As the dust settles -- and the balloons deflate -- from this week's RNC in Cleveland, pundits and voters are grappling with the substance of what they saw.
Will this convention be defined by its self-inflicted gaffes, like Melania Trump's apparently plagiarized speech? Will it be the launching pad of a new political family dynasty headlined by Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump -- all of whom gave well-received addresses? Did Donald Trump himself, a self-described billionaire who has a record of outsourcing jobs overseas, effectively cast himself as a champion for the American working man? Will Sen. Ted Cruz's controversial "vote your conscience" speech be retroactively viewed as prescient instead of an act of political self-destruction?
What is evident is that unless you count Rudy Giuliani's aggressive performance or Chris Christie's kangaroo-style court indictment of Hillary Clinton, this convention was surprisingly bereft of breakout stars or moments. Certainly, Trump's lengthy and tonally ominous acceptance speech has people talking, but historically there are usually non-nominee politicians who use the convention as launching pad, or at least try to.
Here are some famous examples from the past 40 years of convention speeches delivered by politicians who weren't even their party's nominee that had real impact.
Barbara Jordan, 1976
The Texas lawmaker and breakout star of the Watergate hearings was the first African-American woman to give a keynote address at a national convention, and she made the most of her moment in the spotlight -- delivering a moving and acclaimed ode to the Democratic Party's ability to champion the cause of unity. Her speech was so well-received that her name was floated as a long-shot choice to be nominee Jimmy Carter's running mate, and she eventually did receive a single delegate's vote for president that year.
Ted Kennedy, 1980
After their bitter primary fight, the tension at the DNC in 1980 revolved around how and when then-President Jimmy Carter and Sen. Ted Kennedy would make up. At the convention, Kennedy delivered perhaps his most stirring and famous piece of oratory -- "the dream shall never die" speech -- but never offered a full-throated endorsement of Carter, only congratulating him on his victory. When his address was over, Kennedy tried to avoid physically embracing the president who trailed behind him awkwardly. Carter would later allege in his private journal that his primary opponent had been drinking that night. While the speech is remembered as one of the most inspirational in recent political history, Kennedy's tepid support for the incumbent helped doom him in November.
Mario Cuomo, 1984
The late New York governor significantly raised his national profile with his eloquent rebuttal to President Reagan's romanticized "city on a hill" remarks. Cuomo effectively disseminated what Democrats saw as the hollowness of the Reagan era's economic recovery in his keynote address in 1984. "A shining city is perhaps all the president sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well," he said. "But there's another city ... the part where some people can't pay their mortgages, and most young people can't afford one; where students can't afford the education they need, and middle-class parents watch the dreams they hold for their children evaporate." Cuomo's speech was so well-received it kicked off nearly a decade of speculation that he would seek the presidency, and infamous indecision on his part about whether he would. He ultimately would never mount a White House bid.
Bill Clinton, 1988
A baby-faced, 41-year-old Bill Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, flopped in his featured role at the 1988 DNC, where he was tasked with introducing nominee Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. The characteristically long-winded Clinton went on for a full 33 minutes, and drew uncomfortable cheers when he said "in closing." At the time, the perception was that Clinton had pre-emptively short-circuited his promising political career. But in an early glimpse of his dexterity, he had fun lampooning the poorly received address during a subsequent appearance on "The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson." Of course, Clinton would get the last laugh -- he would be the nominee and eventual victor himself in just four years.
Pat Buchanan, 1992
The former-speechwriter-turned-fiercely-conservative-commentator brought his insurgent campaign for the White House to the RNC in 1992, and delivered a polarizing speech, which provided red meat for the far right of the GOP, but appeared to be out of the step with the more moderate populace. Buchanan railed against the Democrats' -- and the Clintons' -- advocacy for "homosexual rights" and "women in combat units" in a speech that centered on what would be labeled the "culture wars." Buchanan's rhetoric would become more mainstream orthodoxy in the party in the ensuing years, his speech illustrated the growing gulf between the two major parties on social issues, and his "Make America First" ideology has a direct descendant in Trump.
Barack Obama, 2004
Prior to his iconic keynote address at the DNC in 2004, Obama was a little known, but promising, young state senator from Illinois. But after the "son of a goat herder" delivered his impassioned, unapologetically patriotic plea for a United States of America as opposed to a country split between red and blue political party lines, he became a household name and an overnight sensation. The speech would be credited with propelling Obama to the U.S. Senate and eventually the White House. And although his vision of a post-partisan utopia hasn't materialized, the speech suggested that there was a national appetite for consensus-building.
Zell Miller, 2004
That same year, the conservative Democratic senator from Georgia, Zell Miller, gave a speech that couldn't have been further removed from Obama's in terms of its tone and delivery. Ironically, Miller had been the keynote speaker for the Democrats in 1992, but in 2004 he crossed over to support the Republicans. In a furious, some would argue vicious, speech, he accused Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry of wanting to arm the U.S. military with nothing more than "spitballs." Following his speech (which some Republicans quickly distanced themselves from), a still-incensed Miller would challenge MSNBC's Chris Matthews to a duel for questioning his rhetoric.
Martin O'Malley, 2012
The Maryland governor and former Baltimore mayor had long been a trendy pick for a future VP or presidential nomination when he spoke at the DNC in 2012, but his relatively uninspired speech and presence muted the hype that had once been attached to his name. Perhaps had he given a more memorable address, O'Malley's 2016 campaign would have generated more excitement in a race where the front-runner was decidedly unpopular and his other chief rival was a 74-year-old socialist.
原文地址:價值觀才是人和人之間最深的鴻溝作者:假裝在紐約
每一次熱點新聞,社交媒體都會變成熱鬧的戰場。有人熱血沸騰慷慨激昂,也有人冷眼相看出語相譏。
在生活中我們不會隨便和別人聊起自己對某件事的看法,但是有了社交媒體以後,我們的大腦像是裝上了一扇窗,路過的每一個人都可以瞥上一眼。不管是親友愛人,還是幾年十幾年沒有見過麵的中學同學,或者是曾經幫你租過房子的中介,都能夠知道你的想法,你完全無所隱藏。因為你轉發的每一篇文章,你複製粘貼的每一條段子,分享到群聊天裏的每一張圖,都清清楚楚地表明了你的觀點、傾向和態度。
你發出的每一條狀態,不管立場如何,不管有多少人點讚,必然會有另一些人不快,覺得受到了冒犯。那些衝上來和你辯論,或者激烈地屏蔽取關拉黑的人還算好的;更可怕的是你永遠不會知道有多少人默默看著你發的狀態,然後在心裏翻了個白眼,“沒想到竟然是這麽一個傻X”。
當大家都在自由表達,自然會產生觀念的衝突。生活中交集不多的人還好,但問題是那些對我們來說重要的人同樣不可能和我們在每一件事情上都觀點一致。分組是一個辦法,但我們不可能在發每一條狀態時都分一次組。在這件事上稱讚你三觀正,被你當成親生的朋友放在特別分享組裏,到了下一件事可能就是罵你罵的最凶的人。
因為觀點不同而造成的人與人之間交往的困擾,美國人比我們感受得更深。很簡單的道理,因為美國有民主黨和共和黨,兩個黨的許多政策都有著根本性的分歧,支持民主黨的人和支持共和黨的人也很難坐在一起心平氣和地對話。美國人的社交禮儀裏有一點就是,不隨便問別人的宗教信仰和政治觀點,這是很不禮貌的行為。選舉投票時,每個選民把票投在哪個票箱也是很重要的隱私,外人不能隨便窺探。
在麵對自己親近的朋友或者朝夕相處的家人愛人時,到底支持共和黨和民主黨這件事就很難隱瞞了。尤其是到了每四年一次的大選年,矛盾就會更加激化,即使是在一個已經相對較為成熟的社會,父子大打出手、朋友變成路人、夫妻一拍兩散這樣的極端例子也難以避免。
所以每隔四年,美國的媒體上就會集中出現“政治傾向不同如何保證家庭美滿”之類的指導文章。《華爾街日報》幾年前曾經有一篇報道,講一對結婚多年的老夫妻,丈夫是虔誠的共和黨支持者,而妻子則是忠實的民主黨信徒。在一次總統大選投票前,丈夫正巧要到國外出差,於是就把自己的選票填好交給妻子,讓她代為郵寄出去。
妻子為此很苦惱,不知道是應該忠於丈夫把選票寄出去,還是應該忠於黨把丈夫的選票扔了。猶豫了很久,她最終偷偷地把選票扔掉了。後來丈夫還是在無意中知道了這個秘密,為此記恨了妻子好幾年,並且從此不再放心把自己的任何信件交給她。
引起爭吵的話題各有不同,但歸根結底是價值觀的差異。美國人投票選總統,大多數人是真誠地相信自己選擇的候選人能夠維護國家利益和自己的個人利益。但到底怎樣的政策、哪一個候選人才符合國家利益和個人利益?是不是認同墮胎,是不是認同擁槍權,是不是歡迎更多的移民,是不是應該對富人多征稅,是不是支持給同誌合法結合的權利,是不是認為政府應該大包大攬包辦醫療健康體係和福利製度?根據所有這些問題而做出的選擇背後,就是人和人之間價值觀的差異。
具體到南海問題也是如此。大多數人會同意南海問題的本質是國家利益問題,也沒有人否認一個強大的國家和國民的個人利益是正相關的關係。但到底怎樣的國家才算是強大的國家?嚷嚷著要抵製菲律賓、抵製美國、抵製全世界的人,以及叫囂著要不惜一切代價打仗、“犯強漢者雖遠必誅”的人,到底是在維護國家利益還是反過來損害了國家利益?這些思維模式的背後,都可以看出一個人的價值觀。
但價值觀的問題其實又沒有什麽好講。因為一個人的價值觀根深蒂固,由他的心態、眼界和思考能力綜合決定。就像是網上流傳過的一句話說的,“無論掙了多少錢,當了多大官,出了多大名,讀了多少書,甚至去了多少國家,在國外呆了多少年,骨子裏的東西,包括狹隘無知的境界,都是難以改變的”。
所以放棄和別人爭辯吧。接受吧,你永遠沒有辦法改變另一個人的想法,正如你知道他永遠不可能改變你的想法。尤其是在社交網絡上,所有的爭辯都是浪費彼此的時間。大多數人缺乏足夠的勇氣和智慧來真誠審視自己固守了多年的信仰,因為那是他所有一切的根基,一旦發生動搖就意味著他整個人生要推倒重來。為了逃避這一切,他們願意相信扭曲的事實、構建一個個邏輯陷阱,用盡一切手段來維護他們內心深處的堡壘。
最好的做法不是閉口不談。每個人都有自由表達的權利,這是一件光明正大的事。人生本來就已經很累了好吧,我並不想在自己的圈子轉個帖還要自我審查,還要偷偷摸摸,還要顧忌別人是不是會受到傷害。
我們能做的就是彼此忽略。我知道你不同意我的觀點,但我不會試著說服你,我沒有這樣的權利,也沒有這樣的義務,更沒有這樣的耐心和時間。你也不用試圖說服我,沒必要,你保留你的看法就好。
更好一點的心態,是試著去尊重和理解。這聽起來有點荒謬,做起來也有點困難,但如果你願意冷靜地想一想對方生活在什麽樣的環境裏,從小接受了什麽樣的教育,走過了什麽樣的一條路,那他有那樣的看法、眼界、觀點和價值觀,就不是那麽讓人不可思議難以接受的一件事。對於價值觀和我們不一樣的陌生人,我們可以揮揮手就此別過,但對於親近的朋友家人,這樣的理解也許是唯一能夠不影響彼此關係的做法。
《華爾街日報》提到的那對夫妻後來還發生了一段小插曲。在丈夫六十歲生日的時候,妻子給丈夫製作了一本生日紀念冊,裏麵收集了親朋好友的留言和祝福。她還給當時的總統小布什寫了一封信,請求小布什給自己的丈夫也寫一段祝福的話。她在信裏說,“我的丈夫是你忠實的粉絲,過去整整八年我一直聽他在嘮叨你多麽多麽好,所以這是你欠我的。”小布什很快就回信祝這個丈夫生日快樂,妻子也把這封信收進了生日紀念冊。不過盡管如此,兩個人後來在看共和黨大會的直播時,為了避免吵起來仍然呆在不同的房間裏。
那篇報道還提到了另一對結婚45年的老夫妻,有一天丈夫走進廚房,發現妻子在牆上掛上了小布什的照片,他很生氣,就把相框翻了個麵,倒扣在牆上。妻子發現之後,又把相框重新翻了回去。第二天,丈夫接著翻相框,妻子接著翻回去。這對老夫老妻就把這樣的拉鋸戰堅持了好幾年,到最後,他們彼此都習慣了這樣的儀式。73歲的老先生在接受采訪的時候說,“她掛上相框,其實隻是想引起我的注意。而我把相框翻過去,隻是想告訴她,我知道了。”
兩對夫妻都在一起生活了幾十年,但最終他們誰都沒有辦法改變自己另一半的政治傾向,隻能努力去接受,並且把這樣的差異變成生活情趣。這其實需要很高的情商和智慧。
當然,最好的狀態,還是能夠找到那些和你有一樣價值觀的人,因為價值觀是一種迷人的東西。能夠把人和人在更深的層麵聯係在一起的,絕不是那些可以被輕易貼上的標簽。不是你們上過同一間學校,來自同一個城市或國家,有同一個星座或血型,你們就能彼此喜歡。能夠維係你們的,隻能是同樣的信仰,準則與價值觀。
價值觀體現在每一個細節裏。對某個事件的看法,對某個人的評價,某本書或者某部電影的好惡,都可以把你和一些人緊緊聯係在一起,同時又把你和另一些人涇渭分明地分開。
麵對一些人,一些事,當你激動不已而別人不明就裏,當你義憤填膺而別人無動於衷,你和他們之間,就有了一條微妙的界河,而這條界河,其實是人和人之間最深的鴻溝。
願你能夠找到另一些和你有一樣價值觀的人。因為如果可以選擇的話,相信沒有人願意和要在掛誰的相框這件事上和自己鬥爭一輩子的人生活在一起。