无人负责的观念；财富在每一步都正从我们身上被榨取、以及重建共同目标感需要什么的观念。嗯，推荐那一本。第二本是由记者苏西·汉森写的，叫作《From Life Itself》。这是一本关于土耳其的书，仅通过探索伊斯坦布尔的一个街区——她在十年间对其进行了报道——展示了这个街区是如何变化的：叙利亚移民、难民的涌入；审视该国的政治，显然包括埃尔多安与正义与发展党的崛起，土耳其的民主是如何发生改变并衰落的。最后一本是莱昂纳德·科恩的一本书，叫作《Book of Mercy》。

嗯，我母亲最近去世了。她除其他特质外，曾是一位信仰深厚的女性。当我——我是在教会环境中长大的，嗯，当我年轻时，我们——我记得我最近一直在回想我们花时间谈论《圣经》的岁月，《诗篇》曾是我们格外喜爱的一卷，大卫王的诗篇。而《Book of Mercy》，或者就叫《Book of Mercy》，是莱昂纳德·科恩写的，人们熟知他是一位著名的词曲作者和歌手。但这本是一部现代诗篇集。

嗯，就像科恩的所有作品一样，它在痛苦、美好、受难与意义之间挣扎。这正是我在她生命的最后几个月里与她分享过的东西，但在我应对这一切、在我苦思这一切到底意味着什么的过程中，它对我而言也有着极其重大的意义。

英文原文 >> Um well the first is you know we we you mentioned uh Senator Chris Murphy and his his new book the crisis of the common good. I've just been reading and and I really I really recommend it because as I said I think uh Senator Murphy um has been one someone who has really articulated a strong theory of the case of what really ails our politics. The loss of a sense of community. Um the idea that these these systems are out of control and they are unaccountable. Um the idea that that just wealth is being extracted from us at every step and what it takes to rebuild a shared sense of purpose. Um recommend that one. And the second one is uh by journalist Susie Hansen. It's called From Life Itself. It's a book about Turkey through just exploring one neighborhood in Istanbul um that she she's reported on over 10 years, how this neighborhood changed. um influx of of immigrants, refugees from Syria. Um looking at the country's politics, obviously the rise of Erdogan and the AK, how Turkeykey's democracy has changed and diminished. And the last one is um book by Leonard Cohen. It's called Book of Mercy. Um

so my mom recently passed away. She's um she was among other things a woman of of of deep religious faith and when and I was raised in the church um and when I was younger we we I'd remember I've just been thinking about the time we would spend talking about the Bible and and the book of Psalms was a particular favorite of ours the Psalms of King David and the Book of Mercy or just Book of Mercy is what it's called. It's by Leonard Cohen, who people will know as a famous songwriter and singer. But this is a book of modern psalms. Um, and like all of Cohen's work, it struggles with pain and beauty and suffering and meaning.

And it's just been something that I shared with her in her last months, but has also meant a great deal to me as I've been dealing with this and as I struggle with what this all means.

马特·杜斯，非常感谢你。

谢谢你。

英文原文 >> Matt does. Thank you very much. Thank you.
文中提及的人物和组织

人物: Brian Schatz, Chris Van Hollen, Matt Duss

公司/组织: Center for International Policy

媒体/书籍: Book of Mercy, From Life Itself