美國精英統治恐踏上末路

What is in a word? When it is packed with as much moral zeal as “meritocracy”, the answer is a lot. A meritocrat owes his success to effort and talent. Luck has nothing to do with it — or so he tells himself. He shares his view with everyone else, including those too slow or indolent to follow his example. Things only go wrong when the others dispute it.

一個詞裏包含什麼？如果這個詞充斥着和“精英統治”一樣多的道德熱情，答案是包含很多。一名精英會將自己的成功歸因於努力和天分。他的成功和運氣毫無關係——或者他是這樣告訴自己的。他與其他所有人分享他的觀點，包括那些太遲鈍或者太懶惰以至於無法效仿他的人。只是當其他人提出異議時，問題就出現了。

Now magnify that to a nation of 320m people — one that prides itself on being a meritocracy. imagine that between a half and two-thirds of its people, depending on how the question is framed, disagree. They believe the system’s divisions are self-perpetuating. They used not to think that way.

現在，把這種情況放大到一個擁有3.2億人口的國家——一個以實行精英統治而自豪的國家。想象一下，根據問題的表達方式不同，有一半到三分之二的人表示異議。他們現在相信，體系的分化是自我持續的。他們過去並不這麼想。

Imagine, also, that the meritocrats are too enamoured of their just rewards to see it. The fact that they are split — one group calling itself Democratic, the other Republican — is detail. They are two sides of a debased coin. Sooner or later something will give.

再想象一下，精英們太過醉心於自己得到的合理回報，因而並沒有看到這一點。他們分裂成兩個集團——一個自稱民主黨，另一個自稱共和黨，這個事實只是細枝末節。他們是同一塊劣質硬幣的兩面。遲早會出事。

An exaggeration? Financial Times readers might be inclined to think so. The fact that Donald Trump has completed a hostile takeover of one of those groups — the Republicans — is a shock to everyone, including, I suspect, the property billionaire himself. The rest should not be a surprise.

誇張嗎？英國《金融時報》的讀者可能傾向於這麼認爲。唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)完成了對其中一個集團——共和黨——的“敵意收購”，這讓所有人都感到震驚，我懷疑也包括這位地產億萬富翁本人在內。事情的其他部分就不應令人驚訝了。

Since the late 1960s both parties, in different ways, have turned a blind eye to the economic interests of the middle class. In 1972 the McGovern-Fraser Commission revamped the Democratic party’s rules for selecting its nominee after the disastrous 1968 convention in Chicago. The overhaul changed the party’s course. It included obligatory seats for women, ethnic minorities and young people — but left out working males altogether. “We aren’t going to let these Camelot Harvard-Berkeley types take over our party,” said the head of the AFL-CIO, the largest American union federation. That is precisely what happened. Democrats cemented the shift from a class-based party to an ethnic coalition by enshrining affirmative action for non-whites. Getting a leg up to university, the ultimate meritocratic vehicle, was based on your skin colour rather than your economic situation.

自上世紀60年代末以來，兩黨以不同的方式對中產階層的經濟利益視而不見。在1968年在芝加哥舉辦的災難性民主黨代表大會後，1972年，麥戈文-弗雷澤委員會(McGovern-Fraser Commission)修改了民主黨選擇被提名人的規則。這次徹底改革改變了該黨的方針。該規則規定必須爲女性、少數族裔和年輕人提供一些席位——卻完全忽略了工薪階層的男性。“我們不會讓這些高高在上的哈佛(Harvard)-伯克利(Berkeley)人掌控我們的黨，”美國最大的工會聯合會美國勞工聯合會-產業工會聯合會(AFL-CIO)的負責人說。而這恰恰發生了。通過把針對非白人的平權行動奉爲圭臬，民主黨加強了從基於階層的黨派到種族聯盟的轉變。大學是成爲精英的終極手段，申請大學時的優勢不是基於你的經濟狀況，而是基於你的膚色。

Unsurprisingly, swaths of the white middle class turned Republican. Forty years on, many Democrats, not least Bernie Sanders’ supporters, are suffering buyer’s remorse. Before he became president, Barack Obama argued it would be fairer to base affirmative action on income not colour. “My daughters should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged,” he said.

毫不奇怪，大批美國白人中產階層轉向了共和黨。40年後的今天，很多民主黨人，尤其是伯尼•桑德斯(Bernie Sanders)的支持者們，都感到了一種“買家的懊悔”。在當選總統前，巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)表示，基於收入而非膚色來實施平權行動更爲公平。“我的女兒們或許應該被任何招生人員視爲相當有優勢的人，”他說。

Last week it was announced that Malia Obama had been accepted into Harvard, her father’s alma mater. About a third of legacy applicants, those whose parent attended, are accepted into Harvard. No one suggests she is not deserving of her place. However, there are plenty of lower-income black and white children who do not benefit from the advantages Malia Obama or Chelsea Clinton (Stanford and Oxford) had from birth.

上週，據悉馬莉婭•奧巴馬(Malia Obama)被哈佛——她父親的母校錄取。那些父母曾就讀哈佛的申請者中，有三分之一的人也被哈佛錄取。沒人說馬莉婭•奧巴馬不夠格被錄取。然而，有很多低收入的黑人孩子和白人孩子不享有她或者切爾西•克林頓(Chelsea Clinton)（就讀於斯坦福大學(Stanford)和牛津大學(Oxford)）與生俱來的優勢。

The US labour market remains impressively meritocratic. But what happens to a worker in the 25 years before he or she enters it is anything but. Hence the term “hereditary meritocracy”. Richard Reeves of the Brookings Institution calls them “dream hoarders”.

美國勞動力市場仍然非常舉人唯賢。但勞動者在進入勞動力市場之前的25年中的經歷絕非如此。因此，就出現了“世襲精英制”這個術語。布魯金斯學會(Brookings Institution)的理查德•裏夫斯(Richard Reeves)把他們稱爲“囤夢者”。

Judged by aptitude, almost half those in America’s top two-fifths income bracket are there because of the luck of family background. Think of the value of those unpaid internships. A big share of those in the bottom fifth would be in the top if they had the same life chances.

從天資來判斷，處於美國收入水平前五分之二的人中近半都是因爲家族背景纔有幸擁有這樣的收入。想想那些無薪實習勞動的價值。如果在生活中擁有同樣的機會，處於收入水平最底端五分之一的人中有很大一部分人本該進入最高收入階層。

Middle-class whites derived no greater benefit from voting Republican. For years strategists such as Karl Rove played on cultural fears — often stoking racial resentment — to galvanise the vote.

中產階級白人沒有從支持共和黨中得到太大好處。多年來，卡爾•羅夫(Karl Rove)這樣的謀劃高手利用文化擔憂——通常會煽動種族仇恨——來刺激中產階級投票。

Once in office, Republicans pursued tax cuts for the rich. Ignored by both parties and disproportionately hit by the downsides of globalisation, blue-collar whites fell into depression. For the first time, life expectancy among American whites is falling.

一旦上臺，共和黨便爲富人謀求減稅。被兩黨忽視的藍領白人受到了全球化負面影響的極大衝擊，陷入困境。美國白人羣體的預期壽命首次出現下滑。

To add insult to injury, poor whites alone are still fair game for ridicule. They are excluded from the rules of political correctness. This is the demographic that eats itself into obesity in front of bad TV — reality shows such as The Apprentice, which brought Mr Trump into their lives. Here was a man who spoke his mind and fired people. He may have been a schmuck but he was an open book. “I love the poorly educated,” he said after one primary victory. Mr Trump knows his market.

雪上加霜的是，只有貧困白人仍然是可被嘲笑的對象。他們被政治正確性的規則排除在外。該羣體看着糟糕的電視節目——把特朗普帶入他們生活的《學徒》(The Apprentice)這樣的真人秀——從自己的窘境中取樂。節目中，特朗普會直言自己的想法，也會炒人魷魚。他或許曾經是一個笨蛋，但他就像一本攤開的書一樣。“我愛受教育程度低的人，”他在一次初選勝利後表示。特朗普知道自己的市場所在。

Which brings us back to that supercharged word. Michael Young, the British sociologist who coined it in his 1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy, would feel vindicated. Though the term soon lost its irony, Young meant it as a satire on the imagined ruling classes of the future. Meritocratic elites “can be insufferably smug”, he said in a 2001 critique of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s misuse of the word. The rest, meanwhile, “can easily become demoralised by being looked down on so woundingly by people who have done well for themselves”.

這把我們帶回到那個超帶勁的詞。英國社會學家邁克爾•楊(Michael Young)在其1958年出版的著作《精英統治的崛起》(The Rise of the Meritocracy)中發明了這個詞，他會認爲自己是無辜的。楊發明這個詞的原意是諷刺那些想象中的未來統治階級，儘管這個詞很快失去了諷刺意味。他在2001年批評時任英國首相托尼•布萊爾(Tony Blair)錯誤地使用該詞時表示，精英統治中的精英“可能自以爲是得令人無法忍受”。與此同時，其他人“可能很容易會因爲被那些飛黃騰達之人以一種傷人的方式看不起而意志消沉”。

Young forecast his meritocracy would break down by 2033. The chances are it will survive 2016. Hillary Clinton, this year’s meritocratic standard-bearer, looks likely to win in November. But polls say Mr Trump would win a clear majority of the white vote. Think about that. Mr Trump is the president white America wants. It is hard to believe it would be on merit.

楊預測，精英統治會在2033年之前瓦解。它很有可能會撐過2016年。今年精英統治的旗手希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)，似乎可能會在11月贏得大選。但是，民調顯示，特朗普將贏得明顯多數的白人選票。想一想這個問題。特朗普是美國白人所希望的總統。很難相信這是因爲他的賢能。