由于经济复苏缓慢，美国选民惩罚了总统巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)和他领导的民主党，并对民主党更宏伟的政策抱负提出了警告。周二，他们将众议院的控制权重新交回共和党手中，大幅削减了民主党在参议院的多数席位，并选举了多名共和党新州长。他们对美国政府的僵局投了赞成票，而这就是他们最有可能得到的结果。
不确定性已经在阻碍美国经济的增长，而此次选举将使不确定性进一步增加。要在新增的短期刺激政策和让预算得到控制的长期计划方面展开合作，将比以往更难以实现。
新的多数党共和党充满了活力，其政见将更加右倾。许多温和的民主党人遭到了清除。奥巴马生性务实，但与1994年遭遇类似挫败的比尔•克林顿(Bill Clinton)不同，奥巴马并非天生的中间派。国内政策面可能会保持目前凌乱的局势。
如果美国国会的瘫痪局面真的恶化，其影响将是全球性的。比方说，人们休想在气候变化问题上取得进展，至少不会实现之前的设想：目前，美国通过“限量及交易”(cap-and-trade)议案的可能性为零。各国协作行动、使全球经济活动恢复平衡——这需要美国制定一项长期财政控制计划——的希望再次渺茫起来。
更强硬的共和党人会降低保护主义抬头的风险，甚至增加完成多哈回合谈判的可能性吗？也许，但在这个问题上也存在新的风险。从现在起到2012年的总统大选，茶叶党(Tea Party)的影响不容小觑，而对令人厌恶的外国人的抱怨，很容易对茶叶党运动产生影响。
奥巴马本周晚些时候将启程前往印度和其它亚洲国家。鉴于现在他在国内束手束脚，发挥全球领导力（世界也确实需要美国的领导），无疑焕发着新的吸引力。美国总统在外交政策方面受到的束缚要小一些。
如果奥巴马将更多的注意力放在重建全球治理机制上——增强20国集团(G20)的作用，重新制定国际货币基金组织(IMF)的目标，推进全球金融改革——他在国内受到的挫折可能会带来好处。问题将是如何贯彻美国的国内政策。奥巴马可以努力扮演国际政治家的角色，但他的领导力存在徒有其表的风险。
总之，僵局不能解决任何问题。美国选民忘记了一条政治上的金科玉律：“许愿要慎重。”
译者/陈云飞
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001035369
Voters have punished Barack Obama and his party for the slow economic recovery, and expressed alarm at the Democrats’ larger policy ambitions. On Tuesday they gave back control of the House of Representatives to the Republican party, severely pruned the Democratic majority in the Senate, and elected a slew of new Republican governors. They voted for gridlock in Washington. That is what they will most likely get.
The election will add to the uncertainty already holding back the economy. Co-operation on added short-term stimulus and a longer-term plan to get the budget under control will be even harder to achieve than before.
The new Republican majority is energised and leans harder to the right. Many moderate Democrats have been purged. Mr Obama has a pragmatic streak, but unlike Bill Clinton, who faced a similar setback in 1994, he is no instinctive centrist. Broken domestic policies are likely to stay that way.
If the paralysis on Capitol Hill does worsen, the implications will be global. Forget progress on climate change, for instance, at least along the lines previously envisaged: the chances now for cap and trade in the US are zero. Co-ordinated rebalancing of global economic activity – which requires, on the US side, a plan for long-term fiscal control – recedes again.
Might the stronger Republican contingent lessen the risk of protectionist backsliding and even improve prospects for concluding the Doha round? Perhaps, but here too there are new dangers. The Tea Party’s influence will be great between now and the presidential election of 2012, and the movement is susceptible to complaints about wicked foreigners.
Mr Obama departs later this week on a trip to India and other Asian countries. With his hands at home now tied, an exertion of global leadership, which the world undoubtedly needs, has new appeal. In foreign policy, a US president is less constrained.
If the president turns more of his attention to rebuilding the institutions of global governance – cementing the role of the G20, repurposing the International Monetary Fund, pressing forward on global financial reform – his setback at home could bring benefits. The problem will be following through with US domestic policy. Mr Obama may try to play the global statesman, but his leadership will risk looking hollow.
In the end, gridlock solves nothing. US voters forgot a golden rule of politics: “Be careful what you wish for.”
没有评论:
发表评论