2. The problem of political polarization
2.政治兩極分化問題

Segment two, theproblem of political polarization,
第二部分，政治兩極分化問題，

very few people enjoy politics. These days.One reason is that when you come out with a political stance, you oftenencounter verbal abuse. Just go on the internet. And tell people what you thinkabout a political issue all too often, the response you get is you're stupid.You're an idiot. They're questioning your mental acuity.
很少有人喜歡政治。這些天。其中一個原因是，當你提出政治立場時，你經常會遭到辱罵。上網就行了。經常告訴别人你對政治問題的看法，得到的回答是你很蠢。你是個白癡。他們在質疑你的智力。

You're ignorant,you're misinformed. You're a dupe of fake news. You're crazy. You're insane.They're saying you have a mental illness, you're a clown. And then they make ajoke about you. Who wants to be subjected to that kind of verbal abuse. Now youmight think that it's just the general public that does this, but listen to theway politicians talk about each other.
你無知，你被誤導了。你是個假新聞的傻瓜。你瘋了。你瘋了。他們說你有精神病，你是個小醜。然后他們拿你開玩笑。誰想遭受這種辱罵。現在你可能會認為這只是普通大眾在做這件事，但是聽聽政客們談論彼此的方式。

They also saythat the others are corrupt and need to be. Removed from office for obviousreasons, because they're dangerous to the country and they're hurting us andyou and everyone, the middle class, the lower class, everybody gets hurt bythis fool. Okay. But maybe it's just people who speak out on politics andpoliticians know it's even academics.
他們還說，其他人都是腐敗的，必須如此。因為明顯的原因被免職，因為他們對國家是危險的，他們傷害了我們，你和所有人，中產階級，下層階級，每個人都會被這個傻瓜傷害。可以。但也許只是人們在政治上大聲疾呼，政客們甚至知道這是學術界的問題。

I have a friendat. The university of London who recently posted saying that she was tired ofreason, debate about politics. Quote, I don't want to be friends with racist,sexist or Hoba folks. And I don't want to be friends with conservatives either,but she seems to be assuming is that people who are conservatives are racist,sexist, or homophobic, or they're contributing.
我有個朋友在。倫敦大學最近發帖稱，她厭倦了理性、關於政治的辯論。或者我不想和一個種族歧視的人在一起。我也不想和保守派交朋友，但她似乎認為保守派的人是種族主義者、性别歧視者或同性戀恐懼症者，或者他們在起作用。

To racism, sexism orhomophobia. Now that might be right. It might be wrong, but you're never goingto find out what's right and wrong. If she gives up on reasoned debate inpolitics, you might also think that these disagreements occur only about valuesand values are subjective.
種族主義，性别歧視或同性戀恐懼症。現在這也許是對的。這可能是錯的，但你永遠不會發現什麼是對的和錯的。如果她放棄了政治上的理性辯論，你可能也會認為這些分歧只發生在價值觀上，價值觀是主觀的。

Whereas factsare hard and we can certainly talk about those.
然而事實很難，我們當然可以談論這些。

But now let'stry to get the facts straight because people disagree even about the facts.What about fracking is fracking dangerous to the environment? Some people thinkit is. Some people think it isn't and there's some danger, but how much danger.So how do we get straight about facts like that? Those are facts that peopleargue about as well.
但是現在讓我們試著把事實弄清楚，因為人們甚至對事實都不同意。水力壓裂對環境有害嗎？有些人認為是的。有些人認為不是這樣，有一些危險，但危險有多大。那麼我們怎樣才能直截了當地說出這樣的事實呢？這些也是人們爭論的事實。

And don't seemto be able to get agreement on. Let's take another environmental issue. Globalwarming. Yes. There's global warming. Yes, it's manmade, but how much, and whatmethods are reducing global warming are going to be the most effective and themost cost efficient. Those are factual issues that people just simply do notseem to be able to agree about.
似乎無法達成一致意見。我們再來談一個環境問題。全球變暖。對。全球變暖。是的，這是人造的，但是減少全球變暖的程度和方法將是最有效和最具成本效益的。這些都是事實問題，人們似乎根本無法達成一致。

And when youhold a position, that's the opposite of what another person holds. Since theydon't really have enough evidence to go one way or the other to show thatyou're wrong and they're right. They often resort to verbal abuse of the kindthat I mentioned before.
當你持有一個職位時，這和另一個人的立場正好相反。因為他們没有足夠的證據來證明你是錯的他們是對的。他們經常使用我之前提到的那種辱罵。

Well, you mightthink. Yeah, but that's just the United States and the United States is sick.It's got problems and it's politics and it's society. Again, not everybody'sgoing to agree with that, but it doesn't matter whether the us is sick, becauseif it's sick, a lot of other places in the world are too there's polarizationaround the globe and the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, in politicaldebates, in Sri Lanka and Thailand and South Korea and Taiwan people again inthe same kind of verbal abuse that I mentioned at the beginning of thissegment.
你可能會想。是啊，但那只是美國，美國病了。有問題，有政治問題，也有社會問題。再說一次，不是每個人都會同意這一點，但美國是否生病並不重要，因為如果美國生病了，世界上很多其他地方也會出現兩極分化，英國、政治辯論、斯里蘭卡和泰國以及韓國和臺灣民眾的脫歐投票也會再次出現我在本節開頭提到的辱罵。

Iceland is aninteresting example because in Iceland, people think that there's polarization.They think that the other party is very different from them and are makingmassive mistakes. But actually when you look at the polls, the differentparties in Iceland are not that far apart, but the problem exists because theythink there's isolation.
冰島是一個有趣的例子，因為在冰島，人們認為存在兩極分化。他們認為另一方與他們大不相同，正在犯重大錯誤。但事實上，當你看民意調查時，冰島的不同黨派之間並没有那麼遠，但問題的存在是因為他們認為存在孤立。

Even whenthere's not, no, in order to understand this problem at a deeper level, we haveto ask what polarization is.
即使没有，不，為了更深層次地理解這個問題，我們必須問什麼是兩極分化。

Uh, polarizationmeans many different things to many different people. So we're not going to beable to come up with a single, simple definition, but we can distinguishdifferent dimensions of polarization. The first is distance between groups. Onepolitical party might on average hold a certain view on say, um, gun control.
呃，兩極分化對不同的人意味著很多不同的東西。所以我們不能給出一個單一的，簡單的定義，但是我們可以區分極化的不同維度。首先是群體之間的距離。平均來說，一個政黨可能對槍支管制持某種觀點。

Anotherpolitical party, my whole, a very different view on gun control. And if youlook at the averages between the parties, they might be very different. So forexample, in the United States, the Pew research center asked people whetherthey agree or disagree with the claim that poor people have it easy becausethey can get government benefits without doing anything in return.
另一個政黨，我的整個政黨，對槍支管制有著截然不同的看法。如果你看一下兩黨之間的平均數，他們可能會有很大的不同。例如，在美國，皮尤研究中心詢問人們，他們是否同意這種說法，即窮人可以輕鬆獲得政府福利，而無需做任何回報。

Well, in 1994, theparties were separated by 19 percentage points. And how many agreed to thatstatement? But by 2017, that difference had grown to 37 percentage points.Let's take immigrants today are a burden on our country because they take ourjobs, housing and healthcare. In 1994, the parties were only two points aparton that issue.
好吧，1994年，兩黨的差距是19個百分點。有多少人同意這個說法？但到了2017年，這一差距已經擴大到37個百分點。今天的移民是我們國家的負擔，因為他們奪走了我們的工作、住房和醫療保健。1994年，雙方在這個問題上只有兩點分歧。

By 2017, the gaphad grown to 32. Let's take black people who can't get ahead in this countryare mostly responsible for their own condition. 1994, the difference was 13percentage points, 2017. It had grown to 47 percentage point difference betweenthe two political parties. So if you look at it, issue by issue, it's easy tofind it.
到2017年，這個差距已經擴大到32個。讓我們以在這個國家無法取得成功的黑人為例，他們大多對自己的狀況負責。1994年，差異為13個百分點，2017年。兩個政黨之間的差距擴大到47個百分點。所以如果你一個問題一個問題地看，很容易找到它。

Yeah. Evidencethat the parties have grown much further apart in their average views. It'salso true that the parties have grown more homogenous or uniform in theirviews. There used to be a lot of overlap. There were liberal Republicans, or atleast moderate Republicans and conservative, or at least moderate Democrats.
是 啊。有證據表明，雙方在他們的平均觀點上的分歧越來越大。各方的觀點越來越同質化或一致化也是事實。以前有很多重疊。有自由的共和黨人，或者至少是溫和的共和黨人和保守黨人，或者至少是溫和的民主黨人。

And there weremany people who chose one party or the other more because of the tradition thanbecause of their views. But now. The median Democrat and the median Republicanare far apart and there's much more uniformity within the parties. And thatmeans there's very little overlap between the views of the people in differentpolitical parties in the United States.
很多人選擇一個政黨或另一個政黨更多的是因為傳統而不是他們的觀點。但是現在。中位數的民主黨人和共和黨人的立場相距甚遠，兩黨內部也有更多的一致性。這意味著美國不同政黨的人民的觀點幾乎没有重疊。

Now, I want tosay right from the start that I don't care about that. It's fine. If theparties are far apart, you don't want her to be too close together because thenvoters don't have any real choice in the election. It's also fine to formparties where people agree on their views. The problem is when they isolatethemselves from each other and refuse to talk to each other, if they.
現在，我想從一開始就說我不在乎這個。很好。如果兩黨相距甚遠，你不希望她靠得太近，因為那樣選民在選舉中没有任何真正的選擇。在人們意見一致的地方組織聚會也是不錯的。問題是當他們彼此孤立，拒絕交談，如果他們。

Move apartgeographically. So all the liberals are in the urban centers and all theconservatives are in the rural areas. Or if they form bubbles in the internetby choosing different media and getting information from different sources,then they never learned about the other person's views. And then that meansthey don't understand them.
在地理上分開。所以所有的自由派都在城市中心，所有的保守派都在農村地區。或者，如果他們通過選擇不同的媒體，從不同的來源獲取信息，在互聯網上形成泡沫，那麼他們就永遠不會了解對方的觀點。那就意味著他們不理解他們。

They don'tunderstand why somebody could hold such dangerous views that actually undermineour society, which we all care about. They seem to be causing harm for noreason, because we don't know the reason since we're isolated from, and if wethink they're harming us for no reason, become antagonistic there's hatred andmisunderstanding.
他們不明白為什麼有人會持有如此危險的觀點，實際上會破壞我們所關心的社會。他們似乎無緣無故地造成了傷害，因為我們不知道原因，因為我們被孤立了，如果我們認為他們無緣無故地傷害我們，就會變得敵對，那里有仇恨和誤解。

So that in somepolls, for example, Democrats say that Republicans are closed-minded dishonest,immoral, unintelligent, and Republicans return the compliment by saying thatDemocrats are closed-minded MRL, lazy and dishonest. So they're antagonistictowards each other. They hate each other, and that leads them to be uncivil tocall each other ignorance.
例如，在一些民意測驗中，民主黨人說共和黨人思想封閉、不誠實、不道德、不聰明，而共和黨人則通過說民主黨人思想封閉、懶惰和不誠實來回敬他們。所以他們互相敵對。他們互相憎恨，這就導致他們不文明地稱對方為無知。

Stupid, insaneclowns. Because when you hate somebody and you don't have respect for thembecause you don't understand them, then abuse seems to be your only weapon. Butif you use abuse too much, then you get rigidity. Why would you compromise withsomebody who is an insane clown? You have nothing to gain from that.
愚蠢，瘋狂的小醜。因為當你恨一個人，而你不尊重他，因為你不了解他們，那麼虐待似乎是你唯一的武器。但如果你濫用太多，你就會變得僵硬。你為什麼要和一個瘋狂的小醜妥協？你從中没有什麼好處。

Their view is sofar away from the truth. And so. Badly based in any kind of reason that it'sbetter to fight them in a compromise, but if both sides take that attitude,then the government ends up in gridlock, unable to do anything, unable to worktogether, unable to compromise, unable to cooperate, and the many very seriousproblems that we face.
他們的觀點與事實相去甚遠。等等。基於任何一種理由都是很糟糕的，那就是最好以妥協的方式與他們抗爭，但是如果雙方都采取這種態度，那麼政府就會陷入僵局，什麼都做不到，無法合作，無法妥協，無法合作，以及我們面臨的許多非常嚴重的問題。

Never getssolved. That's the real problem that when politics is done this way, we all endup suffering from the inability of government to get anything done. The nextsegment will suggest a possible partial beginning. To a solution.
永遠不會被解決。這才是真正的問題，當政治以這種方式進行時，我們最終都會因政府無力完成任何事情而受苦。下一部分將建議可能的部分開始。解決方案。