当全国媒体在高风险选举战的白热化阶段报道政客的虐待行为时，人们自然会怀疑其中是否存在隐情和选择性审查。在最新一例中，《纽约时报》报道了美国参议院候选人、民主党籍前众议员玛丽·佩尔托拉的前员工提出的投诉。佩尔托拉正在阿拉斯加陷入一场紧张胶着的竞选，其结果可能决定唐纳德·特朗普总统任期最后两年参议院的控制权。员工们的指控涵盖从佩尔托拉使用冒犯性语言到强迫员工给家里的宠物变色龙喂食活蟋蟀等方方面面。
When national media reports of a politician’s abusive behavior arise in the heat of a high-stakes election battle, it’s natural to wonder about ulterior motives and selective scrutiny. In the latest instance, the New York Times reported complaints from former staffers of U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola, a Democratic former congresswoman who is locked in a tense, close race in Alaska that could determine control of the upper chamber during the last two years of Donald Trump’s presidency. The staffers’ allegations include everything from Peltola using offensive language to making employees feed live crickets to her family’s pet chameleon.
包括《大西洋月刊》的乔纳森·查特在内，一些人对这些投诉的重要性持怀疑态度：民主党员工（他们几乎总是民主党人）在背景不予公开的情况下抱怨他们的老板（几乎总是女性）对待他们的私下行为。涉事行为从不当、更常见的有点不当，到完全得当，范围很广。
Some have viewed the importance of these complaints skeptically, including Jonathan Chait at The Atlantic: Democratic staffers (they are almost always Democrats) complain off the record about the private behavior of their boss, who is almost always female, toward them. The behavior in question ranges from inappropriate to, more often, somewhat inappropriate to completely appropriate.
查特接着引用了过去明尼苏达州的艾米·克洛布彻和加利福尼亚州的凯蒂·波特涉嫌虐待员工引发的轩然大波，并暗示这充其量是双重标准，最坏的情况则是民主党员工抱怨成风的文化：该报道传达的整体印象不是一个陷入混乱的办公室，而是一个充满了对职场规范抱有不切实际期望的员工的办公室。斥责下属是不良的管理做法。但这不构成混乱，也不属于足以证明全国性新闻报道合理的那种程度的虐待。
Chait goes on to cite past brouhahas over alleged abuse of staff by Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Katie Porter of California and suggests a double standard at best and a culture of Democratic staff whining at worst: The overall impression the story conveys is not an office beset by chaos, but one rife with staffers burdened with unrealistic expectations of workplace norms. Berating subordinates is a poor management practice. But it does not constitute chaos or the level of abuse that would justify a national news story.
关于媒体在报道国会议员对待员工不当行为时存在党派或性别偏见的指责，可能有其道理。当然，佩洛塔、克洛布查尔和波特被指控的行为，与两党男性国会议员普遍表现出的性不当行为模式相比，简直是小巫见大巫，后者几乎可以肯定是被低估报道的——仅最近就有埃里克·斯沃韦尔、托尼·冈萨雷斯、查克·爱德华兹和科里·米尔斯等人的丑闻为例。但多年来，在国会山，对员工刻薄相待或对其时间和工作提出不当要求，可以说更多是常态而非例外。
The claims of partisan or gender bias in media reporting on congressional misconduct toward staff may have merit. Certainly the alleged sins of Peltola, Klobuchar, and Porter pale in comparison to the pattern of sexual misconduct so regularly exhibited by male members of Congress from both parties, which is almost certainly underreported — a few examples from the very recent past include scandals involving Eric Swalwell, Tony Gonzales, Chuck Edwards, and Cory Mills. But being mean to staff or making inappropriate demands on their time and work has arguably been more the rule than the exception in Congress over the years.
直到20世纪90年代，国会一直惯于将自己豁免于其强加给私营部门和联邦政府其他部门的民权法和劳资关系法之外。它被称为“最后的种植园”，这一称呼不仅反映了国会机构中普遍存在的系统性种族主义，也反映了对让国会大厦运转起来的员工工作条件普遍漠不关心的氛围。
Until the 1990s, Congress routinely exempted itself from civil-rights and labor-relations laws it imposed on the private sector and other branches of the federal government. It was known as “last plantation,” a term that reflected not only the systemic racism so common in congressional institutions, but also a general atmosphere of indifference to the working conditions of the staff who made the Capitol function.
最终，国会改变了做法，取消了对大多数职场法律的豁免，并建立了自己的HR（人力资源）运作体系，包括国会职场权利办公室。但整个系统由众参两院道德委员会监督，当面对可能终结议员政治生涯的指控时，这些委员会绝非中立。更重要的是，员工的待遇从根本上取决于“高高在上”的民选官员及其核心亲信，与他们在大多数国会办公室往往任意的指挥链底端、随时可被替换的“农奴”之间的权力失衡。（我以前参议院员工以及曾在联邦州关系部门工作多年、与众参两院员工保持密切联系者的身份做出这些观察。）虽然也有例外，但大多数国会运作及其附属的竞选组织（这些组织往往能为国会输送未来的工作人员）都遵循“太阳王原则”。所有的荣誉与光环都聚焦于议员个人，因为议员能否连任，直接决定了工作人员这些“随时可被解雇”职位的存续。让所有人都传递出这样一个印象至关重要：老板兼具伯里克利的智慧与耶稣的慈悲，每天清醒时都下定决心为公众和政党服务（尤其是在当前两极分化严重、国会席位势均力敌的时代，一切国会赋予的恩惠皆源于政党）。工作人员为选民办成的所有好事，功劳都归于议员，议员的名字几乎烙印在他们的灵魂深处。
Ultimately, Congress reversed course, eliminating its exemptions from most workplace laws and creating its own HR operations, including the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. But the whole system is overseen by the House and Senate ethics committees, which are not exactly neutral when it comes to potentially career-ending allegations against members of Congress. More important, treatment of staff is decisively shaped by the power imbalances between lordly elected officials, along with their top hirelings, and the eminently replaceable serfs beneath them in the often-arbitrary chain of command in most congressional offices. (I make these observations as a former Senate employee and as someone who spent years in federal-state relations, maintaing close contact with House and Senate staff). Though there are exceptions, most congressional operations and the campaign organizations that shadow them (often producing future congressional staff) are governed by the Sun King principle. All honor and glory are focused on the member, whose survival in office is the source of the staffers’ at-will jobs. It’s vital that everyone convey the impression that the boss combines the wisdom of Pericles with the compassion of Jesus and awakens each morning determined to serve the public and the party (from whom all congressional blessings flow, particularly in this era of maximum polarization and close divisions in Congress). All the good things staffers do for constituents are credited to the members, whose name is all but tattooed on their souls.
至于工作人员自己，大多数人把在国会山（或回老家的州、选区办公室）的任期视为一段短暂的炼狱般经历和镀金简历的必要过程，期间他们必须忍气吞声，对老板的无理要求和反复无常的行为守口如瓶。这是劳动力市场供过于求、拥有近乎无限“人肉炮灰”供应的经典案例。这也折射出这样一个社会现实：白人男性往往获得远超其工作贡献的回报，而女性和有色人种却往往承担大量报酬微薄的琐碎事务。
As for the staffers themselves, most view their tenure on the Hill (or in state or district offices back home) as a brief purgatorial experience and resume-enhancing necessity, during which they must grit their teeth and keep their own counsel about the boss’s unreasonable demands and erratic behavior. This is the classic example of a labor market flooded with a virtually unlimited supply of human cannon fodder. It also reflects a society in which white men still tend to be rewarded far beyond their workplace contributions, while women and people of color tend to do a lot of under-compensated chores.
因此，当前工作人员向《纽约时报》爆料、罗列签发他们薪水的暴君的种种劣迹时，我们也应当审视更大的背景。
So when former staffers go to the New York Times with a litany of anecdotes about the tyrant who signed their paychecks, we should also look at the bigger picture.
在任何人因玛丽·佩尔托拉对待员工的方式而投票反对她之前，至少该问问她2026年的对手丹·沙利文是更好还是更差。我绝无意诋毁这位来自阿拉斯加的资深参议员；我对他如何对待手下那些无权无势的“农奴”一无所知。但整个体制的架构本身就助长了滥用职权。冒着同情魔鬼的风险，我想说美国选民普遍也难辞其咎，因为他们要求国会议员在两地维持住所，承担他们对联邦政府（甚至超出管辖范围的州和地方政府）的所有不满，还要应对“他们全是骗子”这种普遍存在的偏见。
Before anyone votes against Mary Peltola for how she treated her staff, let’s at least ask if her 2026 opponent Dan Sullivan is better or worse. I am not casting any aspersions on the junior senator from Alaska; I know nothing about how he behaves toward the powerless serfs he employs. But it’s the institution as a whole that is set up to encourage abuse. And at the risk of showing sympathy for the devil, I’d say Americans generally deserve some of the blame as well, for demanding their elected officials in Congress maintain dual residences, take on all their grievances with the federal government (and often state and local governments beyond their jurisdiction), and deal with the pervasive belief they are all crooks.
话虽如此，选民在虐待国会员工方面往往和议员一样有罪。有一次，我听到一位参议院选民服务员工被一位愤怒的“张三李四”选民痛骂，对方提出的申诉完全不合理且无法满足，还高喊“你是为我工作的！”那名员工忍无可忍，回嘴道：“没错，老板。那涨工资行吗？我靠食品券过日子呢！”可惜《纽约时报》没报道这个故事。
For that matter, constituents are often as guilty as members in abusing congressional staff. Once, I overheard a Senate constituent-services staffer being berated by an angry John Q. Citizen with a completely unjust grievance he couldn’t satisfy, shouting “You work for me!” The staffer snapped and replied: “That’s right, boss. How about a raise? I’m living on food stamps!” Too bad the New York Times didn’t cover that story.
更早、更频繁 最高法院选民名单裁令不影响中期选举，但2028年大选需警惕
More early and often Supreme Court Voter-Roll Order Won’t Affect Midterms, But Look Out in 2028