PBS高端访谈:消除我们身上的政治标签（在线收听）

JUDY WOODRUFF: Political labels can sometimes be convenient, but are they always helpful? Most of us rely on them in the news media, around the dinner table, with our friends and colleagues. Trying to understand our country politically, we reach for shorthand, red vs. blue, rich vs. poor. Now the question is raised, what if we put an end to some of these binary descriptions? Tonight, author and journalist Sarah Smarsh offers Her Humble Opinion on why we need to drop the labels.

SARAH SMARSH, Author, Heartland: I grew up on a wheat farm in Kansas as the fifth generation of my family to work that same patch of land. I'm the first woman in my direct maternal line, back to when women wore corsets, to not have a baby as a teenager. Most of the brilliant people I grew up around didn't finish high school, let alone college. Their life outcomes, I assure you, had far more to do with powerful forces like policy and culture than with individual merit. On my professional path, I have entered spaces no one I knew had ever neared: an Ivy League university, the National Book Awards. I now have a foot in two different worlds, allowing me to call B.S. on stories claiming they contain two innately different kinds of people. My work as a journalist and my day-to-day life in Kansas tell me that most folks, not all, but most, want a fair and decent society. But they have different influences, some with dangerous intentions, telling them how to make it so. My own ideas changed when I was in my early 20s. Was I a less moral and decent person before then? No. What changed was my environment and information sources, from a conservative small town to a liberal college campus with peers from liberal households. With such different experiences, we don't share a common set of definitions. Some women, for instance, have been taught to reject the word feminist, even as they exemplify feminism every day, taking no flak, being the breadwinners of their households. That's where we're divided, our social influences and media streams, not in our hearts and humanity. And those divisions aren't predicted by location or identity. Judging by state election outcomes, about 40 percent of Americans vote for the party that usually loses where they live. They are erased by reductive political headlines, as are millions who defy the one-dimensional narratives about their race or class, the conservative Christian person of color, say, or my dad and my partner, both of whom are white construction workers who vote for Democratic socialists. Let's keep refusing to compromise with those who would harm our communities, but let's drop the bogus frameworks of red vs. blue, urban vs. rural, misleading categories that drive TV ratings up, but shut us down to one another. And let's resist the temptation to view our political affiliation as a mark of inner superiority. More likely, it's a mark of our experiences. And most people we perceive as our enemies aren't so different at their core.

JUDY WOODRUFF: A lot to think about.

朱迪·伍德拉夫：虽然政治标签有时候很方便，但一直都有用吗？大多数人都很依赖政治标签，无论是在新闻媒体、餐桌上还是跟同事朋友的相处中。要从政治角度来了解我们的国家，有个捷径，那就是这是一个红与蓝的对比，富裕与贫穷的对比。那么问题就来了，如果终结这种两极化，会怎样呢？今晚，作者兼记者萨拉将会带来她的“我之拙见”，内容关于我们为何需要放下政治标签。

萨拉，《心田》作者：我在堪萨斯州的一个麦场出生，我是我家在这片土地上耕作的第五代人。我也是我们直系母系中的第一名女性，那时候，女性还会穿紧身内衣，也不必小小年纪就相夫教子。我身边大多数优秀人物甚至连高中都没上完，更别说大学了。我可以向大家保证，他们一辈子的成果更多地是凭借强大的力量，比如政治和文化，而不是靠个人的品德。在我的职业生涯中，我曾达到的节点鲜少有人涉足，比如长春藤联盟和美国国家图书奖。我现在参与了2个不同的领域，所以，我认为，理学士中也有两类本质不同的人。我作为记者的工作以及我在堪萨斯州的日常生活让我明白，大多数人（并非所有人）都希望社会公正，希望能过上体面的生活。但他们也产生了不同的影响，有一些人的想法很危险，只为了实现目的。我20出头的时候，想法也有所改变。是否在那之前，我是否品质没有现在高尚，是否过得没有现在体面？答案是否定的。改变我想法的是环境和信息源，思想保守的小城市曾改变过我，来自自由家庭的大学校友也曾改变过我。有了多样的经历后，我们对事情的看法不再相同。比如，一些女性从小就被教导要排斥女权主义的字眼，即便她们本身就是女权主义的最好表征，毫无怨言地做家里的经济来源。这是我们观点产生分歧的地方——我们的社会影响和媒体信息让我们产生了分歧，并不是我们的本心或者人性本身有分歧。这些分歧与地狱和身份无关。从各州的选举结果来看，近40%的美国人都为其他州的党投了票。政治类文章越来越标题党，民众深感厌恶。此外，还有上百万民众很讨厌肤浅谈论种族、阶级、信仰基督教的有色保守人种，比如我的父亲和伴侣。他们两个都是建筑工人，也都是白人的，但却为社会主义民主党投了票。我们要继续拒绝向损害社群利益的人让步，让我们摒弃所谓的红蓝对立、穷富对立。这些都会误导各种范畴，驱动等级的划分愈发明显，让我们彼此产生隔阂。我们还要继续摒弃将政治派别作为内在优越性的行为。经历才是关键。而且我们视为敌人的大多数人，其本质差异并不大。

朱迪·伍德拉夫：您的言论值得我们深思。