纽约时报：我们的一党民主真糟！托马斯.弗里德曼 文 晓融 译

dorm99

　　纵观国会关于医疗改革和气候/能源问题的辩论，我们不难得出如下结论：只有一种制度比一党专制更糟糕，那就是一党民主，而这正是美国目前所面临的状况。
　　毫无疑问，一党专制有诸多弊端，但如果这个政党，像中国***那样，由一批开明人士所领导的话，那么一党专政也能具备许多优势。专制政党可以指定和执行政治上困难重重但却至关重要的政策以促进社会在二十一世纪的发展。中国正致力于在电动汽车、太阳能、能源效率、核能、风能等科技研发领域赶超美国，这绝非偶然。中国领导人深谙，想要在人口众多、中产阶级队伍日益壮大的中国满足人们对清洁、高效能源的需求，唯一的解决之道是发展太阳能。中国政府想要确保其在太阳能工业的主导地位，并通过提高油价等政策手段来实现这一目标。

　　比起一党专制，一党制民主要糟糕得多。实际情况是，在能源/气候、医疗改革立法问题上，自始至终只有民主党在张罗。除了个别例外，共和党人总是抱着胳膊冷眼旁观，对民主党说“不”。其中很多就等着看奥巴马总统人仰马翻。这真是浪费时间和精力！奥巴马不是社会主义者，他是一个中间派。如果最终他别于选择，不得不全部依靠民主党来通过立法的话，他将成为民主党内不同派系内讧的牺牲品。
　　就众议院提出的气候/能源法案而言，为了制定出这一突破性的“总量管制与排放交易”立法草案，起草人付出了双倍的努力。为什么？因为共和党没有议员愿就一氧化碳的排放定价（这一定价有助于刺激发明清洁能源和提高能源效率的投资）而投票，立法发起人不得不全部依赖于民主党。尽管如此，这仍然是一项值得通过的法案，但它原本能更加完善，并能拿到参议院商讨。只要有八到十位共和党人愿意支持一氧化碳排放的价格制定，那些想稀释这个法案的民主党人就没了筹码。
　　乔伊.罗姆在他的climateprogress.org博客上写到：“中国会瓜分我们的利益，夺走我们在清洁能源领域的工作机会。他们会通过管制经济达到这一目地。而我们美国没有、也不想要这种经济模式。”
　　
　　要与中国齐头并进，国会就必须制定法律，调高一氧化碳排放价格， 并提高效率和再生标准，以此刺激私人企业在清洁技术领域的投资。在一党制民主下，这不过是纸上谈兵。
　　医疗改革也面临同样的境遇。“奥巴马试图通过新的‘交易中心'--医保交易所--来扩大参保范围和控制成本。这种模式参照了共和党人米特·罗姆尼在担任马萨诸塞州州长期间施所推行的方案。克林顿政府时期的预算官员、《错误观念的暴政》的作者--马特. 米勒说道。“这一方案旨在使个人通过私营保险公司购买到团体保险，并对低收入者提供补助。”
　　就医保补助的来源而言，奥巴马有可能采取麦凯恩所提出的方案，既减少雇主提供医疗保险的免税额度。如果奥巴马真采用共和党人提出的方案，共和党还能对自己的观点说“不”吗？如果奥巴马争取不到共和党人的支持的话，全民医改很难付诸实施。

　　“如果医改方案能为共和党人批评奥巴马搞‘社会主义'提供契机的话，即便奥巴马用麦凯恩的筹资方式给美国带来罗姆尼式的医保，共和党照样会说‘不'”，米勒说道。
　　共和党曾经是代表工商利益的政党。为了更好地在全球化时代开展竞争和赢得胜利，美国的工商利益最希望看政府承担医保的重负。美国的工商利益也最希望有改革移民政策，让全世界出类拔萃的人才能无所限制的到美国做事。美国的工商利益还最希望政府为清洁技术提供支持，因为这将是未来全球最大的制造业。然而，今时今日，共和党反对医改、反对移民政策改革，一心只想钻井取油。

　　在巴鲁学院任教的全球商业顾问爱德华.哥德堡说道：“全球化抽掉了共和党的精髓，它现在所代表的不是经济衰退中的穷人，而是全球化中的美国的穷人，也就是那些在现实中或是自身的恐慌中被甩在后头的人们。在全球化的世界竞争的需要使得精英、跨国企业的高管、东部的钱商和高科技企业家不得不重新审视共和党究竟能为他们带来什么好处。从原则上讲，他们已经抛弃了共和党。共和党目前不是一个务实的联盟，而是一个思想僵化、只会说‘不’的乌合之众。”

英文原文：《纽约时报》，2009年9月9日

Our One-Party Democracy
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.
Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.” Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste. Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist. But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions.

Look at the climate/energy bill that came out of the House. Its sponsors had to work twice as hard to produce this breakthrough cap-and-trade legislation. Why? Because with basically no G.O.P. representatives willing to vote for any price on carbon that would stimulate investments in clean energy and energy efficiency, the sponsors had to rely entirely on Democrats — and that meant paying off coal-state and agriculture Democrats with pork. Thank goodness, it is still a bill worth passing. But it could have been much better — and can be in the Senate. Just give me 8 to 10 Republicans ready to impose some price on carbon, and they can be leveraged against Democrats who want to water down the bill.
“China is going to eat our lunch and take our jobs on clean energy — an industry that we largely invented — and they are going to do it with a managed economy we don’t have and don’t want,” said Joe Romm, who writes the blog, climateprogress.org.
The only way for us to match them is by legislating a rising carbon price along with efficiency and renewable standards that will stimulate massive private investment in clean-tech. Hard to do with a one-party democracy.
The same is true on health care. “The central mechanism through which Obama seeks to extend coverage and restrain costs is via new ‘exchanges,’ insurance clearinghouses, modeled on the plan Mitt Romney enacted when he was governor of Massachusetts,” noted Matt Miller, a former Clinton budget official and author of “The Tyranny of Dead Ideas.” “The idea is to let individuals access group coverage from private insurers, with subsidies for low earners.”
And it is possible the president will seek to fund those subsidies, at least in part, with the idea John McCain ran on — by reducing the tax exemption for employer-provided health care. Can the Republicans even say yes to their own ideas, if they are absorbed by Obama? Without Obama being able to leverage some Republican votes, it is going to be very hard to get a good plan to cover all Americans with health care.
“Just because Obama is on a path to give America the Romney health plan with McCain-style financing, does not mean the Republicans will embrace it — if it seems politically more attractive to scream ‘socialist,’ ” said Miller.
The G.O.P. used to be the party of business. Well, to compete and win in a globalized world, no one needs the burden of health insurance shifted from business to government more than American business. No one needs immigration reform — so the world’s best brainpower can come here without restrictions — more than American business. No one needs a push for clean-tech — the world’s next great global manufacturing industry — more than American business. Yet the G.O.P. today resists national health care, immigration reform and wants to just drill, baby, drill.
“Globalization has neutered the Republican Party, leaving it to represent not the have-nots of the recession but the have-nots of globalized America, the people who have been left behind either in reality or in their fears,” said Edward Goldberg, a global trade consultant who teaches at Baruch College. “The need to compete in a globalized world has forced the meritocracy, the multinational corporate manager, the eastern financier and the technology entrepreneur to reconsider what the Republican Party has to offer. In principle, they have left the party, leaving behind not a pragmatic coalition but a group of ideological naysayers.”
(转载本文请注明“中国选举与治理网”首发)