今天是星期一，離美國總統大選已經不到36小時，雖然歐巴馬與羅姆尼的支持度不分軒輊，至少都在誤差範圍內，誰能拿到獲勝所需的270張選舉人票，尚在未定之天。不過，放眼台灣的媒體，實在是沒有一家真正關心，或是能做深入的評論，所以版主希望讓大家看一看國外媒體的專欄，藉著美國人的觀點，看看這次大選的結果，將如何影響美國的未來，或是有那些足以讓台灣作為借鏡的政治觀點。才不會只是淪於看熱鬧！

版主想介紹大家看的，是由Paul Krugman於今天發表在紐約時報上的專欄，標題為「The Blackmail Caucus」（政黨的政治勒索），請大家看一看本文；

If President Obama is re-elected, health care coverage will expand dramatically, taxes on the wealthy will go up and Wall Street will face tougher regulation. If Mitt Romney wins instead, health coverage will shrink substantially, taxes on the wealthy will fall to levels not seen in 80 years and financial regulation will be rolled back.

如果歐巴馬當選連任，健保範圍將大幅擴張，對富人的課稅將上升，華爾街也將面臨更嚴格的監督。如果羅姆尼當選，健保範圍則會大幅緊縮，對富人課稅也會降到80年前的水準，金融監理政策也將倒退。

Given the starkness of this difference, you might have expected to see people from both sides of the political divide urging voters to cast their ballots based on the issues. Lately, however, I’ve seen a growing number of Romney supporters making a quite different argument. Vote for Mr. Romney, they say, because if he loses, Republicans will destroy the economy.

這樣完全不同的結果，你可能會認為雙方陣營會用這樣的分歧來促使選民做投票抉擇。但最近，我發現越來越多支持羅姆尼的選民有不同的說法。他們說：「投羅姆尼吧！如果羅姆尼輸了，共和黨會把美國經濟搞爛！」

Is this a good argument?

這是個好論點嗎？

The starting point for many “vote for Romney or else” statements is the notion that a re-elected President Obama wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything in his second term. What this misses is the fact that he has already accomplished a great deal, in the form of health reform and financial reform — reforms that will go into effect if, and only if, he is re-elected.

許多「投給羅姆尼，要不然就怎樣怎樣」的說法，是基於認為若是讓歐巴馬連任，他也無法在第二任期之內達成任何目標。但卻刻意忽略歐巴馬在第一任期內已達成的巨大成就，比如說健保及財政的改革，而這些改變，只有當歐巴馬獲得連任，才有可能繼續。

But would Mr. Obama be able to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget? Probably not — but so what? America isn’t facing any kind of short-run fiscal crisis, except in the fevered imagination of a few Beltway insiders. If you’re worried about the long-run imbalance between spending and revenue, well, that’s an issue that will have to be resolved eventually, but not right away. Furthermore, I’d argue that any alleged Grand Bargain would be worthless as long as the G.O.P. remained as extreme as it is, because the next Republican president, following the lead of George W. Bush, would just squander the gains on tax cuts and unfunded wars.

歐巴馬有能力削減巨額財政赤字嗎？或許很難。但那又怎樣？除了在華府少數人的狂熱想像中之外，美國目前並沒有短期的財政危機。如果你擔心的是長期的收支失衡，那麼，這個問題終將獲得解決，但也不是一蹴可幾。再者，若共和黨繼續走極端路線，像之前的共和黨總統小布希一樣，把稅收花在減稅及無財政支援的戰爭上，那麼再怎麼削減赤字也沒用。

So we shouldn’t worry about the ability of a re-elected Obama to get things done. On the other hand, it’s reasonable to worry that Republicans will do their best to make America ungovernable during a second Obama term. After all, they have been doing that ever since Mr. Obama took office.

所以，歐巴馬連任後的執政能力，似乎不是我們該擔心的。反而，我們該擔心的是共和黨將竭盡所能讓歐巴馬在第二任變成跛鴨，而共和黨在歐巴馬入主白宮開始就一直這麼做。

During the first two years of Mr. Obama’s presidency, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, Republicans offered scorched-earth opposition to anything and everything he proposed. Among other things, they engaged in an unprecedented number of filibusters, turning the Senate — for the first time — into a chamber in which nothing can pass without 60 votes.

在歐巴馬任期的前兩年，參眾兩院都由民主黨控制，而共和黨則對歐巴馬提出的任何議案採取完全抵制的態度，共和黨反制的次數之多，也第一次使得參議院通過任何議案都需要60票以上。

And, when Republicans took control of the House, they became even more extreme. The 2011 debt ceiling standoff was a first in American history: An opposition party declared itself willing to undermine the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, with incalculable economic effects, unless it got its way. And the looming fight over the “fiscal cliff” is more of the same. Once again, the G.O.P. is threatening to inflict large damage on the economy unless Mr. Obama gives it something — an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy — that it lacks the votes to pass through normal constitutional processes.

當共和黨在眾議院取得多數之後，採取的手段則更為極端。2011年的債務上限爭端，是美國歷史上第一次，反對黨宣稱若是結果不如反對黨預期，將不惜全面損害美國政府的債信，並造成無法估計的經濟損失。近期的「財政懸崖」爭議更是如出一轍，共和黨威脅，若歐巴馬不對富人增加減稅幅度，將對經濟產生巨大破壞，縱使共和黨無法得到足夠的票數讓富人減稅案循憲法體制通過。

Would a Democratic Senate offer equally extreme opposition to a President Romney? No, it wouldn’t. So, yes, there is a case that “partisan gridlock” would be less damaging if Mr. Romney won.

如果羅姆尼當選，由民主黨控制的參議院會極端的抵制羅姆尼嗎？不會！如果這樣看來，要是羅姆尼當選，兩黨之間的僵局可能會和緩一些。

But are we ready to become a country in which “Nice country you got here. Shame if something were to happen to it” becomes a winning political argument? I hope not. By all means, vote for Mr. Romney if you think he offers the better policies. But arguing for Mr. Romney on the grounds that he could get things done veers dangerously close to accepting protection-racket politics, which have no place in American life.

但是，我們要變成這樣的國家嗎？一個充滿了「你的國家還不錯，但要是怎樣的事情發生，就會怎樣..」的政治爭端嗎？我希望不會。如果你覺得羅姆尼的政見很好，那麼請盡管投票給他，但請不要讓美國變成讓政黨可以靠政治勒索達到目的的地方。

大家看完了這樣的評論，不知道會不會覺得跟台灣有點像呢？或許Paul Krugman的觀點，也能讓台灣有些反思吧！