Donald Trump in Denmark
By Jeffrey Frank , 12:00 A.M.
A visit to Denmark reveals how terrified people there are of Donald Trump.（哈哈哈，这个导语好吸引人~）
I’ve spent the past few days in Denmark, the country into which I’ve married and where, over the years, I’ve often been asked to explain what’s happening back home. Reality sometimes gets distorted by distance, as when, eight years ago, several Danes informed me that the United States would never elect a black man as President. This year, the visit was a chance to express the belief that, though Americans may practice political brinksmanship（边缘政策）, we are not about to let loose a bomb—or probably not.
I was uneasy about this trip, because I knew that I would hear a lot and be pushed to say a lot about our Presidential election and about the bomb in question: the inescapable Donald J. Trump, the nominee of a party that, like the Democratic Party（民主党）, has certainly chosen its share of poor candidates (from Warren G. Harding to George W. Bush共和党人士) but never someone as goofy and possibly deranged（ [dɪ'reɪn(d)ʒd]疯狂的，精神错乱的） as Trump.（特朗普是共和党，但是这么疯狂的他，可能是民主党派来的卧底哟~） It’s tempting simply to opine（想，认为） in what the British novelist Ian McEwan (through one of his characters, in “Sweet Tooth”) called the “why-oh-why” mode. In pre-Brexit Great Britain, it was “Why-oh-why must we stagnate（停滞，萧条） among the ruins of our former greatness?” In modern America, it would be “Why-oh-why has a country so large and diverse ended up with Trump?” Or why, for that matter, has it ended up with the former Secretary of State（国务卿） Hillary Clinton（民主党）, who is neither liked nor trusted by a majority of Americans and is perhaps the Democrat（民主党人） most vulnerable to Trump’s loathsome（令人厌恶的） and increasingly strange campaign, just as Trump is perhaps the Republican most beatable by Clinton. The only reply is that millions of Americans are asking the same question: Why-oh-why?
An election like ours probably couldn’t happen in Denmark, Bernie Sanders（伯尼•桑德斯）’s ideal nation, which has so many factions（派系） that sometimes it’s hard to figure out which party is which, and why. (For instance, although venstre（丹麦自由党） means “left,” the Venstre Party leans right.) Denmark certainly has its problems, from immigration to a stifling（沉闷的） bureaucracy, but it seems to manage pretty well. The closest Denmark comes to Trumpism（特朗普主义） is the program of the anti-immigrant Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People’s Party丹麦人民党)which finished second in the most recent election. The liberal Social Democratic Party（社会民主党） came in first, but its governing coalition（[,kəʊə'lɪʃ(ə)n]联合，合并）, in aggregate（['ægrɪgət;合计，集合）, lost seats, and ceded（屈服，割让） power to a center-right partnership that includes the current Prime Minister, Venstre’s Lars Løkke Rasmussen, and the rightist（右派人士）, tax-cutting Liberal Alliance. Unlike Trump, though, the Dansk Folkeparti leader, Kristian Thulesen Dahl, who favors strict border controls（边境管制） and sympathizes with the impulse that led to Brexit, opposes the idea of discriminating（区别对待） on the basis of religion; his party, like the Social Democrats, favors increased benefits for Denmark’s elderly and sick. The policies and programs of Danish parties tend to soften when coalitions form, which forces compromise among opposing factions（派系）. If Dahl, Rasmussen, and the Liberal Alliance（自由联盟） can’t keep working together, Rasmussen may be forced to call a new election.
Copenhagen, meanwhile, is being dug up（开垦，发现） to complete the Metro, a startlingly effective infrastructure project (it should be done by 2019) that takes you from the clean, modern airport to the city’s center in fifteen minutes. It’s an enormous undertaking for a small country, and any traveller coping with New York’s airports feels envious. Why-oh-why can’t the United States do that? We’ve grown accustomed to a two-party system, but perhaps it’s time for more options and more attempts at forming natural coalitions.
Friends and relatives, though, would rather talk about Trump, and want assurance that he is an aberration（[,æbə'reɪʃ(ə)n]失常，离开正路）, even more so when his words are translated without subtlety into Danish. (A headline in the widely distributed Metroxpress read “Trump: Gun owners Should Stop Hillary Clinton.”) In the Barry Goldwater-Lyndon Johnson race, in 1964, about which I’ve written, the Republican National Committee（共和党全国委员会） chairman, Dean Burch, as if anticipating years of future G.O.P.（Grand Old Party共和党别称）campaigns, wanted to emphasize “crime and violence in the streets—a breakdown of law and order—terrorizing our people,” and a foreign policy in which “we have weakened ourselves and permitted our enemy to make gains all over.” While not quite saying “Crooked（歪曲的，不正当的） Lyndon,” Goldwater, a senator from Arizona, called President Johnson “a wheeler-dealer（独断专行的人，追求利益的人）, not a leader,” and accused him, with some justice, of trying to stifle（扼杀，窒息） the investigation of the onetime（从前的） Johnson protégé（门徒，被保护的人） Robert G. (Bobby) Baker, a former Senate page and secretary to the Senate majority, who made two million dollars when Johnson was Majority Leader. “Bobby Baker’s affairs lead right straight into the White House itself,” Goldwater said. Polls（民意调查） showed that seeming “trigger-happy好战的” or “impulsive冲动的” was what most hurt Goldwater, unfairly, in his view, and he accused the Johnson campaign of charging him with “virtual madness” over his view that NATO（北大西洋公约组织） commanders sometimes had the authority to employ tactical（策略的，战术的） nuclear weapons. The charges clung to him.
The resolutely centrist（中间派议员） broadcaster-commentator Eric Sevareid wrote that, unless the polls were altogether wrong, the 1964 election would turn out to be “another demonstration . . . that the United States is not the unstable, unpredictable and reckless political society that so much of the world likes to think it is.” Johnson, as polls predicted, went on to win by a lopsided（倾向一方的） margin, a landslide of landslides（竞选中的压倒性胜利）, which he seemed to interpret as a domestic mandate（授权，命令） to pursue his Great Society programs, and, in his Commander-in-Chief role, to sink the nation ever more deeply into what was once a ruinous French colonial war in Indochina（印度支那，中南半岛）.
As for the view from Denmark, when I asked a favorite member of my extended family if she was really worried about the rise of Trump, she seemed uninterested in a possible Clinton landslide, or in Trump’s bad polls, but rather, with an alarmed look and speaking perfect Americanese, said, “I’m scared shitless（极度，非常）.”
1. 边缘政策(英语：Brinkmanship)是指在冷战时期用来形容一个近乎要发动战争的情况，也就是到达战争边缘，从而说服对方屈服的一种战略术语。边缘政策是一种被视为有效的政策，因为它能确保任何一方的冲突，例如核战争，都可以相互保证毁灭的前提下进行，充当着以"核"来威慑双方保持克制的"接收端"。可是在冷战时期，这项政策最终还是恶化了苏联和美国之间的关系
2. Ian McEwan伊恩•麦克尤恩：他擅长以细腻、犀利而又疏冷的文笔勾绘现代人内在的种种不安和恐惧，积极探讨暴力、死亡、爱欲和善恶的问题。作品多为短篇小说，内容大都离奇古怪、荒诞不经，有“黑色喜剧”之称。许多作品反映性对人的主宰力量以及人性在性欲作用下的扭曲。代作《赎罪》《甜牙》
3. 甜牙：作为五处中惟一热衷于读小说的“女文青”，而且“碰巧”长着仿佛直接从小说中走出来的身材和相貌，塞丽娜接受了一项特殊任务：“甜牙行动”旨在以间接而隐蔽的方式资助那些在意识形态上符合英国利益且对大众具有影响力的写作者，而塞丽娜负责接近并引诱其加盟的是这项行动中惟一的小说家，汤姆•黑利。[1]
汤姆和塞丽娜相爱了，爱得步步为营，爱得亦真亦假，爱得绝处逢生。但你猜中了开头，却未必能猜到结尾。阅读《甜牙》的快感之一就是等待结尾向前文的反戈一击，等待充盈在文本中的那些关键词——政治与文学、间谍与作家、读者与作者、欺骗与爱情——如何被赋予崭新的意义。你会看到，那些你在前面的情节中已经熟识的人物及其相互关系，怎样在突然间都站到了镜子的另一面，怎样在叙事光芒的照耀下产生别样的张力
4. Bernie Sanders（伯尼•桑德斯）：桑德斯是一位民主社会主义者，也是美国历史上第一名信奉社会主义的参议员，亦是近年少数成功进入联邦公职的社会主义者，但并不属任何政党，故以独立人士身份出现在选票上。但由于加入民主党党团运作，故在委员会编排方面被算作民主党一员。2015年4月30日，桑德斯正式宣布以民主党人身份参加2016年美国总统大选。2016年4月14日，美国《时代周刊》2016年“全球最具影响力人物”榜单揭晓，桑德斯位居榜首。支持希拉里。
5. Trumpism（特朗普主义）：反对自由主义原则、希望重新诠释平等理念、反对全球化和自由贸易、要求重新反思个人主义和精英主义，以及“美国不再担负世界的责任，世界也别来烦美国的事”的孤立和不干涉主义。
6. 林登•贝恩斯•约翰逊（Lyndon Baines Johnson，1908年8月27日 - 1973年1月22日）是美国第三十六任总统。[ 1963年11月22日，肯尼迪总统在德克萨斯州达拉斯遇刺身亡，副总统约翰逊旋即在达拉斯机场的空军一号总统专机的机舱里宣誓就职，成为美国第三十六任总统。在机舱里宣誓就职 在继任了总统一职之后，1964年，约翰逊又正式当选为总统。在内政上，约翰逊总统提出了与“新政”、“公平施政”、“新边疆”一脉相承的改革计划，即“伟大社会”施政纲领。他在位期间，不遗余力地推行各项福利法案、民权法案、消灭贫穷法案和减税法，他的著名的“向贫穷开战”的口号，引导全国在生活富裕时考虑到饥饿和匮乏的棘手问题。但是在外交上，他奉行他的前任所制订的政策，使得越战不断升级，由於美军在越战中伤亡惨重，其政策遭到了国内外的普遍反对，使他赔上了政治前途。1969年他在总统选举之前宣布不会参选，并全力支持他的副总统连任。