美國觀察 | 民主黨尚能飯否？

一

America is in the middle of a major political realignment. While the focus is on the Republican party』s internecine fight among corporate realists, political ideologues and the wild-card president, it is a mistake to assume that the Democrats are going to sweep into office in 2018 and 2020 to replace the corroding Republicans. TheDemocratsare also in a profound struggle over their future.

美國正在進行重大政治重組。儘管焦點是共和黨內的公司現實主義者、理論空想家和不按常理出牌的總統三者間的內訌，但就此斷定民主黨將在2018年或2020年重掌大權卻是錯誤的，民主黨同樣為未來鏖戰。

The 2016 election marked the end of a political era. Just as Republicans expecting an easy nomination of Jeb Bush in 2016 were blindsided by the rise of charismatic outsider Donald Trump, so too were Democrats expecting the easy nomination ofHillary Clintonsurprised by a powerful challenge from elderly Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders.

2016年的總統選舉標誌著一個政治時代的結束。共和黨人原本預測當年傑布·布希輕鬆獲得提名，可外來者唐納德·特朗普展開魅力攻勢，攻其不備、成功崛起，民主黨人也一樣，他們以為希拉里·柯林頓穩獲提名，未曾想佛蒙特州年邁的社會主義者伯尼·桑德斯半路殺出。

Both Trump and Sanders ran on powerful populist messages, slashing at politics-as-usual and bemoaning that Washington served the wealthy. Democratic primary rules put in place after the party』s disastrous nomination of South Dakota Senator George McGovern in 1972 meant that, unlike Republicans leaders who were incapable of stopping Trump, establishment Democrats could hold off the Sanders surge. But the insurgency opened a rift in the party.

特朗普和桑德斯都在競選中釋放出強烈的民粹主義信號，抨擊政壇的老套做派，指責華府只為富人服務。與共和黨領導人無法阻止特朗普獲得提名不同，繼1972年南達科他州民主党參議員喬治·麥戈文災難性地獲得提名後，民主黨設立了初選規則，意味著建制派民主黨人有能力阻止桑德斯崛起，可後者的反叛還是在黨內撕出一道口子來。

The election of Trump exacerbated the Democrats』 intraparty conflict as Sanders supporters insisted that he could have won, while Clinton supporters dismissed those claims, pointing out that, among other things, Sanders never had to endure an opposition news dump. The two sides squared off in February, three months after the election, over the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.

特朗普當選激化了民主黨黨內衝突，因為桑德斯的支持者堅信他本能贏下大選，可柯林頓的支持者則否認這些說法，後者指出，別的且不說，桑德斯落選，免於遭受反對黨的新聞詆毀。大選結束三個月後，二月，雙方劍拔弩張，就民主黨全國委員會主席職位展開角逐。

This position, contested for the first time since 1985, tossed new names to the front of the party. Ultimately, the choice came down to establishment-backed Tom Perez, President Obama』s secretary of labour, or Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress.Perez won 235 votes to Ellison』s 200, and then, acknowledging the tensions in the party, tapped Ellison to be deputy chair.

自1985年以來，該職位首次出現競爭，主席人選提名層出不窮，最終落在建制派扶植的湯姆·佩雷斯和明尼蘇達州眾議員凱斯·埃里森兩人頭上，前者是奧巴馬總統的勞工部長，後者是美國首位穆斯林國會議員。佩雷斯以235對200的優勢得票擊敗埃里森，他直言黨內劍拔弩張，於是任命埃里森為副主席。

Ellison pledged support for Perez, but cooler heads have not prevailed.Last week, when 30-year-old political newcomer Jon Ossoff lost a special election to reactionary Republican Karen Handel in Georgia』s 6th district, Democratic critics laid the blame for the loss, not on the nature of the district (staunchly Republican) – it was Newt Gingrich』s – but on the toxicity of House minority leader Nancy Pelosi.

埃里森承諾支持佩雷斯，但平心靜氣並未佔據上風。上周，30歲的政壇新秀喬恩·奧索夫在喬治亞州第六選區補選中敗給保守的共和黨人克倫·漢德爾。選區堅定支持共和黨，堪稱是紐特·金里奇的地盤，但民主黨的批判者未將敗選責任歸咎於選區本身，倒是責備眾議院少數民族領袖南希·佩洛西的有害影響。

To understand what』s going on now, it might make sense to return to pre-war America, since the Democrats, like the rest of America, are coming to grips with the end of the New Deal era.The party came out of the 1930s having created a new, activist liberal state designed to prevent the return of the great depression by using the government to defend the rights of labour and level the economic playing field that had tilted so steeply toward the wealthy. This liberal state was wildly popular, so popular that Republican Dwight D Eisenhower felt obliged to adopt and expand its premises.With the country firmly behind what was known as the 「liberal consensus」, Democrats continued to expand FDR』s New Deal, recognising that economic fairness required ameliorating racial inequality.

為了理解未來走勢，我們有必要將視線轉移到戰前的美國，當時民主黨人和其他美國人一道，正設法應對羅斯福新政時代的結束。二十世紀三十年代的民主黨創造了一個嶄新且有為的自由派國家，旨在通過政府保障勞工權益、促進經濟公平，糾正嚴重向富人傾斜的市場，從而防止大蕭條捲土重來。自由派國家廣受歡迎，以至共和黨人德懷特·艾森豪威爾都感到有必要採納和擴充其主張。由於國家堅定支持所謂的「自由主義共識」，民主黨人得以繼續推行羅斯福新政，他們意識到經濟要公平，就得改善種族不平等的現狀。

When Republicans ran the reactionary Barry Goldwater against President Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964, the resulting landslide gave Democrats a super-majority in Congress.Working with moderate Republicans to cut racist southern Democrats out of their centrist coalition, they passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and launched LBJ』s War on Poverty.

1964年，共和黨人讓保守派巴里·戈德華特對陣林登·貝恩斯·約翰遜總統，結果民主黨大勝，在國會取得壓倒性多數席位。民主黨人與溫和的共和黨人共同努力，將主張種族主義的南方民主黨人從溫和聯盟中剔除出去。1964年通過《公民權利法案》，1965年通過《選舉權法案》，並推動了林登·貝恩斯·約翰遜的「向貧困宣戰」運動。』

But, in part because of the economic prosperity it created, this centre did not hold. In 1968, Republican candidate Richard M Nixon attacked it from the right by bringing white racists into his party, while Democrats destroyed it from the left by shattering over the Vietnam war.Angry at the establishment Democratic hawks who had carried the nation to war in south-east Asia, affluent American youth flocked to the standard of anti-war Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy, a Democrat.

但從某種程度上說，恰恰因為其帶來的經濟繁榮，導致溫和派難以持續。1968年共和黨候選人理查德·米爾豪斯·尼克松從右翼發起進攻，將白人種族主義者引入共和黨，而民主黨人則從左翼包抄，通過擊碎越南戰爭來毀滅民主黨的議程。當權的民主黨鷹派讓美國捲入了東南亞的戰爭，這讓富裕的美國年輕人出離憤怒，他們倒向反戰的明尼蘇達州民主党參議員尤金·麥卡錫。

The outcome was a free-for-all for the party leadership. President Johnson withdrew from the race, to be replaced by his vice-president, Hubert Humphrey; Senator Robert Kennedy jumped in to challenge McCarthy only to be assassinated.

結果導致了黨魁大選秀。約翰遜總統退出競選，副總統休伯特·漢弗雷接替之；參議員羅伯特·肯尼迪跳出來挑戰麥卡錫，結果竟被暗殺了。

The Democratic National Convention dutifully nominated establishment candidate Humphrey, but the mayor of Chicago, where the convention was held, turned police against the protesters who descended on his city. The resulting violence enabled Republicans to tar the Democratic party as an elite establishment using tax dollars to cater to lawless thugs. The result just went Nixon』s way.

在芝加哥舉行的民主黨全國大會按慣例提名了建制派候選人漢弗萊，但芝加哥市長在大會舉行期間派出警力彈壓佔領芝加哥的抗議者，由此引發的暴力事件使共和黨人將民主黨詬病為一個用稅金迎合非法暴徒的精英圈子，這正中尼克松下懷。

In 1972 the Democrats continued to move away from their traditional defence of labour towards social issues, and they haemorrhaged voters. In that year, anti-establishment candidate Senator George McGovern won the party』s nomination with the support of young activists, only to go down to such a sweeping popular defeat that the party establishment created 「superdelegates」, party war horses and leaders who would also vote on nominees, and presumably avoid another disaster similar to that in 1972.

1972年，民主黨人繼續從傳統的保衛勞工轉向關注社會問題，造成了大量選民流失。當年，反建制派候選人參議員喬治·麥戈文在年輕激進分子的支持下獲得民主黨提名，大選中卻遭遇慘敗，這導致民主黨建制派建立了「超級代表」制，「超級代表」是黨內大佬，可以按自己意願投票選擇提名人，旨在避免再次發生1972年的災難。

Democrat Jimmy Carter won the presidency in 1976 after Nixon』s spectacular implosion over Watergate, but the party』s crumbling coalition was no match for the rise of Movement Conservatives.Their narrative was simple: the Democrats』 New Deal government redistributed tax dollars from hardworking white men to lazy minorities and women.This easy – and false – explanation for the economic stresses of the 1970s drained working-class Americans away from the Democrats and into the party of Ronald Reagan. And there they stayed, for the most part, even as neoliberalism gutted the American middle class.

1976年尼克松水門事件爆發後，民主黨人吉米·卡特贏得總統職務，然而黨內聯盟搖搖欲墜，難以匹敵保守派運動的興起。保守派的道理很簡單：民主黨新政府將辛苦工作的白膚男人交的稅重新分配給懶惰的少數民族和婦女。這對二十世紀七十年代的經濟問題做出簡單卻虛假的解讀，讓美國工人階級和民主黨分道揚鑣，轉投羅納德·里根領導下的共和黨，就算新自由主義者掏空了美國中產階級，他們多半也選擇支持共和黨。

As they did so, Democrats tried to undercut Republican accusations that they were nascent communists hell-bent on redistributing wealth by moving to the centre on economic policy while mobilising voters by focusing on social issues.President Clinton famously ended 「welfare as we know it」 and signed the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which had prevented financial bubbles by keeping commercial and financial banks from being one and the same; President Obama defended banks in the aftermath of the great recession as key to recovery.And so, we have come to the end of an era. The destruction of the New Deal state in a time of globalism has created an American economy that looks much like that of the 1920s, with extraordinary wealth concentrated at the very top of society.

民主黨人試圖反駁共和黨的指責，共和黨指責一貫他們是致力於重新分配財富的初級共產主義者。現在民主黨人轉向了溫和經濟政策，專註於社會問題來動員選民。眾所周知，柯林頓總統終結了「我們所知的福利」，簽字廢除了1933年通過的《葛拉斯-史蒂格爾》法案，該法案讓商業銀行和投資銀行分業經營以防範金融泡沫。大衰退後，奧巴馬總統捍衛銀行在復甦中的關鍵作用。於是，我們走到了一個時代的盡頭。 在全球化的時代，「新政」國家被毀，政府創造出一種類似二十世紀二十年代的美國經濟，大量財富集中於社會最上層的一小撮人手中。

Thus the populist moment of 2016, when voters on both sides set out to smash the establishment, on the one hand electingDonald Trumpand, on the other, rending the Democratic party in two.

一方面選出了唐納德·特朗普，另一方面民主黨黨內一分為二，美國在2016年走上民粹主義的巔峰，雙方選民都想粉碎當權的建制派。

Unlike the Republicans, though, who will have to reinvent themselves if they are ever to recover from the damage of the Trump era, the Democrats have the opportunity to heal their differences for an easier transition to a new political era. Establishment Democrats are not wrong to put faith in experience: Clinton, after all, lost the electoral college but won the popular vote by more than two points.

想從特朗普時代造成的破壞中恢復過來，共和黨人必須徹底重塑自我，可民主黨人不盡相同，他們有機會彌合分歧，更輕鬆地過渡到新政治時代。民主黨建制派信仰經驗並沒有錯：雖說柯林頓未能贏下選舉團，但畢竟她的人民選票領先兩個百分點以上。

The upstart Democrats who rallied to Sanders are, though, demanding a focus on economic fairness, one that echoes the Democratic leadership of the 1930s. 「True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence,」 FDR said in 1944. 「People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.」

可團結在桑德斯周圍的民主黨新秀要求重視經濟公平，這一點與二十世紀三十年代的民主黨領導層類似。 「沒有經濟安全和經濟獨立，真正的個人自由不可能存在，」弗拉德福德在1944年說。「飢餓和失業的人是獨裁者的養料。」

Heather Cox Richardson is professor of history at Boston College

二

We must learn from Jeremy Corbyn』s success and speak to younger voters

我們必須從傑里米·科爾賓的成功中汲取經驗，同年輕選民溝通

One might have thought that the November election would have drawn a clear line under Democratic centrism. But the defeat of Jon Ossoff in Georgia』s 6th congressional district may have been its true death wheeze. Even with six times as much funding as his opponent and a crazed and incompetent Republican president, Ossoff could not get enough of the district』s wealthy and well-educated Republicans to vote for him to flip the district.

你可能以為11月大選後民主黨溫和派就沒戲了，興許喬恩·奧索夫在喬治亞州第六選區落敗才是壓垮駱駝的最後一根稻草。即便奧索夫比對手多出六倍的競選資金，且對方還有一個瘋狂且無能的共和黨總統，奧索夫還是無法贏得選區內富裕和受過良好教育的共和黨人的支持，以獲得足夠多的選票在選區翻盤。

When Bernie Sandersremarkedthat he wasn』t sure that Ossoff was a true progressive, it wasn』t a kind thing to say, but it also wasn』t inaccurate. The future of the Democratic party is not men like Ossoff. We must learn from the comeback of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK election and start putting our might and money behind candidates who are truly on the left.

伯尼·桑德斯表示，他不確定奧索夫是否真是個的進步派，這真不是什麼良言，可也不算說錯。民主黨的未來並不掌握在奧索夫這類人手中。傑里米·科爾賓在英國大選中東山再起，我們必須加以學習，將我們的物力、財力投在真正的左翼候選人身上。

We scoff at accounts of the 45th president still presenting visitors to his office with a map that lays out his electoral victory, but many Democrats are also preoccupied with the details of the election and the reasons for Hillary Clinton』s defeat. It』s clear that sexism was a significant factor, as was the intervention from ex-FBI director James Comey and possible interference from Russia.

我們嘲笑第45任總統仍會展開一張選情地圖，向參觀白宮的人展示他競選中取得的勝利，但許多民主黨人也專註於競選細節及希拉里·柯林頓失敗的原因。很明顯，性別歧視、美國前聯邦調查局局長詹姆斯·科米橫生枝節或許還有俄羅斯干預大選是其中的重要因素。

But those in the party who are willing to do real soul-searching must admit that the lack of the anticipated Democratic party landslide must also be blamed on the failure of the party』s policies to resonate with people in the states that decided the election – places in the middle of the country that have seen their livelihoods dry up, rather than flourish, under late capitalism.

但黨內那些願意深刻反省的人必須承認，民主黨沒有取得預想中的大勝，也要歸咎於民主黨的政策主張未能與決定選舉成敗的中部各州選民產生共鳴，在資本主義末期，這些地方的人民生計日趨艱難，而非蒸蒸日上。

Trump』s promises that he would solve the problems that plague their communities – problems such as unemployment, poverty and the opioid crisis – seem to be empty promises.But the Democrats could have done a far better job of showing that they cared about these middle-American communities: for example, through actually turning up in them. Clinton』s hobnobbing with Hollywood stars held little appeal for Americans in the middle of the country.

特朗普承諾他會解決困擾這些群體的問題，諸如失業、貧困和阿片藥品危機等，這些看起來都是空頭支票。但民主黨人本來可以做得更好，表現對他們關切美國中部人民：例如，到群眾中去。柯林頓夫人與好萊塢明星勾肩搭背，這對中部美國人毫無吸引力。

We need to look to movements such as theWomen』s March, which inspired a record-breaking number of people to take to the streets, and the Run for Something campaign, which helps progressive people to run for office – and has elicited a huge, enthusiastic response from new candidates.They』re the best hope Democrats have of effecting change in 2018 and beyond. But only if they motivate turnout from the young voters who came out for Obama but couldn』t be bothered to vote for Clinton.

我們該去關注「女性遊行」等運動，這一運動激勵著數量空前的人走上街頭，我們該去關注「為變革而競選」運動，它幫助進步人士參選，在新候選人中引發巨大而熱烈的反響。這是民主黨人在2018年及以後得以實現變革的最好希望，前提是他們爭取讓那些支持奧巴馬卻又懶得投上柯林頓一票的年輕選民前來投票。

This means focusing on real issues that mean a lot to young people: education debt relief; steady employment; health care that makes it possible for them to afford to start families.

這意味著要關注年輕人最看重的實際問題：減輕教育債務、穩定就業以及為他們提供得以組建家庭的醫療福利。

Though his continued engagement with the DNC shows Bernie Sanders』s ambition to promote this agenda, it』s time for him to step aside. Hisrefusal to register as a Democratinvalidates any true claim he has to be at its helm.Many of his critiques of the party are legitimate, but if Sanders is not willing to commit to working on the inside for a change, he needs to support someone who is willing to do it.Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice: compared to the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden, she』s an outsider, but she』s still a Democrat who has shown her commitment to the party.

儘管伯尼·桑德斯與民主黨全國委員會還在掐架，這表現了他推進這一日程的雄心，但他是時候急流勇退了。既然他拒絕註冊為一名民主黨人，說什麼他該來主局，這都是瞎扯。他對黨的許多批評是合理的，可要是桑德斯不願在黨內推動變革，他應該支持一位願意這樣做的人。很明顯，伊麗莎白·沃倫是他的選擇，與南希·佩洛西和喬·拜登等人相比，她是個局外人，但黨性很強。

Her economic populism speaks to many of the same concerns that Trump claimed he would alleviate, but she offers solutions that will buoy the middle class by making the wealthy contribute more, rather than promising to drive growth through deregulation that simply makes the ultra-wealthy more so.

她主張經濟民粹主義，談及許多特朗普聲也稱要緩解的民眾關切，但她提出的解決方案是讓富人出錢出力來鞏固中產階級，而非放鬆管制促增長，後者只會讓超級富豪越來越富。

And her commitment to progressive social values is clear, unlike Sanders, whose remark that 「you just can』t exclude people who disagree with us on [reproductive rights]」 elicited blowback from women on the left who do not want their rights to be regarded as something to bargain with.

她對進步主義社會觀的貢獻顯而易見。桑德斯宣稱「你不能排斥那些在生育權上同我們所見不同的人」，引發不願妥協的左翼女性強烈反彈，但伊麗莎白·沃倫截然不同。

As the Senate Republicans push forward a healthcare bill that will cause the death and bankruptcy of many Americans who have the misfortune to be unwell and middle-class, now should be a clear opportunity for Democrats to assert that they』ll offer a better alternative.

參議院的共和黨人推出一項醫療法案，將導致不幸身體不佳的眾多美國中產階級走向死亡和破產，現在是民主黨提出更好方案的最佳時機。

The opportunity will be lost if we continue to debate what it means to be a Democrat. The centre had its shot. It』s time to clear a path for Warren, the left, and a party that values diversity and speaks to young people.

如果我們繼續爭辯何為民主黨人，註定會坐失良機。溫和派的機會來了，是時候為沃倫、為左翼、為珍視多樣性並與年輕人交心的政黨掃清道路。

Jean Hannah Edelstein is a writer based in New York

三

Liberals should be wary of policies that will scare away the middle classes

自由派要警惕其政策把中產階級嚇跑

It has been a rough couple of months for the Democratic party. As Republicans have sought to roll back the key legislative accomplishments of President Obama, it has been one disaster after another.Even with President Trump』s approval ratings at historically low levels, Democrats continue to lose special elections around the country.

這幾個月來，民主黨過得不容易。共和黨人要廢除奧巴馬總統的重要法案，對民主黨而言真是禍不單行。即便特朗普總統的支持率創歷史新低，民主黨在全國各處的補選依舊敗走麥城。

But in spite of these losses,there is a clear glimmer of hope – one that could presage a significant Democratic victory in congressional elections next year. Democrats are losing, but they are losing by much smaller margins than they have in the past.

儘管轍亂旗靡，民主黨顯然迎來一縷希望的曙光，預示著明年國會選舉中民主黨將大獲全勝。民主黨在敗退，但失地程度比過去小多了。

Take for example, thespecial election in Georgialast week. The race, which quickly took on national import, will end up as the most expensive congressional election in US history.While the Democratic candidate narrowly lost by almost four points the district had been solidly Republican for decades. In a race the same night in South Carolina, the Democratic candidate lost by three points – in a seat that Republicans had won by more than 20 points just last November.

上周在喬治亞州舉行的補選就是例證。這次競選迅速奠定了其全國性意義，它將成為美國歷史上最昂貴的國會選舉。雖然民主黨候選人以近四個百分點的微弱劣勢落敗，但要考慮到數十年來，喬治亞州都是共和黨的忠實擁躉。當天在南卡羅來納州的競選中，民主黨候選人以三個百分點失利，去年11月共和黨以超過二十個百分點優勢拿下該席位。

What all this suggests is that there is serious enthusiasm among Democratic partisans and not as much among Republicans. If, in 2018, Democrats are able to perform as well as their candidates did in these four special elections, they would be the odds-on favourites to win back the House of Representatives.

所有這一切都表明，民主黨人積極性高，共和黨人就差勁一些。如果2018年民主黨人能像這四次補選一樣表現不俗，重新奪回眾議院的勝算很大。

So how do they keep that momentum going? First, they must make the 2018 election a referendum on Trump, who is singularly despised by Democrats – and increasingly by much of the country.

那麼他們該如何保持這種勢頭呢？首先，他們必須使2018年選舉成為針對特朗普的全民公投，民主黨人格外鄙夷特朗普，國內也會有越來越多的人加入這個陣營。

Second, if Republicans somehow succeed in repealing Obamacare and passing legislation that will take away health insurance from more than 20 million people, it will hand Democrats a slam-dunk campaign issue.But even if they fail, Republican votes in Congress could be an albatross that Democrats can hang around the necks of Republican candidates in 2018.

第二，如果共和黨人設法廢除了奧巴馬醫保法，立法取消2000多萬人的健康保險，那會讓民主黨在競選中有了絕地反擊的籌碼。就算沒通過，共和黨在國會的投票也將在2018年成為民主黨羞辱共和黨候選人的污點。

譯註：「脖子上的信天翁」比喻令別人對自己所犯的罪過時刻銘記的印記；somethingthatyouhavedoneorareconnectedwiththatkeepscausingyouproblemsandstopsyoufrombeing successful

But for Democrats to expand their support they may also need to also take a page from Trump. In 2016 Trump ran the nastiest and most dishonest presidential campaign in modern American history.But one thing he did effectively was convincing millions of voters that he would 「drain the swamp」 in Washington and be a voice for the struggling middle class. That anyone believed he would actually follow through on such an agenda is strong evidence that you can fool some of the people all the time.But Democrats should take a similarly populist approach.

但是對民主黨人而言，要獲得更多支持，他們可能也要效仿特朗普。 2016年，特朗普搞了一場現代美國史上最糟糕、最不誠實的總統競選。但他有力說服了數百萬計的選民，讓他們相信自己將在華府「清干泥坑」，為艱難的中產階級說話。竟然有人相信他會始終推動這一議程，這有力說明你總能愚弄一些人。但民主黨人可以採取類似的民粹做法。

Many liberals argue that means talking about single-payer healthcare and free college education, but it』s far from clear that those policies are what voters want.Pledging to raise taxes on the wealthy, protecting health insurance for poor and working Americans, expanding childcare and social security benefits, raising the minimum wage, making college loans more accessible and waging war on the opioid epidemic ravaging broad swatches of America will be far more effective.

許多自由派認為，那意味著要主張單一給付型醫保和免費大學教育，可這些政策能否俘獲選民芳心尚不清楚。但承諾對富人加稅、保障窮人和美國工薪階層的健康保險、擴大兒童保育和社會保障福利、提高最低工資水平、放款大學貸款並同阿片類藥物在美國泛濫成災宣戰，這些是更加行而有效的辦法。

譯註：醫保體系一般分為「single-payer」和「multi-payer」兩種，前者指國家通過稅收讓所有人應保盡保，後者指個人或公司向保險公司購買醫保服務。

Populism is key for Democrats, but it needs to be the kind of economic populism that signals to the American middle class that the party is in touch with their concerns and will fight for them if they are returned to power.Doing so will give Democrats the opportunity to reach not just their most loyal partisans – who will be committed to vote no matter what – but also disillusioned Trump voters or those who sat out 2016.

為民做主對民主黨至關重要，但那應該是一種經濟民粹主義，向美國中產階級表明民主黨了解他們的關切，如果重掌權力，會為他們謀福利。這樣做，民主黨不僅能覆蓋他們最忠誠的追隨者，畢竟無論如何他們都會為民主黨投上一票，同時也能爭取到那些夢想幻滅的特朗普選民或是2016年坐在家裡沒有去投票的人。

Certainly, Republicans will have their message ready to go: harsh attacks on liberal elites that have long worked for the party and were critical to victory in the Georgia special election. In an era of intense political polarisation, pledging to stick it to the other side is still a pretty effective strategy for Republicans.

當然，共和黨人會表達自己的觀點，他們猛烈攻擊民主黨內的老牌自由主義精英，這是共和黨在喬治亞州補選中獲勝的關鍵因素。 在一個政黨尖銳對立的時代，把這個標籤貼給對方仍是共和黨人行之有效的策略。

But with a fully mobilised Democratic base and a smattering of moderate and independent voters, it might just be enough to return the Democrats to power. In the end, Trump hatred will be a boon to the party, but the kind of seismic victory Democrats need may require a return to the party』s populist roots as the voice of the American middle class.

但充分動員民主黨的群眾基礎以及一小部分溫和、獨立的選民，這就足以把民主黨人送回權壇了。歸根到底，敵視特朗普是民主黨的福音，但民主黨需要的那種摧枯拉朽的勝利還需回歸「黨為人民」的根源，為美國中產階級說話。

Michael Cohen is the author of American Maelstrom: the 1968 Election and the Politics of Division