奧巴馬如何應對繼任者特朗普
There are two obvious literary models for late-period Barack Obama to choose from.
對於處於總統任期最後階段的巴拉克.奧巴馬(Barack Obama)，有兩個明顯的文學人物榜樣可供選擇。
One is Samson Agonistes, the other is Achilles in his tent.
一個是力士參孫(Samson Agonistes)，另一個是退居帳篷裏的阿喀琉斯(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.
第一個人物是約翰.彌爾頓(John Milton)筆下意志消沉的英雄，他在失敗後表現出最後的英勇行爲：推倒整座廟宇，與腓力斯人同歸於盡。
The other, from Homer, is the great sulker who — pride bruised — retreats to his tent and sits out the game.
另一個人物出自荷馬(Homer)筆下，他在自尊心受損後賭氣退居帳篷、遠離紛爭。
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.
後者，至少在開始時，是希拉里.克林頓(Hillary Clinton)採取的路線，直到大選結果出來數小時後，她才公開承認敗選。
President Obama has taken neither.
奧巴馬總統兩條路都沒選。
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.
相反，他大度地（即便也是艱難地）對那個他曾在不久前說過不合適擔任總統的人表示支持。
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.
大選後二人會面時，奧巴馬無奈而順從地對唐納德.特朗普(Donald Trump)表態道：當選總統先生，現在我們希望不遺餘力地幫助你成功——因爲如果你成功了，這個國家就成功了。
That sounds noble.
這聽起來很高尚。
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.
同時，鑑於特朗普也說出大度的話語作爲迴應，並提出不會馬上廢止奧巴馬醫改(Obamacare)，這似乎也能打動直接受衆。
But there is also something in it for Mr Obama.
但這麼做對奧巴馬也有好處。
Presidents as they leave tend to think about their legacies.
美國總統在離任時往往會考慮自己的政治遺產。
In making nice with Mr Trump, Mr Obama looks generous.
向特朗普表達善意使奧巴馬看起來寬宏大量，
He looks statesmanlike.
有政治家風範。
And he gains the chance, perhaps, to influence his impressionable successor to be more so.
同時，他或許有機會讓那位易受影響的繼任者也表現得更像政治家。
Still, that legacy.
但話說回來，那是一份怎樣的政治遺產啊。
It is not the prospective wreck of his legislative programme that is the thing, exactly; or not the whole of it.
問題不只是他的立法議程可能被推翻。
In the election of Mr Trump, Mr Obama has seen the overthrow of something bigger.
特朗普當選總統使奧巴馬看到一些更重要的事情被推翻。
The wind has changed.
風向變了，
The media have changed.
媒體也變了。
His whole rhetorical approach has been repudiated.
他的整個敘述手法被否定。
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.
過去，他對選民的吸引力在於高喊我們是一體的，應該跨越兩黨分歧：我們從來都不僅僅是個體的集合或是紅州與藍州的集合。
We are, and always will be, the United States of America.
我們現在是、也將永遠是美利堅合衆國。
He gives way to a man whose line of attack is about mobilising an in-group against an out-group.
在擔任總統期間，他演變成了一個動員局內人羣體對抗局外人羣體、以此作爲主攻方向的人。
Mr Obama’s ethos appeal was about calmness, optimism and apparent expertise; his opponent was about naked emotion, anger and outsider can-do.
奧巴馬氣質上的吸引力在於冷靜、樂觀和明顯的專業素養；他的對手的吸引力則在於毫不掩飾的情緒、憤怒和局外人敢闖敢拼的精神。
Mr Obama had done his homework so you didn’t have to.
奧巴馬做足了功課，所以你不用做了。
Mr Trump had fed his homework to the dog.
而特朗普把他的作業喂狗了。
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.
即將離任的總統相當直白地向《紐約客》(New Yorker)主編大衛.雷姆尼克(David Remnick)表示：特朗普懂得新的生態系統，在這個系統中，事實和真相不重要。
You attract attention, rouse emotions and then move on.
你吸引關注，煽動情緒，然後翻開新的一頁。
You can surf those emotions.
你可以駕馭那些情緒。
I’ve said it before, but if I watched Fox I wouldn’t vote for me!
就像我之前說過的，如果我看了福克斯(Fox)頻道，我也不會投票給我！
And yet, acknowledging the president-elect’s victory, he did not talk about a new ecosystem, but an old one.
不過，在承認當選總統的勝利時，奧巴馬並未談論新的生態系統，而是在談論一種舊的生態系統。
This could be a version of what philosopher Herbert Marcuse called repressive tolerance.
這可能是哲學家赫伯特.馬爾庫塞(Herbert Marcuse)所說的壓抑性寬容的一種表現。
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.
他煞費苦心地把特朗普的勝利（有點怪異地）框定爲對他對美國看法的認可，而不是對這種看法的否定；把特朗普的勝利定性爲棋盤上的失敗，而非下棋的規則被推翻。
Now, everybody is sad when their side loses an election, he said in his Rose Garden statement on November 9.
每個人都會爲了自己的一方敗選而傷心，11月9日奧巴馬在玫瑰園發表聲明時表示，
But the day after, we have to remember that we’re actually all on one team.
但在選舉後的一天，我們要記住我們實際上是一個團隊的。
This is an intramural scrimmage.
這是一場內部混戰。
We’re not Democrats first.
我們的第一身份不是民主黨，
We’re not Republicans first.
也不是共和黨。
We are Americans first.
我們首先是美國人，
We’re patriots first.
是愛國者。
That is a direct, and perhaps deliberate, echo of his red-state-blue-state line so many years before.
這是對他多年前紅州與藍州說法的直接呼應，可能是刻意這麼說的。
And yet the tone of voice has unmistakably changed.
不過，語氣已經明顯改變。
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.
在祕魯的一個記者會上，奧巴馬的樂觀有些勉強：我不能保證當選總統不會追求他已經表明的一些立場。
But what I can guarantee . . . is that reality will force him to adjust how he approaches many of these issues.
但是我可以保證的是……現實會迫使他調整他處理很多問題的方式。
That’s just the way this office works.
這是身爲總統不得不採取的工作方式。
That — eight years on — is a long way from yes we can.
這與八年前的是的，我們可以相距甚遠。
A third model suggests itself: Oedipus at Colonus.
第三個文學形象浮現出來：在科羅諾斯的俄狄浦斯(Oedipus)。
