Trump Discovers the Costs of Undermining Truth
A long weekend with lots ofexecutive time， simmering tensions with politicians of both parties， a looming government shutdown： It’s the most potent cocktail that Donald Trump， a teetotaler， could imbibe， and it produced a predictably jarring and erratic series of statements。
黄金时间充裕的长长周末、两党政客的尔虞我诈、政府濒临倒闭：这是滴酒不沾的唐纳德·特朗普品过最烈的鸡尾酒，可想而知，这又引发出一堆刺耳、离奇的言论。
Over the course of several days， mostly in tweets， Trump tried to make three points。 First， hesought to discreditthe idea that he had referred to African nations as “shithole countries” and said， “Why do we need more Haitians？ Take them out。” （Trump alsodeclaredto a reporter that he was “the least racist person you have ever interviewed。”）Second， hejockeyed for positionin negotiations over funding the government， arguing Democrats were imperiling the military as he tried to preemptively shift blame to them.Finally， for good measure， he whined a little bit that he doesn’t get more credit for what he’s done：
几天里，主要在推文中，特朗普主要说了三点。第一，他试图抹黑粗口指控， 有人说他把非洲国家说成“茅坑国家”，“我们干嘛需要更多海地人？撵出去。”（特朗普还对记者说，他是“你采访过的最不抱种族偏见的人。”）第二，他在给政府找预算的谈判中恶人先告状，声言民主党人在危害军队。更有甚者，他还抱怨自己做了那么多事，也没落着什么好。
What the president doesn’t seem to realize， or if he realizes cannot help， is that his goals are at cross-purposes。 Trump， a historically prolific liar， has managed to stir up doubt in case after case， but this has rendered him incapable of convincing people of the importance of his constructive accomplishments。 It’s another example of how Trump， notwithstanding his real-estate career，is more adept at demolition than construction。 Seeking to deprive others of objective facts， he has deprived himself of their benefits as well。
看上去总统没意识到，或者说不管他意识到与否都无济于事，他的各种目标自相矛盾。特朗普，历史上的惯骗，设法把桩桩事都弄得鸡飞狗跳，可这让他无法取信于民，让人们弄清楚他到底干了什么有建设性的好事。这是特朗普更精通毁房而非建房的例证，尽管他干过房地产。不让他们看到客观事实，他自己也得不到事实可以带来的益处。
The “shithole” showdown is a good case study for how Trump muddies the truth。 When the first reports of the president’s words emerged on Thursday， the White House notably did not deny them。 Later that evening， Senator Dick Durbin， a senior Democrat， confirmed news accounts。
“茅坑”事件的对峙是特朗普如何搅浑水的绝好案例。周四，总统说脏口爆出后，白宫显然并未否认。当晚，资深民主党人、参议员迪克·杜尔宾证实了新闻报道。
On Friday， things got weird。 Trump disputed the several accounts in media outlets， saying， “The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough， but this was not the language used。”
周五，事情有点怪了。特朗普反驳媒体的一些陈述，表示“我在童年移民暂缓遣返大会上的语言是很强硬，但我并没有那样说。”
Senator Lindsey Graham， an enemy-turned-ally of Trump’s who was present at the meeting， confirmed the president’s comments， both indirectly （through his South Carolina colleague Tim Scott） and implicitly （in a statement）。
和特朗普不打不相识的参议员林赛·格拉哈姆当时也在场，他只是间接（通过朋友、南卡的同事蒂姆·斯科特）和含蓄（在一项声明中）地确证了总统的说法。
But GOP Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia flatly contradicted them。 “In regards to Senator Durbin’s accusation， we do not recall the president saying these comments specifically，” they said in a statement， and repeated that denial in TV appearances。
但共和党参议员、阿肯色州的汤姆·科顿和佐治亚州的大卫·普渡断然否认。“说到参议员杜尔宾的质控，我们可想不起来总统说过，”他们在声明中说，并上电视重复了这些否认之辞。
Here， it would seem， was an intractable conflict over fact。 Over the weekend， however， an explanation emerged。 AsThe Washington Postexplained，“Three White House officials said Perdue and Cotton told the White House that they heard ‘shithouse’ rather than ‘shithole，’ allowing them to deny the president’s comments on television over the weekend。” （Confusing matters further， Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen NielsensaidSunday she did not recall him using the term； on Tuesday， shesaid， “I did not hear that word used。” Meanwhile， some White House officialoffered a new， incomprehensible excusefor his language。）
看起来人们对事实产生了不可协调的争论。然而，周末又有一种说法。《华盛顿邮报》解释，“三个白宫官员说，普渡和科顿对白宫说，他们听到的是茅房，而不是茅坑，于是周末才在电视上做出否认。”（更离奇的是，国土安全部长克尔斯蒂恩·尼尔森周日说，她记不起来他说过；周二，她说：“我没听到用过那个词。”同时，一些白宫官员提供了新的、难以理解的说辞。）
Consider the scenario： A pair of Republican senators took it upon themselves to cover for the president who made a racist comment and then brazenly lied about it to the American people。 To do that， they used a misleading distinction between “shithole” and “shithouse”—and thenthe president’s own staffblew up their spot。
In such a peculiar exchange， it’s difficult to keep track of who said what， much less to sort truth from falsehood。
想想看吧：两个共和党参议员自告奋勇给发表种族歧视言论的总统打掩护，对美国人公开撒谎。为了达成目的，甚至拿“茅坑”和“茅房”的区别混淆视听，可竟又被总统自己的幕僚捅爆了。在这种古怪的交锋中，很难知道谁说了什么，更别说分辨真假了。
To be clear： Given the pile of credible evidence supporting the idea that Trump made the comments， it seems overwhelmingly clear that Trump made the remarks attributed to him， or said something extremely close。 Trump knows this， Cotton and Perdue know this， and so， as thePost’s reporting makes clear， do Trump staffers。 The point of the president’s protestation cannot be persuasion， but obfuscation。 Throw up enough conflicting signals， and voters may throw up their hands and give up trying to determine the truth。
很清楚：考虑到大量可信证据支持特朗普说了那种话，非常清楚，特朗普自己也承认说了，至少差不多。特朗普明白，科顿和普渡也明白，《华盛顿邮报》的报道显示，特朗普的幕僚也明白。总统的说法目的不是让你相信，而是让你糊涂。散播相互抵牾的信号，投票者干脆举手投降，不去思考究竟何为事实了。
The same is true for Trump’s interview last week withThe Wall Street Journal， in which the paper quoted the president as saying， “I probably have a good relationship with Kim Jong Un of North Korea。” The statement was curious， since officially the president has not spoken with Kim。
上周特朗普接受《华盛顿邮报》采访时也是如此，报纸引用总统说，“我和朝鲜的金正恩关系还不错。”这一说法令人好生奇怪，因为总统还没在正式场合和金正恩说过话。
Again belatedly， the White House disputed that， saying Trump said “I’d” and releasing a recording that wasdisputable； theJournalreleased aclearerone that sounded like just “I。” Never mind that in the next moment of the interview， Trumprefused to say whether he’d been speaking with Kim。 The point isn’t refutation—it’s confusion and deniability， plausible or implausible。
白宫再一次事后诸葛，争辩说特朗普说的是“我会”并且发布了真假存疑的录音；《日报》发布了更清晰的版本，听起来更像没有“会”字。下次采访时，特朗普拒绝回答他到底有没有和金正恩说过话，你不会惊讶。关键不在于否认，而在于搅浑水、踢皮球，似是而非。
What is distressing for anyone who believes that policy and democracy depend on facts is that this seems to work.A year ago， Pew found that two-thirds of Americans believed that the public was confused about facts because of fake news。 There’s little reason to believe that things have gotten better over the last year。 The discourse is rife with incorrect beliefs。 Forty-four percent of Republicanssay， incorrectly， that Trump has repealed Obamacare。
让那些认为政策和民主依赖于事实的人感到揪心的是，看起来这招数还真管用。一年前，皮尤调查发现三分之二的美国人相信，由于假新闻多，公众对事实的认知很混乱，没有理由相信过去一年着有所好转。公众话语中充满了不正确的观念。44%的共和党说，特朗普取缔了奥巴马医保法案，可这是错误的。
Despiteample evidencethat Trump aides colluded with Russia， including a former Trump aide’s admission and the Donald Trump Jr。’s own descriptions of his June 2016 meeting， many Americans areunsure or do not believethe Trump campaign colluded.Roughly two-thirdsof Americans do not believe the president is honest， but nearly half alsobelievethe press makes up stories to hurt Trump。
尽管有足够证据表明，特朗普的助手通俄，一名前助手认罪，小特朗普自己还说2016年六月有过会晤，许多美国人都不确信或不相信特朗普阵营通俄。大概三分之二的美国人不相信总统是诚实的，但还有近半数相信媒体在编造故事中伤特朗普。
Astriking Associated Press story Mondayanecdotally illustrates the fog of untruth that surrounds politics today。
周一，美联社的一篇不俗的报道引用了几段话来表现虚假的迷雾如何笼罩着当今政坛。
“Where is the truth？” a truck driver in North Carolina wondered plaintively。
“真实是什么？”北卡州一个卡车司机哀怨地问。
“It has made me take every story with a large grain， a block of salt，” a conservative activist said。 “Not just from liberal sources。 I’ve seen conservative ‘fake news。’”
“它让我给所有的故事都加一把米，掺一坨盐巴，”一个保守派活动人士说。“不仅是自由派的消息，保守派的假新闻我也见过。”
An Oklahoma man told the AP that whenever Trump labels something fake news， “I just have started assuming … whatever he’s talking about must be true，” adding， “I feel like that attitude didn’t start until he took office。”
一个俄克拉荷马人对美联社说，只要特朗普把什么说成是假新闻，“我才开始认真……他说的那些事其实都是真的。”他还说，“这种感觉直到他上台时才开始有的。”
These quotes go a long way toward understanding why Trump can’t get the credit he craves on the economy。 The president is correct that by most standards， the economy has improved over the course of his presidency。 There are caveats： The stock market， which he repeatedly invokes， does not directly affect most Americans； it’s not clear that Trump’s policies deserve much credit for the positive indicators。
这些引语有助于理解为什么特朗普无法在经济成就上取得他渴望的认同。总统说得基本都对，他当总统以来经济在复苏。可别忘了，他反复提的股市，和大多数美国人没有半毛钱关系；特朗普政策同这些积极信号有没有关系也说不清楚。
Still， most presidentsget at least some dividend from a strong economy， and Trump has not。 In aPolitico/Morning Consult pollreleased Tuesday， just a quarter of Americans gave Trump an ‘A’ for his handling of the economy—his highest score on a report card of issues， and yet still less than the 26 percent who gave him an ‘F’ for handling the economy。
大多数总统在经济好的时候都顺风顺水，特朗普却没有。周二“政客/莫宁咨询”发布的民调显示，只有四分之一的美国人对他处理经济的手段给了“A”，这是他在各类评价中获得的最高分，但仍有接近26%的人给他处理经济的能力一个“F”。
This is despite Trump loudly boasting about it any place he can。 Or is itbecausehe loudly boasts about it all the time？ There are several reasons why Trump might not be getting credit。 Voters might credit Barack Obama for economic growth。 They might detest Trump so much that they refuse to give him credit for anything。 But one explanation has to be that the president has created an atmosphere of such confusion and cynicism that， like the Oklahoman who spoke to the AP， people doubt something simply because the president says it。
特朗普到处宣扬也不过如此，或恰恰就赖他总在宣扬。特朗普落不到好有几个原因。选民可能把经济增长归功于贝拉克·奥巴马。他们可能讨厌特朗普，所以什么都不想归功于他。但另一种解释是，总统制造了这样一种混乱和犬儒的气氛，就像接受美联社采访的俄克拉荷马人一样，人们要怀疑，恰恰因为总统说了。
In anewly released report， the RAND Corporation addresses a phenomenon it calls “Truth Decay。” Jennifer Kavanagh and Michael D。 Rich define it as “a set of four related trends： increasing disagreement about facts and analytical interpretations of facts and data； a blurring of the line between opinion and fact； an increase in the relative volume， and resulting influence， of opinion and personal experience over fact； and declining trust in formerly respected sources of factual information。”
兰德公司最新发布的报告，将这一现象成为“真相衰落”。詹妮弗·卡瓦纳和迈克尔·里奇认为有“四个趋势：对事实和对事实与数据的分析性解释不同意见增多；观点和事实界限模糊；观点和个人经历凌驾于事实之上的数量增多，造成的影响扩大；对以前提供事实信息的知名机构的信任下滑。”
From their perspective， the current status quo is the result of a long-term trend， not the creation of any one individual。 President Trump is simply its apotheosis。 As his frustration this weekend shows， truth decay can be a potent weapon for a politician unconcerned with honesty， but it is a weapon that， once deployed， can hurt the man who wields it just as it does his foes。
在他们看来，现状是长期趋势的结果，并非个人产生的，特朗普不过是个典型。总统本周遇到的挫折表明，真相衰落可以成为不讲诚信的政客的强力武器，但一旦使用，也会伤敌一万，自损八千。
来源：英文联播
本文作者系新浪国际旗下“地球日报”自媒体联盟成员，授权稿件，转载需获原作者许可。文章言论不代表新浪观点。
