羅姆尼的競選搭檔救不了他

Introducing his running mate against the backdrop of the USS Wisconsin on Saturday, Mitt Romney flubbed his easiest line: "Join me in welcoming the next president of the United States." There is no way to avoid reading this as a Freudian slip. Mr Romney's chief problem as a candidate has been his substantive vacuity, his failure to stand for much beyond flexibility itself. In choosing Paul Ryan, he opted to outsource the content of his campaign to his opposite: a principled, conservative ideas man. Mr Ryan is now the head of the Republican ticket, Mr Romney the body.

週六，在"威斯康辛號"(USS Wisconsin)戰艦前介紹自己的競選搭檔時，米特•羅姆尼(Mitt Romney)把一句最簡單的"臺詞"說錯了，說成了："請大家和我一起歡迎美國未來的總統。"我們不得不聯想到，或許這個口誤正是羅姆尼下意識的想法。作爲總統候選人，羅姆尼的主要問題在於其主張極其空洞，除了"見機行事"本身之外未能真正主張什麼。選擇保羅•瑞安(Paul Ryan)做競選搭檔，就是選擇了靠一個與自己截然相反的人爲自己的競選增加一些實質內容：瑞安有原則，是一個堅定的保守主義者。如今在這個共和黨正副總統候選人團隊中，瑞安是腦袋，羅姆尼則是受腦袋指揮的身子。

Given the options he had left himself, this was probably the best choice for Mr Romney to make.

再看看別的人選，或許這已是羅姆尼的最佳選擇。

Mr Ryan stands for a clear proposition – the radical scaling back of the federal government's social commitments – and through his pick, Mr Romney now represents that as well. Usually, a vice-presidential candidate scrambles to fall into line with the top of the ticket. In this case, it is Mr Romney who will, not for the first time, adjust his views. Instead of attacking Barack Obama for cutting Medicare, Mr Romney must now charge him, as Mr Ryan does, with not cutting it enough.

瑞安有明確的政見——大幅削減聯邦政府社會福利開支。羅姆尼選擇瑞安爲競選搭檔，也相當於在這一點上表明瞭自己的立場。通常來說，副總統候選人要努力配合總統候選人的主張。而在這個組合裏，將對自己的觀點做出修正的人是羅姆尼，而這也不是他第一次這麼做了。如今羅姆尼必須改變說辭，不再攻擊巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)削減聯邦醫療保險(Medicare)支出，而應指責其削減的幅度不夠大。

Curiously, both conservatives and liberals profess to be pleased with the choice – the former because Mr Ryan represents their beliefs and the latter because he offers clear positions that they can challenge. Though both cannot be right about the political impact of the selection, the campaign itself will benefit from Mr Romney's choice. Mr Ryan's presence on the ticket makes this a better and more interesting election. It forces the debate the country needs to have about entitlement spending and ensures that the remaining months will be more than an argument about whose negative ads are more disgusting.

有趣的是，保守主義者和自由主義者都對羅姆尼的這個選擇表示滿意——前者感到滿意是因爲瑞安代表了他們的信仰，後者則是因爲瑞安提出了明確的立場可供他們討伐。儘管兩方對羅姆尼這個選擇的政治影響不可能都判斷對，但受益於這個選擇的將是競選本身。瑞安參選副總統，將使這場大選變得更有價值、更有趣。此人的參選，將迫使美國就福利開支進行一場必要的辯論，也確保未來幾個月的競選將不會是一場關於誰的負面廣告更噁心的競賽。

It is hard to see it, however, as improving Republican chances. Until now, Mr Romney has been a poor candidate running a clumsy campaign, which pointed towards losing a winnable race. Mr Ryan changes that narrative, but only by reframing the election the way Mr Obama's team wishes to, as a choice between two visions of the social contract as opposed to a referendum on Mr Obama's economic performance. Instead of teasing out the implications of Mr Romney's tax cuts, Mr Obama can now directly challenge Mr Ryan's stated positions in favour of privatising social security and turning Medicare into a voucher programme. Florida, a must-win state for Mr Romney, just moved closer to Mr Obama's column.

然而，很難說瑞安的參選增加了共和黨的贏面。到目前爲止，羅姆尼的競選一直不夠有力、不夠漂亮，眼看就要輸掉這場本有可能贏的競賽。瑞安改變了這個局面，但他的加入只不過令局勢朝奧巴馬團隊希望的方向更進了一步：大選變成了對兩種社會契約願景的選擇，而非一場對奧巴馬在經濟方面的表現的全民公決。如今奧巴馬不需要繼續就羅姆尼減稅的影響大做文章，而可以直接對瑞安公開表明的立場進行質疑。瑞安的立場是：支持社會保障私有化，用代金券計劃代替聯邦醫療保險。羅姆尼志在必得的佛羅里達州剛剛向奧巴馬陣營邁進了一步。

A valid critique of the plan Mr Ryan developed as chairman of the House Budget Committee is that while it may be a useful document to start a conversation, it is utterly unrealistic as a matter of policy. The original version would reduce federal "discretionary" spending to 3 per cent of gross domestic product by 2050 – far less than the US now spends on defence alone. This is a preposterous target, a symptom of the Republican refusal to acknowledge that federal government has legitimate, vital functions and that fiscal balance cannot be attained without higher taxes.

對瑞安作爲衆議院預算委員會主席提出的這一計劃的一個在理的批評就是，雖然這是啓動對話的一個有用的提議，但從政策角度來看卻完全不現實。最初的規劃是在2050年之前將聯邦"自由支配"開支降低到國內生產總值(GDP)的3%，比目前美國國防一項的開支還要低很多。這是一個荒謬的目標，也體現了共和黨拒絕承認聯邦政府有合法而不可或缺的職能，不提高稅收就無法實現財政平衡。

Another fair criticism of Mr Ryan, somewhat at odds with the first, is that while he may be a devotee of Ayn Rand, he has voted more like a Republican hack than a revolutionary. In Congress, he has sought federal funds for his Wisconsin district and supported the most egregious Bush spending programmes, such as the Medicare prescription drug plan. While positioning himself as a deficit hawk, he failed to embrace the report of the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission, on which he sat.

對瑞安的另外一個公正、但在某種程度上與上述批評矛盾的批評是，雖然他可能是艾茵•蘭德(Ayn Rand)的崇拜者，但與其說他是以改革者的身份參與競選，還不如說他是共和黨的僱傭文人。在國會，他爲自己所在的威斯康辛選區尋求聯邦基金，支持小布什(George W. Bush)時期臭名昭著的開支計劃，比如聯邦醫療保險中的處方藥計劃。雖然他自稱爲赤字鷹派人物，但卻沒有支持辛普森-鮑爾斯(Simpson-Bowles)赤字削減委員會的報告，而他還是該委員會的成員。

Yet Mr Ryan is neither the heartless ideologue nor the humbug liberal critics have made him out to be. He is, rather, a conviction politician who has moved his party far more than it has moved him. Getting the House to pass his budget this year – thus putting the GOP on record in favour of ending Medicare as an entitlement – was a stunning accomplishment. It puts an end to the Republican attempt to have it both ways, calling for less government in theory while voting for more in practice. It puts the onus on Democrats to say how else they would restrain a programme that is growing to consume the entire federal budget.

然而，瑞安既不是一個無情的空想家，也不是自由派批評者所說的騙子。他是一個有信念的政治人物，對其黨派的影響遠遠超過了黨派對他的影響。他今年成功地讓衆議院通過了他的預算案，從而讓共和黨公開支持結束聯邦醫療保險這一福利，這是一項驚人的成就。它讓共和黨無法再見風使舵，一面在理論上呼籲小政府，但實際上卻支持大政府。它還把責任推到了民主黨頭上——民主黨需要回答，還有什麼其他措施能限制一個不斷擴大、勢要消耗整個聯邦預算的項目。

In their efforts to portray him as simply a factotum for the rich, Mr Ryan's opponents frequently ignore what he has to say. For instance, Mr Ryan's budget was widely criticised for finding savings from the elimination of tax deductions without naming any to eliminate. But when I questioned Mr Ryan about this at a breakfast with journalists a few months ago, his answer was both clear and sensible: he would means-test all tax deductions, including the big ones for mortgage-interest and charitable contributions. This is a sound way to extract more taxes from the wealthy, without raising marginal rates. If he did not spell it out in his budget outline, it is because he has yet to develop a consensus around the idea inside the Republican caucus.

爲了將瑞安描繪爲富人的勤雜工，他的對手們經常忽略他的立場。比如說，瑞安的預算方案遭到廣泛的批評，被指責一方面提出從取消稅收減免中獲得收入，一方面又沒有指明取消哪些稅收減免。但幾個月之前，瑞安在與記者共進早餐時我問他這個問題的時候，他的回答既明確又明智：對於所有的稅收減免他都將進行經濟狀況調查，包括抵押貸款利息和慈善捐贈等享有的較大的稅收減免。這是從富人徵收更多稅的好方法，同時又不會提高邊際稅率。如果說他沒有在其預算規劃中列出這一條，那是因爲他還需要在共和黨黨團會議上就這個想法達成一致。

In the event of a Republican victory, Mr Ryan would be as dominant a figure on economic policy as Dick Cheney was on foreign policy under George W. Bush. He understands the hard choices ahead and has a coherent view of how to make them. His selection represents a big step in the direction of conservative honesty – and probably, for that reason, toward Republican defeat.

如果共和黨取得勝利，那麼瑞安在經濟政策上的主導力量將不亞於小布什時期迪克•切尼(Dick Cheney)在外交政策上的重要性。他充分了解眼前的艱難抉擇，對如何做出這些選擇也有始終如一的立場。他的選擇是朝保守主義誠實方向邁出的一大步，由於這個原因，或許也是朝着共和黨的失敗邁出的一大步。

The writer is chairman of the Slate Group

本文作者爲美國Slate集團董事長