作者：Jeffrey Goldberg
译者：“学术plus”公众号
美国《大西洋月刊》主编、曾提出“奥巴马主义”的Jeffrey Goldberg上周发表署名文章 “白宫高官定义特朗普主义：‘我们是美国，Bitch’”，对特朗普政府的外交逻辑进行了探讨。公众号“学术plus”翻译了这篇文章，将文中的Bitch译为“碧池”，bitches译为“一群碧池”，并说明此举实属无奈（请各抒已见）。现将译稿转载于此，欢迎一起探讨。
Many of Donald Trump’s critics find it difficult to ascribe to a president they consider to be both subliterate and historically insensate a foreign-policy doctrine that approaches coherence． A Trump Doctrine would require evidence of Trump Thought， and proof of such thinking， the argument goes， is scant． This view is informed in part by feelings of condescension， but it is not meritless． Barack Obama， whose foreign-policy doctrine I studied in depth， was cerebral to a fault； the man who succeeded him is perhaps the most glandular president in American history． Unlike Obama， Trump possesses no ability to explain anything resembling a foreign-policy philosophy． But this does not mean that he is without ideas．
许多批评唐纳德•特朗普的人都发现，很难描述特朗普既缺乏文化背景、又缺乏历史延续性的外交政策。“特朗普主义”需要思想层面的支持，而批评者认为这种支持不够充分。这种观点在某种程度上是自认为高人一等的心态造成的，但也不是毫无价值。我深入研究过巴拉克•奥巴马的外交政策，对他错误的评价是客观的；接替他的特朗普可能是美国历史上最高傲的总统。特朗普与奥巴马不同，他无力解释任何外交政策哲学。但这并不意味着他没有思想。
Over the past couple of months， I’ve asked a number of people close to the president to provide me with short descriptions of what might constitute the Trump Doctrine． I’ve been trying， as part of a larger project， to understand the revolutionary nature of Trump’s approach to world affairs． This task became even more interesting over the weekend， when Trump made his most ambitious move yet to dismantle the U.S．-led Western alliance； it becomes more interesting still as Trump launches， without preparation or baseline knowledge， a complicated nuclear negotiation with a fanatical and bizarre regime that quite possibly has his number．
过去的几个月，我咨询了一些与总统关系密切的人，向我提供了关于“特朗普主义”的简短描述。作为更大计划的一个组成，我尝试理解特朗普处理世界事务的方式的革命性。这一任务在上周末变得更加有趣，当时特朗普做出了迄今为止最雄心勃勃的举动，他要拆除美国主导建立的西方联盟；更有趣的是，特朗普在没有任何准备或基础知识的情况下，与一个狂热而怪异的政权展开了一场复杂的核谈判。
Trumpian chaos is， in fact， undergirded by a comprehensible worldview， a number of experts have insisted． The Brookings Institution scholar （and frequent Atlantic contributor） Thomas Wright argued in a January 2016 essay that Trump’s views are both discernible and explicable． Wright， who published his analysis at a time when most everyone in the foreign-policy establishment considered Trump’s candidacy to be a farce， wrote that Trump loathes the liberal international order and would work against it as president； he wrote that Trump also dislikes America’s military alliances， and would work against them； he argued that Trump believes in his bones that the global economy is unfair to the U.S．； and， finally， he wrote that Trump has an innate sympathy for “authoritarian strongmen．”
许多专家坚持认为，特朗普式的混乱实际上受一种可理解的世界观支撑。布鲁金斯学会学者托马斯•赖特在2016年1月的一篇文章中指出，特朗普的观点是可观测和可解释的。在当时，外交政策建制派的大多数人都认为特朗普的候选人资格是一场闹剧。赖特认为特朗普不喜欢美国的军事同盟，并会对盟友不利；特朗普坚信经济全球化对美国不公平；他还认为特朗普对“铁腕独裁者”抱有天然的同情心。
Wright was prophetic． Trump’s actions these past weeks， and my conversations with administration officials and friends and associates of Trump， suggest that the president will be acting on his beliefs in a more urgent， and focused， way than he did in the first year of his presidency， and that the pace of potentially cataclysmic disruption will quicken in the coming days． And so， understanding Trump’s foreign-policy doctrine is more urgent than ever．
赖特的研究是有预见性的。特朗普在过去几周的行动，以及与我对话的政府官员、朋友和特朗普的同事都表明，特朗普将以比他任内第一年更紧迫、更执着的方式，按照自己的信念行事。未来日子里，发生灾难性破坏的速度和可能性都将加大。因此理解特朗普的外交政策理念，比以往任何时候都要显得更为紧迫。
The third-best encapsulation of the Trump Doctrine， as outlined by a senior administration official over lunch a few weeks ago， is this： “No Friends， No Enemies．” This official explained that he was not describing a variant of the realpolitik notion that the U.S． has only shifting alliances， not permanent friends． Trump， this official said， doesn’t believe that the U.S． should be part of any alliance at all． “We have to explain to him that countries that have worked with us together in the past expect a level of loyalty from us， but he doesn’t believe that this should factor into the equation，” the official said．
在我了解到的这些对特朗普主义的描述中，获得铜牌的是：“没有朋友，就没有敌人。”一位官员解释说，这不是一种现实政治观点的变体，即美国只会切换盟友，而不会有永久的朋友。他说特朗普不认为美国应该成为任何联盟的一部分：“我们不得不向他解释，过去与我们合作过的国家希望我们能保持一定程度的忠诚，但他认为这不应纳入考量。”
The second-best self-description of the Trump Doctrine I heard was this， from a senior national-security official： “Permanent destabilization creates American advantage．” The official who described this to me said Trump believes that keeping allies and adversaries alike perpetually off-balance necessarily benefits the United States， which is still the most powerful country on Earth． When I noted that America’s adversaries seem far less destabilized by Trump than do America’s allies， this official argued for strategic patience． “They’ll see over time that it doesn’t pay to argue with us．”
对于特朗普主义，次优的表达是：“永久失稳成就美国优势。”一位官员对我说，特朗普认为美国是世界上最强大的国家，应让盟友和对手永远处于失稳状态，这样必然有利于美国。当我指出美国的对手似乎比美国的盟友更不稳定时，这位官员强调要有战略耐心。“随着时间的推移，他们会发现无法负担与我们争执的代价。”
The best distillation of the Trump Doctrine I heard， though， came from a senior White House official with direct access to the president and his thinking． I was talking to this person several weeks ago， and I said， by way of introduction， that I thought it might perhaps be too early to discern a definitive Trump Doctrine．
“No，” the official said． “There’s definitely a Trump Doctrine．”
What is it？， I asked． Here is the answer I received：
“The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America， Bitch．’ That’s the Trump Doctrine．”
不过，我听到的对特朗普主义的最佳表达，来自一位直接了解总统及其思想的白宫高级官员。几个星期前我和这个人交谈，我当时说现在就定义“特朗普主义”可能为时过早。
“不，”这位官员说。“特朗普主义肯定存在。”
“它是什么？”我问到。然后我得到了这个答案：
“特朗普主义是‘我们是美国，碧池’”。这就是特朗普主义。
It struck me almost immediately that this was the most acute， and attitudinally honest， description of the manner in which members of Trump’s team， and Trump himself， understand their role in the world．
我立刻意识到，这是理解特朗普及其团队在世界舞台上角色定位最敏锐、最诚实的描述。
I asked this official to explain the idea． “Obama apologized to everyone for everything． He felt bad about everything．” President Trump， this official said， “doesn’t feel like he has to apologize for anything America does．” I later asked another senior official， one who rendered the doctrine not as “We’re America， Bitch” but as “We’re America， Bitches，” whether he was aware of the 2004 movie Team America： World Police， whose theme song was “America， Fuck Yeah！”
我请这位官员解释这个想法。这位官员说：“奥巴马向所有人道歉，他对一切都感到抱歉。特朗普总统不觉得他需要为美国做的任何事道歉。”后来我又问了另一位高级官员，他把这个信条说成不是“我们是美国，碧池”，而是“我们是美国，一群碧池！”。不知他是否记得2004年的电影《美国战队：世界警察》的主题曲《美国，去你妈的！》
“Of course，” he said， laughing． “The president believes that we’re America， and people can take it or leave it．”
“当然，”他笑着说。“总统相信我们是美国，人们要么接受要么离开。”
“We’re America， Bitch” is not only a characterologically accurate collective self-appraisal—the gangster fronting， the casual misogyny， the insupportable confidence—but it is also perfectly Rorschachian． To Trump’s followers， “We’re America， Bitch” could be understood as a middle finger directed at a cold and unfair world， one that no longer respects American power and privilege． To much of the world， however， and certainly to most practitioners of foreign and national-security policy， “We’re America， Bitch” would be understood as self-isolating， and self-sabotaging．
“我们是美国，碧池”在心理学上不仅是典型群体的自我评价（流氓头子、厌女症），而且也是一类完美的罗夏人格测试。对于特朗普的追随者来说，“我们是美国，碧池”可以被理解为对冷酷而不公平、不尊重美国的力量和特权的世界竖起中指，而对世界上大部分国家来说，“我们是美国，碧池”会被理解为自我孤立，自我崩坏。
I’m not arguing that the attitude underlying “We’re America， Bitch” is without any utility． There are occasions—the 1979 Iran hostage crisis comes to mind—in which a blunt posture would have been useful， or at least ephemerally satisfying． President Obama himself expressed displeasure—in a rhetorically controlled way—at the failure of American allies to pay what he viewed as their fair share of common defense costs． And I don’t want to suggest that there is no place for self-confidence in foreign-policy making． The Iran nuclear deal was imperfect in part because the Obama administration seemed， at times， to let Iran drive the process． One day the Trump administration may have a lasting foreign-policy victory of some sort． It is likely that the North Korea summit will end， if not disastrously， then inconclusively． But there is a slight chance that it could mark the start of a useful round of negotiations． And I’m not one to mock Jared Kushner for his role in the Middle East peace process． There is virtually no chance of the process succeeding， but the great experts have all tried and failed， so why shouldn’t the president’s son-in-law give it a shot？
我并不是说“我们是美国，碧池”的态度是没有任何效用的。1979年的伊朗人质危机，强硬姿态是有用的，或者至少在短期内是令人满意的。奥巴马总统自己表达了自己的沮丧，对美国盟友未能支付他所认为的他们在共同国防开支中所占的公平份额表示不满。我不想说其外交政策制定中毫无自信。伊朗核协议并不完美，部分原因是奥巴马政府有时似乎让伊朗来主导这一进程，有一天特朗普政府可能会获得某种形式的外交胜利，朝鲜峰会很有可能结束，即使不是灾难性的也将是不稳定，这可能标志着一轮有益的谈判的开始。我不是嘲笑贾里德·库什纳在中东和平进程中扮演的角色，这一进程几乎不可能成功，但伟大的专家们都尝试过且失败了，所以为什么不让总统的女婿试一试呢？
But what is mainly interesting about “We’re America， Bitch” is its delusional quality． Donald Trump is pursuing policies that undermine the Western alliance， empower Russia and China， and demoralize freedom-seeking people around the world． The United States could be made weaker—perhaps permanently—by the implementation of the Trump Doctrine．
“我们是美国，碧池”的有趣之处在于其臆想性质。唐纳德•特朗普推行的政策破坏了西方联盟，赋予了俄罗斯和中国力量和权力，打击了世界各地寻求自由的人们的士气，美国可能会因为特朗普主义的实施而衰弱，这或许是永久性。
The administration officials， and friends of Trump， I’ve spoken with in recent days believe the opposite： that Trump is rebuilding American power after an eight-year period of willful dissipation． “People criticize [Trump] for being opposed to everything Obama did， but we’re justified in canceling out his policies，” one friend of Trump’s told me． This friend described the Trump Doctrine in the simplest way possible． “There’s the Obama Doctrine， and the ‘Fuck Obama’ Doctrine，” he said． “We’re the ‘Fuck Obama’ Doctrine．”
最近几天，我与特朗普的政府官员和朋友们谈过，他们的观点截然相反：在美国经历了8年的肆意挥霍之后，特朗普正在重振美国力量。“人们批评（特朗普）反对奥巴马的一切，但我们有理由取消他的政策，”特朗普的一位朋友告诉我。这位朋友用最直白的方式描述了特朗普主义。
“有奥巴马主义，也有‘去他妈的奥巴马’主义，”他说，
“我们是‘去他妈的奥巴马’主义。”
