尼克松：黑白分明的一生

A few years can make a big difference in the life of a nation. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson was elected president in a landslide so definitive that political observers saw it as the emergence of “a liberal national consensus” or, as Johnson himself said later that year when lighting the White House Christmas tree, “These are the most hopeful times since Christ was born in Bethlehem.”
在一个民族的历史长河中，短短几年的时间就有可能被改变一切。1964年，林东·约翰逊当选为美国总统。时值政局动荡，政治观察家们惊呼这次决定性的选举是“一个自由国家的共识”，或者如约翰逊本人在一年后点燃白宫圣诞蜡烛时所说，“这是自耶稣基督诞生于伯利恒以来最值得期待的年代”。

Yet just eight years later, the Democratic Party was in a complete shambles and Richard Nixon won 49 states. Some consensus.
然而，仅仅时隔八年，民主党一败涂地，理查德·尼克松赢得四十九个州的支持。绝大多数人达成了又一个共识。

How this happened, according to Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland, is largely the story of Richard Nixon and his ability to identify the resentments of middle-class Americans, articulate them, and turn them into votes.
这一切因何而起？Rick Perlstein的新书Nixonland（尼克松大陆）详细描写了尼克松的故事，包括他如何获得心怀不满的美国中产阶级认同，并鼓动他们，最终把他们化作选票。

Nixon’s penchant for defining issues as “us” against “them” started when he was an undergraduate at Whittier College and sought to join a “circle of swells” called the “Franklins.” He was rebuffed and started his own group made up of young people like himself – quiet, hardworking strivers. He named the club “The Orthogonians,” and told its members that they were “upright” and “straight shooters.”
尼克松热衷于把问题区别为“我们（us）”和“他们（them）”的癖好始于他在惠特学院读书期间，当时他试图加入一个被称为“弗兰克林斯（Franklins）”的“一流社团”，但被拒绝了，此后他集合一批跟他性格相仿的年轻人——安静，勤奋——成立了自己的社团。他为这个俱乐部起名为“The Orthogonians（正直的人）”，并且他告诉社团的成员要“正直”，做一个“正派人士”。

Perlstein says that this mind-set stayed with Nixon (“a serial collector of resentments”) throughout his life and was the essence of his worldview. Indeed, whenever Nixon faced a crisis, as in his 1952 “Checkers” speech, he portrayed himself as a scrappy underdog battling against elites and privilege.
Perlstein认为尼克松（“一个不满情绪的收藏家”）终生都保持了这种心态，并确立了他基本的世界观。实际上，每当尼克松面对危机的时候，比如他在1952年的“Checkers”演说中评价自己是对抗精英和特权者失败后的一条丧家之犬（underdog）。

The ’60s, of course, were about much more than Richard Nixon: Vietnam, urban riots, campus disturbances, social upheaval, civil rights battles, and political assassinations were commonplace. According to Perlstein, middle-class Americans reacted to these developments with resentment and fear, and Nixon succeeded politically because he convinced what came to be called “The Silent Majority” that he understood and shared their concerns.
当然，在六十年代，许多事情比尼克松重要的多：越南问题，城市暴动，校园骚乱，社会动荡，公民权之争以及政治暗杀都成了家常便饭。据Perlstein所说，这些事态的发展使得中产阶级美国人开始反感和恐慌，尼克松在政治上的成功应当归功于这些被他称为“沉默的大多数”的人，他自信可以理解并原意分享他们的焦虑。

This is, of course, a complicated, multifaceted story and Perlstein marshals impressive organization skills to incorporate it into a coherent narrative.
这自然是一个复杂的，多角度的故事，Perlstein运用了高超的组织技巧把这些方面融入一个有机的叙述中。

The central themes of the story are the struggle for civil rights and the Vietnam conflict. In describing the civil rights movement, Perlstein spends considerable time documenting the unconcealed hatred and racism that characterized the era and the reader is reminded how far we have come as a nation. But in retelling the story of the Vietnam War, he describes the colossal mistakes made in Southeast Asia and the reader cannot avoid thinking of the Iraq war and realizing how little we have learned.
故事的主线是越战和公民权之争。在描写民权运动时，Perlstein花费了大量篇幅记录了那个时代的特征——露骨的仇恨和种族歧视，提醒读者我们曾经来自那样一个国家，并且走出了那么远。在另外一个讲述越战的故事中，他描写了我们曾经在东南亚犯下的巨大错误，这让读者不得不联想到伊拉克战争，我们从历史教训中几乎没获得什么经验。

This sprawling, complex, well-written book is jampacked with ideas and insights that will capture any reader’s attention. But the central lesson Perlstein draws from the ’60s is that they still drive American politics. In his words: “What Richard Nixon left behind was the … notion that there are two kinds of Americans. On one side, that ‘Silent Majority.’ … The middle-class, middle American, suburban, exurban, and rural coalitions who call themselves, now, ‘Values voters,’‘people of faith,’ ‘patriots,’ or even simply, ‘Republicans….’ On the other side are ‘liberals,’ ‘the cosmopolitans,’ ‘the intellectuals,’ ‘the professionals’ – ‘Democrats….’ who look down on the first category as unwitting dupes of feckless elites who exploit sentimental pieties to aggrandize their wealth, start wars, ruin lives.”
这本叙事繁杂，文笔优美的小册子充斥了作者的见解和洞察，它将吸引任何读者的目光。但Perlstein想要表达的中心意思是希望提醒那些经历过六十年代的人，他们现在仍然操纵着美国的政治。用他的话说：“理查德·尼克松离去后为我们留下的是......两类美国人的概念。一方面，那些‘沉默的大多数’......美国的中产阶级，那些住在郊区，远郊和农村的人群现在自称是‘价值选民’，‘人民的信仰’，‘爱国者’或者更简单点，‘共和党’......。另一方面是那些自由党人，‘国际主义者’，‘知识分子’，‘专业人士’——他们现在是‘民主党’......自称精英的后者嘲笑前者不知底细，而前者利用人们的爱国热情发动战争，毁灭家园，增加自己的财富。”

In short, to Perlstein, the story of Richard Nixon in the 1960s and early 1970s is the story of modern American politics. In this case, I think he goes too far. Nixon was not the central figure that Perlstein implies during the Johnson presidency. Nixon worked hard to become the Republican nominee in 1968 but he was not directing events – like the urban unrest and campus disturbances – that helped his political reemergence.
总而言之，对于作者来说，1960年代和1970年代早期尼克松的故事就是美国近代的政治故事。在这方面，我认为他走得太远。在整个约翰逊的总统任期内，尼克松并不是政治舞台上的主角。尼克松艰难获得1968年共和党提名时，并没有直接参与那些事件——比如城市暴动和校园骚乱——这帮助他在政治上平步青云。

The secret of his success was figuring out how to turn these developments and the fears they revealed into a political agenda. But for all his insight and skill, luck played a huge role in his reemergence as a national political figure.
尼克松成功的全部秘诀就是转变了那些事情的发展趋势，避免它们成为一项政治议程。相对于他的技巧和洞察力来说，运气在他重新成为一个国家政治人物的过程中扮演了关键角色。

And after he left the stage in August 1974, Nixon was hardly a popular figure. It would be easier to make a case that it was Ronald Reagan, the actor-turned-politician, whose legacy has defined modern American politics.
自从1974年八月尼克松离开政治舞台之后，他得到了广泛的欢迎。实际上更配得上这一殊荣的是罗纳德·里根，这位从演员半路出家的政治家，他的遗产是定义了美国的现代政治。

But despite overstating Nixon’s legacy, this is a wonderful book. Perlstein spent seven years researching the volume and the hard work shows: It is extensively researched and offers fresh and interesting perspectives at every turn.
尽管对尼克松的遗产有些过分渲染，但这仍是一本精彩的好书。作者用七年的时间研读大量资料：书中处处可见文献的丰富，以及作者新鲜有趣的视角。

Better editing could have shortened it, caught the typographical errors and eliminated some of the cliches. (He actually writes “Something was happening here. What it was wasn’t exactly clear.”) Better fact checking would have eliminated some of the errors that have crept into the text. (US Sen. Hugh Scott was from Pennsylvania, not Ohio; Congressman Wayne Hays did not represent Cleveland; Sen. Robert Byrd was not the chairman of the Senate appropriations committee in 1968; and no “hippies” were “beat to death” with pool cues at the Altamont Rock Festival.)
一位好编辑可以把这本书缩编，指出印刷错误，并丢弃一些陈词滥调。（他会这样写“某事发生在这里，此事不太清楚。”）更加仔细的检查会消除夹杂在文本中的错误。（休斯科特参议员来自宾夕法尼亚，而不是俄亥俄；众议员韦恩·海斯并不是克利夫兰的代表；罗伯特·白瑞德参议员并非1968年的参议员计划委员会主席；并且阿尔塔蒙特摇滚音乐节上没有“嬉皮士”在池边“被打死”。）

But “Nixonland” is a fascinating book that reads like a novel. Whether readers lived through the ’60s or not, they will be gripped from start to finish.
但是无论读者是否经历过六十年代那段时光，“Nixonland”这本书读起来都像小说一样引人入胜，他们将会迫不及待的把这本书从头读到尾。