Lawrence O’Donnell Aims at Buttigieg, But Hits New Democrats

On December 5, 2019, Lawrence O’Donnell made an impassioned attack on Pete Buttigieg on his “ The Last Word ” program on MSNBC.

2019 年 12 月 5 日，劳伦斯·奥唐纳 (Lawrence O’Donnell) 在 MSNBC 的“The Last Word”节目中对皮特·布蒂吉格 (Pete Buttigieg) 进行了慷慨激昂的攻击。

Buttigieg’s statements criticizing the Democratic Party as historically soft on deficits enraged O’Donnell.

布蒂吉格批评民主党在赤字问题上历来软弱的言论激怒了奥唐纳。

The context was Buttigieg’s effort to signal to New Hampshire voters that he was the most conservative Democratic candidate for the presidential nomination.

背景是布蒂吉格努力向新罕布什尔州选民表明他是总统提名中最保守的民主党候选人。

Nothing signals ‘responsible’ so well to ‘New Democrats’ and the media as a candidate screaming ‘deficits’ in a crowded meeting room in a small New Hampshire town.

对于“新民主党”和媒体来说，没有什么比候选人在新罕布什尔州小镇拥挤的会议室里尖叫“赤字”更能体现“责任”的了。

O’Donnell correctly pointed out that Buttigieg’s claims about Democrats and deficits are ‘Republican lies.’ The truth is that New Democrats have been the only group in America dedicated to inflicting austerity on our Nation.

奥唐纳正确地指出，布蒂吉格关于民主党和赤字的说法是“共和党的谎言”。事实是，新民主党是美国唯一致力于对我们国家实施紧缩政策的团体。

Republicans only pretend to care about deficits when Democrats have power.

当民主党掌权时，共和党人只会假装关心赤字。

Buttigieg knows this, but his political interests in portraying himself as a stalwart emerging leader of the New Democrats caused him to position himself (falsely) as unique among New Democrats in his dedication to inflict austerity.

布蒂吉格知道这一点，但他将自己描绘成新民主党坚定的新兴领导人的政治利益导致他（错误地）将自己定位为新民主党中致力于实施紧缩政策的独特者。

O’Donnell (largely) correctly pointed out that New Democrats had been fighting federal deficits for Buttigieg’s entire life.

奥唐纳（很大程度上）正确地指出，新民主党在布蒂吉格的一生中一直在与联邦赤字作斗争。

O’Donnell stressed the New Democrats actions in 1993, when Buttigieg was eleven.

奥唐纳在 1993 年强调了新民主党的行动，当时布蒂吉格 11 岁。

O’Donnell lauded the New Democrats for pushing austerity even when they knew doing so was likely to cause Democrats to lose elections.

奥唐纳赞扬新民主党推动紧缩政策，即使他们知道这样做可能会导致民主党输掉选举。

O’Donnell’s dominant message, measured by both length and passion, was the crippling price the Democrats paid for the New Democrats’ pushing for austerity in 1993.

奥唐纳的主要信息，无论是从篇幅还是热情来看，都是民主党为 1993 年新民主党推动紧缩政策付出的惨重代价。

He made clear it was not a “one-off” – Democrats paid that price again when President Obama, a self-described New Democrat, pushed to inflict austerity on the Nation in 2010.

他明确表示，这不是“一次性”的——当自称为新民主党人的奥巴马总统于 2010 年推动国家实施紧缩政策时，民主党再次付出了这一代价。

O’Donnell describes the New Democrats (Bill Clinton and Al Gore) as knowingly taking a “grave political risk” in 1993 in voting in favor of austerity.

奥唐纳形容新民主党（比尔·克林顿和阿尔·戈尔）在 1993 年投票支持紧缩政策时故意冒着“严重的政治风险”。

The risk was that Democrats, not simply New Democrats, would lose scores of seats – and control of the House and Senate.

风险在于，民主党，而不仅仅是新民主党，将失去大量席位 — — 以及对众议院和参议院的控制权。

O’Donnell stressed that no Republicans voted for the New Democrat’s 1993 austerity program.

奥唐纳强调，没有共和党人投票支持新民主党 1993 年的紧缩计划。

O’Donnell explained the initial political results of austerity.

奥唐纳解释了紧缩政策的最初政治结果。

“The Democrats lost the House because of that vote for the first time in 40 years.” He then explained they also lost the Senate.

“民主党因为这次投票而失去了众议院，这是 40 年来的第一次。”然后他解释说他们也失去了参议院。

O’Donnell repeatedly explained that the New Democrats knew that their decision to inflict austerity on Americans would likely produce this political disaster – and “bravely” did so because of their belief that inflicting austerity on Americans was essential.

奥唐纳反复解释说，新民主党知道他们对美国人实行紧缩政策的决定可能会导致这场政治灾难 — — 并且“勇敢”地这样做了，因为他们相信对美国人实行紧缩政策至关重要。

He noted that he “watched with pride” this exercise of political suicide.

他指出，他“自豪地观看”这种政治自杀行为。

O’Donnell then cited President Obama’s austerity efforts – during the weak recovery from the Great Financial Crisis (GFC).

奥唐纳随后引用了奥巴马总统在金融危机（GFC）复苏乏力期间采取的紧缩措施。

At a time when the need to provide stimulus, not inflict austerity, was obvious, Obama embraced what again proved the politically suicidal option.

在显然需要提供刺激而不是实施紧缩的时候，奥巴马接受了再次被证明是政治自杀的选择。

As fate would have it, the death of Paul Volcker days after O’Donnell’s takedown of Buttigieg extended O’Donnell’s argument further back in time – to before Buttigieg’s birth.

命运就是这样，在奥唐纳击败布蒂吉格几天后，保罗·沃尔克去世，这将奥唐纳的论点延伸到更远的时间——回到布蒂吉格出生之前。

In 1979, President Carter (a Democrat) appointed Volcker to Chair the Federal Reserve.

1979年，卡特总统（民主党人）任命沃尔克为美联储主席。

Volcker soon unleashed powerful monetary austerity, raising interest rates to unprecedented levels for the United States.

沃尔克很快实施了强有力的货币紧缩政策，将美国的利率提高到前所未有的水平。

Volcker’s obituary stressed the politically suicidal nature of inflicting austerity – and the Democrats’ pride in knowingly losing elections because of their embrace of it.

沃尔克的讣告强调了实施紧缩政策的政治自杀性质 — — 以及民主党因拥护紧缩政策而故意输掉选举的自豪感。

The harsh Fed policy no doubt contributed to Mr. Carter’s re-election defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan; he had to campaign when interest rates were at their peak, and before the inflation fever had begun to break.

美联储的严厉政策无疑导致卡特连任败给罗纳德·里根。他必须在利率达到顶峰、通胀热潮开始爆发之前开展竞选活动。

Mr. Carter, in his memoirs, would offer a typically understated assessment: “Our trepidation about Volcker’s appointment was later justified.”

卡特在他的回忆录中提出了一个典型的低调评价：“我们对沃尔克任命的担忧后来得到了证实。”

“Paul was as stubborn as he was tall,” Mr. Carter said in a statement on Monday morning, “and although some of his policies as Fed chairman were politically costly, they were the right thing to do.

卡特在周一上午的一份声明中表示：“保罗的身材和他一样顽固，尽管他作为美联储主席的一些政策在政治上代价高昂，但它们是正确的做法。

O’Donnell’s denunciation of Buttigieg for adopting dishonest Republican talking points about Democrats and deficits did not discuss several essential points.

奥唐纳谴责布蒂吉格采用了关于民主党和赤字的不诚实的共和党谈话要点，但没有讨论几个关键点。

The first two points emerge from answering this question: what was the cost to the Nation – not the loss of Democratic seats – of the New Democrats’ intransigent insistence on inflicting austerity?

回答这个问题可以得出前两点：新民主党顽固地坚持实行紧缩政策，给国家带来了什么成本——而不是失去民主党席位？

Shakespeare explained famously that “mercy” was “twice blest,” because it blesses both the giver and the receiver.

莎士比亚有句名言，“仁慈”是“双重祝福”，因为它既祝福给予者，也祝福接受者。

The quality of austerity, however, is typically at least thrice damned.

然而，紧缩的质量通常至少会受到三次打击。

It is not a “gentle rain from heaven,” but a sandstorm from hell that batters the public and punishes the politicians who unleash the whirlwind.

这不是“天上的细雨”，而是一场来自地狱的沙尘暴，它袭击了公众，惩罚了发动旋风的政客。

It is at least thrice damned because it causes three grave forms of harm on the public.

它至少受到三次诅咒，因为它对公众造成了三种严重的伤害。

Inflicting austerity on the United States government has three likely consequences for the public.

美国政府实行紧缩政策可能会给公众带来三种后果。

It is likely to cause or extend a recession.

它可能会导致或延长经济衰退。

It forces Democrats into an unending series of “Sophie’s choice[s]s.” We cannot adopt any new program of consequence without budget ‘scoring’ – requiring new taxes or cutting other vital federal programs.

它迫使民主党人陷入一系列无休止的“苏菲的选择”。如果没有预算“评分”——要求新的税收或削减其他重要的联邦项目，我们就无法采取任何具有影响力的新计划。

Under austerity, Democrats must shrink existing overall federal spending.

在紧缩政策下，民主党必须缩减现有的联邦总体支出。

By extending existing recessions or leading to new ones, austerity causes economic harms that increase social and political breakdowns that can lead to the election of fanatics and corrupt fake-populists.

通过延长现有的衰退或导致新的衰退，紧缩政策会造成经济损害，从而加剧社会和政治崩溃，从而导致狂热分子和腐败的假民粹主义者当选。

The political parties that refuse to inflict austerity (at least when they are in power) will be the political winners.

拒绝实行紧缩政策（至少在执政时）的政党将成为政治赢家。

Republican fiscal policies combine “wedge” offerings to fire up the worst of their base and massive tax breaks for the elites that fund their campaigns – leading to a recurrent cycle in which the New Democrats champion policies that cause the public to identify Democrats as the party most likely to raise taxes and cut vital federal programs.

共和党的财政政策结合了“楔子”政策，以激发他们最糟糕的基础，并为资助其竞选活动的精英提供大规模税收减免 — — 从而导致新民主党拥护政策的反复循环，使公众认为民主党是最有可能提高税收和削减重要联邦计划的政党。

Republican political power and ‘wedge’ legislation and policies cause enormous harm, particularly to the poor and minorities.

共和党的政治权力和“楔子”立法和政策造成了巨大伤害，特别是对穷人和少数族裔。

The larger the Republican deficits, the greater the New Democrats’ urgency to inflict austerity – and embrace political suicide.

共和党赤字越大，新民主党实施紧缩政策和拥抱政治自杀的紧迫性就越大。

It is a self-reinforcing cycle producing recurrent political disaster for Democrats.

这是一个自我强化的循环，给民主党带来了反复出现的政治灾难。

O’Donnell does not address two other critical points.

奥唐纳没有解决另外两个关键点。

First, MSNBC’s top commentators endlessly warn Democrats that they must nominate the presidential candidate most likely to defeat President Trump.

首先，MSNBC 的顶级评论员不断警告民主党人，他们必须提名最有可能击败特朗普总统的总统候选人。

MSNBC’s commentators implore us not to focus on policy differences among the candidates.

MSNBC 的评论员恳求我们不要关注候选人之间的政策差异。

Their message is relentless realpolitik, particularly, you should never vote for the candidate whose policies you believe are far superior to the candidate the MSNBC commentators think is most electable.

他们传达的信息是无情的现实政治，特别是，你永远不应该投票给你认为其政策远远优于 MSNBC 评论员认为最有可能当选的候选人的候选人。

MSNBC and the New Democrats claim they share the same prime directive – Democratic Party electoral victories are the only imperative.

MSNBC 和新民主党声称他们有着相同的首要方针——民主党的选举胜利是唯一的当务之急。

O’Donnell’s anti-Buttigieg rant reveals the truth about MSNBC and the New Democrats’ real prime directive – inflicting austerity even when doing so is economically irrational and politically suicidal is their sole imperative.

奥唐纳的反布蒂吉格咆哮揭示了微软全国广播公司（MSNBC）和新民主党真正的首要指令的真相——实行紧缩政策，即使这样做在经济上不合理并且在政治上自杀是他们唯一的当务之急。

The obvious questions, which O’Donnell never asked or attempted to answer, are why he and his MSNBC colleagues push the false prime directive (winning must be the sole paramount goal) as gospel while praising the New Democrats for repeatedly causing the Democratic Party to commit political suicide through inflicting austerity on our Nation.

奥唐纳从未提出或试图回答的明显问题是，为什么他和他的 MSNBC 同事将虚假的总理指令（获胜必须是唯一的首要目标）奉为福音，同时赞扬新民主党通过对我们国家实施紧缩政策一再导致民主党政治自杀。

Logically, the only possible answer to that question is that O’Donnell and the New Democrats must view inflicting austerity as being of transcendent importance.

从逻辑上讲，这个问题唯一可能的答案是奥唐纳和新民主党必须将实施紧缩视为极其重要的。

It outweighs everything.

它胜过一切。

Inflicting austerity is the New Democrats and MSNBC’s sole prime directive.

实施紧缩政策是新民主党和 MSNBC 的唯一首要指令。

They are not simply willing to lose so many contests that they lose control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate – they are “proud” to do so when the reason for those losses is ‘we committed political suicide to fight to inflict austerity.’ The related questions are whether MSNBC and the New Democrats are actually blind to the contradiction between the real and phony prime directives and why they think viewers and voters will be too dumb to spot the obvious contradiction.

他们并不只是愿意输掉如此多的竞选，从而失去对总统、众议院和参议院的控制权——他们对此感到“自豪”，因为这些失败的原因是“我们为实行紧缩而进行了政治自杀”。相关的问题是，微软全国广播公司和新民主党是否实际上对真实和虚假的主要指令之间的矛盾视而不见，以及为什么他们认为观众和选民太愚蠢而无法发现明显的矛盾。

Why do New Democrats and MSNBC insist on hiding their real prime directive?

为什么新民主党和 MSNBC 坚持隐藏他们真正的最高指示？

A related question arises from this bizarre prime directive to inflict austerity even when it is politically suicidal.

一个相关的问题源于这一奇怪的主要指令，即实施紧缩政策，即使它在政治上是自杀性的。

Why did New Democrats and MSNBC choose inflicting austerity as their holy grail?

为什么新民主党和微软全国广播公司选择实施紧缩政策作为他们的圣杯？

What is it about inflicting austerity that makes New Democrats so “proud” to cause the Democratic Party to commit political suicide and deliver control of the House, Senate, and Presidency to the likes of Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump?

是什么让新民主党如此“自豪”地实行紧缩政策，导致民主党进行政治自杀，并将众议院、参议院和总统职位的控制权交给罗纳德·里根、纽特·金里奇、米奇·麦康奈尔和唐纳德·特朗普等人？

Preventing Bush’s invasion of Iraq, global climate disruption, and Trump’s election would all make sense as overriding priorities.

防止布什入侵伊拉克、全球气候破坏和特朗普当选都是压倒一切的优先事项。

Those are things worthy of losing a House seat or even the entire House.

这些都是值得失去众议院席位甚至整个众议院的事情。

Inflicting austerity typically harms America and our people.

实行紧缩政策通常会伤害美国和我们的人民。

A federal budget deficit is not bad.

联邦预算赤字并不坏。

A federal budget surplus is not good.

联邦预算盈余并不好。

Clinton and Gore’s budget surpluses were not good for America.

克林顿和戈尔的预算盈余对美国不利。

They were likely harmful, as recessions soon followed our prior budget surpluses throughout our history.

它们可能是有害的，因为在我们历史上，我们之前的预算盈余很快就出现了衰退。

In each of the cases O’Donnell lauded, the New Democrats’ insistence on inflicting austerity did not simply prove politically suicidal for the Democratic Party – austerity was a terrible economic policy that caused harm.

在奥唐纳称赞的每一个案例中，新民主党坚持实行紧缩政策并不仅仅证明了民主党的政治自杀行为——紧缩政策是一项可怕的经济政策，会造成伤害。

How did inflicting austerity become the overriding priority of New Democrats, swamping all other policies?

实施紧缩政策如何成为新民主党压倒一切的优先事项，压倒所有其他政策？

In 1993, when Clinton and Gore made O’Donnell “proud” by inflicting austerity, the inflation rate was three percent.

1993年，当克林顿和戈尔通过实施紧缩政策让奥唐纳感到“自豪”时，通货膨胀率为3%。

That rate of inflation was trivially higher than what the Fed would adopt as its inflation target (2%) – the preferred rate of inflation.

该通胀率略高于美联储设定的通胀目标（2%）——首选通胀率。

Even under neoclassical economic nostrums, there was no need, much less a compelling need, to inflict austerity.

即使在新古典主义经济秘方下，也没有必要、更不用说强制实施紧缩政策了。

In 2010, when Obama first sought to inflict austerity on us, the rate of inflation was 2.3 percent and the unemployment rate was 9.6 percent.

2010年，当奥巴马首次寻求对我们实行紧缩政策时，通货膨胀率为2.3%，失业率为9.6%。

The economic illiteracy of his austerity horrified even neoclassical economists.

他的紧缩政策对经济的无知甚至令新古典经济学家感到震惊。

Fortunately, the Tea Party Republicans pushed so aggressively in the “Grand Bargain” negotiations with Obama that the tentative deal he reached with congressional Republicans collapsed.

幸运的是，茶党共和党人在与奥巴马的“大交易”谈判中如此积极地推动，以至于他与国会共和党人达成的初步协议失败了。

Otherwise, Obama’s infliction of austerity would have ended the already weak recovery, plunged the Nation back into a Great Recession, and caused him and scores of congressional Democrats to lose their elections in 2012.

否则，奥巴马实施的紧缩政策将会结束本已疲软的复苏，使国家重新陷入大衰退，并导致他和数十名国会民主党人在 2012 年的选举中失败。

O’Donnell’s presentation, implicitly, makes it clear that he thinks austerity is so obviously desirable, and the budget deficits of a fully sovereign nation so obviously the gravest conceivable threat that he need provide neither logic nor evidence to support the New Democrat’s politically suicidal and economically illiterate austerity prime directive.

奥唐纳的演讲含蓄地表明，他认为紧缩显然是可取的，而一个完全主权国家的预算赤字显然是可以想象的最严重的威胁，因此他不需要提供逻辑或证据来支持新民主党政治上自杀和经济上无知的紧缩首要指令。

O’Donnell’s cheerleading for the austerity prime directive was never supported, but it has become facially indefensible over the last quarter-century.

奥唐纳对紧缩总理指令的支持从未得到支持，但在过去的四分之一个世纪里，它已经变得站不住脚。

Trump’s tax reduction scheme for the wealthiest was outrageous on multiple grounds, but O’Donnell can observe the present unemployment and inflation rates.

特朗普针对最富有人群的减税计划在多个方面都令人愤慨，但奥唐纳可以观察目前的失业率和通货膨胀率。

Unemployment is at 3.5% and the inflation rate for 2018 was 1.9% — less than the Fed’s target rate.

失业率为 3.5%，2018 年通胀率为 1.9%，低于美联储的目标利率。

Inflation is the only logical bugaboo about federal budget deficits, so O’Donnell and Buttigieg’s feverish fear that federal deficits are about to cause a catastrophe is beyond bizarre.

通货膨胀是关于联邦预算赤字的唯一合乎逻辑的问题，因此奥唐纳和布蒂吉格对联邦赤字将导致灾难的狂热担忧是非常奇怪的。

The bond markets confirm that there is no expectation of material inflation.

债券市场证实，预计不会出现实质性通胀。

The New Democrats remain transfixed by their ‘virtue’ and ‘bravery’ in losing control of all three branches of government by insisting on inflicting economically illiterate and politically suicidal austerity assaults on the voters – raising taxes and cutting vital services.

新民主党仍然对他们的“美德”和“勇敢”感到震惊，他们坚持对选民进行经济上的无知和政治上自杀式的紧缩攻击——提高税收和削减重要服务，从而失去了对政府所有三个部门的控制。

They refuse to act on the real emergencies we face such as global climate disruption based on the economically illiterate fantasy that ‘we cannot afford’ to prevent the worsening catastrophe.

他们拒绝对我们面临的真正紧急情况采取行动，例如全球气候破坏，其基础是“我们无力承担”阻止日益恶化的灾难的经济无知幻想。

The ‘New Democrats’ and their media enablers demand that we nominate candidates dedicated to enacting politically suicidal deficit hysteria policies and adopting tepid anti-environment policies that are suicidal towards the lives of our children and grandchildren.

“新民主党”及其媒体支持者要求我们提名致力于制定政治自杀性赤字歇斯底里政策和采取不温不火的反环境政策的候选人，这些政策对我们的子孙的生活来说是自杀性的。

The most remarkable aspect of this insanity, however, is that the hucksters pitch their embrace of their prime directive as defining the concept of “responsible.” Indeed, it is so obviously ‘responsible’ that O’Donnell and Buttigieg feel neither logic nor facts are necessary to prove the virtues of austerity.

然而，这种疯狂行为最引人注目的方面是，小贩们将他们的主要指令视为定义“负责任”的概念。事实上，它是如此明显的“负责任”，以至于奥唐纳和布蒂吉格认为证明紧缩政策的优点既不需要逻辑也不需要事实。

They omit the fact that austerity proponents’ warnings and promises have repeatedly proved false and outright harmful as well as politically suicidal.

他们忽略了这样一个事实：紧缩支持者的警告和承诺一再被证明是错误的、完全有害的，而且在政治上是自杀性的。