唐納王的宮廷人們願意容忍明目張膽的利益衝突，但無法忍受虛偽

跳至內容

唐納王的宮廷

人們願意容忍明目張膽的利益衝突，但無法忍受虛偽

你說：

翻譯成中文，並寫出幾個重要論點。 The court of King Donald People are willing to tolerate transparent conflicts of interest but they won’t stand for hypocrisy Headshot for Ivan Krastev Ivan Krastev Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world The writer is an FT contributing editor, chair of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, Sofia, and fellow at IWM Vienna It is an old debate: is it power that corrupts, or the fear of losing it? Whatever the right answer is, it is clear that something remarkable is happening in the US today. In the past two weeks, the media has been flooded with stories of President Donald Trump’s personal enrichment. According to reports, the Trump family and their business partners have collected $320mn in fees from a new cryptocurrency, brokered real estate deals worth billions of dollars and, on top of that, Trump has welcomed Qatar’s offer of a luxury jet as a gift to the US government. Forbes has estimated that Trump’s net worth increased by $1.2bn between March 2024 and March 2025. This extraordinary situation raises three key questions. First, why is Trump not even pretending to follow the usual presidential script of building a beautiful wall between public office and private business? Second, why is the public not moved by the Trump family’s growing wealth and conflicts of interest? And third, how long can its tolerance last? The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr, has given a straight answer to the first question. Speaking at a business forum in Qatar, he expressed the Trump family’s opinion that “they’re going to hit you no matter what”, so playing according to the rules is a loser’s game. He has a point. The outcome of the past decades of anti-corruption outrage is that it has become almost impossible to believe that anyone seeking power does not do so in order to get rich. The key distinction here is between those, like Trump, who do not hide their conflicts of interest, and hypocrites who try to cover them up. The saga of Hunter Biden is a reminder that the attempts of a president’s son to cover up his business deals triggered more outrage than the deals themselves. Trump has also benefited from the size of his profits. For ordinary citizens, any amount of money a hundred times or more higher than their annual income is almost incomprehensible. The public does not think in billions, so Trump’s deals are more or less meaningless to them. The second question — why is the public unmoved? — is particularly painful for many. “Either the general public never cared about this,” suggests Paul Rosenzweig, who was a senior counsel to Kenneth Starr’s investigation of President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, or “the public did care about it but no longer does”. In his view, anti-corruption outrage “was always just a figment of elite imagination”. It is more than this. Historically, subjects of monarchs in many countries tolerated royal corruption because it is transparent; the lavish lifestyle of royals is constantly on public display. In the 19th century, the conventional wisdom was that monarchy was a form of strong government because people understood it. Democracy today is viewed in the same way. Public preoccupation with corruption arises when democracy stops making sense — when people no longer know who is making the decisions. “Who really decides?” is the question that tears modern democracies apart. Are leaders following the will of voters or of their donors? Are the rulers those who were elected or anonymous faceless bureaucrats. In a moment of growing uncertainty and mistrust, it is easier to place your hopes in a charismatic individual than in the complex institutional machine of modern democracy. The growing appeal of personalised power is a direct result of the sense people have that they no longer understand how their democracies work. “Who decides?” is one question you do not need to worry about in Trump’s White House. It is he who decides, and as a result, his family’s enrichment while he is in office has lost some of its menace. Trump may be one of the most tainted of all American presidents, but he is also the most transparent. Therein lies the discreet charm of patrimonial regimes — the attraction of running the state as a family business. As Trump has realised, personal power is weakened by secrecy, and threatened if the one wielding it is accused not of corruption but of hypocrisy. His administration is hell for conspiracy theorists because everything is on the surface. The current wave of anti-liberalism is a revolt against double standards. In a society governed by mistrust the cynic is the only one to be trusted. In its idealised version, modern democracy promises that a political leader will treat his own children like any others. But for those who vote for the new potentates, this is the “big lie”. As for the answer to the third question — how long the public’s tolerance for Trump’s “beautiful” deals can last — that remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: if a majority of US citizens eventually turn against this administration, their battle cry is likely to be “hypocrisy”.

ChatGPT 說：

以下是〈**唐納王的宮廷（The court of King Donald）〉的中文翻譯與幾個重要論點整理：

---

唐納王的宮廷

人們願意容忍明目張膽的利益衝突，但無法忍受虛偽

作者：伊凡·克拉斯特夫（Ivan Krastev）
《金融時報》特約編輯、索菲亞自由主義策略中心主席、維也納IWM研究員

這是一場古老的辯論：究竟是權力使人腐化，還是對失去權力的恐懼？不論正確答案為何，眼下在美國顯然正發生著一件不同尋常的事。

在過去兩週，媒體充斥著關於唐納·川普總統個人財富大幅增長的報導。據稱，川普家族與其商業夥伴從一種新加密貨幣中獲利3.2億美元、促成數十億美元的房地產交易，此外川普還接受了卡達政府贈送美國一架豪華噴射機。

《富比士》估計，從2024年3月到2025年3月，川普的淨資產增加了12億美元。

這一驚人現象引發三個核心問題：

1. 為何川普連做做樣子都不做，完全不遵守總統應有的「公私分明」劇本？

2. 為何美國公眾對川普家族的財富增長與利益衝突毫無反應？

3. 這種容忍態度究竟能持續多久？

對第一個問題，川普長子小唐納·川普在卡達一場商業論壇上的回答是：「反正不管你怎麼做，他們都會攻擊你」，所以依規則行事只會輸。他說得不無道理。

這幾十年來，反貪憤怒的結果就是讓人們越來越難以相信有人參政不是為了致富。現在的關鍵區別在於：像川普這樣公開利益衝突的人，與那些虛偽、試圖掩蓋自己問題的人。

亨特·拜登（Hunter Biden）事件就是一個例子：人們對他試圖隱藏商業行為的憤怒，遠超過對交易本身的譴責。

川普也從「數字太大而讓人無感」中得利。對普通人來說，任何金額只要是他們年收入的一百倍以上，就幾乎無法想像，因此川普的鉅額交易對大眾而言幾乎沒有意義。

第二個問題——為何民眾無動於衷？——對許多人來說尤其刺痛。曾參與克林頓彈劾調查的保羅·羅森茨威格（Paul Rosenzweig）表示：「要嘛就是民眾從來不在意這些事，要嘛就是他們曾經在意，但現在不在乎了。」他認為，反貪腐憤怒「原本就是菁英想像出來的幻影」。

這種容忍其實早有歷史先例。許多國家的王室成員生活奢華，人民雖知道其腐敗，卻也因其「透明」而選擇接受。

19世紀人們認為君主制之所以穩固，是因為人民「懂得怎麼運作」。今天的民主同樣如此：當人民不再明白誰在做決定，對腐敗的焦慮才會激增。

現代民主被「誰在決定？」這個問題撕裂：是選民的意志？還是金主？是民選領導人？還是無名官僚？

在這種不確定與不信任日增的時代，比起複雜的民主制度，民眾更願相信一個有魅力的強人領袖。對「個人化權力」的渴望正源於民主制度愈來愈讓人無法理解。

而在川普主政的白宮中，「誰做決定？」這個問題壓根不需要問：是他自己。而正因如此，他在任內讓家族財富暴增這件事，對某些人來說就沒那麼令人反感了。

川普或許是歷史上最受爭議、最「汙點纍纍」的美國總統之一，但他也是最透明的一個。

這也正是**家族式政權（patrimonial regime）**的「隱性魅力」所在：把國家當作家族企業經營。川普已意識到，個人權力一旦有祕密就會被削弱；但若被指責的不是腐敗，而是虛偽，那才是真正的危險。

他的政府對陰謀論者而言如夢魘——一切都擺在明面上。當今這股反自由主義的浪潮，本質上就是對雙重標準的反抗。在一個由不信任主導的社會中，只有犬儒者才值得信任。

理想中的現代民主承諾領袖會將他自己的孩子當作一般人民一樣看待——但對許多支持「新君主」的選民來說，這種想法才是真正的「大謊言」。

至於第三個問題——美國公眾對川普這些「美麗交易」的耐心究竟能維持多久？——目前仍是未知數。但有一點可以確定：如果美國多數人最終轉而反對這屆政府，他們最可能喊出的口號將是：「虛偽！」

---

重要論點整理

1. 川普放棄虛偽的「公私分明」假象：不像傳統政治人物試圖掩蓋利益衝突，川普選擇公開進行財富累積。

2. 人民對「透明腐敗」的容忍高於虛偽：川普的支持者認為誠實地腐敗總比表面清廉卻暗中交易來得可接受。

3. 極端財富讓大眾無感：川普的金錢交易對普通人來說太過龐大，無法具體想像，因此失去了「可憤怒性」。

4. 反自由主義是一場對雙重標準的反叛：在不信任主導的社會中，真誠的犬儒反而比虛偽的正義更能贏得信賴。

5. 民主制度日益難懂，個人領袖更吸引人：制度性民主因複雜與不透明逐漸失去吸引力，強人政治反而獲得青睞。

6. 虛偽將成為未來政治對抗的主軸：若川普遭反彈，導火線不會是貪腐，而是他或其政敵的「虛偽」。

---

若你需要這篇文章的風格改寫、加入台灣脈絡、或轉換為投書版本，我可以協助處理。

ChatGPT 可能會發生錯誤。請查核重要資訊。