Kurt Andersen 谈美国政治分裂：身份、代际与市场为何走到一起

这期《The Reason Interview》不是一场预测美国会不会立刻爆发内战的访谈。主持人 Nick Gillespie 和文化评论家 Kurt Andersen 借 Andersen 的新小说 The Breakup，追问一个更贴近日常的问题：当身份、阶层、代际和政治立场渗进家庭关系、工作、消费与媒体之后，美国还剩下多少可以共同生活的「正常」空间？节目最值得听的地方，在于它把政治分裂拆成三条彼此牵连、却不能混为一谈的线：身份政治让每件事都变成表态，经济分配让年轻人觉得向上流动的路变窄，老一代又同时占据更多财富和政治权力。两人还从 Spy 杂志谈到 Donald Trump，从 Milton Friedman 谈到自由主义的边界，最后把问题留给听众：如果人们各自住进自己的现实，重新达成妥协要靠什么？

这期更像一场由小说进入现实的长访谈，而不是一篇按数据和政策逐项论证的政治分析。读者如果想听的是「美国下一次选举会怎样」，节目提供的直接答案有限；如果想知道美国人为什么越来越难把分歧留在政治领域，它提供了不少可供追问的具体场景。

Andersen 的履历把几种通常分开的视角接在了一起。他既做过新闻，也写小说和非虚构作品；他曾在 The New Yorker 和 Time 工作，主持过获得 Peabody Award 的公共广播节目 Studio 360，还与 Graydon Carter 共同创办了 Spy。他在个人网站上把 Evil Geniuses、Fantasyland 和 2026 年出版的第五部小说 The Breakup 列为近年的主要作品。2

这些经历与本期谈话的关系很直接。Andersen 关心的不是抽象的党派得失，而是一个时代怎样通过杂志、电视、小说、广告和日常语言改变人们对现实的感觉。Spy 让他观察纽约富裕阶层与 Donald Trump 多年；Fantasyland 试图解释美国社会如何把幻想、事实和自我叙事混在一起；Evil Geniuses 则把注意力放到 1980 年代之后的经济制度与财富分配。节目把这三条线重新接上：文化如何制造政治人物，经济如何制造怨气，政治又如何把怨气变成身份。

小说的故事发生在 2045 年。美国经历了一场相对短暂、但实际具有内战性质的暴力冲突；故事开始时，夫妻 Asher Zimbalist 和 Natalie Frederick Zimbalist 已经分居，他们还要和孩子一起面对一个重新划分边界的国家。Reason 对小说的介绍也把它概括为一段婚姻和一个国家同时出现裂缝的故事。1

这套设定的关键不在于预测美国真的会按小说的方式分裂。Andersen 反复把它称作一种 thought experiment：把一个可能的未来摆到桌面上，让读者观察人如何在其中生活，再自行判断哪些环节可信、哪些环节不可信。他说，自己在 2022 年底开始写作时，这个设想还显得相当牵强；随着生成式 AI 出现、Donald Trump 再次当选，以及第二届 Trump 政府到来，这个设想在他看来变得「更不那么牵强」。

这里有一条重要的边界：小说让政治分裂变得可感，却不能证明内战即将发生。它真正提供的是尺度变化。新闻里的「极化」通常是一张选举地图、一个民调数字或一场国会争论；小说把它放进一对夫妻的谈话、孩子的身份和一趟大学参观之旅里。国家的边界变化，因而和家庭关系里的旧裂缝同时出现。

小说中的 Natalie 并不是一个可以用单一标签概括的人。节目把她描述成比丈夫更保守，却又对许多保守派政治不耐烦；她想摆脱政治，不希望所有事情都变成阵营测试。她和 Asher 都有作者自己的部分，但没有一个角色是 Andersen 的完整化身。

两人讨论了一个看似矛盾的变化：美国在 1990 年代曾经更习惯把种族、性别、性取向等身份放在一个连续的光谱上理解；现在，公共争论却经常重新变成「你是这一边，还是那一边」。Andersen 对这种二元化尤其警惕。一个人可能在大多数生活问题上是「非二元」的，愿意接受混合答案，但在政治讨论中却被要求选择一个完整阵营。

这也是节目里「politicization of everyday life」的含义：政治化不是人们开始关心公共问题这么简单，而是越来越多普通选择都被当作政治身份的证据。一个人支持什么学校、使用什么产品、怎样谈性别或移民，都可能被迅速放进阵营分类。分类越快，讨论越省力；代价是人们很难再承认一个人同时拥有互相拉扯的看法。

Andersen 没有把这种变化全部归咎于某一党。他认为左右两边都有自己的身份政治，只是表达方式不同。节目没有把这个判断做成一条可检验的统计结论，因此更适合把它当成文化评论家的观察：它帮助解释小说人物为什么拒绝成为政治口号，却不能替代对具体群体、政策和选举行为的研究。

谈到 Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America 时，Andersen 解释了自己为什么从一个「过得不错的婴儿潮一代自由派」转向接受左翼经济民粹主义。他的转变不是因为个人突然陷入贫困，而是因为回头看 1980 年以来的政治经济结构、法规和劳动制度后，他觉得美国的经济流动性明显变差。

他在节目中把战后到 1970 年代中期的美国描述为一个工资差距相对收窄、各个收入层都普遍改善的时期；随后，底部约 60% 家庭的收入中位数趋于停滞，而最上面的 1%、10% 和 20% 继续得到更多收益。这里的数字和时期是访谈里的概括，不是一份独立统计报告；但它说明 Andersen 关注的不是某一项福利政策，而是「努力工作能否让下一代过得更好」这条预期是否还成立。

主持人把这种经济民粹主义分成左右两种版本来追问。右侧版本可能把工资停滞归因于移民，或把关税当作保护美国工人的工具；左侧版本曾经也反对 NAFTA 和不受约束的移民。Andersen 的回答是，经济民粹主义本身可以跨越左右，真正需要区分的是它是否进一步附着在种族排斥、民族主义或其他身份叙事上。

这段讨论给读者一个实用的拆分方法：听到「民粹」时，先分开三个问题——谁觉得自己被经济系统抛下了，谁被指认为原因，提出的解决方案究竟是改变分配规则，还是把某个群体排除出去。三个问题混在一起，左右标签就会遮住具体的因果链。

节目后半段把经济分配和年龄结构接在一起。Andersen 认为，婴儿潮一代不仅拥有更多住房和积累下来的财富，也在政治系统中维持了很长时间的影响力。年轻人承担税收、教育、医疗和住房成本，却未必相信自己能得到上一代曾经得到的流动机会，这会把经济不满转化为代际怨气。

这里仍然需要把节目观点和外部结论分开。访谈提供的是一套解释框架，不是一项人口统计研究。Andersen 也没有说每个婴儿潮一代都应该为年轻人的处境负责；他把矛头更多指向长期掌权、拒绝退出的政治精英，以及使资产收益远远跑赢劳动收入的制度安排。

这也解释了为什么他会同时批评市场和维护一部分个人自由。对他来说，个人层面的 civil libertarianism——例如让成年人决定自己的生活方式——与 economic libertarianism——让拥有巨大资源的公司尽量少受约束——不是同一件事。一个人可以支持前者，却认为后者在财富和权力高度集中的情况下会让市场规则被强者改写。

Andersen 回忆自己 1972 年进入 Harvard 后，几乎把生活都放在 Harvard Lampoon。他在那里接触到 Jim Downey、David Letterman 和 Ian Frazier 等后来在美国喜剧与写作领域有影响力的人。对他来说，加入 Lampoon 更像是发现了自己的部落，而不是获得一门职业训练。

他所处的 1970 年代，很多旧制度和政治图腾正在失去权威。Lampoon 可以同时嘲讽嬉皮士、Richard Nixon、Spiro Agnew 和其他文化符号，因为它并不服务于一个固定的政治阵营。Andersen 把这种「360 度都有靶子」的讽刺，视为自己后来做文化评论的重要训练。

他还谈到 MAD 杂志对自己的影响。MAD 用儿童也能读懂的方式嘲笑成人世界，却又在页面折叠、边角文字和无对白的 Spy vs. Spy 中做了很聪明的形式实验。Andersen 和 Graydon Carter 创办 Spy 时，把这种形式上的玩心和新闻调查结合起来：杂志既要让权贵难堪，也要做事实核查、法律审查和真正的报道。

这段文化史对理解 Trump 很重要。Andersen 认为 Spy 很早就看出 Trump 对注意力的渴望，但杂志不是只靠造一个笑话来攻击他。它一方面用「short-fingered vulgarian」这样的绰号制造讽刺效果，另一方面也把 Trump 的商业和社交形象当作新闻对象。节目因此提出一个耐人寻味的反讽：Spy 帮 Trump 变得更有名，同时也比许多媒体更早看见了他的表演性。

Andersen 给出的解释不是「Trump 说服了 45% 的美国人」，而是几股力量在同一时间碰到了一起。

第一股力量是经济上的失望。他认为，去工业化、财富分配恶化和向上流动受阻，让许多美国人相信自己的孩子没有更好的路。Trump 在 2016 年竞选时承诺把工厂带回印第安纳、改善医疗保障，使用的是经济民粹语言。Andersen 甚至说，如果只听 Trump 竞选末期的两分钟广告，除去其中对非法移民的攻击，它在语气上可能接近 Bernie Sanders。

第二股力量是 Trump 已经拥有足够大的文化知名度。他通过 The Apprentice 扮演成功商人，而不必再让选民仔细区分「扮演成功」与「真实经营能力」。电视真人秀把现实与表演、事实与虚构的边界弄得更模糊；Andersen 在 Fantasyland 中一直在研究这种美国文化倾向。

第三股力量是 Trump 善于把自己变成一种人格化的答案。他是 P. T. Barnum、Buffalo Bill 等美国表演传统的后继者，也是反知识分子、反精英和反建制情绪的化身。这里的「吸引力」不等于他的承诺兑现，也不等于支持者的动机都相同；节目只是解释为什么一个长期被嘲笑、又持续制造争议的人，仍然可以在美国政治中保持中心位置。

主持人问 Trump 主义会不会随 Trump 一起结束。Andersen 没有给出肯定答案。他认为 Trump 是一个很难复制的历史人物，但他代表的反精英、反知识和「我有自己的现实」的文化冲动，早在他之前就存在，也未必会随他离开。

他更明确的判断是：美国可能回不到过去那种被称为「normal」的政治。原因包括数字媒体让人们更容易生活在自己的信息泡泡里，也包括两党都变得难以代表完整的经济利益。一个人可以在文化议题上保守，在生活方式上自由，在经济议题上支持福利；但二元化的政治系统会把这些组合压扁成一张党派标签。

小说的作用正在这里。它没有给出「如何修复美国」的政策清单，而是让读者看到，在一个国家真的分裂之后，人们依旧要处理婚姻、孩子、大学、住房和工作。Andersen 认为，人会逐渐从灾难中恢复，过去会退到背景；但留下的问题是，什么能在灾难之前打破政治狂热，让人们重新接受分歧而不把对方当成敌人。

节目最后谈到 Andersen 在 Evil Geniuses 中对 Milton Friedman 的批评。Andersen 承认 Friedman 支持结束征兵、放宽毒品禁令、自由贸易和教育选择等主张，这些主张与他在个人生活层面的自由主义并不冲突。

他的批评集中在 Friedman 那句著名的公司社会责任命题：企业的责任是增加股东价值。Andersen 认为，这个说法给企业管理者发出了「可以完全自利」的绿灯；当财富、公司规模和政治影响力同时扩大时，企业就可能推动修改法律、削弱约束，再用新的规则保护自己的财富。

Nick Gillespie 则从 Reason 的传统出发反问：小政府和对个人自由的保护，是否仍然是自由意志主义的核心。两人的分歧不在于要不要让个人拥有选择权，而在于当一个价值数万亿美元的公司拥有改变法律的能力时，减少政府约束是否还等于扩大自由。

Andersen 给出的答案接近一种制度性区分：个人生活上的自由，他几乎完全支持；巨型公司借助财富改写制度的自由，他不接受。这一段争论的价值，不是替读者判定 Friedman 对错，而是提醒读者不要把「反政府」和「反权力集中」当成同一个立场。

如果你想快速知道小说 The Breakup 在写什么，节目开头的十分钟已经给出完整入口：2045 年、经历过内战的美国、一对关系破裂的夫妻，以及身份政治和生成式 AI 共同改变生活的未来。

如果你关心 Trump 为什么能长期占据美国政治中心，30 到 45 分钟是本期最密集的部分。Andersen 把 Spy 的新闻讽刺、真人秀文化、经济不安全感和美国的反精英传统连在一起；这些解释彼此相容，却不能被压缩成「选民被媒体骗了」这样单一的结论。

如果你更关心年轻人的处境，50 分钟以后关于 Friedman、工资分配、医疗、教育和住房的争论更值得听。它没有提供一组新的统计数据，却把一个常被拆成左右标签的问题重新摆在一起：年轻人面对的究竟是市场竞争本身，还是由财富集中、政治影响力和生活成本共同造成的失衡。

这期节目留下的核心判断可以压缩成一句话：美国的政治分裂不是先出现在选举地图上，而是先出现在人们对现实的不同理解里；当身份、财富和代际权力又同时加进来，分歧就很难只停留在政策意见上。节目没有证明美国必然走向分裂，也没有证明市场或某一代人单独造成了今天的困局。它提供的是一张问题地图，读者可以据此决定是否值得花完整一小时听完原访谈。

以下为本期约 59 分钟官方音频的完整自动转录。英文原文保留自动识别中的重复、口语停顿、误识别和夹杂片段；每个原文段落后紧跟中文翻译。由于音频中的短句切换无法稳定对应姓名，逐字稿采用「讲话人 A / 讲话人 B」中性标签，避免把问题或观点错归给 Nick Gillespie 或 Kurt Andersen；这不影响正文对节目观点的概括。时间轴按约每 10 分钟设置一次。原始节目页与音频入口见本页上方的节目链接。1

This is The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie. My guest today is the essayist, novelist, radio auteur, co-founder of Spy Magazine, and most recently a novelist for the umpteenth time, Kurt Andersen. His new book is The Breakup. We're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about the long and important legacy of Spy Magazine, and we're going to talk about whether or not the last 40 or 50 years of America have just been kind of terrible. So we'll talk about all that. Kurt Andersen, thanks for coming on the Reason Interview. My total pleasure. Let's talk about The Breakup first. It's a novel. It is a—I will show it again. It's a big book in every possible way, including—I was trying to figure out what is the adjective for Das Passos-ian. Is it like—it's like a John Das Passos novel. I'll take it. It's got a lot of different perspectives. Dickens! How about Dickens? Mark A. Dickens hated America. I think you love America. Trevor Burrus He wrote big books though. Mark A. Yes, that's true. So give me the capsule summary of The Breakup. The capsule summary is, it is set in 2045, seven years after a relatively brief, effectively civil war has taken place in the United States, a kind of terrorist uprising by the disgruntled far right after the Democrats have their big comeback in the 30s, early 2030s. It's about a couple, Asher Zimbalist and Natalie Frederick Zimbalist, and their kid and their family, having lived through that. And having lived through that, she's a writer. He's a kind of big deal, glammy academic, effectively. And for the last... The year before the war starts, they moved to rural Tennessee because he got a big job at Vanderbilt University. The Harvard of the South. The Harvard of the South, indeed. And she's more conservative than he. And they're separated recently as the book begins. And it's funny. I mean, that's the capsule summary. I mean, it's automatically described by the algorithms in, say, Amazon as dystopian, sometimes dystopian satire. I'll take dystopian satire, but I don't really think of it as dystopian because I didn't start out saying, oh, it's going to be hopeful. But I feel as though it ends not full of despair and hopeless because, I don't know, we've got enough of that in real life right now. Well, and it's also one thing that I think is great about it is, you know, so Asher, the male character is he's Jewish from Southern California and then he's in the Bay Area and he's working for a kind of Elon Musk or Silicon Valley excrescence of, you know, weird forward looking research, including doing AI with dolphins and sea tortoises and things like that. Prairie dolphins. Nick Gillespie 与嘉宾 Kurt Andersen 讨论美国政治极化、身份政治极化、身份政治极化、身份政治极化、身份政治极化、身份政治极化、身份政治极化、身份政治极化、身份政治极化、身份政治极化、身份政治极化、身份政治极化、身份政治极化、身份政治极化、身份政治极化﹑ She never says this, but she's a moderate Democrat effectively who doesn't like abortion and makes fun of wokeism and socialism.

这是尼克·吉莱斯皮 (Nick Gillespie) 的《The Reason》采访。今天我的客人是散文家、小说家、广播剧作者、《间谍》杂志的联合创始人，以及最近无数次成为小说家的库尔特·安德森。他的新书是《分手》。我们要讨论这个。我们将讨论《间谍》杂志长期而重要的遗产，我们将讨论美国过去 40 或 50 年是否有点糟糕。所以我们会讨论所有这些。 Kurt Andersen，感谢您接受 Reason 采访。我非常高兴。我们先来谈谈《分手》。这是一本小说。这是——我会再次展示它。从各方面来看，这都是一本大书，包括——我试图找出 Das Passos-ian 的形容词是什么。是不是就像约翰·达斯·帕索斯的小说一样？我要买它。它有很多不同的观点。狄更斯！狄更斯呢？马克·A·狄更斯讨厌美国。我想你爱美国。特雷弗·伯勒斯（Trevor Burrus）不过他写了很多书。马克 A：是的，确实如此。请给我《分手》的简要摘要。故事梗概是，故事背景设定在 2045 年，即美国发生一场相对短暂、有效的内战七年后，这场内战是民主党在 20 世纪 30 年代、2030 年代初卷土重来后，由心怀不满的极右翼人士发动的恐怖起义。这是关于一对夫妇，阿舍·津巴利斯特（Asher Zimbalist）和娜塔莉·弗雷德里克·津巴利斯特（Natalie Frederick Zimbalist），以及他们的孩子和家人的经历。经历过这些之后，她成为了一名作家。实际上，他是一位大人物、迷人的学者。最后......战争开始前一年，他们搬到田纳西州农村，因为他在范德比尔特大学找到了一份好工作。南方的哈佛。确实是南方的哈佛。而且她比他更保守。随着本书的开始，他们最近分开了。这很有趣。我的意思是，这就是胶囊摘要。我的意思是，它被亚马逊等公司的算法自动描述为反乌托邦，有时是反乌托邦讽刺。我会选择反乌托邦讽刺，但我并不真的认为它是反乌托邦，因为我一开始并没有说，哦，这将会充满希望。但我觉得它的结局并不充满绝望和绝望，因为我不知道，我们现在在现实生活中已经受够了。嗯，我认为它很棒的一件事是，你知道，所以亚瑟，男主角是来自南加州的犹太人，然后他在湾区，他正在为埃隆·马斯克或硅谷的一种多余的东西工作，你知道，奇怪的前瞻性研究，包括用海豚和海龟做人工智能等等。草原海豚。 Nick Gillespie 与参与者 Kurt Andersen 讨论美国政治大西洋、身份政治大西洋、身份政治东南亚、身份政治大西洋、身份政治大西洋、身份政治大西洋、身份政治大西洋、身份政治大西洋、身份政治大西洋、身份政治大西洋、身份政治大西洋、身份政治大西洋、身份政治大西洋、身份政治大西洋、身份政治大西洋﹑身份政治大西洋﹑身份政治大西洋﹑身份政治大西洋﹑身份政治大西洋﹑身份政治大西洋﹑身份政治大西洋﹑身份政治正统﹑身份政治正统﹑身份政治正统﹑身份政治正统﹑身份政治正统﹑身份政治正统﹑身份政治正统﹑身份政治正统﹑身份政治正统﹑身份政治正统等。

Yeah, that's kind of sick of identity politics. Sick of everything being politicized. Yeah. Is that—I mean obviously it's wrong to ask if you identify with one character more or the other, but—

是的，这有点厌倦了身份政治。厌倦了一切都被政治化。是的。那是不是——我的意思是问你是否更认同一个角色显然是错误的，但是——

Bits of each. Bits of each. They both say things that I think and both think things that I think. Somebody was just asking me, who read the book, about a specific line that was hers, and I said, oh yeah, that's me. So it's interesting. Neither of them are purely me. But, you know, when she makes, for instance, an argument about, she's basically pro-choice, or at least she's not, you know. 但她是反性婚,即使她并没有任何方式来说。 但她不像你应该做的,如果你是一个全面的左派人,她承认它是 morally problematic. 而且它越来越 morally problematic 每天你生病。 例如。 Yeah. And they have two kids, right? They do. And then the one, the younger daughter is kind—is she actually non-binary or she just is kind of ambiguous in a way that kids aren't? A kid. And it's, you know, it's 19 years from now, so I try to imagine how the notion of, you know— Non-binariness and what 17-year-olds feel and everything about their sexuality might have changed by that and how the politics of it might have changed. And so, again, I don't want to give away what she is in that sense, but the mother, for instance, Natalie has a hard time using they to describe her in the second person. I was kind of disappointed that it's in the future, but they're going on a college tour with their kids.

各有一点点。各有一点点。他们都说我所想的事，也都想我所想的事。有人只是问读过这本书的我，关于她的特定台词，我说，哦，是的，那就是我。所以这很有趣。他们都不是纯粹的我。但是，你知道，当她提出争论时，她基本上是支持堕胎的，或者至少她不是，你知道。 但她是反性婚姻，即使她没有任何方式说。但她不是你应该做的，如果你是一个全面的左派人，她承认这是道德上有问题的。 而且它在道德上越来越有问题，你每天都会生病。 例如。 是的。他们有两个孩子，对吧？他们确实这么做了。然后，小女儿很善良——她实际上是非二元性别还是她只是有点像孩子那样模棱两可？一个孩子。距离现在已经是 19 年后的事了，所以我试着想象，非二元性的概念、17 岁年轻人的感受以及他们性行为的一切可能会因此而发生怎样的变化，以及它的政治可能会发生怎样的变化。所以，再一次，我不想透露她在这个意义上的身份，但是母亲，例如娜塔莉，很难用它们以第二人称来描述她。我对这是未来感到有点失望，但他们要和孩子们一起去大学旅行。

Disappointed? I keep hoping that college will eventually disappear. I mean, colleges have only been around for a few hundred years, right? Like, they could disappear.

失望的？我一直希望大学最终会消失。我的意思是，大学才存在了几百年，对吧？就像，他们可能会消失。

The ones they go to will still be there. Yeah. Yeah. And no, and part of it was like this old-fashioned 20th century thing of the family college tour. I just love the idea.

他们去的那些人仍然会在那里。是的。是的。不，其中一部分就像二十世纪老式的家庭大学之旅。我就是喜欢这个主意。

Plus, it allows the reader to look around the whole eastern United States. And it's, I mean, what's interesting is you talk, so this happens after a civil war, a brief violent war. 但在共产党的战争中,这将分开国家进行不同的部分,并不是完全的分析。 没有。如果我们认为我们看到了这种疯狂的事,这将非常正确。 谈谈这个,因为你知道,我说的,是结婚的分裂, 被描述,然后它显然被围绕在一个种类的政治的 Breakup. And, you know, it seems to me that that kind of modern discourse really kicked into gear around 2004. That was when, you know, when John Kerry lost to George W. Bush in his re-election. And that's the first time I heard people really talk about a national divorce. Really? Yes, it's earlier than I heard it.

另外，它还可以让读者环顾整个美国东部。我的意思是，有趣的是你所说的，所以这发生在内战之后，一场短暂的暴力战争。 但在共产党的战争中，这将分开的国家进行不同的部分，不是完全的分析。没有。如果我们认为看到了这种疯狂的事情，这将非常正确。谈谈这个，因为你知道，我说的是，婚姻的分裂，被描述，然后显然它是围绕着一种政治的分手。而且，你知道，在我看来，这种现代话语真正在 2004 年左右开始启动。你知道，就在那时，约翰·克里 (John Kerry) 在连任中输给了乔治·W·布什 (George W. Bush)。这是我第一次听到人们真正谈论全国离婚。真的吗？是的，比我听到的还要早。

Okay. Yeah. And you know, well, yeah. But it was the idea like, oh, you know, if you look at maps, like the blue areas and the red areas should just go their separate ways. What do you think of that? I mean, is that is that just kind of fantastic? I mean, it's it's it makes for good fiction. But is that just a fantastical idea? Or, you know, is that something we might seriously consider? I think it was more when I first started thinking about this book as a work of fiction. I had first thought because I just published two big nonfiction books. And they did well. So maybe I should write another one. But then I said, no, this is a novel because it's about the future. You want to disappoint your audience. No, no, I want to, like all the good singers, they don't just do the same thing all the time. No, I, you know, this is my fifth novel, not my eighteenth. And so I thought, no, with fiction is the way to do this. And because you focus on people and individuals and how they live through this. Right. So, I don't think, no, fantastical I would not think. Inevitable? No, not that either. But when I started writing it in the end of 2022, I guess, I think that's right. I lose track. It seemed fairly far-fetched, but a good... In beyond the story, a thought experiment about this idea. And certainly with both the launch of ChatGPT and generative AI, I guess we no longer call it like a month after I started writing, and then Donald Trump's reelection a year and a half after I started writing, I thought, and now today with this second Donald Trump administration, it seems much less far-fetched to me. So if I had to assign a percentage as, The CIA assigns percentages of possibility, for instance. It would be definitely higher. And might it be the way that this, you know, I hope not that it's the way this ends, but I find it, as the last year and a half have passed, and as I've thought about it as hard and thoroughly as I have as I was writing this book, I've come to think like it's not at all. It's a plausible, possible way we might end up. And by the way, fantastical, Donald Trump's year and a half in office are fantastic. It's a fantastical thing. I mean, ask us 10 years ago, either of us. I don't know. I know what I would say. You could have asked me on November 5th, you know, 2016 or whenever the day before the election. I wouldn't have guessed that he would win. I, like my character Natalie, as the 24 election was about to come out, just thought the democratic discussions of the threat to democracy was hyperbole. Okay, fine. I thought, not her. Go with it. If that wins the election, sure. But like this didn't jump the shark. It jumped past what I thought was— Mark A. Yeah. What just to linger on, you know, kind of real politics, how you know, Trump is one thing, and we'll talk more about him in Spy magazine, really. You know, in a way, you guys helped make him a star, right? Because he was he was like a supervillain of peace. But how how did it feel? Because I'm assuming you're a pretty loyal Democratic Party voter. I never thought of myself as a Democratic, or a Democratic Party voter until the last 10 years. Okay, but then how, I mean, how did it feel when, you know, during that debate in June of 2024, when, you know, you realize like Biden is like, there is something wrong with him. And then it's like you get on that kind of sugar high of like, okay, well, you know, Kamala is going to step in. She has a good convention. We can do this. And it's like, I mean, that's, you know, as bad as Trump is, and there's a lot to talk about that, and we're going to be unpacking that for years to come. The way Biden's presidency ended and that quick move, that's really destabilizing. Well, there's, I mean, as before, and I think we still don't know the extent of COVID's destabilization of so much of The Breakup.

好的。是的。你知道，嗯，是的。但这个想法就像，哦，你知道，如果你看一下地图，蓝色区域和红色区域应该各走各的路。你对此有何看法？我的意思是，这真的很棒吗？我的意思是，正是它造就了优秀的小说。但这只是一个异想天开的想法吗？或者，你知道，这是我们可能认真考虑的事情吗？我想，当我第一次开始将这本书视为一部小说作品时，情况更是如此。我首先这么想是因为我刚刚出版了两本大型非小说类书籍。他们做得很好。所以也许我应该再写一篇。但后来我说，不，这是一本小说，因为它是关于未来的。你想让你的观众失望。不，不，我想像所有优秀的歌手一样，他们不只是一直做同样的事情。不，我，你知道，这是我的第五本小说，不是我的第十八本。所以我想，不，小说才是做到这一点的方法。因为你关注人和个人以及他们如何度过这一切。正确的。所以，我不认为，不，我不认为这是异想天开。不可避免的？不，也不是那样。但是当我在 2022 年底开始写它的时候，我想，我认为这是对的。我迷失了方向。这看起来相当牵强，但一个很好的……在故事之外，关于这个想法的思想实验。当然，随着 ChatGPT 和生成式人工智能的推出，我想我们不再像我开始写作一个月后那样称呼它，然后唐纳德·特朗普在我开始写作一年半后再次当选，我想，而现在唐纳德·特朗普第二届政府，对我来说似乎不再那么牵强了。因此，如果我必须分配一个百分比，例如，中央情报局分配可能性的百分比。肯定会更高。也许这就是这样的方式，你知道，我希望这不是这样结束的方式，但我发现，随着过去一年半的过去，当我在写这本书时认真而彻底地思考这个问题时，我开始认为它根本不是这样。这是我们最终可能的结局的一种合理且可能的方式。顺便说一句，唐纳德·特朗普在任的一年半真是太棒了。这是一件奇妙的事情。我的意思是，问我们 10 年前，我们中的任何一个人。我不知道。我知道我会说什么。你可以在 2016 年 11 月 5 日或者选举前一天的任何时候问我。我没想到他会赢。我和我的角色娜塔莉一样，在 24 日大选即将结束之际，只是认为民主对民主威胁的讨论有些夸张。好吧，好吧。我想，不是她。随它去吧。如果这赢得了选举，当然可以。但这样并没有跳鲨鱼。它跳过了我所想的——马克 A。是的。什么？只是停留，你知道，一种真正的政治，你知道，特朗普是一回事，我们将在《间谍》杂志上更多地谈论他，真的。你知道，在某种程度上，你们帮助他成为了明星，对吧？因为他是——他就像一个和平的超级恶棍。但感觉如何？因为我假设你是一位非常忠实的民主党选民。直到过去十年，我才认为自己是民主党或民主党选民。 好吧，但是我的意思是，在 2024 年 6 月的那场辩论中，当你意识到拜登就像是，他有问题时，感觉如何。然后就好像你陷入了那种甜蜜的状态，就像，好吧，好吧，你知道，卡玛拉会介入。她有一个很好的惯例。我们可以做到这一点。我的意思是，这就像特朗普一样糟糕，而且有很多东西可以谈论，我们将在未来几年内揭开这一点。拜登总统任期的结束方式和如此迅速的举动确实破坏了稳定。嗯，我的意思是，和以前一样，我认为我们仍然不知道新冠疫情对《分手》的破坏程度有多大。

And to the degree they were—I don't want to get too deep into these weeds, but to the degree the Democratic Party was taken over by the groups, the so-called the groups. What do you mean by the groups? Well, what the—as the clients of the world mean by that is the— Lefty, progressive, you know, NGOs like involving immigration law and requiring or at least pressuring successfully, say, the Democratic Party and Democrats institutionally to, if not be about open borders, at least suggest that they aren't strictly against it and indeed that maybe it's, you know,

至于他们的程度——我不想太深入地讨论这些杂草，但民主党被这些团体，即所谓的团体所接管的程度。你说的团体是什么意思？好吧，作为世界客户的意思，左派、进步，你知道，非政府组织喜欢涉及移民法，并要求或至少成功地向民主党和民主党施压，如果不是关于开放边界，至少表明他们并不严格反对它，事实上，也许是，你知道，

you know, Having something too close to open borders to be politically successful back in the early 20s.

你知道，在 20 年代初期，拥有一些离开放边界太近的东西是不可能在政治上取得成功的。

But when they were still—when they were deporting more—when Joe Biden was deporting more people than Donald Trump has managed in this whole— Yeah, yeah. No, and Obama was a big deporter. Deporter in chief. Yeah, right. So, for instance, that—I mean, you know— So, is it really the shift to identity politics and a very far-left economic agenda among the Democratic Party that—

但当他们仍然在驱逐更多人时，当乔·拜登驱逐的人比唐纳德·特朗普在整个事件中驱逐的人还要多时，是的，是的。不，奥巴马是一个大驱逐者。驱逐者总长。是的，对。举例来说，我的意思是，你知道，那么，民主党中的身份政治和极左经济议程真的是这样的转变吗？

Does that worry you as a kind of boomer liberal? I'm a boomer liberal who was doing okay. And as I write in my mea culpa section of my book, Evil Geniuses, never—I thought, oh, yeah, this neoliberal stuff, Clinton, it's all fine with me. It's good. I'm good. And then in this century, not because I was doing poorly, it was just like as I looked at it, as I looked at what had happened, as I started just examining what had happened since 1980, you know, in terms of the structure of the political economy and the regulations and the laws and the— From tiny things like how overtime is treated and the lack of a new minimum wage and all of it. How the system was changed from one that was essentially fair with all economic boats rising from the war through 1980, 75 or 80. and how it changed so radically to decrease economic mobility and median household incomes flattened for the bottom 60% while they went up for the top 1, 10, 20%. All that stuff, I came to see like, whoa, I get economic populism of the left. I get it in a way I hadn't before starting, I don't know, in the early 2000s. So do I think that's a problem? No. Do I think short term tactically, politically that there are nuts, wing nuts, In the left that like are going to be a problem? Sure, of course. Yeah. So, but wokeism and identity politics, you know, everybody has identity politics. That's a whole other more complicated conversation. If I have a hobby horse, culturally, politically, or anything else, it's the binariness of everything else. And I have, like, actually, Natalie, another way she and I share some things is this. It's you're this or you're that. You're this or you're that. Wait, I thought everything was fluid these days. But nope, not in certain ways. And so that's a problem, that either you must have everything regulated or nothing regulated. Right. That's a terrible way to look at that. And it's odd that we seem to be—certainly throughout the 90s, we were moving towards— when we talked about, you know, ethnic and racial and gender and sexual identity, everything was kind of being put on a gradient, and now we're in a world where it's binary choices, even if we're celebrating non-binary— Exactly. Even as—you know, and as she says in many different contexts and ways in the breakup, is, you know, She says, I'm non-binary in practically every way except my gender identity. Right. You know, and, you know, so economic left-wingism per se, which of course when it's polled is popular, you know. It depends.

作为婴儿潮一代的自由派，你是否担心这一点？我是婴儿潮一代的自由主义者，过得还不错。正如我在我的书《邪恶的天才》中的道歉部分所写的那样，我从来没有想过，哦，是的，这些新自由主义的东西，克林顿，我觉得一切都很好。很好。我很好。然后在这个世纪，不是因为我做得不好，就像我看着它，当我看着发生的事情，当我开始审视自 1980 年以来发生的事情，你知道，从政治经济结构、法规、法律和——从微小的事情，比如如何对待加班和缺乏新的最低工资等等。该制度如何从本质上公平地对待从战争中崛起的所有经济船只，直至 1980 年、75 年或 80 年。它如何发生如此彻底的变化，导致经济流动性下降，底层 60% 的家庭收入中位数趋于平缓，而顶层 1、10、20% 的家庭收入中位数则上升。所有这些东西，我开始看到，哇，我得到了左派的经济民粹主义。我以一种我在 2000 年代初开始之前从未有过的方式理解了它，我不知道。那么我认为这有问题吗？不。我认为短期内，从战术上、政治上来说，左派中的坚果、翼坚果等会成为问题吗？当然，当然。是的。所以，唤醒主义和身份政治，你知道，每个人都有身份政治。那是另一个更复杂的对话。如果说我有一个爱好，无论是在文化上、政治上还是其他什么方面，那就是其他一切的二元性。事实上，我和娜塔莉一样，她和我分享一些事情的另一种方式是这样的。你是这个，或者你是那个。你是这个，或者你是那个。等等，我觉得这些天一切都很顺利。但不，在某些方面不是。所以这是一个问题，要么你必须对一切进行监管，要么什么都不监管。正确的。这是一种可怕的看待方式。奇怪的是，我们似乎——当然在整个 90 年代，我们正在走向——当我们谈论民族、种族、性别和性认同时，一切都被置于一个梯度上，而现在我们生活在一个二元选择的世界，即使我们庆祝非二元——正是如此。即使——你知道，正如她在分手时在许多不同的背景和方式中所说的那样，你知道，她说，除了我的性别认同之外，我几乎在所有方面都是非二元的。正确的。你知道，而且，你知道，经济左翼主义本身，当然，当它进行民意调查时，它很受欢迎，你知道。这取决于。

Well, it depends what you mean by left-wingism. Certainly it's interesting that economic populism, both right-wing and left-wing, is popular. And so it's. What is economic populism right wing? Isn't it the same as left wing? I think it – yeah. No, I don't think it's necessarily but it's like we got to keep immigrants out because they are destroying the economy. We have to have tariffs because people are treating Americans – That's not right wing. That's Donald Trump. Oh, but I think that – I mean it's on the right now. That's the populism.

好吧，这取决于你所说的左翼主义是什么意思。当然，有趣的是，经济民粹主义，无论是右翼还是左翼，都很流行。确实如此。什么是经济民粹主义右翼？不是和左翼一样吗？我认为是的。不，我认为这不一定，但我们必须将移民拒之门外，因为他们正在破坏经济。我们必须征收关税，因为人们对待美国人——这不是右翼。那是唐纳德·特朗普。哦，但我认为——我的意思是它现在就在右边。这就是民粹主义。

But the idea that – well, you know, it was actually left – Left Populism before young new leftism came along was also against NAFTA and against immigration. Trevor Burrus Yeah. Wasn't right wingers breaking up Starbucks in Seattle, right?

但是，在年轻的新左派出现之前，左派民粹主义实际上是左翼的，这一想法也反对北美自由贸易协定和移民。特雷弗·伯勒斯 是的。西雅图的星巴克不是被右翼分子拆散了吗？

In the WTO meetings. Nick Gillespie Exactly.

在世贸组织会议上。尼克·吉莱斯皮 没错。

Trevor Burrus Yeah. Nick Gillespie And so economic populism is economic populism. To me there are flavors of the right and left and there is racist anti-immigration thing as opposed to Ronald Reagan, pro-immigration. Trevor Burrus Right. But on identity politics and more, you know, identity politics is a polite way of saying it in a way. I mean, white people, many, many white people feeling threatened by all these non-white people moved in the country. We went from being a, you know, whatever, 85% white country for the first 100, 200 years. The Breakup. I think I just say Nebraska. Okay, Nebraska. And you live in New York City and rural Connecticut. Can you just explain why, like, you know, when you're writing a bio line, you can describe yourself however you want.

特雷弗·伯勒斯 是的。尼克·吉莱斯皮 所以经济民粹主义就是经济民粹主义。对我来说，有右翼和左翼的风格，有种族主义的反移民观点，而不是罗纳德·里根的支持移民观点。特雷弗·伯勒斯 对。但在身份政治等方面，你知道，身份政治在某种程度上是一种礼貌的表达方式。我的意思是，白人，很多很多白人感到受到所有这些移居该国的非白人的威胁。在最初的 100 年、200 年里，我们从一个 85% 的白人国家变成了这样。分手。我想我只是说内布拉斯加州。好的，内布拉斯加州。您住在纽约市和康涅狄格州乡村。你能解释一下为什么，就像，你知道，当你写个人简介时，你可以随心所欲地描述自己。

Why did you choose to, like, focus on your Nebraskanian ideas?

你为什么选择专注于你的内布拉斯加想法？

Nick Gillespie 与嘉宾 Kurt Andersen 讨论美国政治极化、身份政治、经济主义、代际冲突、Milton Friedman，2026 年 8 月 19 日节目 People who grew up in New York City and many people, because I've lived in New York now, you know, 50 years, people think, oh, you must have grown up here years, whatever, member of the elite, blah, blah, blah. And I, and I said, well, no. And so it's in, you know, in my dotage, I think it's become, Nick Gillespie 与嘉宾 Kurt Andersen 讨论美国政治极化、身份政治、经济民粹主义、代际冲突、Milton Friedman，2026 年 8 月 19 日节目 In addition to Nebraska, many people have unhappy childhoods in Nebraska. I did not. I had like a thoroughly happy childhood that I don't even know why I dared to do satire because you're supposed to have a miserable—have had a miserable childhood to do any kind of comedy or humor. So I had a very happy childhood and went to good public schools. And, you know, the child of conservative—I mean, this is telling you more than you need to know, but child of conservative Goldwater Republicans. 而其他人,在其他方式,是公众讨论者和支持者, 保留英文专有名的保守者,选择者。 像是金正恩。

Nick Gillespie 与嘉宾 Kurt Andersen 讨论美国政治东亚、身份政治、经济主义、代际冲突、Milton Friedman，2026 年 8 月 19 日节目 在纽约长大的人和很多人，因为我现在住在纽约，你知道，50 年了，人们认为，哦，你一定是在这里长大的，无论如何，精英成员，等等，等等。我，我说，好吧，不。所以它在，你知道，在我年老时，我认为它已经成为，尼克·吉莱斯皮与参与者库尔特·安德森讨论美国政治最大值、身份政治、经济民粹主义、代际冲突、米尔顿·弗里德曼，2026 年 8 月 19 日节目除了内布拉斯加州之外，许多人在内布拉斯加州都有不快乐的童年。我没有。我有一个非常快乐的童年，我什至不知道为什么我敢于做讽刺，因为你应该有一个悲惨的童年，有一个悲惨的童年来做任何类型的喜剧或幽默。所以我度过了一个非常快乐的童年，并且就读于很好的公立学校。而且，你知道，保守派的孩子——我的意思是，这告诉你的比你需要知道的更多，但保守派戈德华特共和党人的孩子。 而其他人，以其他方式，是公众讨论者和支持者，保留中文母语名的守护者，选择者。 相当于金正恩。

像是…… 像所有这些东西。

就像……就像所有这些东西。

我的母亲,毕竟没有论语,总是称它为 Lincoln's Party, 她是一个成员的。 并不是约翰·林肯·罗兰克威尔,是亚伯罗兰克,对吗? 亚伯罗兰克,对。 人,谁赋予这些人生命。 没有,当我十三、十四岁时,当我第一次发现…… 我不知道,那是…… 当我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲在街上生活时,我和父亲 more you need about Nebraska, but Nebraska, you know, the Midwest at its best is full of straightforward people and, you know, people who don't put on airs and to lesser or greater degrees, sometimes, you know, at least the people, the tall poppy syndrome where nobody can sort of brag or be too good. And that's Scandinavian and upper Midwest. And, you know, it But is there a grudging kind of tolerance or, you know, as long as people aren't getting in your way, you kind of, everybody kind of gets along? Indeed. And I identified, I hear you're a libertarian, Nick. I identified until... You know, not that long ago, I don't know, 20 years ago, even early, like, I thought, oh, Ron Paul has some interesting things to say. Like, much of my life as having libertarian strengths, and I do, and I think that is Midwestern. Yeah, exactly. Okay. You know, if you don't want to wear your helmet when you ride your motorcycle, fine. But, you know, we're not paying for your brain surgery. And so all that, you know, in this sort of, you know. Governor Walz of Minnesota, you know, was, you know, for whatever his demerits, perhaps, as a vice presidential candidate, was exactly that kind of Midwestern, live and let live lefty. Yeah, that was Jesse Ventura, who is now vacationing off planet, I think. Yes, yes.

我的母亲，毕竟没有论语，总是称其为林肯党，她是一个成员。 不是约翰·林肯·罗兰克威尔，是亚伯罗兰克，对吗？ 亚伯罗兰克，对。 人，谁赋予了这些人生命。 有，当我十三、十四岁时，当我第一次发现……我不知道，那是……当我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时。活着时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时。生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时。我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时，我和父亲在街头生活时。你需要更多关于内布拉斯加州的信息，但是内布拉斯加州，你知道，最好的中西部充满了直率的人，你知道，人们不摆架子，或多或少，有时，你知道，至少是人们，没有人可以吹牛或太好的高罂粟综合症。那是斯堪的纳维亚半岛和中西部北部。而且，你知道，它 但是是否有一种勉强的宽容，或者，你知道，只要人们不妨碍你，每个人都相处得很好？的确。我发现，我听说你是一个自由主义者，尼克。我确定直到...你知道，不久前，我不知道，20 年前，甚至很早，就像，我想，哦，罗恩·保罗有一些有趣的事情要说。就像，我生命中的大部分时间都具有自由主义的优势，我确实如此，我认为那是中西部的。是的，完全正确。好的。您知道，如果您骑摩托车时不想戴头盔，那也可以。但是，你知道，我们不会支付你的脑部手术费用。所以，你知道，在这种情况下，你知道。明尼苏达州州长沃尔兹，你知道，无论他有什么缺点，也许，作为副总统候选人，他就是那种中西部人，生活和让生活的左撇子。是的，我想那是杰西·文图拉，他现在正在外星球度假。是的，是的。

Yeah, he was, you know, he talked about how you can't legislate stupidity. But he was a live and let live kind of person. Completely. Completely. Exactly. Let me ask you. So you leave Nebraska though and you go or actually before we leave that kind of element, I mean I think one thing that comes through in the novel is that's why Natalie in particular is just a wonderfully drawn character where she's, you know, she knows that she can't shut up at moments where she should. It's a really rich character that carries a lot of, I don't even say contradiction. She's vast and contains multitudes. She's a real person. Exactly. And there are lots of real people like her. And the thing about her is, I realized as I was inventing her, is like,

是的，你知道，他谈到了如何不能立法愚蠢。但他是一个既活又让人活的人。完全地。完全地。确切地。让我问你。所以你离开内布拉斯加州，你离开或者实际上在我们离开这种元素之前，我的意思是，我认为小说中出现的一件事是，这就是为什么娜塔莉是一个特别被描绘的角色，她，你知道，她知道她不能在她应该闭嘴的时候闭嘴。这是一个非常丰富的角色，承载着很多，我什至不说矛盾。她广阔无边，包容众多。她是一个真实的人。确切地。像她这样真实的人还有很多。关于她的事情是，当我创造她时我意识到，就像，

she just doesn't care that much about politics. Well, that's what I say is the libertarian domain.

她只是不太关心政治。嗯，这就是我所说的自由主义领域。

I actually wrote down where she talks about at some point she wants to escape politics. And I'm like, oh yeah, that's the whole libertarian thing. It's like where you're just kind of getting on with your life. So you leave Nebraska and you go to Harvard where you were on the Harvard Lampoon. You graduated in 76, I think, right? And I read, and I think this was in the Omaha weekly paper or whatever, or a magazine, but you talked about how when you were at Harvard, the Harvard Lampoon was your life there. 请保留英文专有名词和人名的准确拼写。

我实际上写下了她在某些时候谈到她想逃离政治的地方。我想，哦，是的，这就是自由主义的全部内容。就好像你的生活刚刚开始一样。所以你离开内布拉斯加州，去了哈佛，你在那里上过《哈佛讽刺》。我想你是 76 年毕业的吧？我读过，我想这是在奥马哈周报或其他报纸或杂志上，但你谈到了当你在哈佛时，《哈佛讽刺》是你在那里的生活。 请保留英文母语和人名的准确拼写。

But what was it about the Lampoon that energized you so much? In this interview, you said, like, I don't remember classes and things like that because I spent all my time at the Harvard Lampoon. Yeah. It's a good question. I was effectively recruited for it by having met two of the— Subsequently, legendary Lampoon members of that era who were two or three years older than I, Jim Downey, who went on to be perhaps the most important single writer of Saturday Night Live. Right. And David Letterman, too. And David Letterman as well. And Sandy Frazier, Ian Frazier, the New Yorker writer, who's wonderful. Anyway, my sister was visiting me my first week there, and her boyfriend was Sandy Frazier's best friend.

And I hung out with Jim Downey and Sandy Fraser who said, hey, no. Thank you for watching. I didn't grow up religiously. I went to Unitarian Sunday School a little bit. That's how religious I was. And it was like, almost like a coming to... Church. It felt that way. And the process of getting on was, okay, these are my people. This is my tribe. And it wasn't, and I will therefore have a future life in comedy as people, well, as other people from the Lampoon have done, because it didn't happen then. Jim Downey began, was the patient zero of that era. Modern national comedy thing by going to Saturday Night Live and, you know, and then The Simpsons came along, also created mainly by Harvard Lampoon people and so on. It was just, oh, these are my people and this is great. Can you talk about in, you know, in the 70s in particular, kind of like today, it was a period where a lot of institutions and kind of settled motifs were just starting to die. Yes. There was a real reason for young people to be very angry and pissed off at kind of the bullshit that they saw around them. Well, and it's a great question because, you know, I arrived in the fall of 1972. As I said, the draft was done. The war was almost done. The anti-war protests had almost faded away entirely and were soon to be replaced by anti-war. You know, disinvest from South Africa protest. But, and so the hippie movement and the counter, the youth quake and that new rock and roll, sex, drugs and rock and roll counterculture was old hat by then, really. And like, oh, I missed it. My older brother and sister got it, but I missed it. It's just this. And yeah, there's still drugs around and everything. But so therefore, and in no small way, the National Lampoon reflected that is these— Hippies, essentially, most of them, making fun of various countercultural shibboleths and icons and like, oh, that's fun. That's cool. As well as Richard Nixon, as well as Barrow Agnew, as well as all those other things. So the fact that the space for satire and humor and comedy had opened up, you know, and it never closed down because it had never— It had never been in service of just one political side. So that seemed like a good—felt like a good moment to be at the Harvard Law School. But I didn't think of it. I just said, I want to be here. And it was fun for that reason because you could— You had 360 degrees of targets. Precisely. And it's kind of amazing when Elvis died in, what, 78? Something like that. But it's just when you think of it, it's, you know, and Elvis was obviously, was very apolitical, and he was a hero of the boomers, right?

但《讽刺》中的什么让你如此兴奋呢？在这次采访中，你说，我不记得课程之类的事情，因为我把所有的时间都花在了哈佛讽刺报上。是的。这是一个好问题。我之所以被有效招募，是因为我遇到了两位当时的传奇讽刺成员，他们比我年长两三岁，吉姆·唐尼，他后来可能是《周六夜现场》最重要的单身作家。正确的。还有大卫·莱特曼。还有大卫·莱特曼。还有桑迪·弗雷泽（Sandy Frazier）、伊恩·弗雷泽（Ian Frazier），《纽约客》作家，非常棒。不管怎样，我姐姐在那里的第一周就来看望了我，她的男朋友是桑迪·弗雷泽最好的朋友。我和吉姆·唐尼和桑迪·弗雷泽一起出去玩，他们说，嘿，不。感谢您的观看。我从小就没有宗教信仰。我上过一点一神论主日学校。这就是我的宗教信仰。这就像，几乎就像来到……教堂。感觉就是这样。相处的过程就是，好吧，这些都是我的人。这是我的部落。但事实并非如此，因此，我未来将像人们一样，像《讽刺报》中的其他人一样，过着喜剧生活，因为当时并没有发生这种情况。吉姆·唐尼开始说，他是那个时代的零号病人。现代民族喜剧是通过《周六夜现场》以及《辛普森一家》出现的，主要也是由哈佛讽刺人士创作的，等等。只是，哦，这些是我的人，这太棒了。你能谈谈吗，你知道，特别是在 70 年代，有点像今天，那是一个时期，许多机构和某种既定的主题刚刚开始消亡。是的。年轻人对周围看到的胡言乱语感到非常愤怒和恼怒是有真正原因的。嗯，这是一个很好的问题，因为，你知道，我是在 1972 年秋天到达的。正如我所说，选秀已经完成。战争快结束了。反战抗议几乎完全消失，很快就被反战所取代。你知道，从南非抗议活动中撤资。但是，嬉皮士运动和反潮流、青年震动和新摇滚、性、毒品和摇滚反主流文化在那时确实已经过时了。就像，哦，我错过了。我的哥哥和姐姐得到了它，但我错过了。就是这样。是的，周围仍然有毒品和一切。但因此，《国家讽刺》在很大程度上反映了嬉皮士，本质上是他们中的大多数人，他们取笑各种反文化的陈词滥调和偶像，就像，哦，这很有趣。这很酷。还有理查德·尼克松、巴罗·阿格纽，以及所有其他人。事实上，讽刺、幽默和喜剧的空间已经开放，你知道，它从未关闭，因为它从来没有——它从来没有只为某一政治方面服务。所以这似乎是一个很好的机会——感觉是在哈佛法学院的一个好时机。但我没有想到。我只是说，我想来这里。正因为如此，这很有趣，因为你可以——你有 360 度的目标。恰恰。当猫王去世时，什么，78 岁，这有点令人惊讶？类似的事情。 但当你想到这一点时，你知道，猫王显然非常不关心政治，他是婴儿潮一代的英雄，对吧？

I mean, like, in a way. Was he? Well, you know, but then by the mid-70s, he was a parody of himself. Yeah. And he died on the toilet. It's like, this is where...

我的意思是，在某种程度上。他是吗？嗯，你知道，但到了 70 年代中期，他成了自己的模仿者。是的。然后他就死在厕所里了。就好像，这里是...

All of that goes to die. And, you know, and then there's Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. That's something totally different. Yeah. I mean, Elvis, we don't need to digress on Elvis, but that was always, to some degree, I mean, hugely popular. I remember seeing him as literally a three-year-old on Sullivan. After that, I mean, for most of his career, you know, his retrospective brief career, it was a class.

所有这一切都会消亡。而且，你知道，还有理查德·尼克松和斯皮罗·阿格纽。那是完全不同的事情。是的。我的意思是，猫王，我们不需要离题于猫王，但我的意思是，在某种程度上，猫王一直非常受欢迎。我记得在《沙利文》中看到他实际上还是一个三岁的孩子。在那之后，我的意思是，在他职业生涯的大部分时间里，你知道，他回顾性的短暂职业生涯，这是一堂课。

I mean, did college-educated boomers really go for Elvis?

我的意思是，受过大学教育的婴儿潮一代真的喜欢猫王吗？

When they were in college and later, I don't think so. No, for sure not. You have talked about how Mad Magazine was important. 并且并不想将这些词变成完全的,虽然这种词在我对这方面的讨论中总是有点尖锐,因为我对这种词很沉迷, 并且并不想将这些词变成完全的,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这种词沉迷,因为我对这 Mad Magazine was this thing for kids that made fun of the world, of adults, of—it was this comedy for children. I mean, and children broadly construed. I mean, I was reading it at seven probably, but I read it until I was, I don't know, 14 or something, until The National Lampoon came along. Yeah. And it was— It was broad in its satire, but very smart and did really smart things. And then did these abs—had these odd little abstract modernist thing called spy versus spy, which had no words in it. And so it was just really cool.

当他们上大学时和后来，我不这么认为。不，当然不是。您谈到了《Mad》杂志的重要性。 并且并不想将这些词变成完全的，虽然这些词在我对这方面的讨论中总是有点激进，因为我对这个词很沉迷，并不想将这些词变成完全的,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷,因为我对这个词沉迷种词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷，因为我对这个词沉迷。 《疯狂杂志》是一本为孩子们准备的东西，它取笑世界、成年人，这是一部为孩子们准备的喜剧。我的意思是，孩子们的广义解释。我的意思是，我大概七岁的时候就开始读这本书了，但我一直读到我，我不知道，14 岁左右，直到《国家讽刺报》的出现。是的。它的讽刺内容很广泛，但非常聪明，而且做了非常聪明的事情。然后是腹肌——有一些奇怪的、抽象的现代主义小东西，叫做间谍与间谍，里面没有任何文字。所以这真的很酷。

Little marginalia. Oh, all kinds of margin—all kinds of tiny little drawings and sayings and things that you had to turn the page sideways to read. And then brilliant.

小旁注。哦，各种页边空白——各种微小的图画、谚语以及你必须横着书页才能阅读的东西。然后辉煌。

Brilliant thing they started at a certain point, which was the fold-in of the back cover, where if you folded it in three and do an accordion, this gibberish in one picture became something else entirely. And playing with the medium in that way, that, as well as the marginalia, very much influenced Graydon Carter and I as we were starting to play.

他们从某个点开始做了一件很棒的事情，那就是封底的折叠，如果你把它折叠成三部分并做一个手风琴，一张照片中的这些胡言乱语就完全变成了另一回事。以这种方式玩媒体，以及边注，对格雷登·卡特和我在我们开始玩的时候产生了很大的影响。

So Spy magazine started in 1986, right?

那么《间谍》杂志是 1986 年创刊的，对吗？

And it kind of took as its subject area or its subject matter the kind of wealthy elites of New York City. And more than that. And Donald Trump was one of the – you famously refer to him as a short-fingered Bulgarian. And that was, you had tried out a couple of other epithets, but this was the great thing about Spy that they would, Henry Kissinger was the socialite war criminal. Pat Buckley, William F. Buckley's wife was a female impersonator, impersonator. I mean, they were devastating.

它以纽约市的富有精英为主题领域或主题。不仅如此。唐纳德·特朗普就是其中之一——众所周知，你称他为“短指保加利亚人”。也就是说，你已经尝试过其他几个绰号，但这就是间谍的伟大之处，亨利·基辛格是社交名流战犯。帕特·巴克利（Pat Buckley），威廉·巴克利（William F. Buckley）的妻子，是一位女性模仿者、模仿者。我的意思是，它们是毁灭性的。

How did you, how did Trump rise to, you know, your vision first? Yeah. By the way, those epithets, not quite Homeric, but there were those epithets. That we...

你，特朗普是如何首先实现你的愿景的？是的。顺便说一句，这些绰号并不完全是荷马式的，但确实有那些绰号。那我们...

That was something we dug out of old Time magazines, which is where Graydon and I met, working at Time, when they no longer did this. But Time back in the day, in the 30s and 40s— This is when Whitaker Chambers was writing for Time magazine. Yes, but it was like—

这是我们从旧《时代》杂志中挖掘出来的东西，格雷登和我就是在《时代》杂志工作时认识的，当时他们不再这样做了。但时间回到过去，20 世纪 30 年代和 40 年代——当时惠特克·钱伯斯 (Whitaker Chambers) 正在为《时代》杂志撰稿。是的，但那就像——

And the loose speak. Yes, and it was like beady-eyed communist so-and-so. Yeah, yeah. And they would always use that. That always went with them. We thought that was funny. Yeah. So the thing about these epithets was not that we— The Breakup.

而松散的说话。是的，这就像一个眼睛睁得大大的共产主义者。是啊是啊。他们总是会使用它。这总是伴随着他们。我们觉得这很有趣。是的。所以这些绰号的重点并不是我们——分手。

并且并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有 But he came back the next time I saw him, and he said, you know, this guy, he's an asshole, he's a bragger, whatever. But, you know, for a tall guy, you know, he has the littlest fingers I've ever seen. When you shake his hand, it's like my hand, you know— Covered him. So that just—it's not like we then said, oh, well, let's just talk about his short fingers in this magazine we want to start. But when we were coming up with Epithets, finally, you know, we had, you know, various, as you say, several in the first year or two, and then came to Short Fingered Bulgarian. It just—that's how we came up with that. But also, he was in the first issue of Spy. Right. The first issue of Spy, the cover story, was the Ten Most Embarrassing New Yorkers. Jerks was the name. Ten Most Embarrassing New Yorkers. He was one of them. There were little profiles of each of them. And his was, again, holds up. I mean, you know, look, I got the receipt. We were on him. And for the same, you know, The Breakup. A decade passed near bankruptcy and all the rest. And so it was—and Donald Trump was part of the sudden, you know, ostentatious wealth was cool again, having not been cool for a long, long time. It wasn't like Henry Kravis was one of the other—I mean, he was in every issue. No, no, no, no. He wasn't in every issue, which is perhaps why—

并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词，并没有任何的词何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词,并没有任何的词但当我下次见到他时，他回来了，他说，你知道，这个家伙，他是个混蛋，他是个吹牛者，无论如何。但是，你知道，对于一个高个子来说，他的手指是我见过的最小的。当你握他的手时，就像我的手，你知道的——盖住了他。所以，这不像我们当时说的那样，哦，好吧，让我们在我们想要开始的这本杂志中谈论他的短手指。但是当我们想出绰号时，最后，你知道，我们有，你知道，各种各样的，正如你所说，在第一年或两年内有几个，然后来到了短指保加利亚语。这就是我们的想法。而且，他还出现在《间谍》第一期中。正确的。 《间谍》第一期的封面故事是十大最尴尬的纽约人。混蛋就是这个名字。十大最尴尬的纽约人。他就是其中之一。他们每个人的简介都很少。他的观点再次站得住脚。我的意思是，你知道，看，我收到了收据。我们在他身上。同样，你知道，分手。十年过去了，几乎破产了。事情就是这样——唐纳德·特朗普突然之间，你知道，炫耀的财富再次变得很酷，已经很久很久没有这么酷了。亨利·克拉维斯并不是其中之一——我的意思是，每一期都有他的身影。不，不，不，不。他并不是每一期都参与其中，这也许就是为什么——

And I don't even know if people remember who he is exactly. But like, you know, we live in a world now of billionaire, you know, figures who wander in and out of everyday life because of social media. Like a Bill Ackman type would be all over Spy. Oh, my God. Bill Ackman. But these were—a lot of times these were people who were never really mentioned in magazines unless it was Town & Country or Architectural Digest. Or just a serious business story in the New York Times. Yeah. And so no, and so there were, yes, there was a new Wall Street with newly rich people in the financial industry.

我什至不知道人们是否记得他到底是谁。但是，你知道，我们现在生活在一个亿万富翁的世界，你知道，这些人因为社交媒体而在日常生活中徘徊。就像《间谍》里到处都是比尔·阿克曼类型的人一样。我的天啊。比尔·阿克曼.但这些人——很多时候这些人从来没有在杂志上真正被提及过，除非是《城镇与乡村》或《建筑文摘》。或者只是《纽约时报》上的一个严肃的商业故事。是的。所以不，所以，是的，出现了一条新的华尔街，那里有金融业的新富人。

The financial industry had changed a lot as well as becoming very prosperous for New York City. And no, and we did cover, Those people a lot. But Donald Trump was just such a natural. I mean just – and of course we know now. I know we knew – we realized pretty early what a – just a crazy thirst for attention of any kind he had. And so, you know, and we gave it to him. But we gave it to him uniquely other than Wayne Barrett and the Village Voice. Yeah. Exposing him. It wasn't just making fun of him. The thing people don't remember about Spy necessarily, or if they don't know it, unlike Mad Magazine, it was a magazine of journalism. Yeah. And so it was a hybrid of journalism and satire. Yeah. Mockery and facts. And we spent a lot of time and money on fact-checking and lawyering and all that. Well, and you had that fantastic expose of Bohemian Grove.

纽约市的金融业发生了很大变化，也变得非常繁荣。不，我们确实报道了很多这样的人。但唐纳德·特朗普就是这么自然。我的意思是——当然我们现在知道了。我知道我们知道——我们很早就意识到——他对任何形式的关注都有着疯狂的渴望。所以，你知道，我们把它给了他。但除了韦恩·巴雷特和乡村之声之外，我们还给了他独特的机会。是的。揭发他。这不仅仅是取笑他。人们不一定记得《间谍》，或者如果他们不知道的话，它与《疯狂杂志》不同，它是一本新闻杂志。是的。所以它是新闻和讽刺的混合体。是的。嘲讽和事实。我们花费了大量的时间和金钱进行事实核查和律师咨询等等。好吧，你对波西米亚丛林的精彩曝光。

Well, yes. Bohemian Grove, which people still talk about.

嗯，是的。波西米亚丛林，人们至今仍在谈论。

Yes, a guy, Phil Weiss, basically wandered in and just hung out. I mean, he wasn't invited, didn't like lie to say who he was. He just literally walked through the forest and got there and was taken up and spent time there, which was— I mean, it still is a secretive private club in Northern California, but then it was really so. No, it was fantastic. What, you know, having kind of grappled with Trump as a figure, you know, going back 40 years now, right? That'd be 86. Yep, exactly. 40th anniversary of Spy is coming up in October.

是的，有一个人，Phil Weiss，基本上是闲逛进来然后闲逛的。我的意思是，他没有被邀请，也不喜欢撒谎说他是谁。他只是步行穿过森林到达那里，然后被带走并在那里度过了一段时间，这——我的意思是，它仍然是北加州的一个秘密私人俱乐部，但事实确实如此。不，这太棒了。什么，你知道，与特朗普这个人物的斗争，你知道，回溯到 40 年前，对吧？那是 86。是的，没错。 《间谍》40 周年纪念日即将于 10 月到来。

Okay. Well, I hope you're going to have a party where people take funny pictures and make fun of you. Something like that. Something like that.

好的。好吧，我希望你能举办一个聚会，人们可以拍有趣的照片并取笑你。类似的事情。类似的事情。

But, you know, what do you think explains Trump's appeal? Because one of the things that is amazing is, you know, he's ran for president three times, won twice, he would claim three times, but not, you know, like, clearly, I mean, he has never won a majority of the popular vote. He came up to 49% this last time. 但是,你知道,那是很多人的,像有些东西美国人对他有关,你写了诗和非语文本关于美国,你知道,你谈到一个像 F. Scott Fitzgerald﹑,你知道,你做了一个很棒的 Studio 360 视频在最大的 Gatsby﹑Gatsby﹑ I think it's a very misunderstood figure, but let's just, you know, Trump is one of these great American figures. He's a huckster, but he's also successful. He's this, he's somehow he's a force. What is the appeal, do you think, of Trump to, you know, 45% of Americans? Yeah. It is the 64 gazillion dollar question, isn't it, of our time. And by the way, yes, he ran officially for—actually for president three times. But when we started Spy, the first election when Spy existed in 1988, he was talking about it then. Right. And he flirted with the Reform Party or something in 2000, right? Well, that was later in the 2000s. Literally every—you look back, 88, 92, 96, 1000. He was always talking about it. And so what changed? Well, I think what changed is he became, you know, by the 90s, he was all about branding rather than building anything and making anything. He was all about the Trump brand, the Trump brand, the brand. And so, and what happened, I think, is, well, among other things, many things happened. One happened is what I believe began in the... hijacking by the right and the rich of the political economy to make the economy more unfair and deindustrialize, you know, much of the United States and make people unhappy and feel miserable and that they couldn't, there was no way up for their children and all those things. That made a riper time for Donald Trump. Because he showed up and he said, I am going to fix that. I'm going to bring air conditioning plants back to Indiana and things like that. And the Medicare I give you will be better than anything you have. The health care will be better. I invite your listeners to listen to his final big two-minute ad at the end of his 2016 campaign. It literally, except for this passing reference to literally nothing even vicious, but just thousands of illegal aliens. That... Except for that, it could be a Bernie Sanders speech. Right. And so that's what he ran as. Of course, it was all a lie. But so that was ready. But also the kind of— To be more uncharitable to my fellow Americans, a kind of, well, reality television and all that it came out of, I think, and the fact that he came back and renewed himself and got to the place that he was able to, to then be famous enough to run for president, was being the star of The Apprentice, where he played a successful businessman, rather than being one, really. And so reality television and the blurring, as I've written a whole book about, the blurring of fantasy and reality and truth and fiction, which is an American thing from the beginning. I think that's the American dream, right? That you can live in your own reality. Correct. And partly as a result of what happened in the 60s and 70s and the counterculture and, you know, Derrida and Foucault and so many things. The stuff that... Well, you are wandering into my edge of the forest. Well, I know. And I love Foucault, Derrida.

但是，你知道，你认为如何解释特朗普的吸引力呢？因为令人惊奇的事情之一是，你知道，他曾三次竞选总统，两次获胜，他会声称三次，但不是，你知道，显然，我的意思是，他从未赢得过多数民众选票。上次他达到了 49%。 但是，你知道，那是很多人的，就像美国人对他有关的一些东西，你写了关于美国的诗和非语言文本，你知道，你说话就像 F。斯科特·菲茨杰拉德﹑，你知道，你做了一个很棒的 Studio 360 视频最大的盖茨比﹑盖茨比﹑ 我认为这是一个非常被误解的人物，但让我们知道，特朗普是这些伟大的美国人物之一。他是一个小贩，但他也很成功。他就是这样，他在某种程度上是一股力量。您认为特朗普对 45% 的美国人有什么吸引力？是的。这是我们这个时代价值 64 万亿美元的问题，不是吗？顺便说一句，是的，他正式竞选——实际上是三次总统竞选。但是当我们开始 Spy 时，即 1988 年 Spy 存在的第一次选举时，他当时就在谈论它。正确的。他在 2000 年就和改革党什么的调情过，对吧？嗯，那是 2000 年代后期的事了。确实是每一个——你回顾一下，88、92、96、1000。他总是在谈论这个。那么发生了什么变化呢？嗯，我认为改变的是他变成了，你知道，到了 90 年代，他完全专注于品牌建设，而不是建造任何东西或制造任何东西。他只关心特朗普品牌、特朗普品牌、品牌。所以，我认为，除了其他事情之外，发生了很多事情。我认为发生的事情是从……右翼和富人劫持政治经济开始的，使美国大部分地区的经济更加不公平和去工业化，让人们不快乐，感到痛苦，但他们做不到，他们的孩子和所有这些事情都没有出路。这让唐纳德·特朗普的时机更加成熟。因为他出现了，他说，我会解决这个问题。我要把空调设备带回印第安纳州以及类似的东西。我给你的医疗保险将比你拥有的任何东西都要好。医疗保健将会更好。我邀请你们的听众聆听他在 2016 年竞选活动结束时最后的两分钟大广告。从字面上看，除了这个顺便提到的实际上没有什么恶意的，而只是成千上万的非法外国人。那……除此之外，这可能是伯尼·桑德斯的演讲。正确的。这就是他跑步的方式。当然，这都是谎言。但这样就准备好了。但也有一种——对我的美国同胞更加无情，一种，嗯，电视真人秀以及它所产生的一切，我认为，事实上，他回来并更新了自己，达到了他能够达到的水平，然后出名到足以竞选总统，这是在《学徒》中扮演的明星，他在其中扮演了一名成功的商人，而不是真正的商人。因此，电视真人秀以及幻想与现实、真实与虚构的模糊，正如我写了一整本书一样，这从一开始就是美国的事情。我认为这就是美国梦，对吧？你可以生活在自己的现实中。正确的。 部分原因是 60 年代和 70 年代发生的事情、反主流文化以及德里达和福柯等等。那些东西……嗯，你正在漫步到我的森林边缘。嗯，我知道。我喜欢福柯、德里达。

I know, but nothing is—it's all made up. Right, right.

我知道，但一切都不是——一切都是编造的。对，对。

It's all of, you know— Yeah.

这就是全部，你知道——是的。

Nothing, no—and— Well, it's all a product of discourse. It's how we talk about things. Correct. There's no there there. There's no there there unless it's the indigenous people of somewhere who believe this, and then we have to believe it or have to at least indulge it. Which, yeah. So—

没什么，没有——而且——好吧，这都是话语的产物。这就是我们谈论事情的方式。正确的。那里没有。除非某个地方的土著人民相信这一点，否则我们就必须相信它，或者至少必须沉迷于它。哪个，是的。所以-

This American thing combined with that period and it's scaling up and the internet and reality TV gave Donald Trump, okay, I mean, I don't think he had this very thought in his head, but he's a genius enough at just sensing the state of play that like, oh, maybe I can really get elected president now. You know, and he could. And so I think he was, he is, as you say, he's brilliant. I mean, he's P.T. Barnum, Buffalo Bill. I mean, there's all these people, all these predecessors who might, again, as I said, wrote this book, Fantasyland, talking about, which, by the way, I started writing that book in 2014 before Donald Trump. Donald Trump wouldn't have been in the book had he not run for president as I was finishing it. And so there he was as the poster boy. Effectively, this poster boy of this strain in America, anti-intellectualism, anti-elitism, anti-establishmentism, all that stuff, that he became the avatar of the last 200 years. Here, you know, and again, I guess, I'm going to stop apologizing for pushing on boomer themes, but Is Trump like does Trumpism end with Trump and is it kind of, you know, an interesting arc of I was in graduate school when Bill Clinton was elected. And, you know, the way the professoriate after I was in grad school in 88 too when Mike Dukakis lost and people were like, oh, my God, I'm The Breakup. When Clinton was elected in 92, I remember people saying, you know, like, we're never giving the country back. And, you know, it's been a good run for boomers. But it kind of, Trump is kind of the melted gumdrop version of Clinton. It's the end of the boomers. Like, does it end with him or does this... persist and what what what you know does trump i think maybe when the president says yes yeah yeah yeah i think so you know um but i mean i hope so to be quite i mean so you are asking what will happen the republican party or with trump or yeah and you know or do does politics is there a going back to normal and i'm not even sure what that would mean at this point or because the democratic party also seems to be very discombobulated and it's going through this capture button Nick Gillespie 与嘉宾 Kurt Andersen 讨论美国政治极化、身份政治、经济民粹主义、代际冲突、Milton Friedman，2026 年 8 月 19 日节目 figure of a century, figure of America, I mean, of this enormous historic figure that the J.D. Vance's or Marco Rubio's or name your person are going to be hard pressed, i.e. find it impossible to keep these facts together. Trevor Burrus They're the Martin Van Buren's after Andrew Jackson, right? Like, if they get one term, they're lucky. Mark A. Van Buren actually was a good president.

美国的事情与那个时期相结合，它正在扩大，互联网和真人秀电视给了唐纳德·特朗普，好吧，我的意思是，我不认为他脑子里有这个想法，但他是一个天才，能够感知到比赛的状态，就像，哦，也许我现在真的可以当选总统。你知道，他可以。所以我认为他是，正如你所说，他很聪明。我的意思是，他是 P.T.巴纳姆，布法罗比尔。我的意思是，正如我所说，所有这些人、所有这些前辈可能会再次写这本书《幻想世界》，顺便说一句，我在唐纳德·特朗普之前于 2014 年开始写这本书。如果唐纳德·特朗普没有在我完成这本书时竞选总统，他就不会出现在这本书中。所以他就成了海报男孩。实际上，这位美国反智主义、反精英主义、反建制主义等等的典型代表，他成为了过去 200 年的化身。在这里，你知道，我想，我将不再为推动婴儿潮一代的主题而道歉，但是特朗普吗？就像特朗普主义会随着特朗普而结束吗？这是否是一种有趣的弧线？比尔·克林顿当选时我正在读研究生。而且，你知道，88 年我读研究生后，迈克·杜卡基斯 (Mike Dukakis) 输了，人们就像是，哦，天哪，我是分手者。 92 年克林顿当选时，我记得人们说，你知道，我们永远不会把国家还给国家。而且，你知道，这对于婴儿潮一代来说是一个很好的发展。但从某种意义上说，特朗普有点像融化的橡皮糖版本的克林顿。这是婴儿潮一代的结束。就像，这会以他结束还是……坚持下去，你所知道的特朗普会做什么，我想也许当总统说是是是是是是的，我想你知道，嗯，但我的意思是我希望如此，我的意思是，所以你问共和党或特朗普会发生什么，或者是的，你知道或确实政治会恢复正常，我什至不确定这意味着什么，或者因为民主党似乎也非常混乱，它正在经历这个捕获按钮 Nick Gillespie 与参与者 Kurt Andersen 讨论美国政治地图、政治身份、经济民粹主义、代际冲突、Milton Friedman，2026 年 8 月 19 日日节目的一个世纪人物，美国人物，我的意思是，J.D. 万斯或马可·鲁比奥或你的名字将很难将这些事实放在一起的巨大历史人物。 Trevor Burrus 他们是继安德鲁·杰克逊之后的马丁·范布伦，对吧？就像，如果他们获得一届任期，他们就很幸运。马克·A·范布伦实际上是一位好总统。

He was poor, but whatever. Never mind.

他很穷，但无论如何。没关系。

Yeah. Wasn't he the log cabin president? He was actually born in a log cabin. I know. He was painted as a silk stocking guy. Right. But they started using marketing. Yeah. Giving out whiskey in like log cabin bottles. You'd never go wrong with giving out whiskey.

是的。他不是木屋总裁吗？他实际上出生在一个小木屋里。我知道。他被画成一个丝袜男。正确的。但他们开始使用营销手段。是的。像小木屋瓶一样分发威士忌。赠送威士忌永远不会出错。

Well, that's true. In an election time. So...

嗯，确实如此。在选举时期。所以...

I think, I mean, we're not going back to normal. That's the thing. And one of the things I realized once we're in the breakup is like, what is going to break the fever? What is going to get us back together and we'll just be normal Americans working together and having our disagreements and accepting them? And it has become harder and harder for me to imagine that, given the digital world, especially, given the ability to live in one's own bubbles. Trevor Burrus Is that a bad thing? And then, you know, in the last few minutes, let's talk about evil geniuses a bit, because that's an absolute, scathing, extended critique of people like Milton Friedman, who is very

我想，我的意思是，我们不会恢复正常。就是这样。当我们分手时，我意识到的一件事是，什么才能退烧呢？什么能让我们重新团结起来，让我们成为正常的美国人，共同努力，有分歧并接受它们？考虑到数字世界，特别是考虑到生活在自己的泡沫中的能力，我越来越难以想象这一点。特雷弗·伯勒斯 这是一件坏事吗？然后，你知道，在最后几分钟，让我们谈谈邪恶的天才，因为这是对像米尔顿·弗里德曼这样的人的绝对的、严厉的、长期的批评，他非常

near and dear to Reason's heart. And, you know, I think he's… 并且更加被罪名,尤其是 J.D. Vance﹑J.D. Vance﹑Zoran Mondami﹑ 都曾经把他叫出名字。 当然。 你知道他必须对某些事情说。

离理性的心很近而且很亲爱。而且，你知道，我认为他……而且越来越被定罪，尤其是 J.D.万斯﹑J.D. Vance﹑Zoran Mondami﹑都曾经叫出名字。当然。你知道他必须对某些事情说。

但你知道,这是否一件坏事,我们可以生活在自己的浮浪中? 如果我们想在一个国家有 330 亿人的人,有一个政治文化可以做到这些事情,是的,这是一件坏事。 是的。 It is. And, you know, I mean, I have the epigraph of this book is not just the famous first line of The Tale of Two Cities. It's the best of times, it's the worst of times, but the whole thing.

但你知道，这是否是一件坏事，我们可以生活在自己的浮浪中？ 如果我们想在一个国家有 330 亿人的人，有一个政治文化可以做到这些事情，是的，这是一件坏事。 是的。 是的。而且，你知道，我的意思是，我这本书的题词不仅仅是《两座城市的故事》中著名的第一行。这是最好的时代，也是最坏的时代，但总而言之。

And I think the whole thing is important to read, partly because it's such a beautiful piece of writing.

我认为整本书读起来很重要，部分原因是它是一篇如此美丽的文章。

But it's where we are now, as I'm sure Dickens thought they were in the 1850s, as he was saying, t'was ever thus, basically. And, you know, AI will destroy minds and culture and— God knows, jobs and all, yes. Is it potentially an amazing thing that will allow us all to live bountifully without having to work hard in drudgery anymore? Maybe. I mean, all things are possible, you know. So, and twas ever thus. So... Well, I want to point out also that you, you know, on the same page where you quote Dickens and you have a Rumsfeld quote, which is fascinating. Rumsfeld is an interest, you know, he's now a minor figure because Trump is so much bigger, but Rumsfeld and the Errol Morris documentary is fantastic about him. But you end with Joan Didion, the boomer icon, right? You have to pick the places you don't walk away from, right? So I mean, this book is a pitch for let's get real, right? It is that. And I think, you know, and that's why I don't really think of it as dystopian because I think as this— its fictional premise of a war and a breakup of the country has become less far-fetched, as I said, since I started writing. I think it's—I don't want to say I'm being of service to readers, but I think there's a service. I think there's something useful. about having a plausible, carefully made, and even though it's not about the breakup, it's not about the war, it's about this family and this couple having lived through it and now it receding into the past because people get over anything. But I think it's useful and not unimportant to say, okay, here is this picture of what could happen, this thing that could happen. And what is, maybe you think, no, but that will never happen because of this or that, or yeah, that wouldn't be bad, or whatever you think. I think setting up the table of this contingency, of this way it could go, without presuming to say it will go this way or it will go that way, as a work of nonfiction would need to do. I think is useful.

但这就是我们现在所处的位置，我确信狄更斯认为他们处于 1850 年代，正如他所说，基本上一直如此。而且，你知道，人工智能会摧毁思想和文化——上帝知道，还有工作和一切，是的。让我们所有人都可以过上富裕的生活，而不必再做苦差事，这是否是一件令人惊奇的事情呢？或许。我的意思是，一切皆有可能，你知道。所以，从来都是这样。所以...好吧，我还想指出，你知道，在引用狄更斯的同一页上，你引用了拉姆斯菲尔德的名言，这很有趣。拉姆斯菲尔德是一个兴趣，你知道，他现在只是一个小人物，因为特朗普的地位要大得多，但拉姆斯菲尔德和埃罗尔·莫里斯的纪录片对他来说非常棒。但最后你会看到琼·迪迪恩（Joan Didion），婴儿潮一代的偶像，对吧？你必须选择那些你不会离开的地方，对吗？所以我的意思是，这本书是为了让我们变得现实，对吧？就是这样。我想，你知道，这就是为什么我并不真正认为它是反乌托邦，因为我认为，正如我所说，自从我开始写作以来，它虚构的战争和国家分裂的前提已经变得不那么牵强了。我认为——我不想说我在为读者服务，但我认为这是有服务的。我觉得有一些有用的东西关于有一个合理的、精心制作的，即使这不是关于分手，也不是关于战争，而是关于这个家庭和这对夫妇经历过的事情，现在它已经成为过去，因为人们已经克服了一切。但我认为说“好吧，这是可能发生的事情，可能发生的事情”的图片是有用的，而且并非不重要。也许你会想，不，但这永远不会发生，因为这个或那个，或者是的，那不会很糟糕，或者无论你怎么想。我认为设置这种偶然性的表格，它可以这样发展，而不是假设它会这样发展或会那样发展，就像非小说类作品需要做的那样。我认为很有用。

So— Oh, and if I may really blow smoke up your ass— Please! Let me turn around. I mean, no, this—what is fantastic about this is it's a really richly imagined kind of scenario.

所以——哦，如果我真的可以把烟吹到你的屁股上——拜托！让我转身。我的意思是，不，这个——这个的奇妙之处在于它是一个非常丰富的想象场景。

So, I mean, you know, there are some people—some literary critics say that, you know, this—one of the functions of novels is to—we can run kind of scenarios and see what things are like. This does this really well, and it's a very particular world. It's a fictional world, but it's very particular. I mean, it's very funny at times and very wry and insightful. And I think the thing that I like about it, and I think this might reflect back or one might hope this reflects back into our politics, is that it's very human, that nobody is purely or the main characters are not purely good or purely evil. It's like it's real complicated. Exactly. No, and again, I mean, as I mentioned before, the things that Natalie hates most of all is not big government, although she has her issues with it or, you know, wokeism or any of it, but rather like the politicization of everything, which God knows we all face now and have faced for the last 10 years. And it's understandable. And in their case, it isn't the cause of their separation. Right. But it's definitely colored, you know, and the way that everything is a political signifier these days, like, who isn't, except for... No, it's exhausting. Those of us, or those people who make a living playing that game. Yeah. But no, it is exhausting.

所以，我的意思是，你知道，有些人——一些文学评论家说，你知道，这——小说的功能之一是——我们可以运行一些场景，看看事情是什么样子。这确实做得很好，而且这是一个非常特殊的世界。这是一个虚构的世界，但又非常特别。我的意思是，它有时非常有趣，非常讽刺且富有洞察力。我认为我喜欢它的一点是，它非常人性化，没有人是纯粹的，或者主角不是纯粹的好人或纯粹的邪恶。好像真的很复杂。确切地。不，再说一次，我的意思是，正如我之前提到的，娜塔莉最讨厌的不是大政府，尽管她对此有自己的问题，或者，你知道，唤醒主义或任何其他的，而是像一切的政治化，上帝知道我们现在和过去十年都面临着这个问题。这是可以理解的。就他们而言，这并不是他们分手的原因。正确的。但它绝对是有色彩的，你知道，如今一切都是政治象征，就像，谁不是，除了……不，这让人筋疲力尽。我们这些人，或者那些靠玩游戏谋生的人。是的。但不，这很累。

并且并不允许正常生活。 这就是一个自然结束点,我对这种问题是很糟糕的探讨者,所以我将在这种结束点中与我们之间有一个一段喜剧的时刻。

并且不允许正常的生活。这是一个自然的结束点，我对这种问题的探讨是非常糟糕的，所以我将在这种结束点与我们之间有一个短暂的喜剧时刻。

但是我们可以谈谈这些邪道的天才。 基本上,在广泛的词中,你会说,有一个很大的压力,这在经济学家和政治科学家的看法中是非常深刻的。 In the post-war era, you know, from 1950 to about 1974, thereabouts, you know, wages were kind of compressed. Everybody started doing better. You know, and obviously there's always exceptions. But like at every level, people just, you know, they got more stuff. They got more access. And then you argue that things started changing in bad ways. And this is partly because of people like Milton Friedman. And, you know, that his way of thinking became ascendant. Now, I think of Milton Friedman as a guy who, like, made the case to end the draft, you know, to end the, you know, conscripted era. That was one thing he did. He's in favor of drug legalization. He hated Richard Nixon for immigration cost controls. He, absolutely, you know, he was in favor of absolutely free trade, school choice, things like this.

但我们可以谈谈这些邪道的天赋。 基本上，在广泛的词中，你会说，有很大的压力，这在经济学家和政治科学家的观点中是非常深刻的。 在战后时代，你知道，从 1950 年到 1974 年左右，工资被压缩了。每个人都开始做得更好。你知道，显然总是有例外。但就像在每个级别一样，人们只是，你知道，他们得到了更多的东西。他们获得了更多的访问权限。然后你认为事情开始朝不好的方向改变。这部分是因为像米尔顿·弗里德曼这样的人。而且，你知道，他的思维方式变得越来越盛行。现在，我认为米尔顿·弗里德曼是一个提出结束征兵制的人，你知道，结束征兵时代。这是他所做的一件事。他赞成毒品合法化。他讨厌理查德·尼克松的移民成本控制。他，绝对，你知道，他赞成绝对自由的贸易、学校选择，诸如此类的事情。

I don't have a problem with Milton Friedman. I have a problem with how he gave— People in business who the green light to be entirely selfish. And this is the essay where he said that the social responsibility of business is to increase shareholder value. Right. Essentially. The one in the New York Times magazine. So I think that giving that green light, which caused all kinds of problems.

我对米尔顿·弗里德曼没有意见。我对他的做法有疑问——商界人士为完全自私开绿灯。他在这篇文章中说，企业的社会责任是增加股东价值。正确的。本质上。纽约时报杂志上的那一篇。所以我认为，开绿灯会导致各种各样的问题。

以我所谓的意味,这些是最大的坏事,以我所谓的意味,而不是这种更加的西方的 norm 。 你知道,你可以把杰尔森 从庞德纳维亚 拿出来,你可以把他们放在冷冻的 加拿大,他们仍然想要…… Great wealth brings, as they say, great responsibility. And, you know, that plus, you know, the corruption of, you know, the now unconstitutionality of any meaningful campaign finance regulation. You mean restrictions on free speech. Yeah, because having a lot of money is just the same as free speech. We all know that. See, and that's the thing. Libertarianism on the personal level, the living level. 100%, I'm there. Libertarianism, when it comes to, you know, a trillion dollar companies having power to change laws and keep laws to just maintain their power and wealth? No. That is not, to my mind, The Dream of Libertarianism. But anyway, who am I to say what the Dream of Libertarianism is?

以我所说的意义，这些是最大的坏事，以我所说的意义，而不是这种更广泛的西方规范。 你知道，你可以把杰尔森从庞德纳维亚拿出来，你可以把他们放在冷冻的加拿大，他们仍然想要…… 正如他们所说，巨大的财富带来巨大的责任。而且，你知道，再加上，你知道，任何有意义的竞选财务监管现在都违宪的腐败行为。你的意思是限制言论自由。是的，因为有很多钱就和言论自由一样。我们都知道这一点。看吧，就是这样。个人层面、生活层面的自由主义。 100%，我就在那里。自由主义，当谈到，你知道，价值数万亿美元的公司有权力改变法律并维持法律以维持其权力和财富吗？不，在我看来，这不是自由主义的梦想。但无论如何，我有什么资格说自由主义梦想是什么？

I'm the king of Libertarianism. Well, Grover Norquist is probably the actual villain of Evil Geniuses. And he's in it. Yeah. No, and I was going to say like, you know, this is why, and I have my differences with him, but why you want a government small enough to strangle in a bathtub. 请保留英文专有名词和人名的准确拼写。

我是自由主义之王。好吧，格罗弗·诺奎斯特可能是《邪恶天才》中真正的反派。他也在其中。是的。不，我想说的是，你知道，这就是原因，我和他有分歧，但为什么你想要一个小到足以扼杀在浴缸里的政府。 请保留英文母语和人名的准确拼写。

It's like in a political democracy where you need this good conservative party, you need a good left party, and you lost both effectively for a while when the Democratic Party was no longer the Labor Party, no longer a party of— when there was no significant difference between the Republicans and Democrats economically. So, you know, a lot of working class people thought like, well— 无论如何,他们都不会帮助我,我的工作或经济或其他东西。 所以我只会用这些我同意的词,其他文化的词。 So that's my, you know, I think it went too far. I think it, you know— And you— I mean, sure. You make the case in the book, and you're not alone in doing this, that, you know, that the differentials in wealth now, you know, in pre-tax—this is all pre-tax, pre-transfer, because when you look at it after, things are different. It's just that the rich have gotten too much and they've pulled too far away and that the middle grouping is just not keep, you know, they're not getting enough. Well, that combined with the unaffordability, not to mention that hoax word, but unaffordability of, in particular, higher education and health and real estate. The Breakup. Nick Gillespie，2026 年 8 月 19 日节目，主持人 Nick Gillespie，主持人 It's like, I don't know, I think things are working better than a lot of people want to grant. But beyond that, I guess the question then is like, is there a reset? Or how does that happen? Especially because in your scenario, it's like, okay, well, you know, the trillionaires have won. I guess we have a trillionaire now, right? Which was unthinkable. And we didn't when I wrote this book. Yeah, I know. It's like it's really kind of amazing. 甚至五年前,没有人像亿元人,这甚至意味着什么? 但是,你知道,是否一场战争? 是否一个巨大的经济抵循? 还是我们在一个自我意识的时刻中,我们醒来,

这就像在一个政治民主国家中，你需要一个好的保守党，你需要一个好的左翼政党，当民主党不再是工党，不再是共和党和民主党在经济上没有显着差异时，你实际上在一段时间内失去了两者。所以，你知道，很多工人阶级的人都想，好吧——无论如何，他们都不会帮助我，我的工作或经济或其他东西。所以我只能用这些我同意的词，其他文化的词。所以这是我的，你知道，我认为它太过分了。我认为是的，你知道——而你——我的意思是，当然。你在书中阐述了这一点，而且你并不是唯一这样做的人，你知道，现在的财富差异，你知道，在税前——这都是税前、转移前，因为当你事后看时，事情就不同了。只是富人得到了太多，他们已经脱离了太远，而中间群体却无法保留，你知道，他们得到的还不够。嗯，这与负担不起结合起来，更不用说那个骗局词，而是负担不起，特别是高等教育、健康和房地产。分手。尼克·吉莱斯皮，2026 年 8 月 19 日节目，主持人尼克·吉莱斯皮，主持人这就像，我不知道，我认为事情进展得比很多人想象的要好。但除此之外，我想接下来的问题是，是否有重置？或者说这是怎么发生的？特别是因为在你的场景中，就像，好吧，好吧，你知道，万亿富翁赢了。我想我们现在有一个万亿富翁了，对吧？这是不可想象的。当我写这本书时我们并没有这样做。是的，我知道。就好像这真的很奇妙一样。 甚至五年前，没有人像亿元，这甚至意味着什么？ 但是，你知道，是否存在战争？ 巨大的经济是否能够满足？ 不管怎样，我们在一个有自我意识的时刻，我们醒来，

而我们只是说,不,我们不想这些事情发生。 那是另一个问题。 没有,我说,再说一次,那是为什么我认为, 它很难想象缺乏一些严格的, The Breakup.

而我们只是说，不，我们不想发生这些事情。那是另一个问题。没有，我说，再说一遍，这就是为什么我认为，很难想象缺乏严格的分手。

Thank you for watching. I'll tell you, I mean, if somehow this, you know, Vance and Josh Hawley meeting Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and we get a great, you know, some kind of universal healthcare thing. Honestly, I actually believe that if that were done and we were like... Bill's couldn't bankrupt you as they can't do in any other developed country. If people weren't constantly – couldn't take another job because how am I going to – my kids are having my health care. All that stuff. I mean to me there's a Milton Friedmanite free labor argument for health. Oh, he was not in favor of employer-based health care. I mean if you took care of that, I don't know. I'd be willing to – 想想,这都会很好,这都会正常,因为那种不安的程度, 天哪,Ness,会被取消。 我们会在那里聊天,但是我们和 Kurt Andersen 谈过,新书,新小说是《Breakup》, 并且它是一个非常强大的, The Breakup.

感谢您的观看。我会告诉你，我的意思是，如果万斯和乔什·霍利以某种方式会见伯尼·桑德斯和伊丽莎白·沃伦，我们就会得到一个伟大的、你知道的、某种全民医疗保健的东西。老实说，我实际上相信，如果这样做了，我们就像……比尔不会让你破产，就像他们在任何其他发达国家做不到的那样。如果人们不经常 - 不能接受另一份工作，因为我将如何 - 我的孩子们正在享受我的医疗保健。所有这些东西。我的意思是，存在着米尔顿·弗里德曼式的关于健康的自由劳工论点。哦，他不赞成以雇主为基础的医疗保健。我的意思是，如果你处理好这个问题，我不知道。我愿意——想想，这都会很好，这都会正常，因为那样不安的程度，天哪，Ness，会被取消。 我们会在那里聊天，但是我们和库尔特·安德森谈过，新书，新小说是《分手》，而且它是一个非常强大的，分手。