CNN 被禁止进白宫：Reason 四人圆桌谈记者的准入权、择校困局与保守主义丢掉的罗盘

《Reason》杂志的 The Reason Roundtable 是一档周更圆桌节目，四位编辑坐在一起把当周的美国政治与文化新闻过一遍，各自从自由至上主义的角度拆开。2026 年 9 月 21 日上线的这一期由 Peter Suderman 主持，常设编辑 Nick Gillespie、Matt Welch 到场，嘉宾是杂志资深编辑 Stephanie Slade，她的新书《Fusionism: Liberty, Virtue, and the Future of the American Right》刚由圣母大学出版社出版。节目全长 1 小时 13 分 55 秒。12

官方章节把这一期切成五块：开头 17 分钟谈特朗普把 CNN、Politico 和 MS NOW 挡在白宫门外；17:29 起谈《纽约时报杂志》一篇关于择校与隔离的长文；38:39 起回答一位听众关于 AI 生存性风险的提问；50:56 起 Slade 讲她的新书与保守派运动；最后 12 分钟是四人的文化推荐。把这五块串起来的是同一个动作：谁掌握国家权力，谁就有资格决定谁还能说话、谁的孩子去哪所学校、下一代保守派该信什么。1

这一期的看点集中在三处：第一，白宫封禁三家媒体这件事本身的法律争议点在哪，总统到底有没有义务把记者放进简报室；第二，同样在本周，民主党阵营的几个州总检察长也在用权力阻止一笔媒体并购易主，这条"两党都在做"的对照是节目的重点；第三，Slade 的书给了一个理解当下美国右翼的坐标——从 Frank Meyer 的融合主义到万斯代表的"异见右翼"，中间发生了什么。1

事情的时间线很紧。9 月 18 日周五，特朗普在 Truth Social 上宣布把 CNN、Politico 和 MS NOW 排除出白宫，理由是三家的报道是"FICTION and LIES"，并加了一句"Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow"（其他假新闻媒体也会跟上）。3 9 月 19 日周六早上，三家的记者真的进不去白宫了：MS NOW 的 Akayla Gardner、CNN 的 Betsy Klein、Politico 的 Cheyenne Haslett 分别在门口被告知证件已被注销。Klein 说收走她证件的是特勤局探员，她问原因，对方回答没有更多信息。34

三天之后事情变成了官司。9 月 21 日周一，三家在华盛顿的联邦法院起诉特朗普政府，请求法院签发临时限制令，听证安排在周三。案件分给了 Timothy Kelly 法官——他在 2017 年由特朗普任命，2018 年 Acosta 记者证案中判过特朗普政府败诉。5 节目录制时三家只是"宣布将要起诉"，Slade 在节目里把这件事称作"留给自由派制度去接住的机会"。1

封禁产生了一个谁都没预料到的连带后果。CNN 是白宫五大电视记者池成员之一（另外四家是 ABC、CBS、Fox News 和 NBC），五家轮流组织采访、分摊成本、再把素材共享给全国媒体。CNN 原定 9 月 21 日跟访特朗普去纽约出席联合国大会，因为进不去而无法提供素材，其余几家电视网随即宣布暂停总统记者池报道。Fox News 华盛顿分社社长、时任电视记者池主席 Bryan Boughton 在周一的邮件里写得很直接："自今日起，电视记者池将不再覆盖被指定为记者池报道的总统活动，也不会安排替补。"5

白宫的回应是把"新闻"和"假新闻"分开。面对路透社的提问，白宫说："假新闻没有资格要求在总统的椭圆形办公室里占一个位置，他们完全可以在门外直接报道。"特朗普本人在周一又发了一条帖子："白宫不是在攻击自由新闻——那是我珍视的东西——而是在攻击假新闻。"5 记者席位的稀缺性给了这种说法一层外壳：简报室的座位确实有限，总得有人决定谁坐进去。节目里 Suderman 和 Welch 都承认这一点，然后指出特朗普把动机讲得太明白了——他在周五对记者说："一个允许人们故意写负面报道的国家是出了问题。"6

MS NOW 是什么来头，中文读者可能不熟：它就是原来的 MSNBC，1996 年由 NBC 新闻与微软合资成立，2025 年 11 月 15 日更名 MS NOW，现在归属于从康卡斯特分拆出来的 Versant。它在有线新闻收视上排第二，落后于 Fox News，领先于 CNN。7

记者能不能因为"老板不喜欢我写的稿子"被赶出白宫，法律上并不像直觉那样简单。Eugene Volokh 在《Reason》的 Volokh Conspiracy 专栏里拆过这套判例：政府没有义务开记者会、接受采访，总统甚至可以只挑自己喜欢的记者做一对一访谈，1977 年 D.C. 巡回法院在 Sherrill v. Knight 案里就写明总统选择与哪些记者谈话不受挑战。8 争议出在"开放之后"：一旦政府把活动向一批记者开放，就落入"非公共论坛"，限制必须与观点无关。第七巡回法院 2021 年在 John K. Maciver Institute 诉 Evers 案里，把一场只邀请少数记者的州长记者会也按这个标准处理。Volokh 自己对这个判据留了保留——只请少数人的场子更像一对一见面的场合，在他看来更接近总统可以自由挑人的那一类。8

同类争议一年前刚演过一遍。2025 年，美联社因为不肯在写作规范里把墨西哥湾改称"美国湾"，被排除出跟随总统出行的记者池，美联社提起诉讼；D.C. 巡回法院一个紧急合议庭部分中止了地方法院的禁令，随后拒绝了全席重审的请求。法官 Justin Walker 与 Florence Pan 在附上的意见里说，他们合议庭的决定有值得商榷之处：如果政府不能因为观点把记者挡在简报室外，那么换到椭圆形办公室也不该可以，并引用了 Perry Education Association 诉 Perry Local Educators' Association 等先例。9 更早的两次也上了法庭：第一任期里，白宫试图吊销 CNN 记者 Jim Acosta 和《花花公子》记者 Brian Karem 的记者证，联邦法官判两人恢复。5

白宫记者协会主席 Jacqui Heinrich 在周六的表态把关键的法律句式说了出来：法院多次认定，一旦白宫向记者开放了准入，就不能任意地、或者以报道内容为理由收回它。3

四位主持人在这一段里的分歧很小，落点各不相同：

关于最后那项调查，节目里 Slade 把出处说成"伦理与公共政策中心（Ethics and Public Policy Center）"做过的一次 2020 年特朗普选民调查，具体抽样与问卷在公开渠道没有对应文本，本文按她本人的引述保留。1

CNN 这一周还有另一条线。Suderman 在节目里补上：David Ellison 的 Paramount Skydance 正在收购拥有 CNN 的华纳兄弟，多个州的总检察长起诉阻止交易，牵头的是加州总检察长 Rob Bonta；就在他们开始录音之前，Paramount 与各州达成和解，交易可以往下走。节目里提到，几位坚持到最后的民主党籍总检察长当时的说法是要保住"一个独立的 CNN"。1 和解的日期与效果与路透社在 9 月 21 日的报道一致：Paramount 与各州及工会的诉讼达成和解，清除了收购华纳兄弟的主要障碍。5

Welch 认为这笔交易的前史才更需要被记住。他的叙述是：特朗普先对《60 分钟》提起一桩完全没有道理的诉讼，指控其剪辑选前采访的方式；Paramount 作为《60 分钟》的母公司选择和解，换来联邦通信委员会对并购的批准；一旦政府手里握住这种筹码，它就会一直用下去。1 这段前史有公开记录可查：Paramount 最终向特朗普支付 1600 万美元和解，而在此之前，卡尔领导的联邦通信委员会一边启动对 CBS"新闻失真"的调查，一边审议 Paramount 与 Skydance 的合并。10 卡尔对 broadcaster 的要求可以浓缩成一句话，他在 2026 年 3 月说："广播电视台必须按公共利益运营，否则就会失去牌照。"10

Slade 从这个对照里得出的结论，是这一期被引用最多的一段：此刻美国没有一个党在所有情况下都愿意捍卫言论自由。她说自由派阵营的 AG 想阻止一个被视为亲特朗普的老板拥有 CNN，而当对手拿权力压制你不喜欢的声音时，另一方的反应不是守住原则，而是照着做。她把希望放在 FIRE 这类民间机构身上，理由是它们对两边的案子都接。1

Gillespie 用一个商业史插曲说明"媒体老板是谁"这个问题从来就没干净过：华纳兄弟曾经属于 Kinney 鞋业，那个被他说成"美国中下层的官方鞋"的品牌。他的意思不是这笔交易没问题，而是媒体与 conglomerate 纠缠在一起是几十年的常态；随后他转回正题，说这次和解里还带着产片数量承诺与罚则，这类条件才是真正值得盯的条款。1

Welch 在这一段末尾加了一句给整期定调的话：在特朗普第二任期对这一修正案的所有动手动脚里，封禁白宫记者池大概挤不进前十，它能上头条只是因为媒体最爱谈的就是媒体自己，而那些被递解出境的学生、因为署名文章被处理的人，才是损害更大的那一批。1

节目第二个话题是《纽约时报杂志》9 月 20 日刊出的长文《In Fighting for Every Black Child, Did I Betray My Own?》，作者是 Nikole Hannah-Jones——她以 1619 计划主编的身份被广泛认识，也是《纽约时报杂志》报道种族不公与民权的记者。1112

文章的结构就是一句话的自我审判。十年前，她和丈夫决定把女儿 Najya 送进布鲁克林一所低收入、以黑人为主的学校，希望用自己能带去的资源、人脉和精力，帮着把学校往好里推。女儿今年 16 岁，在七年级结束前 Google 了自己学校的评分，回家质问母亲："你把我送进来的时候，知道我的学校差成这样吗？"文章写到女儿在这所学校里遇到的具体处境：老师不批改她的作业，没发现她的数学已经远远落后于年级水平，教师缺勤频繁，家长投诉无人回应。到选高中时，Najya 违背父母的教育理念，自己挑了一所以白人和亚裔为主的高分学校。11

Hannah-Jones 的结论落在两个原因上：服务于低收入社区的学校拨款不足，以及择校造成了纽约学校的隔离。小组四个人对这篇文章的态度分成两层。1

Gillespie 先把文章当作品读——作为一篇新闻写作，他说它"引人入胜"；紧接着给出对政策分析那一层的判断，用了三个词：令人愤怒、一厢情愿的天真、在问责问题上近乎愚蠢。他借用的框架是 exit、voice 与 loyalty，出自经济学家 Albert O. Hirschman 1970 年的同名著作：面对一个变坏的组织，成员要么发声要求改变，要么退出，要么留下并降低期待。Gillespie 的读法是，Hannah-Jones 夫妇相信只靠"发声"就能改变学校——投诉、参加家长会、往 PTA 里捐钱——结果撞上一个对家长毫无反应的系统；系统真正开始紧张，是在他们决定"退出"的那一刻。113

数字上，节目里出现了两个版本。Gillespie 说女儿最初就读的 P.S. 307 每个学生分摊到的经费大约是 5.8 万美元，这笔钱包含了午餐、校车和教学楼折旧；Suderman 随后说的是 5.2 万美元，并说这个水平在纽约市学校里排在第 98 百分位。两个人引的是同一所学校、同一套预算口径下的不同计算，本文照实把两个数字都保留。1 Gillespie 由此得出的是他的核心反驳：如果每生五万多美元还教不好一个孩子，问题就不在钱的多少上。

Welch 接着把话题拉回他熟悉的街区。他说自己在布鲁克林的学区董事会上坐过的时间"超过任何一个人应该承受的"，开的会全是为了学区去隔离；他提到 Reason 的 Jim Epstein 十年前拍过一部纪录片，讲的就是同一个第 13 学区：一边是 Hannah-Jones 女儿就读的那类学校，一边是布鲁克林高地那所试图改划学区边界的富裕学校，中间还冒出来几所特许学校。14 他给这篇文章的评价是"我很高兴它存在"——一个公众人物公开承认"我是不是把自己的意识形态放在了孩子的需要前面"，值得发生；他同时认为这场自我清算做得不够，因为 Hannah-Jones 把愿意改进学校的那批人一律当成施行者。1

Welch 在这一节里还引了一组数据，值得单独核一下。他说纽约市公立学校系统"六七年里少了 15 万名学生"。按公开报道，这个说法更接近未来十年的预测数：2026 年 5 月的报道称，纽约市公立学校在未来十年可能再减少 15.3 万名学生；也有报道按 2019—20 学年逾 100.2 万名在校生计算，此后实际减少已超过 11.7 万名。1516 他在另一个地方说的判断倒是没有争议：家长嘴上被劝着留下，实际动作是退出——退到特许学校、私立学校、在家上学，或者干脆搬出这座城市。

这一段里最贴近个人经验的发言来自 Gillespie。他说读这篇文章让他不舒服，因为它太熟悉了。他父母当年把他和兄弟姐妹送进新泽西米德尔敦一所"相当平庸"的天主教教区学校——圣玛丽小学和 Mater Dei 高中，那所高中后来办不下去关掉了——而他们住的小镇公立学校是泽西最好的那批之一，选课能从四年拉丁文一直排到大学程度微积分。他一直不明白父母为什么做这个选择，直到父亲去世前不久才说出原因：父亲在大萧条年代的布鲁克林免费读了天主教学校，学校当时对他说，"我们免费给你，条件是你以后要把孩子送来"。他还有最后一年学费交不上，毕业前几周才知道，用自己打工的积蓄付掉。他用这段经历说明的是：家长在孩子的教育上总是决策者，而家长的决策受制于他们所信的那套东西——他的父母没有 Hannah-Jones 的学历，却同样被一种观念困住。1

Suderman 在这一段里提了一个反问：改变要靠家长自己找路，这不正是 Hannah-Jones 的论证吗？她不只是把孩子放进去，还打算用资源、用家长会、用一起入学的其他有资源的家庭，把整所学校抬起来。Gillespie 的回答回到"退出的可信威胁"：在纽约市这套行政规则、法律规则和工会规则都硬化了的系统里，当家长质问老师为什么不看孩子的数学作业，老师可以耸耸肩；只要家长没有真的走人的能力，系统就不必回应。他还说，多数人不会像 Hannah-Jones 那样有能力退出，这才是问题所在。1

Slade 的判断更像是给这场争论画一条线。她说这篇文章"是清算的第一步"，她同意 Welch 前面说的每一句；从支持教育选择的一方看，他们批评的正是这类政策在牺牲个体——有潜力的学生本来可以从失能的学校里出来，却被要求留在原地，理由是长期看对所有人都有好处。她也点出这套论证依赖一个否认：否认留下来的孩子确实付出了代价。1

至于"择校造成隔离"这个因果，节目里的反驳是：真正的分化来自居住格局与"受控选择"（controlled choice）这类按族裔与收入调剂的派位规则，家长用脚投票之后，那些被设计来提升多元的制度反而更隔离。要判断这场争论在数据上谁占理，中文读者可以看两个指标：美国各州教育选择立法的推进速度，以及纽约市公立学校的在读人数变化。前者按 Ballotpedia 的统计，截至 2026 年 4 月 30 日，已有 21 个州立法设立教育储蓄账户（ESA），20 个州设立学券项目，25 个州设立税收抵免型奖学金。17

第三段从一封听众来信开始，写信人叫 Weston。节目念出的原文是："上周关于 AI 风险的讨论让我明白，我永远不会成为一个彻底的自由至上主义者。假定 AI、气候或者别的什么东西真构成了生存性威胁，自由至上主义者打算怎么解决这个协调问题？看起来你们每次都只是对着威胁的严重性挥挥手，然后开始讲那些我们应该担心的暴政。"1

这个问题有来处。9 月 14 日那一期，四位编辑花了大段时间谈 AI 是否存在生存性威胁，以及该不该监管；节目上线后收到一批听众来信，几乎每一封都在说同一个意思：你们低估了 AI 风险。18 Suderman 说这一期挑这封是因为它短——多数谈 AI 的来信写得很长。

Welch 的回答是这一段的骨架。他先认了自己："上周我说，请把我当傻子一样跟我解释威胁到底是什么，我不是在引《神探可伦坡》的台词，我是真的不懂。"他要求的是具体机制，并把这种追问自嘲为 内裤地精式的 AI 末日论——那个来自《南方公园》的梗指的是三步商业计划：第一步偷内裤，第二步写问号，第三步赚钱；中间那步从来没人讲清楚。他说自己认真对待过 9·11、新冠、正在逼近的养老金悬崖这类超出个人理解能力的灾难，愿意在有新信息时改变立场，缺的是"AI 获得超级智能，然后呢"这一步。1

Slade 给的是供给侧方案。她说即便你认为威胁比上周节目里讲的更大，也应该保证 AI 供应商之间存在真正的竞争："如果某一家走歪了、试图把我们都干掉，我希望还有别家可以求助。"她把这件事类比成枪支管制：与其假设能把风险关掉，不如让制衡存在于数量之中。1

Gillespie 从三个方向接。第一，他同意"增加供给让市场自己分流"这个逻辑，既适用于好想法与坏想法，也适用于好技术与坏技术。第二，他指出喊得最响的恰恰是监管的受益者：按他的说法，把 AI 生存性威胁讲得最重的人，正是最可能从监管中获益的公司，这让整套论证带着公共选择理论的气味。第三，他给了一个正面的反例：臭氧层空洞是科学家先识别问题、再识别来源，最后各国协议停产氟氯烃，那个办法奏效了——真问题可以靠协议解决，前提是先有可核查的机制，而不是推特上有人说"十年内 AI 毁灭一切的概率超过 10%"。他还补了一句时点上的讽刺：Anthropic 和 OpenAI 正在为上市做准备；而在连"AI"与"机器学习"的边界都没有共识的时候，急着立规矩的风险不比技术本身小。1

Suderman 把"风险会互相转化"这条线讲得最完整，用的是核能与气候这组对照。他说核武器是货真价实的末日威胁——按下按钮，几十亿人在一小时内消失；而对核能的环境恐惧与对核武器的恐惧合在一起，让美国在 1970 年代基本停建了核电站。核能原本是不排碳的能源，如果继续建下去，今天的气候风险会小很多，代价是其间可能会有若干人死于事故。他由此提出的判断是：也许解法是把所有东西都做得更多，而不是更少。1

这一段的现实背景节目里也点了名。特朗普在 9 月 19 日宣布要组建一支"AI 部队"，比照他第一任期成立的太空军，同时任命一位 AI 事务负责人。19 加州民主党众议员 Ro Khanna 在 9 月 20 日 CBS《面对全国》节目里提出另一个方向：设立一个类似食品药品监督管理局（FDA）的 AI 监管机构，让 AI 像核能那样被管起来。20 Welch 对这两个方案的回应是一句反问："想到我们要有一个 AI 版 FDA，你心里是不是觉得又暖又安全？"1

最后四十分钟的重心是 Slade 的新书《Fusionism: Liberty, Virtue, and the Future of the American Right》，圣母大学出版社 2026 年 9 月出版，304 页，精装定价 30 美元。21

书要解释的概念值得先说清楚。融合主义（fusionism）是二战后美国保守运动的思想黏合剂：把古典自由主义对个人自由的辩护，与犹太—基督教传统对道德德性的重视合到一条路线上。这套综合由《国家评论》杂志在 1950 年代成型，最常被归到 Frank Meyer 名下——他在 1962 年的《In Defense of Freedom》里主张，国家只该有警察、军队和法律系统三种正当功能，德性要靠个人自愿，被强制的价值不可能是德性的。1960 年青年美国自由联盟成立时通过的《沙伦宣言》是这套原则的政治表达；里根在 1981 年专门提到过 Meyer，称他"锻造出传统主义与自由至上主义的新综合，今天被许多人认作现代保守主义"。2122

Slade 在节目里讲的诊断是这样的：融合主义在里根时代赢了，赢到它的支持者不再需要向人解释和辩护，于是它衰退了；今天右翼里声音最大的一批人在推的是反融合主义的版本，她给它起的名字叫 "意志—权力保守主义"（will to power conservatism）——不谈自由与德性，直接谈一个"有力的国家"，用它奖励朋友、惩罚敌人。1 这个判断在她接受出版方访谈时也出现过，她把它讲成自己的写作动机：她注意到保守阵营里出现一道裂缝，一边是里根式的有限政府，另一边开始主张用"更强健的"姿态来行使国家权力。23

特朗普在这本书里的位置很尴尬。Slade 说他是"融合主义者的反面"：他不关心自由，也不关心德性，唯一在动的原则是"我想做什么就做什么"，别人不能批评他、法院不能制约他。她同时提醒听众，特朗普并没有提供一套成体系的替代哲学，他"就是这样的人"；真正在做思想与制度搭建的，是她称之为异见右翼（dissident right）的那批知识分子，他们试图让这件事显得有理论、有格调。她的判断是，这批人在特朗普第二任期里反而陷入了危机和分裂，因为特朗普本人不站任何原则——他可以在别人讨论了几年的 H-1B 签证上随时转向。1

Gillespie 从思想史补了一支被忽略的力量。他说翻《国家评论》的档案会发现，战后保守思想里有一条佛朗哥主义的分支，它关心的从来不是自由传统，而是"被强制的美德"，以佛朗哥治下的西班牙为样本；他觉得今天这批异见右翼重新翻出佛朗哥，正是这条支流在起作用。他还给"后自由主义"加了一个左右对称的读法：比尔·克林顿和吉米·卡特那代人对有限政府、自由市场、言论自由和有序移民是有承诺的，那种承诺在两边都变淡了。1

Slade 对"为什么会走到今天"的因果解释一分为二。她说异见右翼的兴起是对更早一轮左翼越界的反应：民主党在拜登时期对最激进的一翼采取了迁就与优先照顾的姿态，把一系列承诺往前推——身份政治的激进版本、对社会主义的暧昧、以及"谁的声音超出那条窄窄的可接受区间，就会有网络暴力和职场惩罚等着他"。她举的例子里包括那场围绕蛋糕店的诉讼，以及美国公民自由联盟推动诉讼、要求天主教医院实施堕胎。她的结论带着一个数字：两边各自的极端群体大约各占 15%，剩下 70% 的美国人只想和邻居平静过日子，但眼下两党都在为各自的两端服务。1

Welch 在被主持人点名时把话题绕回了当下最实际的问题："这本书时机太准了——现在这批围绕 J.D. 万斯集结的人，如果掌权，美国会是什么样？"万斯是共和党总统提名的头号热门人选，而这本书给出的答案是：那会是一个反融合主义的美国。1

Slade 在节目里也回应了自己的天主教信仰与这本书的关系。她说自己辩护的是一种普世的犹太—基督教道德，主张这套传统里包含关于"人该怎样生活"的智慧；她并不要求读者信教，在一个像美国这样多元的国家，把话说得更远就超出能站住的范围了。她还强调了推进方式：靠说服、皈依和自愿结社，不靠国家强制。1 出版方访谈里她讲得更清楚：这本书的目标读者是大学生和年轻人，他们认为今天这套保守主义是常态，不知道它在哲学上偏离了多远。23 同一场访谈里还有一处她对书稿的修正：她原本把 Russell Kirk 当成今天异见右翼的前身，读完他的著作后认为 Kirk 比她记忆中的更偏向自由至上主义，而 Hayek 比她记忆中的更偏向传统主义。23

Slade 今年 9 月 2 日已经上过一次 Reason 的播客，和 Gillespie 单独聊过书名里这两个词的张力。24

节目最后十分钟，四个人各推一件东西。

Nick Gillespie 推的是经济学作家 Allison Schrager 的新书《Worth the Risk: The Seven Myths That Keep Us From Taking the Chances We Need to Take》。 他的介绍是：Schrager 是彭博专栏作家、曼哈顿研究所高级研究员，这本书说的是美国人已经把生活里几乎每个部分都"去风险化"了，而这恰好解释了经济增长为什么停滞。她引用的一个事实是，今天的人在一个岗位上待的时间比三四十年前更长；而涨薪的常规路径是换工作、去薪水更高的地方，或者搬到别的州。Gillespie 还提到她几年前那本《An Economist Walks Into a Brothel》，讲的是人怎样聪明地处理风险。125

Matt Welch 推的是《The Department of Revenge: How Trump Took Control of American Justice》，作者是长期报道司法部的《纽约时报》记者 Devlin Barrett。Welch 说这本书是 Maggie Haberman 与 Jonathan Swan 那本"政权更迭"著作的伴读，讲的是特朗普第二任期第一年对司法部做了什么；他的评语是"答案糟透了"——三十几岁的无能者给职业检察官做忠诚度测试，问他们过去五任总统分别投给谁。他把这本书定位成一本了解"你的政府正在被怎样使用和滥用"的入门书。126 Gillespie 顺势提醒听众去看 Welch 几个月前为《Reason》写的那篇长报道，内容是特朗普第一年赚了多少钱、做了哪些生意，以及这与历任总统那点小打小闹之间的量级差。1

Suderman 推的是新上映的游戏改编电影《Resident Evil》（中文片名《生化危机》），导演是 Zach Cregger，此前执导过《Weapons》和《Barbarian》。他的评价集中在一点：这部电影不打算还原任何一部游戏的主线，甚至不还原玩家熟悉的视觉风格，它还原的是"第一次玩射击游戏、枪法很差、被反复打死、还硬着头皮往前走"的那种体验。全片 93 分钟，主角是个类似跑腿平台的送货员，要把一件不明货物送到浣熊市中心的指定地点。Suderman 说它血腥得离谱，也笑得离谱。1 他此前为《Reason》写过一篇影评，标题就把这部电影说成对游戏的一次"极其不正常的致敬"。27 Welch 对这条推荐的回应是全期最短的一句："我在想有没有什么是我更不想看的，我想不出来。"1

Stephanie Slade 推的是 Jerome E. Copulsky 的《American Heretics: Religious Adversaries of Liberal Order》。 她说这是可读性很好的学术非虚构，梳理美国历史上那些拒绝建国承诺——个人自由、法治、宗教自由、政教分离——的派别与人物；在她看来，其中不少人是今天这批异见右翼的先声，而万斯是当下最主要的代言人。她把这本书定位成自己那本书的反面叙事：她讲的是 20 世纪后半叶保守运动对这些建国价值的承诺，这本讲的是反对它的声音一直都在。128

节目收尾时，Suderman 把这一期的两条线接在了一起：让"复仇部"成立的那套心态，和让"我们就是不让 CNN 和 Politico 进来，因为我不喜欢你写的东西"成立的心态，是同一种——顺着我的来，否则走开。他说这句话时，特朗普政府里找不到古典自由主义的影子。1

这一期的信息密度不低，边界需要标出来。

经过公开来源核实的事实包括：封禁的宣布时间、三家记者被拒入院的经过、起诉与临时限制令申请、电视记者池停摆、白宫与三家的各自表态、Timothy Kelly 承审、美联社案与 Acosta 案的判决结果、Paramount 与各州和解、CBS 的 1600 万美元和解、联邦通信委员会主席卡尔的公开表态、MS NOW 的更名与股权归属、纽约市公立学校在读人数的下降幅度、各州教育选择立法的数量、《Fusionism》的出版信息与里根对 Meyer 的评价、特朗普的"AI 部队"与 Ro Khanna 的 AI 版 FDA 提议。这些都有本文中对应的可点击来源。521

只出现在节目里、没有找到对应公开文本的说法有几处，读的时候值得留个心：Slade 引用的那次 2020 年特朗普选民调查（约九成认为主流媒体是民主党的分支）；P.S. 307 每生经费的 5.8 万美元与 5.2 万美元两个版本；Welch 说的"纽约市六七年里少了 15 万名学生"；以及 Gillespie 提到的和解条款细节（每年至少 30 部电影与未达标罚则）。1

几位发言人的立场需要一并说明：Gillespie、Welch 与 Slade 都是《Reason》杂志的编辑，杂志自 1968 年创刊以来主张自由至上主义立场；Suderman 是本期主持。他们对白宫封禁、教育选择、AI 监管的判断都带有这套立场，本期没有邀请持相反立场的人对谈。1

录制之后的新进展：三家媒体的起诉在节目上线前后正式提交，请求临时限制令，听证定在周三；白宫在回应路透社时坚持封禁的正当性，特朗普当天又发帖把行动描述成"对假新闻而不是对自由新闻"的攻击。5

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Donald Trump has banned CNN, Politico, and MS NOW from the White House. And he says that more fake news bans may be on the way. The media organizations are suing in response. They say the ban violates the Constitution. So do mainstream media organizations actually have a First Amendment right to the White House briefing room? That's what we're going to talk about today. Welcome to the Reason Roundtable. This is your libertarian review of news and culture from the editors of Reason magazine. I'm your host, Peter Suderman. And today I am joined by my colleagues, Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch, and a very special guest, Stephanie Slade, who has a fantastic new book out. We're going to talk about that in a little bit. But first, some news about Reason. Reason produced a documentary about how socialism has ruined Venezuela, and many people have tried to leave, have had to escape. And so it's called Escaping Venezuela. It's going to premiere at the IFC in New York City on October 13th. You should be there. Also in New York next month, having a live show to celebrate our 10th anniversary. That show is sold out, but there is a waiting list. You should get on it. Go to the show notes at Reason.com or the YouTube description below this show if you're watching on YouTube for more info on both. All right. So CNN, Politico, MS NOW have all been banned from the White House. And they say that ban violates the Constitution because there was no formal process and because they are being targeted specifically for their speech, for the reporting that the administration does not like. And Trump, for his part, has basically said, yep, they're being targeted for speech, what he calls purposely negative stories. That's Trump's phrase. So Matt, I imagine there's quite a few of our listeners out there who consider themselves very pro-free speech, but they also find CNN and other mainstream media outlets kind of annoying sometimes, and especially frustrating when it comes to coverage of Trump. What would you say to them about this story?

唐纳德·特朗普已经禁止 CNN、Politico 和 MS NOW 进入白宫。他还表示，可能会有更多的假新闻禁令出台。媒体机构对此提起了诉讼。他们称禁令违反了宪法。那么主流媒体机构真的有权利进入白宫简报室吗？这就是我们今天要讨论的内容。欢迎来到这是你的自由主义新闻和文化评论，由《Reason》杂志编辑团队呈现。我是你的主持人彼得·苏德曼。今天，我的同事尼克·吉莱斯皮、马特·韦尔奇，以及一位非常特别的嘉宾斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德将与我一起，她的新书非常精彩。我们稍后会谈到这本书。 但首先，关于《Reason》的新闻。《Reason》制作了一部关于社会主义如何毁掉了委内瑞拉的纪录片，许多人试图离开，不得不逃离。所以它被称为《逃离委内瑞拉》。该片将于 10 月 13 日在纽约市的 IFC 首映。你应该去看。此外，下个月我们在纽约举行现场演出，庆祝我们的 10 周年。这场演出已经售罄，但有等候名单。你应该加入。有关更多信息，请访问《Reason》的节目说明或在 YouTube 上观看此节目下方的描述。好了，所以 CNN、Politico 和 MS NOW 都已被白宫禁止。 他们说这个禁令违反了宪法，因为没有正式程序，而且他们因为言论被特别针对，因为他们报道的内容是政府不喜欢的。至于特朗普，他基本上也说了，是的，他们因为言论而被针对，他称之为故意的负面报道。那是特朗普的话。所以，马特，我想我们的许多听众中有不少人自认为非常支持言论自由，但他们也觉得 CNN 和其他主流媒体有时有点烦人，尤其是在报道特朗普时特别令人沮丧。你会对他们讲这件事怎么看？

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Just that a president or anybody in government doesn't have the right to use government power to arbitrarily and capriciously block access that is otherwise granted to other working journalists. That's it. It doesn't really matter how much you are annoyed by those working journalists. You can create a process if you want saying that said journalistic institutions have to I'm going to talk about the difference between fake news and real and the free press is how Donald Trump put it today. I like the free press. I just hate the fake news. You know, you don't have to have much of an imagination to imagine exactly what the Biden administration said. They liked real news, too. They just hated misinformation. And that's why they put a whole bunch of pressure on social media companies to ban, kick off people who are distributing that misinformation from the bully pulpit. We opposed that. Then we oppose this now.

只是说，总统或任何政府官员没有权利利用政府权力随意地、反复无常地阻止本应允许其他在职记者访问的权利。仅此而已。你对这些在职记者有多生气其实并不重要。如果你愿意，你可以创建一个流程，说某些新闻机构必须遵守。我将谈谈假新闻和真实新闻之间的区别，以及自由新闻界，正如唐纳德·特朗普今天所说的。我喜欢自由新闻界。我只是讨厌假新闻。你知道，不需要太多想象力就能准确想象拜登政府所说的话。他们也喜欢真实新闻。 他们只是讨厌虚假信息。这就是为什么他们对社交媒体公司施加了大量压力，要求禁止、踢出那些在讲台上散布虚假信息的人。我们反对那样做。现在我们也反对这个。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Nick, this is just more of the same from the Trump administration, right? I mean, this follows in a long line of kind of Trump says he's a free speech warrior, and then he appoints Brendan Carr, who goes after media organizations for doing things that the Trump administration doesn't like. They have all but kicked out all of the kind of non-bootlickers from the Department of War, from the Pentagon, and the press briefings there. There hasn't been like a normal press briefing in who knows how long. You can't really cover the Pentagon in the way that you used to be able to. So given the history here. Is this something that we should be concerned about or just say, shrug our shoulders? This is what Trump does. He's constantly at war with the press. That seems to be what his base wants.

尼克，这只是特朗普政府一贯的做法，对吧？我的意思是，这延续了特朗普自称自己是言论自由战士的长期模式，然后他任命布伦丹·卡尔，去针对那些做了特朗普政府不喜欢的事情的媒体机构。他们几乎把国防部和新闻发布会上所有不顺从的人都踢出了出去。已经很久没有正常的新闻发布会了。你已经无法像以前那样报道五角大楼。所以考虑到这里的历史，我们应该对此感到担忧，还是只是耸耸肩? 这就是特朗普所做的。他不断与媒体作战。这似乎是他的支持者所想要的。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

Well, I'm excited that the Department of War actually invited Jake Paul and Logan Paul to address the troops. I think that, you know, if you want to invite two people named Paul, it should be Ron Paul and Rand Paul. But to your point, we it is interesting. This is what Trump does. He has signaled this again and again in his actions as well as in his rhetoric. It's outrageous. It's unconstitutional. It's stupid. And the one thing that you can say about it is that it's also part of the reason that, according to some polls, he has an approval rating of 29% going into the midterms. This type of activity is not just awful for an open society, but it also seems to be politically backfiring with. Thank you. I'm your host, Dr. David Morgan. You know, both by his age and by the Constitution. What comes after this is deeply disturbing.

嗯，我很兴奋国防部实际上邀请了杰克·保罗和洛根·保罗来向部队发表演讲。我觉得，你知道，如果你想邀请两位名叫保罗的人，那应该是罗恩·保罗和兰德·保罗。但说到你提到的这一点，这确实很有趣。这就是特朗普的做法。他在行动和言辞中一次又一次地发出了这样的信号。这令人愤慨。这违宪。这很愚蠢。而你可以说的唯一一点是，这也是根据一些民调，他在中期选举前的支持率为 29%的原因之一。这种行为不仅对一个开放的社会有害，而且似乎在政治上也产生了负面效果。 谢谢你。我是你的主持人，大卫·摩根博士。你知道，无论是从他的年龄还是从宪法来看。接下来的事情令人深感不安。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

So since Nick raised attempts to control the media, Slade, this isn't the only CNN news from this weekend. Larry and David Ellison have been attempting to acquire Warner Brothers, which owns CNN and merge it with Paramount Skydance, which the Ellisons own. And a bunch of state attorneys general have had sued to try to stop the deal. And that suit was being led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. And I say was because just before we started taping this show, there was an announcement that Paramount has settled with the states and now the merger can go through. But before the settlement went through over the weekend, some of the Democratic AGs who were involved were resisting having settlement. And because according to one source, they wanted to preserve what they called an independent CNN. Now, the deal has gone through, so, you know, this is over. But they were trying to block this deal, or just a business deal between two big companies that was sort of freely engaged in, because they wanted to prevent an owner that is perceived as favorable to Trump from owning CNN.

所以既然尼克提出了控制媒体的尝试，斯莱德，这并不是这个周末唯一的 CNN 新闻。拉里和大卫·埃利森一直试图收购拥有 CNN 的华纳兄弟，并将其与埃利森拥有的派拉蒙天际（Paramount Skydance）合并。而一群州检察长提起诉讼，试图阻止这笔交易。而这起诉讼是由加利福尼亚州检察长罗布·邦塔（Rob Bonta）领导的。我说“是”，是因为就在我们开始录制这个节目前不久，宣布派拉蒙已与各州达成和解，现在这笔合并可以进行。 但是在周末和解达成之前，一些参与的民主党州检察长抵制和解。据一位消息人士称，他们希望保留他们所谓的独立 CNN。现在，交易已经完成，所以，这件事已经结束。但他们曾试图阻止这笔交易，或者说只是两个大公司之间自由进行的商业交易，因为他们希望阻止一个被认为对特朗普有利的所有者拥有 CNN。

Stephanie Slade（斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德）：

So, like, how hard are we horseshoeing on all of this free speech and media stuff here? Yeah, pretty hard. It definitely goes to show that we don't really have a party at this moment who is willing to defend free speech in all cases, even when the other party is trying to use it to say things that they don't like. Fortunately, there's still civil society institutions like our friends over at FIRE who are continuing to make the case that this is ridiculous across the board. That gives me some hope that they're going to be continuing to... Bring lawsuits and CNN and Politico and MS NOW have announced that they are going to be challenging the White House's ban. So there is an opportunity for sort of our liberal institutions to step up and do their thing and the process to work to stop these attempts to shut down speech or control who can own private businesses or whatever, whichever instance we're talking about in the moment. But it's not great that the sort of the institutions are having to work currently against both parties all the time.

所以，嗯，我们在所有这些言论自由和媒体问题上到底有多认真呢？是的，相当认真。这绝对表明，目前我们没有一个政党愿意在所有情况下捍卫言论自由，即使对方政党试图利用言论自由说他们不喜欢的事情。幸运的是，像我们在 FIRE 的朋友们这样的公民社会机构仍在继续主张，这在各方面都是荒谬的。这让我对他们将继续……提起诉讼感到一些希望，而 CNN、Politico 和 MS NOW 已经宣布，他们将挑战白宫的禁令。 所以我们的自由机构有机会挺身而出，发挥它们的作用，努力阻止这些试图关闭言论自由或控制谁可以拥有私人企业的行为，或者无论我们当下谈论的是哪种情况。但是，目前这些机构不得不一直对抗双方，这并不是一件好事。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

I think it's important to throw in that the Democratic AGs, whose activity here I do not support, were acting in their minds in mimetic response to the Trump administration's initial intervention into this merger. And that initial intervention was awful. And should be embarrassing for everybody involved. It was as follows. Trump files a completely meritless lawsuit against 60 Minutes about the way a pre-election piece was edited. Absolutely meritless. But 60 Minutes, being owned by Paramount, decides maybe we're going to settle that. Because if we settle that, then we're going to get approval from the FCC of this merger that we want to see go through. So the federal government has all this leverage. Trump loves using that leverage to punish his enemies. And to extract extortionate favors for people on his side. In this case, the FCC, Brendan Carr is one of the biggest ass bags in the entire federal government, bragged about getting an ombudsman to work for CBS News and to have more kind of fairness and balance into the. That's not.

我认为有必要补充一点，那些我不支持其活动的民主党州检察官，他们在做这些事情时，心里是在对特朗普政府最初干预这次合并做出模仿性的反应。而那次最初的干预是糟糕的，也应该让所有参与其中的人感到尴尬。情况如下：特朗普对《60 分钟》提起了一起完全没有根据的诉讼，原因是选前节目片段的剪辑方式。完全没有依据。但《60 分钟》被派拉蒙拥有，他们决定也许我们可以和解。因为如果我们和解了，那么我们就能获得联邦通信委员会对我们希望完成的这次合并的批准。 因此联邦政府拥有所有这些杠杆。特朗普喜欢利用这些杠杆来惩罚他的敌人，并为他这一边的人获取敲诈性的好处。在这种情况下，联邦通信委员会（FCC）的布兰登·卡尔是整个联邦政府中最讨厌的人之一，他夸耀说让监察员为 CBS 新闻工作，并在其中带来更多的公平和平衡。那并不是。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Matt, what is an assbag?

马特，什么是 assbag？

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

I don't think we need to draw a full picture. It's just more, it's poetic, as they say. Yeah.

我不认为我们需要画一幅完整的画。只是更多，它是诗意的，正如人们所说。是的。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

I think they had some of those in the Resident Evil movie that I'm going to talk about.

我认为他们在我要谈论的《生化危机》电影中有一些这样的东西。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

I'm sure that they have them in spades. But I liked, you know, Peter, when we're talking about like independent news, you know, whether it's CNN or whatever, there was a time when Warner Brothers was owned by Kinney Shoes or the company that created Kinney Shoes, which was, you know, the official footwear of lower middle class America, at least through the early 70s. And, you know, these conglomerates are always endlessly entangled with stuff. And to kind of piggyback on part of what Matt's talking about, like this deal with the, you know, with the four AGs kind of in big states who held out, you know, 44 other jurisdictions were like, yeah, go ahead, merge. You know, we don't have a right to stop this. But, you know, part of that is that Warner Brothers or Warner Movies will produce at least 30 movies a year. And, you know, and if they fall short of that, the new conglomerate will pay fines on that. And, you know, this you realize Trump, you know, let's leave aside Trump is awful and terrible and he is destroying himself and the Republican Party. Which is all good, right? I mean, because they deserve, if they roll with them, they deserve that. But then we get into this kind of lunatic regulation of media companies, including companies that make movies, right? And TV shows and things like that. And it's insane. Like when you start looking into, you know, what gets extracted and why in mergers like this. It's deeply troubling for reasons that are probably less pressing and more comical than Trump. But, you know, nonetheless, like there are just principles here that are just so far beyond the idea of free speech and a free economy. It's just mind numbing.

我确信他们有很多。但我喜欢，你知道，彼得，当我们谈论像独立新闻的时候，你知道，不管是 CNN 还是别的什么，有一段时间，华纳兄弟是由金尼鞋业或创建金尼鞋业的公司拥有的，你知道，那是至少在 70 年代初期下中产阶级美国的官方鞋类。而且，你知道，这些企业集团总是与各种事情纠缠不清。顺着马特说的部分内容说一下，比如这个与四个 AG（总检察长）的交易，在大的州里他们坚持不让步，你知道，其他 44 个司法管辖区就像，是的，去吧，合并吧。 你知道，我们没有权利阻止这个。但，你知道，其中的一部分是华纳兄弟或华纳电影每年至少会制作 30 部电影。而且，你知道，如果他们未达到这个数量，新的企业集团将为此支付罚款。你知道，你意识到特朗普，先不谈特朗普很糟糕，很可怕，他正在毁掉自己和共和党。这一切都好，对吧？我的意思是，因为如果他们跟着他走，他们应得这些。但随后我们进入了这种对媒体公司的疯狂监管，包括制作电影的公司，对吧？还有电视节目之类的。这很疯狂。 就像当你开始研究，你知道，会在这种合并中提取什么以及为什么提取。这令人极为不安，原因可能比特朗普的问题不那么紧迫，更带有喜剧性。但你知道，尽管如此，这里确实有一些原则，远远超出了言论自由和自由经济的概念。这真的让人感到震惊。

Stephanie Slade（斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德）：

I do think it's probably important to acknowledge that for a lot of voters, maybe not most libertarians, but most voters think that like the state has a role in preventing like racism. Entities from growing so large that they have actual monopoly power. And so there is some legitimate authority at stake here. The problem, at least part of the problem, is that it's being that's being used as cover to to try to coerce private businesses into being. You know, on one side or the other on these speech issues. It's a legitimate government power, at least in many people's eyes, that's being used to do something that would otherwise be flatly unconstitutional, right? Controlling the speech of a company. It's the same thing with actually the White House press bans, which is like there are a finite number of seats in the press room. You're going to have to decide which publications are going to get a seat at the table, a seat in the room. Some sort of... Decision is going to have to sort of rules going to have to govern that decision. They're they're they're very obvious, though, and Trump has been very explicit about the fact that they're not just doing it because like this is the biggest or the most popular or whatever publication. But it's like if you say something I don't like, I'm going to punish you. And it's the punitive nature. It's the targeting of individual people for in order to try to compel speech or chill speech that that is what makes it problematic. Right.

我确实认为，重要的是要承认，对于很多选民来说，也许不是大多数自由意志主义者，但大多数选民认为，国家在防止种族主义方面有一定作用。防止实体变得过大，以至于拥有实际的垄断权力。因此，这里存在一些正当的权威。问题，至少部分问题在于，这种权力正在被用作掩护，试图强迫私人企业在这些言论问题上站在一方或另一方。在许多人看来，这本是合法的政府权力，却被用来做一些原本明确违宪的事情，对吧? 控制公司的言论。这实际上和白宫的新闻禁令是一样的，比如新闻发布室的座位是有限的。你必须决定哪些出版物能够在桌旁、有座位地进入房间。某种……某种决策规则必须来管理这个决定。不过这些规则非常明显，特朗普也非常明确地表示，他们这样做不仅仅是因为这是最大或最受欢迎的出版物。而是如果你说了我不喜欢的话，我就会惩罚你。这是一种惩罚性质。 这是针对个别人的，以试图强迫言论或压制言论，这就是问题所在。对吧。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Yeah, I mean, I think it was Greg Lukianoff who was like, you know, in a normal administration, if you wanted to do something like this, well, maybe you wouldn't. But like if you did, you would have a bunch of lawyers come up with a pretext, some sort of plausible justification for this is a process reason. You know, it's not because of what they're saying. It's not about speech particularly. And in this administration, Trump is just like. No, it's about what they're reporting. Very specifically, here's the quote. There's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories. Media outlets shouldn't be able to constantly write or report fiction and lies when they're covering the president of the United States, the Trump administration, or the United States of America. Other fake news media outlets to follow. So he's saying this is the first of many.

是的，我的意思是，我认为是格雷格·卢基亚诺夫（Greg Lukianoff）说的，你知道，在一个正常的政府里，如果你想做这样的事情，嗯，也许你不会去做。但如果你真的去做了，你会有一群律师找出一个借口，提供某种看似合理的理由，说这是一个程序上的问题。你知道，这不是因为他们说了什么，这特别不是关于言论的。而在这个政府里，特朗普就直接说，不，这是关于他们报道的内容。很具体地，这里有一句话。允许有人故意撰写负面报道的国家本身就有问题。 当媒体报道美国总统、特朗普政府或美利坚合众国时，不应该一直撰写或报道虚构和谎言。其他假新闻媒体也值得关注。所以他说这是许多中的第一个。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

You know, the one... The one thing you can say is he's channeling virtually every president, early president, especially once they left office. Jefferson, actually, after he was out of power, and he used to be a big press guy, freedom of the press guy, and then he became just foaming at the mouth about how the press was awful and it was just filled with lies, et cetera. So in that sense, Trump is acting very presidential.

你知道，就是那个……你可以说的是，他几乎在模仿每一位总统，尤其是早期的总统，尤其是在他们离开职位之后。事实上，杰斐逊在他下台之后，他曾经是一个非常支持新闻自由的人，但后来他却变得对新闻充满敌意，认为新闻都是谎言，等等。从这个意义上说，特朗普的行为非常像总统。

Stephanie Slade（斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德）：

I think it's a gift, really, because I think, again, most Americans are like, well, you know, the president gets to decide who comes into his press room. There's only so many seats. This is like a reasonable thing. I actually think they don't see it as like a threat to liberal democracy that CNN is going to get sent packing, most Americans. But they do recognize when he says, I get to decide that you don't get to tell lies about me. They go, wait a second. I think most Americans just intuitively recognize this is problematic. Yeah.

我觉得这真的是一种礼物，因为我认为，再说一次，大多数美国人会认为，总统可以决定谁能进入他的新闻发布室。座位有限，这是合理的。我实际上认为他们并不认为 CNN 会被赶走对自由民主构成威胁，大多数美国人都是这样看待的。但当他说，我可以决定你不能对我撒谎时，他们就会想，等等。我认为大多数美国人只是直觉上认识到这是有问题的。是的。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Is that right? Like, is that actually right? I think many Americans think that journalists are kind of bad, kind of shady, and that the problem is they lie about what's going on in the world, and especially about the politicians that they dislike. And I think this is especially common amongst sort of conservative, right-leaning types who are just deeply suspicious of mainstream media, legacy media, big media organizations, CNN in particular, MS NOW, you know, they've obviously completely written off. But they think, wait a minute, these companies shouldn't be allowed to get privileged access that allows them to profit off of what they consider to be lies. Now, I'm not saying I think that CNN is out there lying about this or that I think this is correct, but I think that is actually quite a common view, especially now, especially for people who support Donald Trump.

是这样吗？就是说，这真的是对的吗？我觉得很多美国人认为记者有点坏，有点可疑，而且问题在于他们会撒谎关于世界上发生的事情，特别是关于他们不喜欢的政治家。我认为这种想法在某些保守、偏右的人中尤其常见，他们对主流媒体、传统媒体、大型媒体机构非常怀疑，尤其是 CNN，MS NOW，你知道，他们显然已经完全放弃了。但他们认为，等等，这些公司不应该被允许获得特权，从而让他们能够从这些他们认为是谎言的东西中获利。 现在，我并不是说我认为 CNN 在撒谎，或者我认为这是正确的，但我认为这实际上是一种相当普遍的观点，尤其是现在，尤其是对于支持唐纳德·特朗普的人来说。

Stephanie Slade（斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德）：

Yeah, no, it's totally true. And there was a survey of 2020 Trump voters that I quote all the time, the Ethics and Public Policy Center did, where it was like 90% of people who voted for Trump all agreed that the mainstream media is basically just an arm of the Democratic Party. They don't trust the mainstream media.

是的，不，这完全是真的。而且有一项针对 2020 年投票给特朗普的选民的调查，我经常引用，是由伦理与公共政策中心做的，结果显示，大约 90%的特朗普选民都认为主流媒体基本上只是民主党的一个工具。他们不信任主流媒体。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

Did they check and see how many of them also believe Trump won the election?

他们有没有检查过有多少人也认为特朗普赢得了选举？

Stephanie Slade（斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德）：

I don't remember. This was actually taken just right after the election, so I'm not even sure if the sort of stop the steal thing had happened at that point.

我不记得了。这实际上是在选举之后马上拍的，所以我甚至不确定那时所谓的“阻止窃选”活动是否已经发生过。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Sorry, just just to, you know, the of all of the Trump crackdowns on the First Amendment, I don't think this ranks in the top 10 of the second administration, but it'll get more immediate play precisely because media loves to talk about itself. Especially now that they're banding together heroically and they're not going to have any pool coverage, video pool coverage of the president. And now the president who loves attention isn't getting it. And that's all this drama. People love talking about it. But it really pales in comparison to the crackdown on law firms, the extortionate crackdown on law firms about who they had previously done business with. He's prosecuting James Comey for running seashells on a beach. There are so many other interventions. That are awful, deporting students based on their op-eds, like just openly doing this. The kinds of harms that are coming are much greater than what happens to MS now in terms of the White House press pool. And I think one of the reasons why Americans have such a low continuing disregard for, and it's huge, bipartisan disregard for journalists, is that journalists love to talk about themselves much more than they love to talk about other victims of Trump's First Amendment crackdowns.

抱歉，只是想说，你知道，在特朗普对第一修正案的所有打压中，我不认为这属于第二任期的前十名，但它会更快得到关注，正因为媒体喜欢谈论自己。尤其是现在，他们英勇地联合起来，总统不会有任何现场报道、视频报道。而现在，这位喜欢关注的总统得不到关注。这就是所有的戏剧。人们喜欢谈论它。但与对律师事务所的打压相比，这完全不值一提，那种对律师事务所之前合作对象的勒索式打压才是真正的严重。 他正在起诉詹姆斯·科米，因为他在海滩上玩海螺。有很多其他干预措施，比方说可怕的——基于社论驱逐学生，就只是公开这样做。即将发生的伤害种类远比现在在白宫对微软发生的情况还要严重。我认为美国人对记者持续蔑视程度如此之高的原因之一，而且这是两党都存在的巨大蔑视，就是记者更喜欢谈论自己，而不是谈论特朗普打击行动的其他受害者。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

eners, check out the Bound by Oath podcast. It's brought to you by our friends at the Institute for Justice. Bound by Oath brings you the true stories behind some of the biggest cases in Supreme Court history. Stories like the case of John Harris Jr. He was a radical activist arrested in 1966 for handing out flyers in protest of a fatal police shooting in Los Angeles. The Supreme Court didn't rule on his arrest, and yet it changed how people can enforce the Constitution today. The show just wrapped up its fourth season, which is about how federal courts avoid their duty to say what the law actually means. But check out the earlier seasons, too. They're about property rights, immunity doctrines that shield the government from accountability, and the 14th Amendment. Bound by Oath is available wherever you get your podcasts. That's Bound by Oath, available aplatforms everywhere. All right, speaking of journalists, talking about journalists, let's talk about the big Nikole Hannah-Jones school choice story in the New York Times that ran over this weekend. So Hannah-Jones is, of course, the editor of the much-discussed, occasionally criticized 1619 Project. And she has a big new piece in the New York Times Magazine where she talks about sending her daughter to a poorly ranked public school in New York City out of a sense of obligation to her schools, to her community, to the idea of public education. But the school she sent her daughter to produced disastrous outcomes for her child. And her daughter was pretty upset when she discovered what her mother had done and kind of indicts her mother for this. And there's some kind of pretty interesting back and forth in the piece. Jones, in the end, blames a lack of funding for schools that serve low income kids. And she blames school choice for creating what she calls segregation. So, Nick, you live in New York. You don't currently have anybody in the school system, but you have a kid who may end up in the New York public school system somehow or or some sort of school in New York. What is your reaction to this story generally?

如果你是法律爱好者，可以看看《Bound by Oath》播客。它由我们在正义研究院的朋友带来。《Bound by Oath》为你呈现了一些美国最高法院历史上最大案件背后的真实故事。比如约翰·哈里斯 Jr. 的案件。他是一名激进的活动家，于 1966 年因在洛杉矶分发传单抗议一次致命的警察枪击事件而被捕。最高法院没有对他的逮捕作出裁决，但它却改变了今天人们如何执行宪法的方式。该节目刚刚结束了第四季，内容关于联邦法院如何回避其阐明法律实际含义的职责。但也可以看看早期的季节。 它们关于财产权、保护政府免于承担责任的豁免原则，以及第十四修正案。《信守誓言》在你获取播客的任何地方都可以收听。那就是《信守誓言》，在各个平台上都可获取。好吧，说到记者，谈到记者，让我们来谈谈《纽约时报》在这个周末刊登的大篇幅关于尼科尔·汉娜-琼斯的学校选择报道。当然，汉娜-琼斯是备受讨论、偶尔受到批评的《1619 计划》的编辑。 她在《纽约时报杂志》上有一篇重要的新文章，在文章中她谈到了出于对学校、社区以及公共教育理念的责任感，把自己的女儿送到纽约市一所排名很低的公立学校。但她送女儿去的学校对她孩子造成了灾难性的后果。她的女儿在发现母亲所做的事情后非常不开心，并在某种程度上指责了母亲。在文章中也有一些相当有趣的来回讨论。最终，琼斯将低收入儿童学校的不足资金归咎于问题，并将学校选择归咎于造成她所称的隔离现象。 所以，尼克，你住在纽约。你目前在学校系统中没有任何人，但你有一个孩子，他可能最终会以某种方式进入纽约公立学校系统，或者纽约的某种学校。你对这个故事总体上有什么反应？

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

One, as a piece of journalism, I found it compelling and interesting. As a policy analysis piece, it is so enraging or willfully naive or stupid about accountability. To talk about it in terms of exit voice and loyalty... Nikole Hannah-Jones and her husband thought that they could affect change solely through voice. They talked about complaining to their teachers and contributing to the PTA and things like that. And what they found was a school system that was emphatically non-responsive. Until they decided to exit. And which is not to say that if you're stuck in a failing school, you shouldn't try to fix it. But that without the right of exit and the threat of exit that can actually ripple through a system and make people accountable, it's very hard to get change done. And in that sense, I think it's a good piece. It's a good conversation starter. The idea that money was the issue, the first school that she sent her daughter to, PS 307, that was for K through five. I just looked at the New York City budget numbers. It got effectively $58,000 per student was allocated to the school. And that includes for lunch and bus transportation and amortizing the building and whatnot. But $58,000, and if you're not educating a kid while shelling out that much money, something is wrong. And the system is not going to respond to parents who are like, why didn't you check my kid's math homework and things like that. So it's an eye opener that way. When we come back later, I want to talk about the question of parents and school choice because it's much thornier than that. But I feel like this was just, as a piece of policy analysis, it just completely missed the mark.

一方面，作为一篇新闻作品，我觉得它引人入胜且有趣。作为一篇政策分析文章，它在问责方面令人愤怒或者故意天真，或者愚蠢。若从退出、发声和忠诚的角度来谈……尼科尔·汉娜-琼斯和她的丈夫认为，他们可以单凭声音来推动变革。他们谈论的是向老师投诉并参与家长教师协会等事情。他们发现的是一个明确不回应的学校系统。直到他们决定退出。这并不是说，如果你被困在一所失败的学校里，就不应该尝试去改进它。 但是，如果没有退出的权利以及退出的威胁，这种威胁实际上可以在系统中产生涟漪效应并让人们承担责任，那么想要实现改变就非常困难。从这个意义上说，我认为这是一个很好的作品。它是一个很好的对话开端。她认为问题出在金钱上，她送女儿去的第一所学校是 PS 307，这是一所从幼儿园到五年级的学校。我刚看了纽约市的预算数字。实际上，每个学生分配给学校的资金约为 58,000 美元。这还包括午餐和校车交通费，以及建筑折旧等。但 58,000 美元，如果你用了这么多钱却没有教育好孩子，那就有问题。 而且系统不会回应那些像‘你为什么没检查我孩子的数学作业’之类的家长。所以从这个角度来看，这很有启发性。等我们稍后回来时，我想讨论家长和学校选择的问题，因为这比那更复杂。但我觉得作为一项政策分析，这完全没有抓住要点。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Yeah, she blames funding for low income, for schools that serve low income communities, especially schools that are not selective, not screened. And as you said, it's $52,000 per student at the school that she sent her daughter to, which is, you know, that's like a full time income, not maybe a great one, but there are people who make $50,000 a year, and that's their whole income. And it is in the 98th percentile of New York schools, right? It is one of the like, on a per pupil basis. One of the better funded schools, actually. And so her argument that this that like, oh, we just don't spend enough on low income students, low income schools and their districts. Right. Like it just doesn't hold up. But Matt, I wanted to actually I want to ask you about your reaction generally. Right. You live in New York. You have kids in school in the in the city. But specifically about the segregation charge, because that is a word that she uses frequently throughout the piece. Where she says that essentially because of school choice, because parents are sending their kids to different schools and have some choice there, that New York schools have ended up segregated.

是的，她把低收入学校，尤其是那些不挑学生、不筛选学生的学校，归咎于资金不足。正如你所说，她送女儿去的学校每个学生的费用是 52,000 美元，这你知道，这就像一份全职收入，也许不是很高，但有些人的年收入就是 50,000 美元，并且这在纽约学校中处于第 98 百分位，对吧？在每个学生的基础上，这实际上是资金较充足的学校之一。所以她的论点是，我们就是没有为低收入学生、低收入学校和他们所在的学区投入足够的资金。 就像它根本无法成立。但马特，我实际上想问你一下你一般的反应。对吧。你住在纽约，你的孩子在城市里的学校上学。但特别是关于隔离的指控，因为这是她在文章中经常使用的一个词。她说，本质上由于学校选择的原因，因为家长把孩子送到不同的学校并且有一定的选择权，纽约的学校最终变得隔离。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Yeah, I will admit to the fault of literalism. And as someone who has sat through way more school board meetings than any human being should have to, all in the name of desegregating Brooklyn schools, my allergy to that term is pretty significant. I remember the first slideshow that I saw, they were like, here, we need to make these changes to my district, which is the one that is neighboring to hers. And the first slide was like Bull Connor and like fire hoses and stuff. It's like, no, that's not the segregation that we're talking about. It's not the segregation of you cannot come here segregation or else we're going to sick the dogs on you even though you live here. That's like it's an important difference. The UCLA came up with a big study about 10 or 15 years ago that's always quoted in these things that talks about. The kind of racial and socioeconomic clustering that happens in New York. Jim Epstein did a fantastic documentary 10 years ago, right? When Nikole Hannah-Jones was putting her five-year-old daughter on the cover of New York Magazine, bragging about sending her to this crappy school. Jim did a documentary about that crappy school. And also how the other nearby rich school in Brooklyn Heights were trying to change their district borders in the name of desegregation. And how some charter schools that had bubbled up in between were like, hey, we can kind of bring everybody in here if you want. And I think that's an important backdrop to recognize that people have been of good faith, have been trying to work. on the issue of improving educational outcomes, particularly of lower income students for a long time. And the problem with Nikole Hannah-Jones persistently is that she trashes those people. She thinks that they are the perpetrators of segregation and of kind of A knowledgely racist system. And she does it throughout this piece. This piece, I'm glad it exists. I'm glad that she had a moment, an extended public moment of reckoning. Did I put my own ideology ahead of the needs of my child? Oops, I think I did. But that's not the only moral reckoning that she needs to do. She had to put herself, as did a lot of the anti-racism movement of Woke One, they needed to be the stars of their own show. We can only do this. She wrote a really interesting piece seven years ago about busing, the history of busing, and she was a child of busing. And the tagline was, busing didn't fail, we failed. This is a sort of belief that us, we can be so anti-racist that through sheer will alone, we can will our child at this crappy school and make it better by example because we are heroic. That is so self-centered and narcissistic and it's not for people who are...

是的，我会承认自己有字面主义的毛病。作为一个参加过比任何人应当参加的更多的校董会会议的人，而且都是为了布鲁克林学校的取消种族隔离，我对这个词的过敏反应相当显著。我记得我看到的第一个幻灯片演示，他们说，我们需要对我的学区做这些改变，这个学区是她邻近的。第一个幻灯片就像是布尔·康纳和消防水龙带之类的东西。就像，不，那不是我们说的那种隔离。那不是你不能来这里的隔离，否则我们会派狗咬你，即使你住在这里的那种隔离。 这就像是一个重要的区别。UCLA 大约在十到十五年前做了一项重大研究，这项研究经常被引用，讨论了纽约发生的种族和社会经济聚集现象。吉姆·埃普斯坦在十年前制作了一部非常棒的纪录片，对吧？当妮可·汉娜-琼斯把她五岁的女儿放在《纽约杂志》的封面上，炫耀把她送到这所糟糕的学校时，吉姆拍了一部关于那所糟糕学校的纪录片。同时也讲述了布鲁克林高地附近的其他富人学校如何以消除种族隔离的名义试图改变学区边界。 还有一些在此期间冒出来的特许学校就像是，嘿，如果你愿意，我们可以把大家都拉进来。我认为这是一个重要的背景，需要认识到人们一直本着善意尝试努力改善，特别是低收入学生的教育成果已经有很长时间了。Nikole Hannah-Jones 的问题在于，她持续地贬低那些人。她认为他们是隔离和某种公然种族主义体系的施害者。而她在整篇文章中都是这样做的。这篇文章，我很高兴它存在。我很高兴她有一个时刻，一个公开的、长时间的自我反思的时刻。 我是否把自己的意识形态置于孩子的需求之上？哎呀，我想我确实是这样做了。但这并不是她需要进行的唯一道德反省。她也必须关注自己，正如很多“觉醒一代”的反种族主义运动一样，他们需要成为自己节目的明星。我们只能做到这一点。七年前，她写了一篇非常有趣的文章，关于校车接送历史，她自己也是校车接送的孩子。文章的标语是，校车接送没有失败，是我们失败了。这是一种信念：我们相信自己可以如此反种族主义，仅凭意志力就能让孩子在这个糟糕的学校生活得更好，通过自己的榜样让学校变得更好，因为我们是英雄。 那太自我中心和自恋了，不适合那些…的人

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

for crying out loud. She shows zero interest in revisiting those and just sort of throws up her hands and say, well, teachers are faced with an impossible task at the end. There was a relatedly an op-ed in the New York Times, maybe a week or so ago by a University of California system administrator, who was basically like, it's true that the kids that are going through our program, they're not testing very well. That doesn't seem like they're really learning anything, but we're handing out more diplomas than ever. And that's what makes our system great. Just amazing lack of ability to think about what your job is and what you're supposed to do here. Slade, I want to ask you about the reaction to this piece because Hannah Jones has been a punching bag on the right for a long time now since the 1619 Project. And she's been criticized on Twitter for this piece by a lot of folks. But there's also this other kind of viewpoint, right? This story reads as kind of brave, or at least, you know, there's a willingness here to be honest about the failures of her own choices and even about the failures of the public education system that she says that she wants to save.

天哪。她对回顾那些事情毫无兴趣，只是有点耸耸肩说，好吧，老师们面对的是一个不可能完成的任务。大约一周前，《纽约时报》还有一篇相关的评论文章，是加州大学系统的一位管理员写的，他基本上是在说，确实，通过我们项目的孩子们考试成绩不高，似乎并没有真正学到什么，但我们发放的文凭比以往任何时候都多。这就是让我们系统伟大的地方。真是令人难以置信地缺乏对自己工作和职责的思考能力。 斯莱德，我想问你关于这篇文章的反应，因为自从 1619 项目以来，汉娜·琼斯在右翼一直是攻击的目标。很多人在推特上批评她的这篇文章。但也有另一种观点，对吧？这个故事读起来有点勇敢，或者至少，你知道，这里有一种愿意诚实面对自己选择的失败，甚至是她说自己想要拯救的公立教育体系的失败的态度。

Stephanie Slade（斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德）：

Yeah, it's a first step toward the reckoning, I would say. I mean, I totally agree with everything Matt just said, because defenders of sort of educational choice policies, the critique we have against the policies that people like Nikole Hannah-Jones have been advocating is that they basically sacrifice individuals, students who have potential and ability and could really excel if given the right supports and sort of taken out of these dysfunctional environments and Put into a gifted and talented program or put into a higher, more elite high school or something like that. It says we want to sacrifice them for the good of the many. Right. Sacrifice the few for the good of the many. And this is a very collectivist thing that's very offensive to those of us. So you're going to you're going to hold back these individuals. You're going to hold them back and say that we're going to be opposed to any sort of meritocratic advancement. These these these, you know. Hardworking and bright young people who could get ahead and say we'd rather them stay in these dysfunctional environments because we think that it will be good for everybody in the long run. And either it relies on a denial of the fact that actually there's any sacrifice on the point on the part of those individuals, right? Like she seemed to think that her daughter would do just as well in this public school as she would do anywhere else. And now she's finally starting to have to at least confront the fact that she was in denial. I'm going to stop there. If you hold all these talented young people back, you're both imposing costs on them in a way that you were in denial about, and you're not lifting up. The idea, she said in the piece, is that she thought, well, by being present parents at the PTA and donating money to the PTA or whatever, we'd be able to lift all boats in our daughter's school. Right. Everybody would be better off because our daughter was there and our family was involved there. And that just didn't happen. So it is at least a first step towards reckoning that there are costs and there are trade-offs. But I totally agree that it needs to go much farther. I mean, the idea of getting rid of standardized tests, of not allowing elite high schools to screen for aptitude, of getting rid of gifted and talented programs, of grading on a curve because you don't want to hurt students, The students' feelings or something, all of these are things that need to be coming under scrutiny now as a result of this first sort of moment of eye-opening.

是的，我会说这是走向清算的第一步。我的意思是，我完全同意 Matt 刚才说的所有内容，因为那些支持某种教育选择政策的人，我们对像 Nikole Hannah-Jones 这样的人所倡导的政策的批评是，这些政策基本上牺牲了有潜力、有能力、如果得到正确支持本可以真正出类拔萃的个人学生，把他们从这些功能失调的环境中移出，并放入天才和才华项目或放到更高级、更精英的高中之类的地方。这就是说，我们要为了多数人的利益而牺牲他们，对吧？为了多数人的利益而牺牲少数人。 这是一个非常集体主义的做法，对我们中的一些人来说非常冒犯。所以你会阻碍这些个人。你会阻碍他们，说我们反对任何形式的择优晋升。这些，你知道的，勤奋且聪明的年轻人本可以取得进展，而我们却宁愿让他们留在这些功能失调的环境中，因为我们认为从长远来看，这对每个人都有好处。而且这要么依赖于否认这些个人实际上在这一点上有所牺牲的事实，对吗？ 就好像她觉得她的女儿在这所公立学校里会和在其他任何地方一样表现出色。现在她终于开始至少必须面对一个事实——她曾经在否认。我先讲到这里。如果你限制了这些有才华的年轻人，你不仅以一种你曾否认的方式给他们施加了代价，而且你也没有提升他们。她在文章中说，她的想法是，通过在家长教师协会中作为积极参与的家长，捐款给家长教师协会等等，我们能够让女儿学校的所有人都获益。没错。每个人都会因为我们的女儿在这里，我们的家庭参与其中而受益。 但那根本没有发生。因此，这至少是向认识到存在成本和权衡的第一步。但我完全同意，这需要走得更远。我的意思是，取消标准化考试、不允许精英高中筛选天赋、取消天才和才能项目、按曲线评分因为你不想伤害学生、学生的感受之类的，所有这些都需要在这第一次开眼界的时刻之后接受审视。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

I think the other thing that this should focus a discussion around is the parents' role in education. Because we can talk about teachers, we can talk about principles and systems, and the transportation and the school lunch program. But reading this story made me uncomfortable, or it was familiar in a particular way, which is that for reasons that I never understood until shortly before my father died in the late 90s, My mother and father sent myself and my siblings to a really mediocre parochial school system in Middletown, New Jersey, St. Mary's Elementary School and Mater Dei High School, mother of God, which went out of business. It was so bad. And we lived in a town that had some of the very best public schools in New Jersey and among the highest paid, at least in the 70s and 80s, while we were in school. And I only realized later, I mean, and it was to the degree where my high school, which was a Catholic high school, only had two years of Latin, whereas the public school had four years of Latin. Plus, you know, you could take up to like a second semester college level calculus class and things like that are just immensely better. And my father mentioned, you know, the reason why they sent us to Catholic school, which was a real reach for them, was because when he was in Brooke growing up in Brooklyn in the Depression, he went to Catholic school for free. And the people there said, you know, we are giving this to you for free and we expect you to send your kids to Catholic school. And this double, you know, compounding that was that they were unable to pay my last year of high school tuition, which I ended up having to fund out of, which I only found out weeks before I graduated and I paid out of my after school work savings and things like that. But you realize parents are the deciderers in all of this kind of stuff. And that parents, both for good reasons and bad, are just enmeshed in. You know, in just really non-analytic thinking. And in a way, my parents were not educated like Nikole Hannah-Jones, but they were captive to a mindset just as she was. And you realize it's going to be the parents who are the people that get you to change things. And this is when you go back and look at the beginning of the school choice movement and the voucher movement in places like... We'll be right back. Thank you. And it's a lot harder to break free because I also went to high school with a lot of people who, you know, again, I grew up in a milieu where most of my friends did not have parents who went to college. And I had friends who, when they told their parents they wanted to go to college, their parents were like, well, we'll never talk again. Like you can do that on your own, but you're done. Like we'll never speak to you again. So it's very complicated, I think, education reform in ways that we're barely beginning to know.

我认为这件事应该引导讨论的另一点是家长在教育中的角色。因为我们可以谈论老师，可以谈论原则和制度，还可以谈论交通和学校午餐计划。但是读这个故事让我感到不舒服，或者说以某种特定的方式感到熟悉，因为有些原因我直到 90 年代末父亲去世前才理解，我的父母把我和我的兄弟姐妹送到了新泽西州米德尔敦一个非常普通的宗教学校系统，圣玛丽小学和母亲上帝高中，这两所学校后来都倒闭了。它们真的非常糟糕。 我们住在一个拥有新泽西一些最好的公立学校的城镇，而且薪水也是最高的之一，至少在我们上学的七八十年代是这样。我后来才意识到，我的意思是，这种差距是这样的：我的高中是一所天主教高中，拉丁语只学两年，而公立学校却有四年。此外，你还可以上像第二学期大学水平的微积分课程，这些东西简直好太多了。 我父亲提到过，你知道，他们送我们去天主教学校的原因，对他们来说真的是一件很困难的事，是因为当他在布鲁克林长大的大萧条时期，他上的是免费的天主教学校。那里的工作人员说，你知道，我们是免费的提供给你的，我们希望你把孩子也送到天主教学校。而这件事的另一层影响是，他们没能力支付我高中的最后一年的学费，我最后不得不用自己的方式支付，我只是几周前才发现这个情况，并且是用放学后的工作存款等方式支付的。但你会明白，父母在这些事情上是决策者。 而且父母，无论出于好意还是坏意，都只是被卷入其中。你知道的，真的处于一种非分析性的思维之中。在某种程度上，我的父母不像尼科尔·汉娜-琼斯那样受过教育，但他们也同样被一种心态所困。你会意识到，真正能让你改变的，是父母。而这时，你会回过头来看学校选择运动和代金券运动在比如……我们马上回来。谢谢。而且要摆脱这种情况要困难得多，因为我高中时也和很多人一起上学，你知道，我成长的环境里，大多数朋友的父母都没有上过大学。 我有一些朋友，当他们告诉父母自己想上大学时，父母的反应是，好吧，我们永远不会再说话了。你可以自己去做，但你完蛋了。我们再也不会和你说话了。所以我认为，教育改革非常复杂，以一种我们才刚刚开始了解的方式。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Skeleton key into Nick Gillespie's psyche here that we're all going to be reflecting on.

这里是一把通向尼克·吉莱斯皮心理的万能钥匙，我们都会对此进行反思。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Well, I mean, my own experience in school was pretty formative in terms of me becoming a libertarian. I didn't like it. I felt trapped there. It wasn't, you know, it's a huge exaggeration to call it prison, but I really felt like I was just sort of being forced to waste hours and hours of my valuable time doing things that were at the time, obviously not relevant or valuable. And in retrospect, obviously not relevant or valuable. But I do want to just ask you, Nick, Maybe push back even a little bit. What you're saying is ultimately change has to come from the parents who want to find a better and different way. And in some ways, that was Hannah-Jones' theory of the case, right? It wasn't just, I'm going to put my kid here and things will be magically better. It's, I'm then going to use our resources to contribute to the PTA. We're going to go and we're going to sort of make noise. And also she does write about seeing, look, there are other parents who have resources who are going to be committed here and that were joining the school at the same time. My theory of the case was this small group of parents could help all of the kids in this community and in this school.

嗯，我的意思是，我在学校的亲身经历在我成为自由意志主义者的过程中起了相当重要的作用。我不喜欢学校。我感到被困在那里。不能说那就是监狱，但那显然是夸大其词。但我真的觉得自己只是被迫花费数小时宝贵的时间去做当时显而易见地不相关或不重要的事情。回过头看，这些事情显然也不相关或不重要。但我确实想问你，尼克，也许稍微反驳一下。你说的最终变化必须来自那些希望找到更好、不同方式的父母。从某种意义上说，这也是汉娜-琼斯的理论，对吧？ 这不仅仅是，我要把我的孩子送到这里，事情就会神奇地变好。更重要的是，我会利用我们的资源为家长教师协会做出贡献。我们会去，我们会发出一点声音。而且她确实写到，看看，还有其他有资源的家长会投入进来，而且他们是在同一时间加入这所学校的。我的理论是，这一小群家长可以帮助这个社区和这所学校的所有孩子。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

Yeah. And I mean, by her own admission, yeah, that does not work. It does not work because, and again, to go back to what I was saying at the start of this segment, you know, when you don't have that credible threat of exit, you are not going to get a response. And particularly in a public school, particularly in New York City public schools where everything is so hardened because of administrative rules, legal rules, union rules, like You know, when she confronted the teachers who were not even looking at her child's math homework, they could just shrug, you know, and instead of being fired and she couldn't, you know, I mean, she ultimately could take her kid out, but most people can't. So I think, you know, this is where we really need to. This used to be a phrase often in math. You know, in public school choice campaigns, like if you can't go to a different restaurant, no matter what, you have to spend your money there. The food is not going to be very good or it's not going to be tailored to your desires. You need that quality. Absolutely. You know, the backpack funding where it files follows the kid. And as importantly, you need parents who really at least a threshold number of parents who are willing to move and really punish schools for doing bad jobs and rewarding them for doing good jobs.

是的。我的意思是，根据她自己的说法，是的，这确实行不通。之所以行不通，是因为，再回到我在本段开头所说的，当你没有那种可信的退出威胁时，你是得不到回应的。尤其是在公立学校，特别是在纽约市的公立学校里，一切都因为行政规定、法律规定、工会规定而变得如此固化。比如，当她面对那些甚至没有看她孩子的数学作业的老师时，他们只是耸耸肩，而不会被解雇，而她也不能……我是说，她最终可以把孩子转走，但大多数人做不到。 所以我认为，你知道，这就是我们真正需要的地方。这过去常常是数学中用的一个短语。你知道，在公立学校选择的运动中，就像如果你不能去不同的餐馆，不管怎样，你都必须在那里花你的钱。食物不会很好，也不会符合你的喜好。你需要那种质量。绝对需要。你知道，背包资金随孩子而转。更重要的是，你需要家长，至少是达到一定数量的家长，愿意搬家，并真正惩罚做得不好的学校，同时奖励做得好的学校。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

I think this also shows the limits to guilting parents into staying in bad situations for their kids. There's a limited audience for that, for sure, among certain kind of neurotic New York-based high-striving people, maybe. But the math, the numbers have been brutal. The New York City school system has lost 150,000 kids in six or seven years. That's just like, it's a stunning amount. There was a New York Times podcast, most popular acclaimed podcast of the year called Nice White Parents, and people never really understood why a school in the middle of this nice neighborhood wasn't getting very good. Funny punchline to that story. That's where my oldest daughter went to middle school. We chose that right around the time of this podcast coming out, not for that reason, not to prove our bona fides, but because we live nearby. And they had recently taken some steps in a positive direction, trying to get some of the kids from the nearby French dual language program and etc. Thanks for joining us. has a limited shelf life. What people quietly do all the time is exit. They exit the system, they exit the city, they go to charters, they go to private, they go to homeschooling. And we've seen all of that grow a lot, grow a lot, especially in New York. And the systems that were supposed to be changed in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion have in general, not just in New York, but all over the country, the controlled choice systems, they have become more segregated and more crappy as a result. That's the reckoning that I want people to look at after they read this piece.

我认为这也显示了通过让父母因为孩子而留在糟糕环境中来施加内疚感的局限性。这样的做法的受众是有限的，当然，可能在某种类型的神经质、以纽约为基地且高目标的人群中会有效。但数学和数据是残酷的。纽约市的学校系统在六七年间失去了 15 万名学生。这真是一个令人震惊的数字。《纽约时报》有一个播客，今年最受欢迎且备受赞誉的播客叫《Nice White Itself》，人们从未真正理解为什么这个漂亮社区中的一所学校表现不佳。这个故事的有趣结局是，我的大女儿就是在那所学校上初中的。 我们选择那个学校大约是在这期播客发布的时候，不是出于那个原因，也不是为了证明我们的资质，而是因为我们住得很近。而且他们最近也采取了一些积极的措施，试图让附近的法语双语项目的一些孩子等等加入。感谢你加入我们。它的有效期有限。人们悄悄做的事情通常是退出。他们退出系统，退出城市，去特许学校，去私立学校，进行家庭教育。我们已经看到这些都在大幅增长，尤其是在纽约。 而那些本应以多样性、公平和包容的名义而被改变的系统，通常来说，不仅仅是在纽约，而是在全国各地，受控选择系统，结果变得更加分化和更糟糕。这就是我希望人们在阅读这篇文章后去思考的清算问题。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Nobody is going to hand you the job you actually want, so build it yourself. The Cato Institute, a leading independent libertarian think tank, is paying someone to design one full-time role, advancing individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. The job pays at least $100,000 a year plus full benefits, And there's no committee watering down your idea. Give it a shot for two years. If it's a success, you join Cato permanently. If not, you gave it your all and you'll have a heck of a story. The Innovation Project isn't just for policy wonks or scholars either. It's for people of every background, business, journalism, tech, law, communications, even recovering statists. So if you've got a good idea, that's all that matters. But we are closing this cohort on November 1st. So send in your proposal and start building. Apply at Cato.org slash innovation. That's Cato.org slash innovation before November 1st. All right, let's exit this topic, move on to a bit of a reckoning of our own, because on last week's show, we talked at length about AI risk and the possibility of regulation. And we received quite a few listener questions and emails about AI afterwards and our perspectives on it. And nearly all of the emails we received said some version of, I think you guys are underweighting AI risk. The robots might actually be dangerous. So our listener question this week comes from Weston, because many of these emails, you'll be surprised for people writing in about AI, many of these emails were very long. And this one was short, succinct, pithy, and otherwise not very long, which is what we like from questions. If you want to send yours in, podcastreason.com, that's podcastreason.com. Let's hear from Weston here, who writes, last week's discussion of AI risk reminded me of why I will never be a full-fledged libertarian. Just supposing there were an actual existential risk from AI or climate or whatever, what do libertarians suppose we do to solve the coordination problem? Seems like in every case, you all just hand wave about the gravity of the threat and then assert the tyrannies which we should be really worried about. Slade, what do you think?

没有人会把你真正想要的工作直接交到你手中，所以自己去创造它。凯托研究所（Cato Institute），一个领先的独立自由主义智库，正在为一个全职角色的人支付薪酬，推动个人自由、有限政府、自由市场和和平。这份工作年薪至少为 10 万美元，并提供完整的福利，而且没有委员会削弱你的想法。尝试两年。如果成功，你就会正式加入凯托研究所。如果不成功，你也尽了全力，而且会有一个非常精彩的故事。创新项目（The Innovation Project）不仅仅适合政策专家或学者，它面向各类背景的人，包括商业、新闻、技术、法律、传播，甚至是正在恢复中的国家主义者。 所以如果你有一个好主意，那才是最重要的。不过我们将在 11 月 1 日结束这一批次。所以请提交你的提案并开始建设。在 Cato.org/innovation 申请。也就是在 11 月 1 日之前访问 Cato.org/innovation 申请。好吧，我们先结束这个话题，转向我们自己的一些反思，因为在上周的节目中，我们详细讨论了人工智能的风险以及可能的监管问题。随后我们收到了不少听众关于人工智能的问题和电子邮件，询问我们的看法。几乎所有收到的邮件都在某种程度上表达了相同的观点：我认为你们低估了人工智能的风险。机器人其实可能是危险的。 所以我们这周的听众提问来自韦斯顿，因为你们可能会惊讶，很多写信讨论人工智能的人，信件都非常长。而这一封信很短、简洁、有力，总体上也不长，这正是我们喜欢的问题。如果你也想发来问题，可以访问 podcastreason.com，也就是 podcastreason.com。让我们来听听韦斯顿的来信，他写道：上周关于人工智能风险的讨论让我想起了为什么我永远不会成为完全的自由意志主义者。假设人工智能、气候变化或其他什么真的存在生存风险，自由意志主义者认为我们应该怎么做来解决协调问题呢？ 似乎在每种情况下，你们都只是对威胁的严重性轻描淡写，然后断言我们真正应该担心的暴政。斯雷德，你怎么看？

Stephanie Slade（斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德）：

I guess for me, even if you think that there is a much bigger threat than maybe was articulated on the show last week, To me, it seems like this is almost like a, we want a competing sort of ecosystem of providers of AI, because if one goes rogue and tries to kill us all, I would like to have others that we can turn to to help us solve that problem. So having true competition is really important, actually, even if you think there is risk here, unless you think you can actually succeed at shutting it all down. But to me, this is a lot like gun control, right? You're never going to get rid of all this. Somebody's China's never going to stop doing what it's doing. There's always going to be somebody in a basement somewhere trying to create a rogue AI. So trying to shut it down just means that the good guys don't have it, don't have the gut or don't have the AI when the bad guys unleash the gut or the AI. That's kind of how I see it. And the reason this is relevant to the conversation about government regulation is that so often what regulation does, even if it's intended to prevent the risk, if it's done with good intentions and for safety purposes, is what it does is it actually...

我想对我来说，即使你认为存在一个比上周节目中提到的更大的威胁，对我而言，这似乎几乎就像是我们想要一个竞争性的 AI 提供者生态系统，因为如果其中一个作弊并试图杀死我们所有人，我希望有其他人可以帮助我们解决这个问题。所以拥有真正的竞争实际上非常重要，即使你认为这里有风险，除非你认为你真的可以成功地关闭所有这些。但对我来说，这很像枪支管制，对吧？你永远不可能摆脱所有这些。有人会做到吗？中国永远不会停止它正在做的事情。 总会有人在某个地下室里试图创造一个流氓人工智能。所以试图关掉它只是意味着好人没有它，没有勇气，或者当坏人释放勇气或人工智能时，好人没有该人工智能。这就是我的看法。之所以这与政府监管的讨论相关，是因为监管常常即使是为了防止风险而实施，即使出于好意和安全目的，它实际上所做的...

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Nick, picking up on what Slade said there, is this kind of, is there an analogy here to free speech and to problematic speech where libertarians have long argued that the solution, the correct response to bad speech, of which I think there is in this world, is more speech? Not crackdowns, not regulation, not a commission that decides, but just more ability for individuals to speak their mind. So is that maybe the solution to worries about AI risk? Which, to be clear, for Weston and the others who wrote to us, I think there are real potential risks for AI. But I also think there are real potential risks for regulation and for government control

Nick，接着 Slade 刚才的话来说，这是不是有点类似于言论自由和有问题言论的类比呢？长期以来，自由主义者一直认为，对待不良言论的解决办法、正确的回应是更多的言论，而不是打压，不是监管，也不是由某个委员会决定，而只是给个人更多表达自己想法的能力。那么，这也许就是对 AI 风险的担忧的解决办法吗？明确地说，对于 Weston 和其他给我们写信的人来说，我认为 AI 确实存在潜在的真实风险。但我也认为，监管和政府控制也存在真实的潜在风险。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

of this stuff. Yeah, and I mean, I think you're right that the idea is that if you increase the supply of something, you know, the marketplace will sort things out, you know, both in good ideas and bad ideas, hopefully, but also in terms of good technologies and bad technologies. I think part of the problem here is that the existential threats to AI are being so... articulated by the people who stand most to benefit from regulation. It just smacks of public choice economics so much and self-interested dealing that it is hard to take seriously. And I, you know, if we look at things like, you know, the way that the ozone hole or depletion of the ozone in the environment, particularly over Antarctica, was dealt with You know, about 30, 40 years ago, there were scientists who, you know, identified a problem. They identified the source of the problem and started coming up with possible solutions. Countries worked, you know, advanced countries that were largely the people who were emitting the or creating the The chemicals and the things in the atmosphere that were destroying ozone got together and they banned the production of certain types of chlorofluorocarbons and that worked. So there are ways that this happens, but it's very different than when you say there is a greater – you have somebody on Twitter – Thank you. About allowing innovation happening in the private sector. But I think there are multiple cases where, you know, libertarians recognize a collective action problem and, you know, are nobody is nobody is not amenable to a clearly defined problem with solutions where the tradeoffs are clear and you get by it. I mean, that can work. I don't you know, I don't think the doomers in I have done that work yet.

这种东西。是的，我的意思是，我认为你说得对，这个想法是如果你增加某种东西的供应，市场会自己解决问题，无论是好的想法还是坏的想法，希望如此，同时也包括好的技术和坏的技术。我认为这里的问题部分在于，AI 的生存威胁被那些最有可能从监管中受益的人如此……清楚地表达出来。这实在是太像公共选择经济学和自利行为的交易了，以至于很难认真对待。 而我，你知道，如果我们看看类似这样的事情，比如说臭氧空洞或环境中臭氧的消耗，特别是在南极洲上空，是如何被处理的。大约三四十年前，有科学家发现了问题。他们确定了问题的来源，并开始提出可能的解决方案。一些国家，尤其是那些主要排放或产生破坏臭氧的化学物质和物质的发达国家，聚在一起，禁止生产某些类型的氯氟烃，这个方法是有效的。 所以有一些方式会发生这种情况，但这与当你说存在更大——你在推特上有人——谢谢——关于允许私营部门的创新发生的情况非常不同。但我认为有多种情况，你知道，自由意志主义者会意识到一个集体行动的问题，而你知道，没有人不会对一个有明确定义的问题及其解决方案的人感兴趣，在这种情况下权衡是清晰的，你可以处理它。我的意思是，那是可行的。我不，你知道，我不认为悲观主义者到目前为止已经做过那项工作。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Matt, on last week's show, you said that one of your issues with the AI existential risk concept was it's just sort of hard to see exactly how that happens. And you feel like the doomers have not met the test of like explaining, no, look, the AI gained super intelligence. And then and then what? Right. Like it's the underpants gnome theory of the AI apocalypse. But something that's sort of in the wake of all of this over the last week that we've seen is that we are seeing specific calls for types of regulation or government oversight. Donald Trump, who is the kind of pro-AI guy in this, has said he wants an AI czar or an AI force modeled on Space Force. And you have folks like Ro Khanna, who is sometimes engaged with libertarians with reason, calling for a new government agency that would oversee AI like the FDA.

马特，在上周的节目中，你说过，你对人工智能生存风险概念的一个问题是，很难确切地看出这究竟是如何发生的。你觉得那些末日论者还没有通过解释，比如说不，你看，人工智能获得了超级智能，然后接下来会发生什么？对吧？这就像人工智能末日的内裤侏儒理论。但在过去一周这一切的背景下，我们看到的是，有具体的呼吁要求某种类型的监管或政府监督。唐纳德·特朗普，在这方面属于支持人工智能的一方，他表示他希望设立一个人工智能专员或一个类似太空军模式的人工智能部队。 你还有像罗·卡纳这样的人，他有时会理性地与自由意志主义者互动，呼吁成立一个新的政府机构，像 FDA 那样监管人工智能。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Does that make you feel warm and safe in your heart that, oh, we would have an AI FDA? Well, you're trying to make Weston even more mad at us by eliciting my scoffs. I want to give tribute to the spirit of his question, which is that last week when I said, talk to me like I'm stupid about what the threat could be, I wasn't just quoting Columbo. I'm actually stupid, so you need to... I need to know about this. And I'm very open and spend a lot of time thinking about problems, looming catastrophes, catastrophes of the past that are kind of bigger than our brains to comprehend. You could say the 9-11 was kind of like that. COVID was definitely like that. Um, yeah. The sometimes these things are very predictable, like the looming entitlements cliff that we're going to face in the next half dozen years. But I think about these all the time because I'm acutely aware of my own limitations of being able to wrap your head around a problem. So I'm holding out definitely the possibility that AI is really, really terrible, and I want to know more about it, and that's why. But part of the reason why I asked for that specificity is also in this question and where Weston says, you know, existential threats like climate or AI or whatever. We've had a lot of whatevers. Climate was one of them. Climate change is or was one of them. It's no longer front of mind in the same way, but... I was always persuaded and impressed with the work of Bjorn Lomborg, who started from the premises, okay, this is happening, what should we do? What are all the trade-offs that we can do that can hurt us, can harm us, and how does this stack up against the universe of solvable problems that are happening worldwide? How do we do the environment or just stuff that we can do to improve people's ability to live? Right. And it was always interesting to watch people reject that approach because what they really wanted for him was not from people, was not kind of the hardheaded, here's what we do to mitigate response, but they want you to join in the kind of tenor of, I'm your host, Dr. David DeRogge. We do get faced with some big ones sometimes, and AI might be a big one. So in that case, we should hold, you know, like as we get new information, be open to acting on that information.

这让你心里感到温暖和安全吗，哦，我们会有一个人工智能食品药品监督管理局？好吧，你试图通过引发我的嗤笑让韦斯顿对我们更加生气。我想向他问题的精神致敬，那就是上周我说，像对待傻子一样跟我谈潜在威胁的时候，我不仅仅是在引用《神探科伦坡》。我实际上确实很傻，所以你需要……我需要知道这些。我非常开放，并且花了很多时间思考问题、迫在眉睫的灾难、过去的一些灾难，这些灾难有点难以用我们的脑子理解。你可以说 9·11 就是那样的。COVID 肯定也是那样。嗯，是的。 有时候这些事情是非常可预测的，比如我们将在接下来的六年内面临的迫在眉睫的福利悬崖。但我一直在思考这些问题，因为我深知自己在理解问题方面的局限性。所以我肯定持有 AI 可能真的非常糟糕的可能性，我想要更多地了解它，这就是原因之一。但我之所以要求具体化的部分原因也是在这个问题里，以及 Weston 所说的，你知道的，像气候或 AI 这样的生存威胁，或者其他什么的。我们经历了很多‘其他什么的’。气候就是其中之一。气候变化是或曾经是其中之一。 它不再像以前那样放在心上，但是……我一直被比约恩·隆贝格的工作所说服和打动，他是从这样的前提出发的，好吧，这件事正在发生，我们应该做什么？我们可以采取的所有权衡是什么，这些措施可能会伤害我们、可能带来危害，而这些与全球范围内正在发生的可解决问题相比如何？我们如何处理环境问题或者只是做一些能够提高人们生活能力的事情？对吧。 而且看人们拒绝这种方法总是很有趣，因为他们真正想给他的，并不是来自他人的东西，也不是那种固执己见的方式，‘这是我们采取的应对措施’，而是他们希望你参与那种基调，‘我是你的主持人，大卫·德罗格博士。’我们有时确实会面临一些大问题，人工智能可能就是其中之一。在这种情况下，我们应该保持，随着新信息的出现，愿意根据这些信息采取行动。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

But I just I think I need to see some more about how we skip the under or, you know, like actually go through the underpants gnome second step, because that still eludes me so far. Yeah, so I was thinking about Weston's question, that specific phrase, climate change or whatever, right? Because the most obvious whatever to fill in there is nukes. We've talked about this on the show before, but I actually think there's a link that we haven't made that I haven't talked about quite as much. And those sorts of fears combined with environmental fears about nuclear power really contributed to a slowdown in the build out of nuclear power in the United States in the 1970s. Basically a pause, but effectively, you know, right, like we basically stopped building nuclear power in the United States in the 1970s. And then we started having these fears about climate change and climate change fears are driven by, okay, dirty energy that's contributing to, right? You know what we had? We had a supply of energy that wouldn't have contributed to climate change that would have made energy over time, probably a lot cheaper, but also a lot cleaner for the environment. And I think there probably would have been some risks with it. I bet if we continued the build out, there would have been a couple of people who would have died in meltdowns or accidents at nuclear power plants. Like, I don't want to say there's no risk that nothing bad would have happened. It's all upside. On the other hand, the climate change apocalypse that we have been worried about for the last several decades might be, at least if not eliminated, might be significantly reduced because we would have obviously a source of power that was not going to cause climate change. And so you have to think about how these risks are linked together and how, yes, obviously nuclear power, nuclear weapons, there's a real chance of the apocalypse. You have to acknowledge that. On the other hand, it was an incorrect decision to pause the development and the rollout of that. Maybe the solution to the apocalypse is to do more of everything, more AI, more nuclear power, just make it all happen, right? It's all going to feed on each other and it'll all sort of work itself out in the end, or I don't know, maybe not. Speaking of things that have worked themselves out, Stephanie Slade, you finally, finally have a book out. This is like a new development in the last couple of weeks, even though those of us who know you, know you have been working on this book for years, for years. So how's that going? Tell us what the book is about and how it sort of, what it means for today's politics.

但我只是觉得我需要更多地了解我们如何跳过那个或，你知道的，实际上是经历内裤侏儒的第二步，因为到现在为止我仍然不明白。是的，所以我在思考 Weston 的问题，就是那个特定的短语，气候变化什么的，对吧？因为最显而易见的填入的东西是核武器。我们以前在节目中讨论过这个，但我实际上认为有一个我们还没有建立的联系，我还没有多说过。那些类型的恐惧加上对核能的环境恐惧，确实导致了 1970 年代美国核能建设的放缓。 基本上是暂停，但实际上，你知道，对吧，就像我们基本上在 20 世纪 70 年代停止了在美国建设核能一样。然后我们开始担心气候变化，而对气候变化的担忧是由这样的因素驱动的，好吧，脏能源在导致什么，对吧？你知道我们拥有的是什么吗？我们拥有一种能源供应，不会对气候变化有贡献，随着时间的推移，这种能源可能会更便宜，也会对环境更加清洁。而我认为，它可能也会有一些风险。 我敢打赌，如果我们继续扩建，会有几个人在核电站的熔毁或事故中丧生。我的意思是，我不想说完全没有风险，不会发生任何不好的事情。这都是好处。另一方面，我们过去几十年一直担心的气候变化灾难，至少如果不能完全消除，可能会显著减少，因为我们显然会有一种不会导致气候变化的能源来源。因此，你必须考虑这些风险是如何相互关联的，以及，显然，核能、核武器，存在真正的世界末日的可能性。 你必须承认这一点。另一方面，暂停那个项目的开发和推出是一个错误的决定。也许应对末日的办法是做更多的事情，更多的人工智能，更多的核能，干脆让一切都发生，对吧？这一切最终都会互相影响，并且会在最后某种程度上自行解决，或者我不知道，也许不会。说到那些已经自行解决的事情，Stephanie Slade，你终于、终于出了书。这是过去几周的新进展，尽管我们这些认识你的人都知道，你已经为这本书工作了好多年，好多年。那么情况进展如何？ 告诉我们这本书讲的是什么，以及它对今天的政治意味着什么。

Stephanie Slade（斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德）：

Yes, I'm very excited that my book Fusionism is finally out about not quite three weeks ago. This is a story of the ideas that used to animate the conservative movement in America, that conservatives in the American context used to claim to stand for, which is the fusion of liberty and virtue or the classical liberal political tradition and the Judeo-Christian moral tradition. And this was very much a consensus position within the conservative movement for many decades. And then I traced the way that that consensus broke down in recent years and why there is now a there still is a sort of classically liberal fusionist right of center. There are plenty of people who identify as free market conservatives or libertarians who still believe in limited government rule of law for your markets. But there's now also a lot of very loud voices pushing an anti-fusionist conservatism, a big government, what I call will to power conservatism. They're basically saying, forget all this fusionism stuff. We want a muscular state that we're willing to wield that power to reward our friends and punish our enemies. This is a really dramatic repudiation of the whole classical liberal tradition.

是的，我非常激动，我的书融合主义终于在差不多三周前出版了。这是一个关于曾经激励美国保守主义运动的思想的故事，关于美国语境下的保守派曾声称所坚持的理念，即自由与美德的融合，或者古典自由主义政治传统与犹太-基督教道德传统的结合。这在保守主义运动中多年来一直是非常普遍的共识立场。然后我追溯了近年来这种共识破裂的过程，以及为什么现在仍然存在某种古典自由主义的融合主义者右翼中间立场。 有很多人自认为是自由市场保守派或自由意志主义者，但仍然相信对市场实行有限的政府法治。但现在也有很多非常响亮的声音在推动一种反融合主义者的保守主义，一种大政府的、我称之为权力意志的保守主义。他们基本上在说，忘掉所有这些融合主义的东西吧。我们要一个强大的国家，我们准备使用这种权力来奖励我们的朋友并惩罚我们的敌人。这真是对整个古典自由主义传统的戏剧性否定。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

And so I'm tracing that and I'm sort of trying to push back against it. How do you think these ideas are playing out specifically under Donald Trump in his second term? What does this book contribute to our understanding of what he's doing and why and what the kind of political cultural movement behind him is sort of one side of all of this? Yeah.

所以我在追踪这一点，并且我有点试图去反击它。你认为这些想法在唐纳德·特朗普第二任期下具体是如何体现的？这本书对于我们理解他在做什么、为什么这么做以及支持他的政治文化运动的本质贡献了什么呢？是这一切的一方面，对吧。

Stephanie Slade（斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德）：

I mean, Donald Trump is the opposite of a fusionist, right? He doesn't care about liberty or virtue. He thinks he should get to do what he wants when he wants to do it. That's sort of the only animating thing going on with Donald Trump. So he's not pushing.

我的意思是，唐纳德·特朗普正好相反于一个融合主义者，对吧？他不关心自由或美德。他认为自己应该想做什么就做什么。对唐纳德·特朗普来说，这几乎是唯一驱动他行动的因素。所以他并没有推动啥。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

And that nobody should be allowed to criticize him on CNN.

而且不应该允许任何人在 CNN 上批评他。

Stephanie Slade（斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德）：

Right. And the court shouldn't be able to check him. Right. There shouldn't be checks and balances. He should be able to do whatever he wants, literally, with no constraints on his power and on his will. He's not pushing a sort of principled philosophical alternative to the fusionist synthesis. He's just that's just who he is. So these sort of intellectuals on what I call the dissident right are trying to sort of build an intellectual and institutional scaffolding around Trump to try to make it make sense and seem highbrow. And that's what they're doing. And I think that actually there was a belief because it was pegged to him from the very beginning that he was sort of going to be... They were going to be like riding the Trump wave to success, these members of the dissident right, the anti-fusionist right. But I actually think the second Trump term, and going back to even before, after he won election in 2024, but even before he was inaugurated, has been a moment of like incredible crisis and fracturing for the dissident right. Because it turns out that, again, Donald Trump is not principled in any way. He does what he wants to do at any given moment. And if that means defending H-1B visas after they spent years in prison, then that's not a good thing. You know, all their political capital talking about how not just illegal immigration, but legal immigration is a problem. He's going to do that. If he wants to talk about how we should have free IVF for all couples after the pro-life movement has been arguing that that's a form of abortion, he's going to do that. He's not in any way committed to their sort of agenda or their philosophical agenda. If he wants to go to war with Iran after campaigning on being against forever wars, he's going to do that. So there's been actually a lot of crisis as I talk to people, a lot of feelings of betrayal among people who supported him, a lot of fracturing of the movement between, for example, supporters of Israel and opponents of our special relationship with Israel. It's actually not a great time for the dissident, right? And so I think there's a new appetite for

对。法院不应该能够制约他。对。不应该有制衡。他应该能够随心所欲地做任何事情，实际上，对他的权力和意志没有任何限制。他并不是在推动某种有原则的哲学替代融合主义者综合。他只是他自己。所以我所称的异见右翼上的这些知识分子，试图围绕特朗普建立一种知识和制度的支架，以试图让事情有意义，看起来高雅。这就是他们在做的事情。我认为实际上人们从一开始就认为，因为这一切都是围绕他设定的，他某种程度上会…… 这些异见右翼成员，反融合主义者右翼，本来会像顺着特朗普浪潮走向成功一样。但我实际上认为，特朗普的第二任期，甚至可以追溯到他在 2024 年当选之后，甚至在他就职之前，对异见右翼来说一直是一个极度危机和分裂的时期。因为事实证明，唐纳德·特朗普根本没有任何原则。他总是在任何时候做他想做的事情。如果这意味着在他们在监狱里度过多年后支持 H-1B 签证，那可不是件好事。你知道，他们所有的政治资本都是在谈论不仅非法移民，而且合法移民也是问题。 他会去做那件事。如果他想谈论在反堕胎运动主张那是一种堕胎之后，我们应该为所有夫妇提供免费的体外受精，他会去做。 他在任何方面都没有承诺遵循他们那种议程或哲学议程。如果他想在以反对永远战争为竞选口号的情况下对伊朗开战，他会去做。所以实际上，当我和人们交谈时，确实有很多危机，许多支持他的人感到被背叛，运动内部也出现了分裂，例如以色列的支持者和反对我们与以色列特殊关系的人之间。实际上，对于异见者来说，现在并不是一个好时期，对吧？ 所以我认为人们对…有了新的兴趣

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

I'm going to go ahead and get started. Fusionism, as Slade describes it, and libertarianism, as you have always thought about it. Because I know that you have always, something you've always argued, like I think quite strongly and effectively is, look, libertarians, some conservatives, like, you know, we're often friendly. We often have similar goals.

我打算继续开始。正如斯莱德所描述的融合主义，以及你一直所理解的自由意志主义。因为我知道你一直以来，总是有一些你一直在争论的事情，比如我认为相当强烈和有效的，就是，看，自由意志主义者，一些保守派，你知道的，我们常常是友好的。我们常常有相似的目标。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

But libertarianism is a clear and distinct thing. Yeah, I mean, I think that's true. And, you know, Stephanie and I had a long conversation on the recent interview. And she also had a great interview on the fifth column with Matt and Michael Moynihan. And I can't remember if Camille was on that one as well. We never can. Yeah. But I think one of the things that's interesting about Stephanie's book in looking at the history of fusionism in the pages of National Review, there was a, you know, an opposite strain and conservative postwar thought, you know, of people who were Francoists, essentially. So they were not at all coming out of a liberal tradition. We'll be right back. It's not a commitment to classical liberalism or to individualism, but ultimately it's a kind of atavistic, tribalistic, often masked in religious sentiments or religious tradition, an exclusive religious tradition that is definitely energizing some of the dissident right. I mean, one of the questions I have for you, Stephanie, in the way that you were talking about things and Peter is, is it... Possible that the post-liberal right is also of a piece with a post-liberal left, because one of the things that, you know, is clear, National Review obscured this, I think Reason at various points did. But, you know, when you look at people like Bill Clinton, or if you look at somebody like Jimmy Carter, these were not post-liberal people. They believed in limited government. They believed in free markets and free speech and, you know, orderly immigration, you know, subject to political whims and things like that. But is it rather that we're entering an era where post-liberalism is just more attractive or more on the ground everywhere, including outside of the United States, and that it just takes a specific form on the right and the left,

但是自由意志主义是一个清晰而明确的概念。是的，我的意思是，我认为这是正确的。而且，你知道，斯蒂芬妮和我在最近的采访中有过一次长时间的谈话。她在《第五专栏》中接受 Matt 和 Michael Moynihan 的采访也非常棒。我记不清 Camille 是否也参加了那次采访。我们总是记不清。是的。但我认为关于斯蒂芬妮的书有一点很有趣，在《国家评论》页面上看 融合主义 的历史时，有一种与你所说的相反的、战后保守主义思潮，也就是本质上是弗朗哥主义者的观点。所以他们根本不是来自自由主义传统。我们很快回来。 这并不是对古典自由主义或个人主义的承诺，但归根结底，这是一种返祖性、部落主义的倾向，常常以宗教情感或宗教传统为掩饰，是一种排他的宗教传统，确实在激励一些异见右翼。我的意思是，Stephanie，我有一个问题想问你，关于你和 Peter 谈到事情的方式，就是……是否可能后自由主义右翼也与后自由主义左翼有相似之处，因为有一件事情很清楚，《国家评论》掩盖了这一点，我认为《Reason》在各个阶段也做过类似的事情。 但是，你知道，当你看看像比尔·克林顿这样的人，或者像吉米·卡特这样的人时，这些人并不是后自由主义的人。他们相信有限政府。他们相信自由市场和言论自由，而且，你知道，有序的移民，你知道，不受政治心血来潮之类的事情影响。但问题是，我们是否正在进入一个后自由主义主义更加有吸引力或者在各地（包括美国以外）更加普遍的时代，而且它只是在左右两端采取特定的形式。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

but the underlying impulse is the same? And then where is the political coalition that

但是根本上的冲动是一样的吗？那么政治联盟在哪里呢

Stephanie Slade（斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德）：

pushes back against that? Well, the second question is the hardest one, of course. But yes, I totally, I mean, agreed. And I have argued this ad nauseum that like what's happening on the sort of dissident right is a reaction against illiberalism, prior illiberalism on the far left. And the Democratic Party's willingness, including under Biden, to sort of Coddle and prioritize the interests of its left most craziest flank and defend ideas and advance ideas and commitments that actually are not reflective of even the median Democratic primary voter at that point. And that so they created so much to sort of. Going all in on not just social justice issues, but like a militant strain of, you know, identity politics and flirting with socialism and the sort of idea that anybody who voices an opinion outside of this narrow band of acceptable left coded speech is going to be, they're going to, the mobs are going to come for you. You're going to be rendered unemployable. You're going to be hounded online. You're going to, we're going to. Have no qualms about using the power of the state even to go about you in a variety of ways. Think of the gay cake controversy and that sort of thing. The ACLU launching lawsuits to try to force Catholic hospitals to do abortions. The far left's going so crazy. And the Democratic Party humoring it instead of standing up against it is what has empowered the far right. This is very much a reaction against that. And it makes it very hard to turn the temperature down because the two sides are now... But our politics are not currently structured in a way where we're catering to the desires of that 70%. For some reason, both parties are kind of going all in on their extreme fringes.

对此提出反对吗？嗯，第二个问题当然是最难的一个。但，是的，我完全同意，我的意思是，我同意。我也曾无数次争论过类似的观点，即在异见右翼上发生的事情，是对极左派之前的非自由主义的一种反应。而且民主党，包括在拜登领导下，愿意迁就并优先考虑其最左翼、最疯狂派系的利益，捍卫观点、推进观点和承诺，而这些实际上甚至不反映当时民主党初选中位选民的意愿。因此，他们制造了很多东西来... 不仅是在社会正义问题上全力投入，而且是那种激进的、你知道的身份政治倾向，并带有对社会主义的试探，以及那种观点认为，任何发表与这一狭窄可接受的左翼代码言论不同意见的人，都将会——他们会，暴民会来找你。你将会失去就业能力。你会在网上被追逐。你将会，我们会。毫不犹豫地使用国家权力以多种方式针对你。想想同性恋蛋糕争议之类的事情。美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）发起诉讼，试图迫使天主教医院进行堕胎。极左派正在变得如此疯狂。 民主党迁就它而不是站出来反对它，这正是助长了极右势力。这实际上是对那种情况的一种反应。而这让降低紧张局势变得非常困难，因为双方现在……但是我们的政治结构目前并不是为了迎合那 70%的愿望。不知何故，两个政党都在把注意力集中在各自的极端边缘上。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Matt, as part of the 70%, do you want to weigh in or ask Slade a question here before we go?

Matt，作为 70%的一部分，你想在我们开始之前发表意见或问 Slade 一个问题吗？

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

I've asked Slade many questions over the years. I just want to shout out the book as kind of an essential bit of reading, perfectly timed right now in thinking of what does J.D. Vance's America look like. Because, as she points out, this is a lot of scaffolding that's come around Trump. Trump is sui generis, whatever that means, Latin. Maybe Nick learned that in parochial school.

多年来我问过斯莱德很多问题。我只是想大声推荐这本书，作为一种必读的书籍，非常适合现在思考 J.D. Vance 的美国是什么样子的时候。正如她指出的，这是围绕特朗普建立的很多支架。特朗普是独一无二的，不管那拉丁语是什么意思。也许尼克是在教区学校学到的。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

It's Latin for ass back.

这是拉丁语，意思是“屁股后面”。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Yeah. But Trump can do whatever he wants. He can change his mind, whatever he wants. And he will retain some amount, a fading amount, but still not insignificant amount of power. But Slade's book is a timely glimpse at what do these people empowered right now rallying around J.D. Vance, who's the presumptive frontrunner in the Republican Party. Is this what the Republican Party is going to look like? If it does, it is anti-fusionism. And so the book is a great read on that.

是的。但是特朗普想做什么就能做什么。他可以随心所欲地改变主意。而且他仍然会保留一定的权力，虽然是在逐渐消退，但仍然是不可忽视的。斯莱德的书恰好提供了一个及时的视角，展示了这些人现在被赋予权力时，会围绕 J.D. Vance 聚集，他是共和党推定的领先候选人。这会是共和党的未来面貌吗？如果是的话，它就是反融合主义的。因此，这本书在这方面非常值得一读。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

All right, let's close out with our cultural recommendations, books, movies, television shows, other pieces of pop culture whatnot that we recommend or sometimes do not. Nick, let's start with you.

好吧，让我们以文化推荐来结束，包括书籍、电影、电视节目以及其他我们推荐或有时不推荐的流行文化作品。尼克，我们从你开始吧。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

Yeah, I have read Worth the Risk, a new book by Allison Schrager. She's an economist who is a Bloomberg columnist and senior editor, senior policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Worth the Risk is subtitled The Seven Myths That Keep Us From Taking the Chances We Need to Take. Okay. What she essentially argues is that we talk a lot about how risky the world is right now, but that in America and most advanced economies, we've virtually de-risked every part of our lives. And that helps explain why economic growth is stagnant, why We'll be right back. I'm your host, Dr. David Shepard, and I'll be your host for this podcast. And that people don't understand that the way that you increase your salary is by leaving your job and getting another job at a higher rate or moving around the country. And she notes, and again, these are facts which are basically indisputable if you look at it. People are staying longer in their jobs than they were 30 or 40 years ago. And that has real consequences for the way the economy works, the way society works, and the way we feel about ourselves and about the future. So Alison Trigger's Worth the Risk is a great book. She also wrote a book a couple of years ago called An Economist Walks into a Brothel, which is linked to this, which is about how do people mitigate risk in meaningful and smart ways. She's not saying, you know, you should... Throw caution to the wind, but it's like you need to understand what risk is, what the benefits of certain things are, and then how to engage in thoughtful and high odds risk that will help you live a better life.

是的，我读过《值得冒险》，这是艾莉森·施拉格（Allison Schrager）的一本新书。她是一名经济学家，同时也是彭博专栏作家和高级编辑，曼哈顿研究所的高级政策研究员。《值得冒险》的副标题是《七个阻止我们采取必要风险的神话》。好，她的主要观点是，我们经常谈论现在世界有多么风险重重，但在美国和大多数发达经济体，我们几乎已经将生活中的每一个部分都去风险化了。这也有助于解释为什么经济增长停滞。我马上回来。我是你的主持人，大卫·谢泼德博士，我将主持这期播客。 人们不明白的是，提高薪水的方式是离开你现在的工作，换一份薪水更高的工作，或者搬到别的城市。她指出，而且这些都是基本上不可争辩的事实，如果你仔细观察的话。人们在同一份工作上的时间比 30 或 40 年前要长。这对经济运作、社会运作以及我们对自己和未来的感受有真实的影响。所以，阿莉森·特里格的《值得冒险》是一本很棒的书。 她几年前还写过一本书，叫《一个经济学家走进妓院》，这本书与此相关，讲的是人们如何以有意义和聪明的方式减轻风险。她并不是说，你知道，你应该……把谨慎抛诸脑后，而是你需要了解什么是风险，某些事情的好处是什么，然后如何参与深思熟虑且高概率的风险，这将帮助你过上更好的生活。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Slade, what cultural risks have you been taking?

斯莱德，你一直在冒哪些文化风险？

Stephanie Slade（斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德）：

I recently read a book from a couple of years ago called American Heretics by Jerome Copulsky. It's also sort of academic nonfiction, but very readable. And it traces all of the sort of factions and voices in American history who essentially rejected our founding commitment to individual liberty, rule of law, democracy. Religious liberty being a big part because these are basically all Christian voices. So they were all Christian dissenters from the American sort of founding settlement from the loyalists at the time of the revolution to Christian pastors who were defending slavery at this, you know, in the run up to the Civil War. In the second half of the 20th century, this is a totally foreign world to me as a Catholic, but the sort of Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists who were essentially theocrats. I mean, they were rejecters of the idea of equal rights under law, religious liberty, separation of church and state. And in many cases, these are essentially forerunners to this dissident right that I was just talking about that we see emerging today and that J.D. Vance is definitely the leading sort of voice of. And so I guess it's just it's a counter narrative to my book focuses on the conservative moment in the second half of the 20th century as being pretty committed to these founding values. But there were always voices arguing the other side. And this is just a reminder that these ideas are not new. Just a follow-up question maybe on your book that relates to this then is, how do you process your sort of arguments about fusionism and the way you trace the historic path of fusionism through, since you brought it up, your Catholicism? I mean, I'm defending a sort of ecumenical Judeo-Christian morality. And I'm also not even arguing that you have to be a Christian or a Jew believing or practicing. I think the idea of the sort of Judeo-Christian moral tradition is that there is wisdom in that tradition that helps us understand how to live good lives based on who we are as human beings. And that is as far as I think. I think in a country as pluralistic as ours, you can't go any farther than We'll be right back. Although we're marrying that tradition and that wisdom, although we're sort of non-negotiably committed to that, it is supposed to be a thing that we use persuasion and conversion and voluntary civil society institutions to try to advance and promote, not the coercive power of the state.

我最近读了一本几年前的书，叫做《美国异端者》，作者是杰罗姆·科普尔斯基。这也是某种学术类非虚构作品，但非常易读。它追溯了美国历史上所有本质上拒绝我们建国时对个人自由、法治、民主承诺的各种派别和声音。宗教自由是一个重要部分，因为这些基本上都是基督教的声音。所以他们都是对美国建国初期的主流观点持异议的基督教人士，从革命时期的效忠者到在南北战争前夕为奴隶制辩护的基督教牧师。 在 20 世纪下半叶，对我这个天主教徒来说，这是一个完全陌生的世界，但那些基督教重建主义者和统治主义者基本上是神权主义者。我的意思是，他们拒绝法律下平等权利的理念、宗教自由以及政教分离。在很多情况下，他们基本上是我刚才提到的这种异见右翼的前身，我们今天看到的现象，而 J.D. Vance 无疑是这一声音的领先代表。所以我想，这只是对我的书的一个反向叙述，我的书关注的是 20 世纪下半叶的保守主义浪潮，这一时期相当致力于这些创始价值观。 但总是有声音在争论另一方。这只是提醒大家，这些观点并不新鲜。也许关于你的书，有一个后续问题与此相关，那就是，你是如何处理你关于融合主义的各种论点，以及你如何追溯融合主义的历史路径的，既然你提到了你的天主教信仰？我的意思是，我是在捍卫一种普世的犹太-基督教道德。而且我也并不是在争论你必须是一个信仰或实践基督教或犹太教的人。 我认为所谓犹太-基督教道德传统的理念是，这一传统中有智慧，可以帮助我们理解如何根据作为人的本性去过上美好的生活。我认为就到这里为止。我认为在像我们这样多元化的国家，你不能再进一步。虽然我们在结合那种传统和智慧，虽然我们在某种程度上不可动摇地坚持它，但它应当是我们通过说服、转化和志愿的民间社会机构来推动和推广的东西，而不是通过国家的强制力量。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

That's interesting. Speaking of living the good life, I saw the latest and greatest movie adaptation of Resident Evil, the video game franchise. There have been at least, there's been a six movie franchise that existed before this, plus another standalone film that almost no one, including me, saw. I've seen the first six movies a number of times. At one point, I had to write about the whole six movie franchise. They're pretty bad, but they're kind of enjoyably bad. The new one that is in theaters now is great. It's not just, it's not, it's not trashy. I mean, it's kind of trashy and pulpy, but it is surprisingly and extraordinarily funny because what it does is it says, we're not going to adapt the story from any of these games. We're not going to adapt the story from any of these games. We're going to take just a little bit of the lore, but this is not even going to really look deeply familiar to people who have played the games. Instead, it's going to be familiar to people who have played video games and are bad at it. And so if you are, like me, somebody who has spent a lot of time in your life playing shooter video games... And not being able to aim the freaking gun properly and getting killed all the time and getting super annoyed and kind of muttering under your breath, like just curse words about like, oh, why can't I just shoot this? Get over the hunt, right? Like you're just, that is this movie, except they turned it like it's the whole movie. And it's a 93 minute, just sort of like, um, Incredibly short, incredibly succinct, like one-off adventure through a bunch of levels as a guy is basically tasked with. He's sort of a courier working for a kind of like Uber-like delivery service and he has to deliver something. He thinks it's medical is all we know at the beginning. He has to deliver it to the center of Raccoon City. Like the lore, the mythos of the Resident Evil games, even the kind of standard visuals, and instead simply make a movie about what it's like to play a video game the first time and be really bad at it, but kind of keep going on this adventure anyway. It's slapstick. It's funny. It's directed and co-written by Zach Cregger, who you may know from Weapons, from Barbarian. He's clearly a big gamer and just decided, you know what, I want the experience of being a gamer. Put on screen in my video game movie. Kind of great. Strongly recommend it. Although you do have to have a strong stomach. This is a really, really gory movie. Matt Welch, I gather you did not watch Resident Evil this weekend.

那很有趣。说到过上美好生活，我看了最新最棒的《生化危机》电影改编作品，这是一款知名的视频游戏系列。在此之前至少有一个六部曲的电影系列存在，另外还有一部几乎没人看过的独立电影，包括我自己。我看过前六部电影好几次。有一次，我甚至不得不写关于整套六部曲电影的文章。这些电影相当糟糕，但又有一种享受的坏感。现在正在上映的新作非常棒。它不仅仅是，它不是，它不是低俗的。 我的意思是，这有点垃圾和通俗，但它却出奇地，非常有趣，因为它所做的是，它说，我们不会改编任何这些游戏的故事。我们不会改编任何这些游戏的故事。我们只会取一点点的背景故事，但这对那些玩过游戏的人来说，其实看起来都不太熟悉。相反，它会让玩过电子游戏但玩得很差的人感到熟悉。所以如果你像我一样，是一个在生命中花了很多时间玩射击类电子游戏的人…… 不能好好瞄准该死的枪，总是被打死，非常恼火，嘴里还嘀咕着像带咒骂的话，比如，哦，为什么我就不能射中呢？快结束这场狩猎吧，对吧？你就只是，这部电影就是这样，只不过他们把它放大成整部电影。它有 93 分钟，非常短，非常简洁，就像是一段独立的冒险，通过一系列关卡，而这个人基本上是被委派去执行任务。他有点像在为一种类似 Uber 的快递服务做快递员，他必须送一样东西。他认为是医疗用品，这是我们一开始所知道的全部。 他必须把它送到浣熊市的市中心。像《生化危机》游戏的故事背景、神话体系，甚至是某种标准视觉效果，但这部电影并没有按这些去做，而是简单地拍摄了一部关于第一次玩电子游戏时有多糟糕，但仍然继续冒险的电影。它是闹剧风格的，非常搞笑。电影由扎克·克雷格（Zach Cregger）执导并共同编剧，你可能从《Weapons》和《Barbarian》中认识他。他显然是一个大玩家，然后决定，你知道吗，我想把作为玩家的体验放到我的电子游戏电影里。非常棒。强烈推荐。不过你需要有强大的心理承受能力。这是一部非常非常血腥的电影。 我猜，Matt Welch，你这个周末没有看《生化危机》吧。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

I'm trying to think of anything that I would want to watch less. And I can't. I can't come up with anything.

我正在努力想任何我会更不想看的东西。我想不到。我想不出任何东西。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

So practical magic, too. I promise you. Yeah. All right.

也很实用的魔法。我向你保证。嗯，好吧。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Having seen both. I read and recommend the Department of Revenge, How Trump Took Control of American Justice by Devlin Barrett, New York Times reporter who covers the longtime Department of Justice and criminal justice reporter. It's basically not intended to be, but it is a kind of companion book to the regime change book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. It's just like... Trump's first year in the second administration, what did he do with the DOJ? It answers that question. And the answers are god-awful. I mean, it's just a mixture of incredibly incompetent 33-year-olds engaging in idiotic litmus tests of career prosecutors, asking them who they voted for in the last five presidents, establishing... I'm your host, Dr. David Shepard. I'm going to take a moment to send a chill down the spine of anyone who likes things like, I don't know, pull out of a hat, habeas corpus, and then just other incompetence and moments of kind of ridiculous ineffectuality. But it paints a very damning picture of the sharp departure of Trump 2.0 compared to 1.0. I'm going to be talking about the D.O.J. as it says in the book, Department of Revenge. Trump's going to go after his enemies. People know this. They are treating internally courthouse doors as we own the doors is how the book starts, a speech that some geek gave. Um, if, uh, you want to know how your government is being used and misused. Um, and I argue that that's a thing that people should want to know. Um, this is a key book, uh, very no nonsense. Um, uh, and, uh, just chock full of, uh, of good and decent and perspective having reporting from someone who's covered these people for a long time. So recommend it very highly department of wrench.

看过两者之后，我读了并推荐《复仇部：特朗普如何控制美国司法》，作者是纽约时报记者 Devlin Barrett，他长期报道司法部和刑事司法事务。它本质上并不是有意这样，但它可以算是 Maggie Haberman 和 Jonathan Swan 的政权更迭书的一个配套书。就像……特朗普在第二个任期的第一年，他对司法部做了什么？这本书回答了这个问题。而答案令人震惊。 我的意思是，这只是一些非常无能的 33 岁的人混在一起，对职业检察官进行愚蠢的试金石测试，问他们在过去五位总统中投票给了谁，建立……我是你的主持人，大卫·谢泼德博士。我将花一点时间，让喜欢一些事情的人感到脊背发凉，比如，我不知道，抽签、请愿权，以及其他无能和有点荒谬的无效行为时刻。但它描绘了特朗普 2.0 相对于 1.0 的明显背离，非常让人不齿。我将谈论书中所说的司法部，即复仇部。特朗普将追究他的敌人。人们对此心知肚明。 他们把法庭的门当作自己拥有的门来看待，这就是这本书的开头，一位极客发表的演讲。嗯，如果你想知道你的政府是如何被使用和滥用的，嗯，我认为这是人们应该想知道的事情。嗯，这是一本关键的书，非常直接，嗯，而且充满了从长期报道这些人中获得的良好、正直且有洞察力的报道。所以我强烈推荐它，扳手部门。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

I was just going to say, Matt, I would throw in your large feature story that you read for reason a couple months ago, just detailing the amount of money that Trump has made in his first year, the types of business dealings in comparison to the ripoffs that other presidents have done, which were bad. Yeah. I think understanding the orders of magnitude different between Trump 2.0 and Trump 1.0, it's almost too difficult to contemplate, but it's absolutely essential if politics are going to get back to anything like normal anytime soon.

我正想说，Matt，我想提一下你几个月前为了某个原因读过的那篇长篇报道，具体说明了特朗普在第一年赚了多少钱，以及他的商业交易类型，与其他总统所做的诈骗相比，这些都是坏事。是的。我认为理解特朗普 2.0 和特朗普 1.0 之间数量级的差异几乎难以想象，但如果政治要在不久的将来恢复到某种正常状态，这一点绝对是必要的。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

And in various ways, the same mindset that gives us the Department of Revenge is the mindset that gives us, we're just cutting off CNN and Politico because I don't like what they report. It's just my way or the highway. And there's no classical liberalism to be found in the Trump administration. Stephanie Slade, thank you so much for joining us. All right, folks, that is our show. As a reminder, check out the show notes for info about our upcoming documentary on Venezuela, as well as the wait list for our 10th anniversary live show in New York. If you like Reason, if you like upport us at Reason.com slash donate. Thank you all so much for listening. Thanks to Nick and Matt, and especially Stephanie Slade for being on the show. Reason Roundtable will return.

以各种方式来看，那种造就“复仇部”的心态，和那种心态是一样的——就是‘我们只是要切断 CNN 和 Politico，因为我不喜欢他们报道的内容。要么按我的方式来，要么滚蛋。’在特朗普政府中根本找不到古典自由主义的影子。Stephanie Slade，非常感谢你加入我们的节目。好了，朋友们，这就是我们的节目。提醒一下，查看节目说明获取关于我们即将推出的委内瑞拉纪录片的信息，以及我们第十周年纽约现场演出的候补名单。如果你喜欢《Reason》，如果你喜欢，请在《Reason》/donate 支持我们。非常感谢大家的收听。 感谢 Nick 和 Matt，特别感谢 Stephanie Slade 参加节目。《Reason》圆桌将会回来。