November 03, 2022
Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion
民主，最危险的宗教
6. Part 6 – The Theology of Politics
6. 第6章 – 政治神学
By Larry Romanoff
拉里•罗曼诺夫
译文：珍珠
This is a serious discussion, so let’s be sure we are on the same page by ensuring we apply the same meanings to our words. “Democracy” is NOT government. It is not freedom, it is not human rights, it is not universal values, it is not free speech or free press. It is not capitalism or free markets. It is neither cabbage nor broccoli. Democracy, the fervent “we’ll invade your country and kill half your people” American kind, is nothing more than religion-based politics.
这是一场严肃的讨论，所以让我们确保我们在同一页上，确保我们对我们的单词有相同的含义。“民主”不是政府。它不是自由，不是人权，不是普世价值，不是言论自由或新闻自由。它不是资本主义或自由市场。它既不是卷心菜也不是西兰花。民主，狂热的“我们将入侵你的国家并杀死你一半的人民”的美国式，只不过是基于宗教的政治。
Let’s pretend for a moment we live in a normal world where people are not overcome by various political and religious insanities.
让我们假装我们生活在一个正常的世界，人们不会受到各种政治和宗教疯狂的困扰。
Now let’s imagine that our national economy develops, our country becomes richer and we all have more free time. American political theology tells us that as we reach some arbitrary threshold of income security, or some pre-determined level of progress from apehood to civilisation, our “natural yearnings of all mankind” will magically blossom, giving rise to an irresistible desire for US-style ‘democracy’. And that does NOT mean US-style Republican government; it means US-style multi-party politics.
现在让我们想象一下，我们的国民经济发展了，我们的国家变得更富有了，我们都有了更多的空闲时间。美国政治神学告诉我们，当我们达到某种收入保障的任意门槛，或达到某种从童年到文明的预先确定的进步水平时，我们“全人类的自然渴望”将神奇地开花，从而产生对美国式“民主”的不可抗拒的渴望。这并不意味着美国式的共和党政府；意思是美国式的多党政治。
This is a popular American mantra that sounds good but has no basis in reality – this conviction, however it’s stated, that when a people develop to some undefined but higher spiritual level, the laws of God and nature will release an inborn desire for multi-party politics. According to these people, as we progress in our natural development toward American clones, we will experience a predetermined, perhaps genetic, impulse, to meddle in the national government of our country. This foolish claim doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
这是一个流行的美国口头禅，听起来不错，但实际上没有依据——无论怎么说，这种信念是，当一个民族发展到某种未定义但更高的精神层面时，上帝和自然的法则将释放对多党政治与生俱来的渴望。根据这些人所说，随着我们朝着美国克隆的自然发展而进步，我们将经历一种预先确定的、也许是遗传的冲动，来干涉我们国家的国家政府。这种愚蠢的主张甚至没有通过笑声测试。
Note that this theology doesn’t state that our interest in politics arises as we become more educated, experienced, or competent, but as we become somehow more spiritually enlightened. A basic tenet of this American religion is that as we develop spiritually and become sufficiently enlightened – in other words, when we become more like Americans – we will then want what they want. On what do Americans justify such a conviction? They offer no rationale for their beliefs, and indeed none exists. There is no existing evidence of such a human state, and of course they offer none. As with every religion, you must believe because you are told to believe.
请注意，这种神学并没有说我们对政治的兴趣是因为我们受到的教育越多、经验越丰富或能力越强，而是因为我们变得在精神上更加开明。这种美国宗教的一个基本原则是，随着我们在精神上的发展，变得足够开明——换句话说，当我们变得更像美国人时——我们就会想要他们想要的东西。美国人凭什么相信这样的信念？他们没有为自己的信仰提供任何理由，事实上也没有。没有现存的证据证明这种人类状态，当然他们也没有提供任何证据。就像每个宗教一样，你必须相信，因为有人告诉你相信。
But surely this is just lunacy. It would make equally as much sense for me, once I become rich (or educated, or enlightened), to develop a magical yearning to go to the surgical ward and try my hand at a brain transplant, since I know as much about that as I do about government, in other words, nothing at all. But why focus on government? Why not on the nation’s space program, or putting our noses into the nation’s educational system? The answer is that most people are not so interested in any of these fields, nor do they harbor any illusions about their knowledge or ability to contribute. And in fact, this is true of government as well – most people are simply not that interested and, in any case, have no useful knowledge or ability. But again, the attraction is not government, but American faith-based politics.
但这肯定是疯了。一旦我变得富有（或受过教育，或开明），我会产生一种神奇的想法，想去外科病房尝试脑移植，因为我对政府了解得和我对政府了解得一样多，换句话说，我什么都不知道。但是为什么关注政府？为什么不关注国家的太空计划，或者插手国家的教育体系？答案是大多数人对这些领域都不感兴趣，他们对自己所知道的知识或贡献的能力也不抱任何幻想。事实上，政府也是如此——大多数人只是不感兴趣，无论如何，他们都没有有用的知识或能力。但同样，吸引力不是政府，而是美国基于信仰的政治。
I can scarcely imagine anything more dangerous to the well-being of a nation than millions of uninformed and inexperienced people suddenly wanting to get involved in something they know nothing about but on which the entire well-being of their nation depends. The most dangerous, and frightening, part of this mindless infection is that Americans have blindly and foolishly included it as one of the 1,001 “rights” in their all-encompassing democratic theology. That means it is not only my natural and irresistible, inborn human yearning, but part of my rights granted to me by my God, that I, hopelessly ignorant, inexperienced and incompetent, can now meddle in the government of my country. And if that isn’t crazy, I don’t know what would be.
我很难想象，对一个国家的福祉来说，还有什么比数百万不知情、没有经验的人突然想要参与他们一无所知、但整个国家的福祉都依赖的事情更危险的了。这种无意识的感染最危险、最可怕的部分是，美国人盲目而愚蠢地将它作为他们包罗万象的民主神学中的1001项“权利”之一。这意味着，这不仅是我自然和不可抗拒的、与生俱来的人类渴望，也是我上帝赋予我的权利的一部分，我，绝望的无知、无经验和无能，现在可以干涉我国的政府。如果这还不疯狂，我不知道还有什么会疯狂。
There is no natural connection between rising income or economic development and an interest in a nation’s management, any more than in a corporate environment. If our company does well, demonstrated by increasing profits and salary levels, there is no natural law dictating that employees will suddenly develop a fanatical desire to get involved in the company’s management. There is no reason to expect such a desire for corporate ‘democracy’, and we have never seen evidence of it in any of the many examples of successful companies. If this were some natural law, we surely would see it first in our corporations and institutions – in our companies, our hospitals, our school systems, charities. But we don’t. In fact, the more successful a company and its employees, the more willing are the staff to leave management to the managers. Management doesn’t even enter their minds unless it’s incompetent and begins to exert considerable negative influence on their lives.
收入增加或经济发展与对国家管理的兴趣之间没有天然的联系，就像在公司环境中一样。如果我们公司表现良好，利润和工资水平提高，没有自然法则规定员工会突然产生参与公司管理的狂热愿望。没有理由期望这种对公司“民主”的渴望，我们从未在许多成功公司的例子中看到过这样的证据。如果这是一些自然法则，我们肯定会首先在公司和机构中看到它——在我们的公司、医院、学校系统、慈善机构中。但是我们没有。事实上，公司及其员工越成功，员工就越愿意将管理交给经理。除非管理层无能，并开始对他们的生活产生相当大的负面影响，否则管理层甚至不会进入他们的脑海。
Why don’t ideologies control our schools, hospitals and corporations? American theology tells us that as we reach some arbitrary threshold on our trek from apehood to civilisation, our “natural yearnings of all mankind” will magically blossom and the laws of God and nature will release an irresistible inborn desire for US-style ‘democracy‘, for the “God-given right” to have multi-party politics as the way to choose our leaders. Think for a moment about a comparable circumstance in the corporate world. Why don’t Americans, when their jobs are secure and their incomes rise to some appropriate level, magically develop a “yearning of all mankind” to meddle in the management of the companies where they work? The rational answer is obvious: they’re all incompetent. Virtually none of them have the education, training, experience or ability to participate in higher management, nor do any of them possess the qualifications and skills to evaluate and select a corporation’s top management. They would be out of their depth, hopelessly incompetent to assume such duties and the only likely result would be the eventual bankruptcy of the company. It should be obvious that the rational answer is identical for a government, and that the entire “natural yearning” myth is ridiculous nonsense.
为什么意识形态不能控制我们的学校、医院和公司？美国神学告诉我们，当我们在从童年到文明的旅程中达到某个任意的门槛时，我们“全人类的自然渴望”将神奇地绽放，上帝和自然的法则将释放出一种不可抗拒的天生渴望，即美国式的“民主”，即“上帝赋予的权利”，以多党政治作为选择我们领导人的方式。想一想企业界的类似情况。当美国人的工作有保障，收入上升到适当的水平时，他们为什么不神奇地产生一种“全人类的渴望”，干预他们工作的公司的管理？理性的答案是显而易见的：他们都不称职。事实上，他们中没有一个人受过教育、受过培训、有经验或有能力参与更高级别的管理，也没有一个人具备评估和选择公司最高管理层的资格和技能。他们将无法胜任这些职责，唯一可能的结果是公司最终破产。很明显，对于一个政府来说，理性的答案是完全相同的，而整个“自然向往”的神话都是荒谬的无稽之谈。
Why don’t we run our corporations, our government departments, our school systems, our charities, in the same way as our governments? Why, in a large company, don’t we force a separation of the management team on the basis of some ideology and let the two groups fight it out, with the winners taking control? Why don’t we do that with our schools and hospitals? The reason is that there is a purpose to all these things we do. Our schools are for educating our children, our hospitals for healing the sick. There is no room for ideology in these places; there is a job to be done and a focus on ideology will serve only to distract us from our purpose. Ideological rifts will color our actions, create irrelevant agendas, marginalise probably half of the most competent people. They will work directly against the work we must do. It is the same with corporations. There is no room for distracting ideologies if they want to be successful. We can find many examples of companies that have failed precisely because they forgot their purpose and substituted ideology for rational thinking.
为什么我们不以政府的方式管理我们的公司、政府部门、学校系统、慈善机构？为什么在一家大公司里，我们不强制管理层根据某种意识形态进行分离，让两个团体打起来，胜者取得控制权？为什么我们不在学校和医院这样做？原因是我们所做的一切都是有目的的。我们的学校是为了教育我们的孩子，我们的医院是为了治愈病人。在这些地方没有意识形态的空间；有一份工作要做，而关注意识形态只会分散我们的注意力。意识形态分歧会歪曲我们的行为，创造无关的议程，可能使一半最能干的人边缘化。他们将直接反对我们必须做的工作。公司也是如此。如果他们想要成功，就没有分散注意力的意识形态的空间。我们可以找到许多公司的例子，这些公司之所以失败，正是因为他们忘记了他们的目的，用意识形态代替了理性思考。
So what is it about government that makes it different? Surely a government has a purpose too – to run a country, to manage an economy, to create jobs, growth, safety and security, to manage a military, to conduct foreign affairs, to look after the population and do what is generally best for all. The demands for world-class understanding and competence are far greater than with any corporation. Where is the room for ideology in this? Why is government a special case? I can think of no reason. There is nothing about this that appears rational from any point of view. It is true that any population will have a wide range of views, reflecting the differences in people and personalities, but we have that equally in schools, hospitals, corporations and charities. In each case, these other groups are able to absorb these irrelevant ideological variations and cooperate sufficiently well to function without the partisanship and infighting that is typical of politics. I see nothing to justify such a great departure from rationality for the purpose of government.
那么，政府有什么不同之处？当然，政府也有一个目的——管理一个国家，管理经济，创造就业机会，增长，安全和保障，管理军队，处理外交事务，照顾人口，做对所有人来说都是最好的事情。对世界级理解和能力的需求远远大于任何公司。在这方面，意识形态的空间在哪里？为什么政府是一个特殊案例？我想不出任何理由。从任何角度来看，这都没有什么合理之处。确实，任何人口都会有很多不同的观点，反映了人和人之间的差异，但是我们也有同样的情况在学校、医院、公司和慈善机构。在每种情况下，这些其他群体都能够吸收这些无关的意识形态变化，并充分合作以发挥作用，而没有党派和内斗的典型政治。我认为没有什么理由证明政府如此偏离理性。
These ideas are not new. They have been presented before, but the ideologues try to dismiss them by saying “A country is not a company” – as if that obvious truth somehow negated the illogic of their position. They claim that the rules of business and government are entirely different, that in business you must prove yourself by delivering to customers and stake-holders, while in government the responsibility is to keep your supporters happy, or some such nonsense. This foolishness is simply a way of trying to pre-empt rational people from coming to the correct conclusion and realise that a state or country is not a daycare where you must treat the kiddies nicely, but is instead an enormous management task far beyond the demands of most corporations.
这些想法并不新鲜。它们以前就已经被提出过，但理论家试图通过说“国家不是公司”来否定它们，好像这个明显的真理在某种程度上否定了他们立场的逻辑。他们声称商业和政府的规则是完全不同的，在商业中你必须通过向客户和利益相关者提供服务来证明自己，而在政府中，责任是让你的支持者满意，或者一些诸如此类的废话。这种愚蠢只是试图抢占理性的人得出正确结论的一种方式，并意识到一个国家或国家不是一个你必须善待孩子的日托所，而是一个远远超出大多数公司要求的巨大的管理任务。
These detractors apparently want us to believe that a government needn’t accomplish anything, but just make its supporters happy. And those supporters would be whom, exactly? The other party members, those who share the same ideology? Those who paid the money and bought the elections? Well, schools and hospitals are different too, as are grocery chains, mining companies and manufacturers. Their business, their purpose, their stakeholders are all very different, but they function very well without the imposition of an ideological framework. And there is no reason that government cannot do the same. The benefits are not difficult to imagine.
这些批评者显然想让我们相信，政府不需要做任何事情，只要让支持者高兴就行了。那么这些支持者到底是谁？是其他政党成员，还是那些持有相同意识形态的人？是那些花钱买选举的人？好吧，学校和医院也是不同的，杂货连锁店、矿业公司和制造商也是如此。他们的业务、目的和利益相关者都大不相同，但他们在没有意识形态框架的情况下运作得很好。政府没有理由做不到这一点。其好处不难想象。
This propaganda that so many Americans preach is almost pathological in its religious fervor, and yet those same Americans appear totally blind to the immense failings of that same system in their own country. This is what we call Jingoism – a blind and unquestioned belief that my country, my system, my everything, are the one way, the right way, the ONLY way. American political jingoism is a blind conviction that all living beings will gravitate by a natural law of the universe toward those values that Americans hold to be true. Most Western comment on this issue resolves from a blind worship of the multi-party political system with scant evidence that its proponents have ever seriously examined the reality of their own ideological beliefs which are all rooted in a primitive and simple-minded theology, an all-encompassing political-religious ideology producing a kind of simian team sport that would be perfectly at home in a zoo.
这种宣传是如此多的美国人宣扬的，其宗教热情几乎是病态的，然而，同样是这些美国人似乎完全无视他们自己国家中同一制度的巨大失败。这就是我们所说的沙文主义——一种盲目和无可置疑的信念，即我的国家、我的制度、我的一切都是唯一的方式、正确的方式、唯一的方式。美国政治沙文主义是一种盲目的信念，认为所有生物都会受到宇宙自然法则的吸引，朝着美国人认为正确的价值观发展。大多数西方人对这个问题的评论都是盲目的崇拜多党政治制度，很少有证据表明其支持者曾经认真研究过他们自己的意识形态信仰的现实，这些信仰都植根于原始而简单的神学，这是一种包罗万象的政治宗教意识形态，产生了一种猿类团队运动，这种运动在动物园里非常受欢迎。
When writing of China, these same people tell us the Chinese haven’t yet wanted US-style multi-party politics because “their democratic yearnings have not yet developed.” What kind of nonsense is this? If I’m not Muslim and my name isn’t Mohammed, that’s because my ‘Allah-yearnings’ have not developed? If I hate McDonald’s, that’s because my ‘hamburger-that-tastes-like-greasy-cardboard’ yearnings aren’t yet developed? This mindless conviction makes no allowance for differences in culture or values of other nations, for their history or tradition, and indeed it disparages such differences and often treats them with open contempt. To Americans, any rejection of their democratic religion on the basis of cultural or other values is just a cheap excuse to avoid the inevitable. And of course, the ‘inevitable’ is for all peoples to become American. Actually, it’s a bit worse than that. No foreigners possess the spiritual gifts to become true Americans, even after centuries of colonisation. The best you can hope for, is to become a kind of imperfect clone – not really white, not really American – but having adopted American values and therefore suitable for colonisation.
在写到中国时，这些人告诉我们中国人还没有想要美国式的多党政治，因为“他们的民主渴望还没有发展”。这是什么废话？如果我不是穆斯林，我的名字不是穆罕默德，那是因为我的“真主渴望”还没有发展？如果我不喜欢麦当劳，那是因为我的“汉堡包吃起来像油腻的纸板”的渴望还没有发展？这种盲目的信念没有考虑到其他国家文化或价值观的差异，也没有考虑到他们的历史或传统，事实上，它贬低了这种差异，并经常公开蔑视它们。对于美国人来说，任何基于文化或其他价值观对民主宗教的拒绝都是避免不可避免的廉价借口。当然，“不可避免的”是所有人民成为美国人。事实上，这比这更糟糕。即使经过几个世纪的殖民统治，也没有外国人拥有成为真正美国人的精神天赋。你能指望的最好的是成为一种不完美的克隆——不是真正的白人，也不是真正的美国人——但已经接受了美国价值观，因此适合殖民。
Americans are deluded that their entire belief system and set of values is held in their minds as the world’s default position, representing the natural order of the universe. And they presume to measure the world according to this political religion. One American wrote: “I’m really tired of hearing about democracy. Time and again, people are saying, maybe the Western style isn’t right for this country, or maybe the country isn’t ready for democracy. Well, when, pray tell, is a country finally ready for democracy?” Another wrote, “We need to recognize that our ideology is not for everybody. The Chinese are still evolving upward, and without an educated society, US-style democracy will not work.” Now we know. The Chinese cannot adopt democracy because they are still primitive, having only just taken their first baby steps from apehood to Americanism. Those who reject our system do not do so because it’s unsuitable, dysfunctional and corrupt, but because they aren’t sufficiently educated.
美国人自欺欺人地认为，他们的整个信仰体系和价值观在他们的头脑中是世界的默认位置，代表了宇宙的自然秩序。他们还妄想根据这种政治宗教来衡量世界。一位美国人写道：“我真的厌倦了听民主。人们一次又一次地说，也许西方式不适合这个国家，或者这个国家还没有准备好民主。那么，什么时候，祈祷告诉，一个国家终于准备好民主了吗？”另一位写道：“我们需要认识到我们的意识形态并不适合所有人。中国人仍在不断发展，没有一个受过教育的社会，美式民主将无法发挥作用。”现在我们知道。中国人不能接受民主，因为他们还处于原始状态，刚刚从猿类走向美国主义的第一步。那些拒绝我们制度的人这样做不是因为制度不合适、功能失调和腐败，而是因为他们没有受过足够的教育。
“Democracy is only one way of constituting authority, and it is not necessarily a universally applicable one. In many situations the claims of expertise, seniority, experience, and special talents may override the claims of democracy as a way of constituting authority. The democratic principle [can be] extended to many institutions where it can, in the long run, only frustrate the purposes of those institutions. A university where teaching appointments are subject to approval by students may be a more democratic university but it is not likely to be a better university. In similar fashion, armies in which the commands of officers have been subject to veto by the collective wisdom of their subordinates have almost invariably come to disaster on the battlefield. The arenas where democratic procedures are appropriate are, in short, limited.” [1]
“民主只是构成权威的一种方式，而且不一定是普遍适用的。在许多情况下，专业知识、资历、经验和特殊才能的要求可能压倒民主的要求，成为构成权威的一种方式。民主原则[可以]扩展到许多机构，从长远来看，这只会挫败这些机构的目的。一所大学，如果教师任命需要得到学生的批准，这可能是一所更民主的大学，但不太可能是一所更好的大学。以类似的方式，军队中军官的命令已经受到其下属集体智慧的否决，几乎无一例外地在战场上遇到了灾难。简而言之，民主程序适用的领域是有限的。”[1]
“Democracy, alas, is also a form of theology, and shows all the immemorial stigmata. Confronted by uncomfortable facts, it invariably tries to dispose of them by appeals to the highest sentiments of the human heart. I allude to the fact that [American] man on the lower levels, though he quickly reaches the limit of his capacity for taking in actual knowledge, remains capable for a long time thereafter of absorbing delusions. What is true daunts him, but what is not true finds lodgment in his cranium with so little resistance that there is only a trifling emission of heat. It lies at the heart of what is called religion, and at the heart of all democratic politics, no less. [2] [Democracy is acceptable in America because] a yokel can grasp it instantly. It collides ludicrously with many of the known facts, but he doesn’t know the known facts. It is logically nonsensical, but to him the nonsensical, in the sciences as in politics, has an irresistible fascination. His vast capacity for illusion, his powerful thirst for the not true, embellishes his anthropoid appetite without diminishing it. What reaches him is what falls from the tree, and is shared with his four-footed brothers. Certainly, the attitude of the average American . . . offers superb clinical material to the student of democratic psychopathology.”
“民主，唉，也是一种神学形式，显示出所有远古的污点。面对令人不安的事实，它总是试图通过诉诸人类心灵的最高情感来处理它们。我指的是这样一个事实：处于较低层次的[美国]人，虽然他很快达到了接受实际知识的极限，但在很长一段时间内仍然能够吸收妄想。真实的东西让他感到害怕，但不真实的东西在他的头骨中几乎没有阻力，只有很少的热量散发出来。它位于所谓的宗教的核心，也是所有民主政治的核心。[2] [民主在美国是可以接受的，因为]乡巴佬可以立即掌握它。它与许多已知事实滑稽地碰撞，但他不知道这些已知事实。它在逻辑上是荒谬的，但对他来说，荒谬的，在科学和政治上，有着不可抗拒的魅力。他巨大的幻觉能力，他对不真实的强烈渴望，使他的类人欲望不减反增。他接触到的就是从树上掉下来的东西，并与他的四足兄弟分享。当然，普通美国人的态度……为民主精神病学的研究提供了极好的临床材料。”
*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成32种语言，他的文章发表在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站以及100多个英语平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位，并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾是上海复旦大学的客座教授，为高级EMBA课程提供国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生住在上海，目前正在写一系列十本书，通常与中国和西方有关。他是辛西娅·麦金尼的新文集《当中国打喷嚏》的撰稿人之一。(第2章——与恶魔打交道)。
His full archive can be seen at
他的完整文章库可以在以下看到：
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/
He can be contacted at:
他的联系方式：
2186604556@qq.com
*
Notes
注释
[1] The Crisis Of Democracy
[1] 民主的危机
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/The-Crisis-of-Democracy.pdf
[2] H. L. Mencken. Notes on Democracy
[2] 门肯《论民主》
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/NOTES-ON-DEMOCRACY.pdf
*
This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.
本文可能包含受版权保护的材料，其使用未经版权所有者特别授权。此内容根据合理使用原则提供，仅用于教育和信息目的。此内容没有商业用途。
Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2024
版权所有 © 拉里·罗曼诺夫、上海蓝月亮、上海月亮，2024
