精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

從差不多所有衡量標準來看，美國政治產業都在蓬勃發展。現在的政治活動似乎無窮無盡，而且雇傭了一大批游說者、民意調查人和員工，高級顧問備受歡迎，媒體的興趣就像個無底洞；選舉方面，整體開支（通常代表著一個行業的成功水平）接近歷史最高點。

只有一個問題。本該從這項繁榮事業中獲利的人，或者說美國公眾，變得空前地失望。蓋勒普的數據顯示，去年9月，表示自己至少“比較信任政治領導人”的美國人所占的比例觸及歷史最低點。今年2月，近五分之一（19%）的美國民眾認為對政府不滿意是美國面臨的最大問題。相比之下，蓋勒普此項調查中感覺“經濟”是美國最緊迫問題的受訪者只占9%。

為什么政治產業復合體一片繁榮時客戶卻比以往任何時候都不滿意呢？要回答這個問題，我們得把商業分析工具用于美國政治。我們的結論是：美國政治這個行業由兩強壟斷，它的反競爭程度和大家如今可能發現的差不多。其結果就像普林斯頓大學政治學教授馬丁·季倫思和西北大學決策學教授本杰明·佩奇2014年的著名研究所表明的那樣，普通選民的傾向對公共政策毫無影響。

情況并非一直如此。在很長一段時間里，美國政治體系一直讓全世界感到羨慕。這個體系促進了公眾利益，而且帶來了政治創新的恢宏歷史。然而，如今它徹底變成了一個障礙，阻撓著美國去解決幾乎所有需要應付的重大挑戰。

哈佛商學院的美國競爭力研究項目發現，在所有重新帶來繁榮和增長所需的關鍵政策措施上，美國政府實際上都毫無建樹。陷入癱瘓的政治體系突然成了美國未來的最大威脅。

怎么會走到這一步呢？在一定程度上，是潛移默化所致。在過去幾十年中，美國政治體系進行緩慢調整的目的不是服務于公眾利益，而是私人盈利組織的利益，或者說主要政黨及其實業界盟友。雖然基本沒有引起普通民眾的注意，但這些團體制定的一系列規則和慣例鞏固了他們的力量，并且削弱了美國的民主。

的確，美國的締造者可能會不認識如今美國的政治體系。它的許多日常要素在憲法中都找不到依據——憲法可沒提到過任何造成眼下政治體系失靈的政黨、黨內初選、政黨會議、提名規則、分隔開來的國會衣帽間、政黨決定的委員會人事任命、阻撓國會議事的規則以及不計其數的其他慣例。美國第二任總統約翰·亞當斯是美國的締造者中最敏銳的思想家之一。他甚至就兩強壟斷警告過這個新興國家，亞當斯說：“我夢到次數最多的就是合眾國分裂成兩大黨派，它們各自為政，并且籌劃著相互敵對的措施。”

但這確實是如今局勢的精確寫照。要解決這個問題，關鍵就在于首先要認識到我們的政治體系是個價值數百億美元的產業，而且會給參與者帶來巨大經濟效益。

就像我們所說的那樣，這個產業的核心是兩強壟斷，也就是存在兩大政黨。圍繞它們建立的是我們所說的政治產業復合體，也就是一系列相互聯系的實體，它們既參與這項產業，也為它提供支持。這些實體包括專項利益團體、游說者、民意調查者、顧問、黨派智囊和超級政治行動委員會，當然還有媒體。所有行業成員實際上都和這個或那個，或者說右翼和左翼派系存在聯系。

政治領域的競爭看來很激烈。眾多候選人、突破天際的開支水平以及不間斷的媒體報道都說明了這一點。而且就像任何經濟學學生都會告訴你的那樣，競爭通常有利于消費者。但這里的情況并非如此。這是因為通過競爭來贏得選舉的立足點不對。選舉和施政都包含了反競爭的利益勾結。因此，這個行業的主要消費者，也就是專項利益團體和捐贈者基本上都受到了兩方面權力經紀人的保護。政治競爭的初衷越發背離促進公眾利益，而以培養忠實的資金來源和鼓勵黨內初選投票者為目標。

這個行業的關鍵供應商，比如政治活動顧問、民意調查員和數據大拿、籌款人、立法人員以及許多智囊機構都和處于壟斷位置的兩強緊密合作。這樣，我們的電視也分成了兩派，每派都有一大堆電視頻道來宣揚它們各自的觀點。

獨立候選人在現代政治活動所需的籌款和專業人才建設上都面臨巨大挑戰（兩黨以外的任何挑戰者甚至都很難上臺參與辯論）。

在這里，美國政治似乎打破了經濟法則。畢竟，消費者普遍不滿意應該鼓勵市場中出現新的競爭。但在美國政治行業，根本就沒有新面孔。一百多年來，美國從未出現過任何重要的新政黨。

兩大黨派操控了選舉程序，以確保分隔，同時不鼓勵解決問題和進步。兩黨劃分選區和初選是這種機制的關鍵。一位劃定選區選出的議員必需迎合本黨初選選民，而不是回應普選投票者，對全體民眾或公眾利益的回應也要少得多。在黨派成員使用了大多數投票權的黨內初選中，持溫和態度的人士成了“珍稀物種”。尋求妥協的議員可能被較極端的黨內積極分子所懲罰，這會讓下次初選中的競爭者更左或更右。溫和只會成為政治攻擊廣告的炮灰；溫和派議員也瀕臨絕跡。再也沒有妥協這回事。

由此產生的結果就是兩黨爭相分割民眾，而不是做出成績。

雖然可能會有明確證據顯示這種牢固的兩黨體制阻礙了新競爭者的出現，人為限制和壓縮了選民的選擇范圍，而且共同制定了確保其占據幾乎全部市場份額的規則，但反壟斷監管部門不太可能打破這樣的局面（可惜的是，反壟斷法不能用于政治）。

盡管如此，政治改革方面還是有一些實用的好主意，它們可以幫助民眾重新奪回政治體系控制權。以下是對這些方案的簡略介紹：

開展無黨派初選。現行初選機制讓競選活動（和施政行為）走向極端。如果向全體民眾開放初選，就會迫使所有候選人設法滿足所有選民，而不僅僅是黨內的極左或極右派。在無黨派機制下，一次初選將囊括所有候選人，無論其隸屬關系。得票最多的兩名候選人，更理想情況下，四名候選人將參加普選。

進行無黨派選區劃分。劃分選區人為地讓掌握控制權的政黨處于非常有利的位置。它減少了競爭性席位，帶來了極端的候選人，讓當選者的責任心降到了最低水平。這種情況必須得到改變。

別讓個人團體控制眾參兩院的規則。必須大幅削弱黨派對日常立法和管理事務的控制力。如果妨礙妥協與合作的規則和慣例被消除，通過跨黨派公開對話來實施這個國家需要的立法制度調整就會變得容易的多。

降低獨立候選人的參選門檻。在這個瘋狂的黨派制環境下，尋找有資格、有才能而又溫和的獨立候選人來從事管理工作并非易事。但要鼓勵這種做法，我們就必須首先建立能讓競爭變得公平起來的選舉和財務制度。

擁抱參議員支點策略。有助于打破當前政治僵局的較快、較有效率而且效果較明顯的方法是宣傳三到五名獨立的、打算解決問題并有相應日程安排的中立派參議員。他們可以作為一個靈活的團體，既有可能讓某個政黨失去多數地位，又能從核心推動變革（詳見centristproject.org）。

有些措施已經開始得到支持。加州和華盛頓已經實現無黨派初選。最近法院反對黨派式選區劃分的裁決也是個前景光明的開始。人們開始組建支持溫和派獨立候選人的團體。但要重新掌控我們的政治體系，就需要大規模的持續努力，包括重大政治捐助。我們呼吁，從根本上理解競爭重要性的工商界設法幫助美國政界恢復有益的競爭，以促進公眾利益。

唐納德·特朗普利用了人們對美國政府的極度不滿，并且通過具有極端分離主義特色的競選活動成為總統。但如果不是兩黨壟斷的一部分，他就無法獲勝。這個行業的結構并未改變，但它必須發生變化。重鑄民主的時刻已到。我們的競爭力以及全體美國民眾的未來都要依靠它。（財富中文網）

作者：Katherine M.Gehl, Michael E. Porter

譯者：Charlie

凱瑟琳·M·吉爾是Gehl Foods前總裁兼首席執行官，也是一位政治創新積極分子和演說家。邁克爾·E·波特是哈佛商學院教授、競爭和策略專家。他們將在4月份就發表本報告的全文（參見www.hbs.edu/competitiveness）。

原文最初刊登在2017年3月15日出版的《財富》雜志上。

By nearly every measure, America’s political industry is thriving. Campaigns are now seemingly endless and put to work an immense roster of canvassers, pollsters, and staff; top consultants are in high demand; media interest is bottomless; and when it comes to elections, overall spending (a normal proxy for an industry’s success) is near an all-time high.

There’s just one problem. The people who are supposed to benefit from this booming enterprise—the American public—have never been more dissatisfied. The share of Americans who say they have at least a “fair amount of trust in political leaders” hit its nadir last September, according to Gallup. And in February, nearly one-fifth of Americans (19%) said dissatisfaction with government was the single biggest problem the country faced. By contrast, just 9% of those surveyed by Gallup felt “the economy” was America’s most pressing concern.

Why is the political-industrial complex flourishing while its customers are less satisfied than ever? To answer that question, we’ve applied the tools of business analysis to American politics. Our conclusion: U.S. politics is an industry—a duopoly that’s about as anticompetitive as you’re likely to find these days. The result, as a prominent 2014 study by Princeton’s ?Martin Gilens and Northwestern’s Benjamin Page shows, is that the preferences of the average voter have a near-zero impact on public policy.

It wasn’t always that way. America’s political system was long the envy of the world. The system advanced the public interest and gave rise to a grand history of policy innovations. Today, however, it serves as only a barrier to solving nearly every important challenge our nation needs to address.

The Harvard Business School’s project on U.S. competitiveness found that Washington has made virtually no progress on any of the essential policy steps needed to restore prosperity and growth. A broken political system has suddenly become the greatest threat to our nation’s future.

So how did we get here? In part, by stealth. Over the last several decades, the American political system has been slowly reconfigured to serve not the public interest, but rather the interest of private, gain-seeking organizations: our major political parties and their industry allies. These players have put in place a set of rules and practices that, while largely unnoticed by the average citizen, have enhanced their power and diminished our democracy.

Indeed, America’s current political system would be unrecognizable to our founders. Many of its day-to-day components have no basis whatsoever in the Constitution—which offers no mention of political parties, party primaries, caucuses, ballot access rules, segregated congressional cloakrooms, party-determined committee assignments, filibuster rules, and countless other practices that drive today’s dysfunction. John Adams, our second President and one of the most astute thinkers among America’s founders, even warned the upstart nation against slipping into a duopoly, saying, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.”

But that, of course, is precisely how things stand now. And the key to fixing it is to first see our political system as the multibillion-dollar industry it is—a business with significant economic benefits for its participants.

At its center, as we said, is the duopoly: the two major parties. Around them has arisen what we call the political-industrial complex—an interconnected set of entities that participate in and support the industry: special interests, lobbyists, pollsters, consultants, partisan think tanks, super PACs, and, yes, the media too. Virtually all the industry players are connected to one side or the other—the right or the left.

Competition in politics appears intense—?witness the numerous candidates, sky-high spending, and minute-to-minute media coverage. And as any student of economics will tell you, competition is typically good for customers. But not here. That’s because the competition to win elections is on the wrong things. And both elections and governing involve an anticompetitive collusion of interests. Hence, the key customers of this industry—the special interests and donors—are largely protected by power brokers on both sides. Increasingly, political competition is designed not to advance the public interest, but rather to cultivate loyal funding sources and motivate partisan primary voters.

Critical suppliers to the industry, such as campaign consultants, pollsters and data gurus, fundraisers, legislative staff, and many think tanks, are closely aligned with the duopoly. So, too, are our television sets divided in two, with brigades of channels reinforcing each side’s viewpoints.

Independent candidates face huge challenges in securing the funding and professional infrastructure needed for a modern campaign. (Any challenger outside this two-party system would have a hard time even getting on a debate stage.)

And this is where America’s politics seem to break the economic rules: After all, widespread customer dissatisfaction ought to encourage new competition in the marketplace. But in the industry of American politics, there are virtually no upstart entrants. No significant new party has emerged in the U.S. in over a century.

The parties have rigged the electoral process to guarantee division and disincentivize problem solving and progress. Partisan gerrymandering and primaries together are crucial to this structure. A legislator from a gerrymandered district must cater to the partisan primary voters from his or her own party, not answer to the general-election voters, much less to citizens overall or to the public interest. In a party primary in which partisans cast most of the votes, those with moderate views are an endangered species. And a legislator who pursues compromise may be punished by more extreme partisan activists fielding a challenger further to the left or right in the next primary. Moderation has become mere fodder for political attack ads; moderate legislators are a dying breed. There is no more compromise.

The net result is that the duopoly competes to divide citizens, not deliver solutions.

And while the evidence may be strong that this entrenched two-party system has blocked new competitors, artificially restricted and narrowed voter choice, and colluded to set rules that ensure their near-total market share, antitrust regulators aren’t likely to break it up. (Unfortunately, antitrust statutes don’t apply to politics.)

That said, there are good, practical ideas for political reform that will help citizens retake control of their political system. Here, a brief playbook:

Institute nonpartisan primaries. The current primary system shifts campaigns (and governance) toward the extremes. But opening up primaries to all citizens would force all candidates to appeal to a general electorate, rather than just the far left or far right of their party. Under a nonpartisan system, there would be one primary that included all candidates no matter their affiliation. The top two vote-getters—or better yet, the top four—would then advance to the general election.

Institute nonpartisan redistricting. Gerrymandering is the process of drawing legislative district boundaries that create a strong artificial advantage for the party in control. It reduces competitive seats, leads to extreme candidates, and minimizes accountability of elected officials. This has to change.

Don’t let private parties control the House and Senate rules. Partisan control over day-to-day legislating and governance must be significantly reduced. If rules and practices that block compromise and collaboration are eliminated, it will be much easier to have an open, bipartisan discussion about the legislative fixes the country needs.

Reduce barriers to entry for independent candidates. In this rabid partisan atmosphere, it won’t be easy recruiting qualified and talented independent and moderate candidates to run for office. But to encourage this, we must first build an election and financing infrastructure that begins to level the playing field.

Embrace the Senate Fulcrum Strategy. A relatively fast, efficient, and effective way to help break the current political gridlock is to elect three to five centrist independent U.S. senators with a problem-solving mind-set and agenda. They can act as a swing coalition that potentially denies either party a majority and force change from the center (see centristproject.org for details).

Some of these steps are already starting to gain traction. California and Washington have instituted nonpartisan primaries. Recent court rulings against partisan gerrymandering are a promising start as well. And groups are forming to support moderates and independent candidates. But taking back our political system will require a large-scale, sustained effort, including significant political philanthropy. We call on the business community—which understands how fundamentally important competition is—to help restore healthy competition to advance the public interest in American politics.

Donald Trump capitalized on the deep dissatisfaction with Washington to get elected President in a campaign marked by extreme divisiveness. Yet Trump could not have won without being part of the duopoly. The industry structure has not changed, and it needs to. It’s time to restore our democracy. Our competitiveness—and the future of all Americans—depends on it.

A version of this article appears in the March 15, 2017 issue of Fortune.