我們需要川拜再戰大選

Joe Biden versus Donald Trump is not the choice America wants. But it is the choice we need to face.

拜登對決川普不是美國想要的選項，卻是我們需要面對的選項。

Yes, both men are unpopular, remarkably so. Only one-third of Americans view President Joe Biden favorably, and two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters want to nominate someone else for the presidency (no one in particular, just someone else, please). Trump is the overwhelming favorite to become the Republican nominee for the third consecutive time, but his overall approval rating is lower than Biden’s. And while 60% of voters don’t want to put Trump back in the White House, 65% don’t want to hand Biden a second term, either. The one thing on which Americans seem to agree is that we find a Biden-Trump 2024 rematch entirely disagreeable.

是的，兩個人都不受歡迎，這很明顯。只有三分之一美國人對拜登總統抱持好感，三分之二民主黨人及親民主黨選民想提名其他人選總統（沒特別誰，其他人就好，拜託）。川普有壓倒性優勢，可望連續第3次成為共和黨總統候選人，其總體支持率卻比拜登更低。雖然百分之六十選民不願川普重回白宮，也有百分之六十五選民不想要拜登繼續連任。有一件事情美國人似乎頗有共識，那就是拜登川普2024年再度交鋒讓人感到極度不悅。

This disdain may reflect the standard gripes about the candidates. (One is too old, the other too Trump.) But it also may signal an underlying reluctance to acknowledge the meaning of their standoff and the inescapability of our decision. A contest between Biden and Trump would compel Americans to either reaffirm or discard basic democratic and governing principles. More so than any other pairing, Biden versus Trump forces us to decide, or at least to clarify, who we think we are and what we strive to be.

這厭惡感反映的或許是對這兩名候選人的典型牢騷（一個太老，另一個太川普）。但這也可能顯示，人們不願承認他們對峙的意義，以及我們無可避免的決定。拜登和川普的競爭將迫使美國人強化或放棄基本民主及治理原則。比起其他組合，拜登對決川普強迫我們決定，或至少釐清，我們自認為是誰，以及我們努力想成為什麼樣的人。

Oddly, even as the electorate seems to want little to do with either of these two candidates — let alone with both at the same time — Biden and Trump seem to need each other. Biden’s case for saving American democracy loses some urgency if Trump is not in the race.

奇怪的是，雖然選民似乎並不想跟這兩個候選人中的任何一人扯上關係，更別提同時與兩個人扯上關係，但拜登與川普似乎需要對方。川普若沒參選，拜登拯救美國民主的主張就少了某種急迫性。

Like so many others, I also wish we could avoid that choice or at least defer it. As journalist Amy Walter has put it, “Swing voters would rather eat a bowl of glass than have to choose between Trump and Biden again.” Well, it may be time to grab a spoon and unroll the gauze. When half the country believes democracy isn’t working well, when calls for political violence have become commonplace, when the speaker of the House is an election denier, it is time to face what we risk becoming and to accept or reject it. We have no choice but to choose.

我跟許多人一樣，期望我們能避免這樣的選擇，或至少延後選擇。如同新聞工作者艾米．華爾特說的，「搖擺選民寧可吃下一碗玻璃，也不想在川普和拜登之間再選一次」。好吧，也許是時候拿起湯匙、鋪展繃帶了。當半個國家都認為民主運作不良，當政治暴力的呼聲變得司空見慣，當眾院議長是個否認選舉結果的人，是時候面對風險，正視我們可能成為的樣子，接受或著反對它。我們別無選擇，我們只能選擇。

企業老闆需積極對中東戰爭表態嗎

After reading the details of Hamas’ attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, Brad Karp, who runs the law firm Paul, Weiss, sat at his computer and wrote a memo to his roughly 2,000 employees.

讀過哈瑪斯10月7日襲擊以色列的細節後，營運寶維斯法律事務所的卡普坐在電腦前，寫下一份給旗下約2000名員工的備忘錄。

He didn’t ask the firm’s spokesperson to draft it; he channeled his grief into a companywide email and hit send, just as he was moved to do after the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the killing of George Floyd. But as an American business leader condemning Hamas’ attacks, he said, he felt surprisingly lonely.

他沒有要求發言人起草備忘錄；他將自己的悲傷發洩在給全公司的電子郵件，並點擊發送鍵，就像他被推翻羅訴韋德案和佛洛伊德之死撼動後所做的一樣。但作為譴責哈瑪斯襲擊的美國企業領袖，他感到出奇孤獨。

“I was disappointed that fewer leaders than I anticipated spoke out emphatically, clearly and with moral clarity on this issue,” Karp said. “If you asked any of these leaders whether they were horrified by the slaughter of innocent civilians by Hamas, they would tell you privately that they were horrified.”

卡普說：「令我失望的是，在這個議題上堅決、明確帶有道德感發聲的領袖比我預期的少。如果你問這些領袖中的任何一位，他們是否對哈瑪斯屠殺無辜平民感到非常震驚，他們會私下告訴您，他們非常震驚。」

Company executives have, over the past month, faced a dilemma that they’re by now well practiced in confronting: whether to engage with a large humanitarian or social issue — in this case, the war between Israel and Hamas. This time, many say, responding — with a public statement, internal discussion, a donation or even social media parameters for staff members — presents complexities that they have not experienced when wading into other recent social crises.

公司主管在過去一個月面臨一個兩難困境，不過他們現在已經習於應對：是否要參與一個大規模人道和社會議題，這次事例是哈瑪斯與以色列之間的戰爭。許多公司主管說，這次以公開聲明、內部討論、捐款，甚至是員工社群媒體參數回應呈現的複雜性，是他們涉入近期其他社會危機時從未經歷過的。

“If you release a statement about the damage of a hurricane, there’s nobody who will say, ‘Actually, that area of the country deserved a hurricane,’” said Iliya Rybchin, a partner at the consultancy Elixirr, who has advised dozens of Fortune 500 CEOs.

諮詢公司「醫立赦」合夥人雷布欽曾接受數十名財星雜誌世界500強企業執行長諮詢。他說：「如果你發表一份關於颶風災損的聲明，沒有人會說，『事實上這是該國受災地區應得的』。」

More than 200 U.S. businesses have issued statements condemning the Hamas attacks in Israel that killed roughly 1,400 people, according to a tracker from Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management. Some business leaders made donations to humanitarian organizations and pointed their employees to company-sponsored mental health resources. A smaller number said they also communicated to their staff about the rising death toll of civilians in the Gaza Strip.

超過200間美國企業已發布聲明，譴責哈瑪斯在以色列發動襲擊，造成約1400人死亡。這項數據是由耶魯大學管理學院教授宋能菲爾德追蹤並提供。有些企業領袖向人道組織捐款，並推薦員工使用公司心理健康資源。少數人則說，他們也提供員工加薩走廊平民死亡人數上升的資訊。

Adding to the complexities that executives are weighing, many U.S. companies have financial ties to Israel, but few have business interests to consider in Gaza, Sonnenfeld noted.

宋能菲爾德指出，許多美國企業和以色列有財務聯繫，但很少有企業在加薩走廊有商業利益，加劇高階主管權衡時面臨的複雜性。

“No company does business in Gaza — as opposed to, say, in Russia, where there are 1,500 major companies doing business,” he said, comparing this war with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. “It’s zero in Gaza.”

「沒有企業在加薩做生意，相較於俄羅斯，有1500間大企業在那邊做生意」，他將這場戰爭與俄國入侵烏克蘭對比，「在加薩是零」。