奥巴马如何应对继任者？
对于处于总统任期最后阶段的巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)，有两个明显的文学人物榜样可供选择。一个是力士参孙(Samson Agonistes)，另一个是退居帐篷里的阿喀琉斯(Achilles)。
The first, from Milton, is the hero brought low who, in defeat, offers a final act of defiance: he brings the whole temple down, wiping out the Philistines even as he perishes himself. The other, from Homer, is the great sulker who — pride bruised — retreats to his tent and sits out the game.
第一个人物是约翰•弥尔顿(John Milton)笔下意志消沉的英雄，他在失败后表现出最后的英勇行为：推倒整座庙宇，与腓力斯人同归于尽。另一个人物出自荷马(Homer)笔下，他在自尊心受损后赌气退居帐篷、远离纷争。
The latter is, at least at first, the route taken by Hillary Clinton, who did not concede publicly until hours after the election was called. President Obama has taken neither. Rather, he has made a gracious — if laborious — show of offering support to the man he had said, not long before, was not fit to hold office.
后者，至少在开始时，是希拉里•克林顿(Hillary Clinton)采取的路线，直到大选结果出来数小时后，她才公开承认败选。奥巴马总统两条路都没选。相反，他大度地(即便也是艰难地)对那个他曾在不久前说过不合适担任总统的人表示支持。
As he resignedly apostrophised Donald Trump at their post-election meeting: “Mr President-elect [ . . . ] we now are going to want to do everything we can to help you succeed — because if you succeed, then the country succeeds.”
大选后二人会面时，奥巴马无奈而顺从地对唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)表态道：“当选总统先生，现在我们希望不遗余力地帮助你成功——因为如果你成功了，这个国家就成功了。”
That sounds noble. And, with Mr Trump responding with generous noises and offering a stay of execution to Obamacare, it also seems to have worked on its immediate audience. But there is also something in it for Mr Obama. Presidents as they leave tend to think about their legacies. In making nice with Mr Trump, Mr Obama looks generous. He looks statesmanlike. And he gains the chance, perhaps, to influence his impressionable successor to be more so.
这听起来很高尚。同时，鉴于特朗普也说出大度的话语作为回应，并提出不会马上废止奥巴马医改(Obamacare)，这似乎也能打动直接受众。但这么做对奥巴马也有好处。美国总统在离任时往往会考虑自己的政治遗产。向特朗普表达善意使奥巴马看起来宽宏大量，有政治家风范。同时，他或许有机会让那位易受影响的继任者也表现得更像政治家。
Still, that legacy. It is not the prospective wreck of his legislative programme that is the thing, exactly; or not the whole of it. In the election of Mr Trump, Mr Obama has seen the overthrow of something bigger. The wind has changed. The media have changed. His whole rhetorical approach has been repudiated. Here was a man whose appeal to the electorate was to say we’re all one, to reach across the aisle: “We have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America.”
但话说回来，那是一份怎样的政治遗产啊。问题不只是他的立法议程可能被推翻。特朗普当选总统使奥巴马看到一些更重要的事情被推翻。风向变了，媒体也变了。他的整个叙述手法被否定。过去，他对选民的吸引力在于高喊我们是一体的，应该跨越两党分歧：“我们从来都不仅仅是个体的集合或是红州与蓝州的集合。我们现在是、也将永远是美利坚合众国。”
He gives way to a man whose line of attack is about mobilising an in-group against an out-group. Mr Obama’s ethos appeal was about calmness, optimism and apparent expertise; his opponent was about naked emotion, anger and outsider can-do.
在担任总统期间，他演变成了一个动员局内人群体对抗局外人群体、以此作为主攻方向的人。奥巴马气质上的吸引力在于冷静、乐观和明显的专业素养;他的对手的吸引力则在于毫不掩饰的情绪、愤怒和局外人敢闯敢拼的精神。
Mr Obama had done his homework so you didn’t have to. Mr Trump had fed his homework to the dog. The outgoing president put it pretty starkly to the New Yorker’s editor David Remnick: “Trump understands the new ecosystem, in which facts and truth don’t matter. You attract attention, rouse emotions and then move on. You can surf those emotions. I’ve said it before, but if I watched Fox I wouldn’t vote for me!”
奥巴马做足了功课，所以你不用做了。而特朗普把他的作业喂狗了。即将离任的总统相当直白地向《纽约客》(New Yorker)主编大卫•雷姆尼克(David Remnick)表示：“特朗普懂得新的生态系统，在这个系统中，事实和真相不重要。你吸引关注，煽动情绪，然后翻开新的一页。你可以驾驭那些情绪。就像我之前说过的，如果我看了福克斯(Fox)频道，我也不会投票给我!”
And yet, acknowledging the president-elect’s victory, he did not talk about a new ecosystem, but an old one. This could be a version of what philosopher Herbert Marcuse called “repressive tolerance”. He was at pains to frame Mr Trump’s victory not as a reversal of his view of the US, but — oddly — as an endorsement of it, as a defeat on the chessboard rather than a repudiation of the rules of chess.
不过，在承认当选总统的胜利时，奥巴马并未谈论新的生态系统，而是在谈论一种旧的生态系统。这可能是哲学家赫伯特•马尔库塞(Herbert Marcuse)所说的“压抑性宽容”的一种表现。他煞费苦心地把特朗普的胜利(有点怪异地)框定为对他对美国看法的认可，而不是对这种看法的否定;把特朗普的胜利定性为棋盘上的失败，而非下棋的规则被推翻。
“Now, everybody is sad when their side loses an election,” he said in his Rose Garden statement on November 9. “But the day after, we have to remember that we’re actually all on one team. This is an intramural scrimmage. We’re not Democrats first. We’re not Republicans first. We are Americans first. We’re patriots first.” That is a direct, and perhaps deliberate, echo of his red-state-blue-state line so many years before.
“每个人都会为了自己的一方败选而伤心，”11月9日奥巴马在玫瑰园发表声明时表示，“但在选举后的一天，我们要记住我们实际上是一个团队的。这是一场内部混战。我们的第一身份不是民主党，也不是共和党。我们首先是美国人，是爱国者。”这是对他多年前红州与蓝州说法的直接呼应，可能是刻意这么说的。
And yet the tone of voice has unmistakably changed.
不过，语气已经明显改变。
In a press conference in Peru, his optimism went only so far as to say: “I can’t guarantee that the president-elect won’t pursue some of the positions that he’s taken. But what I can guarantee . . . is that reality will force him to adjust how he approaches many of these issues. That’s just the way this office works.”
在秘鲁的一个记者会上，奥巴马的乐观有些勉强：“我不能保证当选总统不会追求他已经表明的一些立场。但是我可以保证的是……现实会迫使他调整他处理很多问题的方式。这是身为总统不得不采取的工作方式。”
That — eight years on — is a long way from “yes we can”. A third model suggests itself: Oedipus at Colonus.
这与八年前的“是的，我们可以”相距甚远。第三个文学形象浮现出来：在科罗诺斯的俄狄浦斯(Oedipus)。
