Donald Trump in Denmark

By Jeffrey Frank , 12:00 A.M.

A visit to Denmark reveals how terrified people there are of Donald Trump.（哈哈哈蠢箩，這個(gè)導(dǎo)語(yǔ)好吸引人~）

I’ve spent the past few days in Denmark, the country into which I’ve married and where, over the years, I’ve often been asked to explain what’s happening back home. Reality sometimes gets distorted by distance, as when, eight years ago, several Danes informed me that the United States would never elect a black man as President. This year, the visit was a chance to express the belief that, though Americans may practice political brinksmanship（邊緣政策）, we are not about to let loose a bomb—or probably not.

I was uneasy about this trip, because I knew that I would hear a lot and be pushed to say a lot about our Presidential election and about the bomb in question: the inescapable Donald J. Trump, the nominee of a party that, like the Democratic Party（民主黨）, has certainly chosen its share of poor candidates (from Warren G. Harding to George W. Bush共和黨人士) but never someone as goofy and possibly deranged（ [d?'re?n(d)?d]瘋狂的虹曙，精神錯(cuò)亂的） as Trump.（特朗普是共和黨，但是這么瘋狂的他，可能是民主黨派來(lái)的臥底喲~） It’s tempting simply to opine（想温艇，認(rèn)為） in what the British novelist Ian McEwan (through one of his characters, in “Sweet Tooth”) called the “why-oh-why” mode. In pre-Brexit Great Britain, it was “Why-oh-why must we stagnate（停滯肠虽，蕭條） among the ruins of our former greatness?” In modern America, it would be “Why-oh-why has a country so large and diverse ended up with Trump?” Or why, for that matter, has it ended up with the former Secretary of State（國(guó)務(wù)卿） Hillary Clinton（民主黨）, who is neither liked nor trusted by a majority of Americans and is perhaps the Democrat（民主黨人） most vulnerable to Trump’s loathsome（令人厭惡的） and increasingly strange campaign, just as Trump is perhaps the Republican most beatable by Clinton. The only reply is that millions of Americans are asking the same question: Why-oh-why?

An election like ours probably couldn’t happen in Denmark, Bernie Sanders（伯尼?桑德斯）’s ideal nation, which has so many factions（派系） that sometimes it’s hard to figure out which party is which, and why. (For instance, although venstre（丹麥自由黨） means “l(fā)eft,” the Venstre Party leans right.) Denmark certainly has its problems, from immigration to a stifling（沉悶的） bureaucracy, but it seems to manage pretty well.? The closest Denmark comes to Trumpism（特朗普主義） is the program of the anti-immigrant Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People’s Party丹麥人民黨)which finished second in the most recent election. The liberal Social Democratic Party（社會(huì)民主黨） came in first, but its governing coalition（[,k???'l??(?)n]聯(lián)合醉者，合并）, in aggregate（['?gr?g?t;合計(jì)刽辙，集合）, lost seats, and ceded（屈服窥岩，割讓） power to a center-right partnership that includes the current Prime Minister, Venstre’s Lars L?kke Rasmussen, and the rightist（右派人士）, tax-cutting Liberal Alliance. Unlike Trump, though, the Dansk Folkeparti leader, Kristian Thulesen Dahl, who favors strict border controls（邊境管制） and sympathizes with the impulse that led to Brexit, opposes the idea of discriminating（區(qū)別對(duì)待） on the basis of religion; his party, like the Social Democrats, favors increased benefits for Denmark’s elderly and sick. The policies and programs of Danish parties tend to soften when coalitions form, which forces compromise among opposing factions（派系）. If Dahl, Rasmussen, and the Liberal Alliance（自由聯(lián)盟） can’t keep working together, Rasmussen may be forced to call a new election.

Copenhagen, meanwhile, is being dug up（開(kāi)墾，發(fā)現(xiàn)） to complete the Metro, a startlingly effective infrastructure project (it should be done by 2019) that takes you from the clean, modern airport to the city’s center in fifteen minutes. It’s an enormous undertaking for a small country, and any traveller coping with New York’s airports feels envious. Why-oh-why can’t the United States do that? We’ve grown accustomed to a two-party system, but perhaps it’s time for more options and more attempts at forming natural coalitions.

Friends and relatives, though, would rather talk about Trump, and want assurance that he is an aberration（[,?b?'re??(?)n]失常宰缤，離開(kāi)正路）, even more so when his words are translated without subtlety into Danish. (A headline in the widely distributed Metroxpress read “Trump: Gun owners Should Stop Hillary Clinton.”) In the Barry Goldwater-Lyndon Johnson race, in 1964, about which I’ve written, the Republican National Committee（共和黨全國(guó)委員會(huì)） chairman, Dean Burch, as if anticipating years of future G.O.P.（Grand Old Party共和黨別稱）campaigns, wanted to emphasize “crime and violence in the streets—a breakdown of law and order—terrorizing our people,” and a foreign policy in which “we have weakened ourselves and permitted our enemy to make gains all over.” While not quite saying “Crooked（歪曲的颂翼，不正當(dāng)?shù)模?Lyndon,” Goldwater, a senator from Arizona, called President Johnson “a wheeler-dealer（獨(dú)斷專行的人，追求利益的人）, not a leader,” and accused him, with some justice, of trying to stifle（扼殺慨灭，窒息） the investigation of the onetime（從前的） Johnson protégé（門徒疚鲤，被保護(hù)的人） Robert G. (Bobby) Baker, a former Senate page and secretary to the Senate majority, who made two million dollars when Johnson was Majority Leader. “Bobby Baker’s affairs lead right straight into the White House itself,” Goldwater said. Polls（民意調(diào)查） showed that seeming “trigger-happy好戰(zhàn)的” or “impulsive沖動(dòng)的” was what most hurt Goldwater, unfairly, in his view, and he accused the Johnson campaign of charging him with “virtual madness” over his view that NATO（北大西洋公約組織） commanders sometimes had the authority to employ tactical（策略的，戰(zhàn)術(shù)的） nuclear weapons. The charges clung to him.

The resolutely centrist（中間派議員） broadcaster-commentator Eric Sevareid wrote that, unless the polls were altogether wrong, the 1964 election would turn out to be “another demonstration . . . that the United States is not the unstable, unpredictable and reckless political society that so much of the world likes to think it is.” Johnson, as polls predicted, went on to win by a lopsided（傾向一方的） margin, a landslide of landslides（競(jìng)選中的壓倒性勝利）, which he seemed to interpret as a domestic mandate（授權(quán)缘挑，命令） to pursue his Great Society programs, and, in his Commander-in-Chief role, to sink the nation ever more deeply into what was once a ruinous French colonial war in Indochina（印度支那，中南半島）.

As for the view from Denmark, when I asked a favorite member of my extended family if she was really worried about the rise of Trump, she seemed uninterested in a possible Clinton landslide, or in Trump’s bad polls, but rather, with an alarmed look and speaking perfect Americanese, said, “I’m scared shitless（極度桶略，非常）.”

1. 邊緣政策(英語(yǔ)：Brinkmanship)是指在冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)期用來(lái)形容一個(gè)近乎要發(fā)動(dòng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的情況语淘，也就是到達(dá)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)邊緣，從而說(shuō)服對(duì)方屈服的一種戰(zhàn)略術(shù)語(yǔ)际歼。邊緣政策是一種被視為有效的政策惶翻，因?yàn)樗艽_保任何一方的沖突，例如核戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)鹅心，都可以相互保證毀滅的前提下進(jìn)行吕粗，充當(dāng)著以"核"來(lái)威懾雙方保持克制的"接收端"⌒窭ⅲ可是在冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)期颅筋，這項(xiàng)政策最終還是惡化了蘇聯(lián)和美國(guó)之間的關(guān)系

2. Ian McEwan伊恩?麥克尤恩：他擅長(zhǎng)以細(xì)膩、犀利而又疏冷的文筆勾繪現(xiàn)代人內(nèi)在的種種不安和恐懼输枯，積極探討暴力议泵、死亡、愛(ài)欲和善惡的問(wèn)題桃熄。作品多為短篇小說(shuō)先口，內(nèi)容大都離奇古怪、荒誕不經(jīng)瞳收，有“黑色喜劇”之稱碉京。許多作品反映性對(duì)人的主宰力量以及人性在性欲作用下的扭曲。代作《贖罪》《甜牙》

3. 甜牙：作為五處中惟一熱衷于讀小說(shuō)的“女文青”螟深，而且“碰巧”長(zhǎng)著仿佛直接從小說(shuō)中走出來(lái)的身材和相貌谐宙，塞麗娜接受了一項(xiàng)特殊任務(wù)：“甜牙行動(dòng)”旨在以間接而隱蔽的方式資助那些在意識(shí)形態(tài)上符合英國(guó)利益且對(duì)大眾具有影響力的寫作者，而塞麗娜負(fù)責(zé)接近并引誘其加盟的是這項(xiàng)行動(dòng)中惟一的小說(shuō)家血崭，湯姆?黑利卧惜。[1]

湯姆和塞麗娜相愛(ài)了厘灼，愛(ài)得步步為營(yíng)，愛(ài)得亦真亦假咽瓷，愛(ài)得絕處逢生设凹。但你猜中了開(kāi)頭，卻未必能猜到結(jié)尾茅姜。閱讀《甜牙》的快感之一就是等待結(jié)尾向前文的反戈一擊闪朱，等待充盈在文本中的那些關(guān)鍵詞——政治與文學(xué)、間諜與作家钻洒、讀者與作者奋姿、欺騙與愛(ài)情——如何被賦予嶄新的意義。你會(huì)看到素标，那些你在前面的情節(jié)中已經(jīng)熟識(shí)的人物及其相互關(guān)系称诗，怎樣在突然間都站到了鏡子的另一面，怎樣在敘事光芒的照耀下產(chǎn)生別樣的張力

4. Bernie Sanders（伯尼?桑德斯）：桑德斯是一位民主社會(huì)主義者头遭，也是美國(guó)歷史上第一名信奉社會(huì)主義的參議員寓免，亦是近年少數(shù)成功進(jìn)入聯(lián)邦公職的社會(huì)主義者，但并不屬任何政黨计维，故以獨(dú)立人士身份出現(xiàn)在選票上袜香。但由于加入民主黨黨團(tuán)運(yùn)作，故在委員會(huì)編排方面被算作民主黨一員鲫惶。2015年4月30日蜈首，桑德斯正式宣布以民主黨人身份參加2016年美國(guó)總統(tǒng)大選。2016年4月14日欠母，美國(guó)《時(shí)代周刊》2016年“全球最具影響力人物”榜單揭曉欢策，桑德斯位居榜首。支持希拉里艺蝴。

5. Trumpism（特朗普主義）：反對(duì)自由主義原則猬腰、希望重新詮釋平等理念、反對(duì)全球化和自由貿(mào)易猜敢、要求重新反思個(gè)人主義和精英主義姑荷，以及“美國(guó)不再擔(dān)負(fù)世界的責(zé)任，世界也別來(lái)煩美國(guó)的事”的孤立和不干涉主義缩擂。

6. 林登?貝恩斯?約翰遜（Lyndon Baines Johnson鼠冕，1908年8月27日 - 1973年1月22日）是美國(guó)第三十六任總統(tǒng)。[ 1963年11月22日胯盯，肯尼迪總統(tǒng)在德克薩斯州達(dá)拉斯遇刺身亡懈费，副總統(tǒng)約翰遜旋即在達(dá)拉斯機(jī)場(chǎng)的空軍一號(hào)總統(tǒng)專機(jī)的機(jī)艙里宣誓就職，成為美國(guó)第三十六任總統(tǒng)博脑。在機(jī)艙里宣誓就職 在繼任了總統(tǒng)一職之后憎乙，1964年票罐，約翰遜又正式當(dāng)選為總統(tǒng)。在內(nèi)政上泞边，約翰遜總統(tǒng)提出了與“新政”该押、“公平施政”、“新邊疆”一脈相承的改革計(jì)劃阵谚，即“偉大社會(huì)”施政綱領(lǐng)蚕礼。他在位期間，不遺余力地推行各項(xiàng)福利法案梢什、民權(quán)法案奠蹬、消滅貧窮法案和減稅法，他的著名的“向貧窮開(kāi)戰(zhàn)”的口號(hào)嗡午，引導(dǎo)全國(guó)在生活富裕時(shí)考慮到饑餓和匱乏的棘手問(wèn)題囤躁。但是在外交上，他奉行他的前任所制訂的政策荔睹，使得越戰(zhàn)不斷升級(jí)割以，由於美軍在越戰(zhàn)中傷亡慘重，其政策遭到了國(guó)內(nèi)外的普遍反對(duì)应媚，使他賠上了政治前途。1969年他在總統(tǒng)選舉之前宣布不會(huì)參選猜极，并全力支持他的副總統(tǒng)連任中姜。