【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 轉(zhuǎn)變不會在一朝一夕間實現(xiàn)。社會觀念的轉(zhuǎn)變一般通過幾代人的努力才能完成。但是我們的民主制度將繼續(xù)在這個多元的國家中發(fā)揮作用。而我們每一個人都應(yīng)該從一部美國小說中的主角身上吸取教訓(xùn)，這一角色是阿提克斯芬奇（譯者注：阿提克斯芬奇為作家哈珀李的小說《殺死一只知更鳥》中塑造的正直律師的典范形象），他曾說“除非你站在另一個人的角度考慮問題，除非你爬進(jìn)他的身體并來回走動，否則你是不會真正了解這個人的。”For blacks and other minorities, it means tying our own struggles for justice to the challenges that a lot of people in this country facethe refugee, the immigrant, the rural poor, the transgender American, and also the middleaged white man who from the outside may seem like he39。s got all the advantages, but who39。s seen his world upended by economic, cultural, and technological ，應(yīng)該將我們?yōu)檎x而進(jìn)行的奮斗同其他群體正面臨的挑戰(zhàn)聯(lián)系在一起。這些群體不僅包括難民、移民、城市里的貧窮家庭和跨性別美國人，還包括中年白人，因為他們也許看起來具有優(yōu)勢，但他們同時也正面臨經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化和技術(shù)方面的變革。我們應(yīng)該關(guān)注他們，傾聽他們的想法。For white Americans, it means acknowledging that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow didn39。t suddenly vanish in the 39。60s。that when minority groups voice discontent, they39。re not just engaging in reverse racism or practicing political correctness。that when they wage peaceful protest, they39。re not demanding special treatment, but the equal treatment our Founders ，這意味著我們要明白奴隸制的影響和吉姆克勞法（譯者注：吉姆克勞法為1876年至1965年間美國南部及邊境各州對有色人種實行的種族隔離制度的法律）并不是在60年代憑空消失的，我們要明白少數(shù)群體發(fā)出不滿時，他們不是為了反對種族主義或倡導(dǎo)政治正確。當(dāng)他們發(fā)起和平示威時，他們不是在要求特殊對待，他們只是在要求國父們承諾的平等對待。For nativeborn Americans, it means reminding ourselves that the stereotypes about immigrants today were said, almost word for word, about the Irish, Italians, and wasn39。t weakened by the presence of these newers。they embraced this nation39。s creed, and it was ，這意味著我們要認(rèn)識到自己今天對于移民的種種偏見，如針對愛爾蘭人、意大利人和波蘭人的偏見，將摧毀美國最本質(zhì)的精神。正如我們所見，美國并沒有因為這些移民而走向衰落；這些移民忠于美國倡導(dǎo)的宗旨，他們的到來使美國變得更強(qiáng)。So regardless of the station we occupy。we have to try harder。to start with the premise that each of our fellow citizens loves this country just as much as we do。that they value hard work and family like we do。that their children are just as curious and hopeful and worthy of love as our ，我們都應(yīng)該更加努力。我們都應(yīng)該以這樣的認(rèn)知為出發(fā)點：每一個公民都同我們一樣熱愛著這個國家，同我們一樣努力工作、一樣重視家庭；他們的孩子也像我們的孩子一樣，充滿好奇、前途無量并且值得愛護(hù)。None of this is too many of us, it39。s bee safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or college campuses or places of worship or our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our rise of naked partisanship, increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every tasteall this makes this great sorting seem natural, even increasingly, we bee so secure in our bubbles that we accept only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that39。s out 。對于我們中的太多人來說，躲進(jìn)我們自己的圈子是更安全，這些圈子包括我們的鄰里、大學(xué)校園、教堂或是社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)，在安全地帶我們周圍盡是和我們相像、有相同政治立場和從不挑戰(zhàn)我們觀點的人。赤裸裸的黨爭、經(jīng)濟(jì)和地域方面不斷攀升的自滿情緒、迎合不同人群造成的媒體間的分裂，這些都使區(qū)別對待的做法看起來是自然的，甚至是不可避免的。于是我們在自己的安全地帶越來越感到安心，于是我們開始只接受迎合我們的觀點，無論這些觀點是對是錯，而不是接受那些基于現(xiàn)有證據(jù)的說法。This trend represents a third threat to our is a battle of ideas。in the course of a healthy debate, we39。ll prioritize different goals, and the different means of reaching without some mon baseline of facts。without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent is making a fair point, and that science and reason matter, we39。ll keep talking past each other, making mon ground and promise 。但是政治就是一場有關(guān)理念的戰(zhàn)斗。我們的民主體制設(shè)計便是基于此。在針對醫(yī)療方面的爭論中，我們?yōu)椴煌繕?biāo)劃分了優(yōu)先次序并制定了實現(xiàn)它們的不同方案。但是如果沒有對底線的堅守和接受新信息的意愿，如果我們不承認(rèn)我們對手的觀點也許是公正的，不承認(rèn)科學(xué)和理性的重要性，那么我們便不能實現(xiàn)真正的溝通，不能相互妥協(xié)并建立共同立場。Isn39。t that part of what makes politics so dispiriting? How can elected officials rage about deficits when we propose to spend money on preschool for kids, but not when we39。re cutting taxes for corporations? How do we excuse ethical lapses in our own party, but pounce when the other party does the same thing? It39。s not just dishonest, this selective sorting of the facts。it39。s as my mother used to tell me, reality has a way of catching up with ？如果政客沒有對削減企業(yè)稅感到不滿的話，那我們提議增加對學(xué)齡前兒童的支出時，他們憑什么感到憤怒呢？在抨擊其他政黨腐敗的同時，我們怎么能寬宥黨內(nèi)腐敗呢？這些行為不只是不誠實，更是對事實的區(qū)別對待，是自我毀滅的行徑。因為，就像我母親曾經(jīng)告訴我的，現(xiàn)實總能讓你自食其果。Take the challenge of climate just eight years, we39。ve halved our dependence on foreign oil, doubled our renewable energy, and led the world to an agreement that has the promise to save this without bolder action, our children won39。t have time to debate the existence of climate change。they39。ll be busy dealing with its effects: environmental disasters, economic disruptions, and waves of climate refugees seeking 。僅僅八年，我們對國外石油的需求量就削減了一半，可再生能源的產(chǎn)量也翻了一倍。我們領(lǐng)導(dǎo)世界各國達(dá)成協(xié)議，承諾拯救我們生活的星球。但是如果不堅決地采取行動，我們的孩子將沒有時間再討論氣候變化問題是否存在，他們將忙于應(yīng)對氣候變化帶來的各種影響——更多的環(huán)境問題，更多對經(jīng)濟(jì)的阻礙和一撥又一撥尋求美好生活環(huán)境的氣候移民。Now, we can and should argue about the best approach to the to simply deny the problem not only betrays future generations。it betrays the essential spirit of innovation and practical problemsolving that guided our ，我們可以并且應(yīng)該討論解決環(huán)境問題的最佳方案。單純地否認(rèn)問題的存在是對后人的不負(fù)責(zé)，是對我們開國元勛的創(chuàng)新與解決實際問題精神的背離，而這一精神是我們國家精神的實質(zhì)。It39。s that spirit, born of the Enlightenment, that made us an economic powerhousethe spirit that took flight at Kitty Hawk and Cape Canaveral。the spirit that that cures disease and put a puter in every 。正是這一精神使我們國家成為世界經(jīng)濟(jì)的引擎。小鷹鎮(zhèn)和卡納維拉爾角起飛的航天飛機(jī)承載的也正是這一精神。在這一精神的指導(dǎo)下，我們治愈了疾病、將智能手機(jī)放進(jìn)了每個人的口袋。It39。s that spirita faith in reason, and enterprise, and the primacy of right over might, that allowed us to resist the lure of fascism and tyranny during the Great Depression, and build a postWorld War II order with other democracies, an order based not just on military power or national affiliations but on principlesthe rule of law, human rights, freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and an independent ，是對理性、進(jìn)取心的信念，對權(quán)利應(yīng)始終高于權(quán)力的信念，這一信念引導(dǎo)我們在經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條時期拒絕了法西斯和專制的誘惑，引導(dǎo)我們在二戰(zhàn)后同其他民主政體一起建立了戰(zhàn)后秩序。我們建立的戰(zhàn)后秩序不僅基于軍事力量和國家的團(tuán)結(jié)，更是基于我們堅守的原則——法制、人權(quán)、宗教自由、言論自由、集會自由和媒體自由。That order is now being challengedfirst by violent fanatics who claim to speak for Islam。more recently by autocrats in foreign capitals who see free markets, open democracies, and civil society itself as a threat to their peril each poses to our democracy is more