“请假装我在选票上，”特朗普总统说道。这句话已成为集会上的常见口号，而他也正是以此开启了共和党的中期选举大会。其策略是：既然特朗普在选举中向来表现优异，选民只需自我欺骗，以为他确实出现在选票上，共和党就不会失去在国会的多数席位。
“Pretend, please, I’m on the ballot,” said President Trump. It has become a common refrain at rallies, and it is how he kicked off the Republican midterm convention. The strategy is, since Trump always does well in elections, voters just need to fool themselves into thinking he’s on the ballot and the Republicans will not lose their majority in Congress.
与此同时，白宫推出了一则新的电视广告，上面自豪地标注着“由美国政府支付”。广告中，特朗普在镜头前情绪激昂地活动着，而旁白则呼吁观众加入他的“最终之战”，以“摧毁深层政府”并“将战争贩子逐出我们的政府”。将国会早已拨用于其他用途的数百万纳税人资金，转而用来支付一场党派竞选广告的费用？
Meanwhile the White House’s new television ad, proudly stamped with “paid for by the U.S. Government,” shows Trump moving intensely before the camera as a voice-over pitches viewers to join his “final battle” to “demolish the deep state” and “expel the warmongers from our government.”Taking millions of taxpayer dollars that Congress had already appropriated for other uses to instead pay for a partisan campaign ad?
“我对此深恶痛绝，”北卡罗来纳州共和党参议员汤姆·蒂利斯说，“我告诉你，这感觉就像维克托·欧尔班在跟匈牙利人民讲话。”提到欧尔班或许恰如其分。在执政16年后，2025年底，欧尔班开始意识到自己4月份的连任竞选面临危险。于是，他开始发放政治福利：限制住房贷款利率、补贴公共部门员工的住房、让年轻选民和母亲免缴所得税、提高养老金，并向餐饮业和旅游业注入现金。他的政党最终惨败。自那以后，欧尔班便失去了权力。
“I hate it,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said, “I tell you, it feels like Vicktor Orban talking to the Hungarian people.”The reference to Orbán may be an apt one. After 16 years in power, late in 2025, Orban began to realize that his April reelection bid was in jeopardy. Orban started to hand out political giveaways. He put a cap on mortgage interest rates, subsidized housing of public-sector workers, exempted young voters and mothers from income tax, topped off pensions and injected cash into restaurants and tourism. His party lost in a landslide. Orban has been out of power since.
当特朗普在政治上受到压力时，也有类似倾向——试图通过纳税人资助的福利来购买胜利。这解释了他那句臭名昭著的承诺：如果共和党守住参众两院，他将向每位成年人发放5000美元。这也令人奇怪地联想到副总统JD·范斯提出的向居家配偶发放转移支付的建议——但单身工作的父母却不在受益之列。
Trump has a similar tendency when he gets squeezed politically — to try to buy his way to victory with taxpayer-funded giveaways. This explains his infamous pledge to pay each adult a $5,000 dividend if Republicans hold onto both chambers. It also curiously brings to mind Vice President JD Vance’s proposal to make transfer payments to stay-at-home spouses — but not to single working parents.
这两项计划都以现金转移的形式设计，相比之下，欧尔班那种与收入挂钩的发放方式反而显得政治色彩较淡。特朗普和范斯显然是想一锤定音。
Both schemes are set up as cash transfers, making Orbán’s earnings-contingent payout look politically tame by comparison. Trump and Vance are really swinging for the fences.
预算鹰派人士对这两项福利提案都进行了严厉批评。法律学者也针对电视广告所涉及的灰色地带发表了看法。
Budget hawks have picked apart both giveaway proposals. Legal scholars have also weighed in about the gray area surrounding the television ads.
1939年的《哈奇法案》禁止联邦雇员参与党派政治活动，而国会也规定，已拨款资金不得用于支持“宣传或鼓动”。一位法律学者表示，这些广告的内容未能通过区分合法公共信息与党派选举宣传的基本检验。多个监督组织已经提出投诉，但这些投诉在选举日之前能否得到解决，似乎存在疑问。
The Hatch Act of 1939 bars partisan political activity by federal employees, and Congress prohibits appropriated funds from supporting “publicity or propaganda”. One legal scholar saidthe content of the ads fails that basic test between legitimate public information versus partisan electioneering. Several watchdog groups have filed complaints, but it seems doubtful these will be resolved by election day.
与此同时，这些广告的支持者称，它们不过是公共服务公告，根本不属于宣传，并且由于特朗普并非11月选票上的候选人，因此并未违反竞选资金法。
Meanwhile, defenders of the ads say they are merely public service announcements, not propaganda at all, and they don’t violate campaign finance law because Trump is not a candidate on the November ballot.
在我的研究领域——公共选择理论中，这类福利举措被视为庇护主义的经典特征，常见于小国独裁者和渴望维持权力的城市政治巨头手中。
In my field of study, public choice theory, these giveaway maneuvers are recognized as classic features of clientelism, typical of small country dictators and urban political bosses desperate to keep power.
阿根廷的庇隆主义就是一个例子，当时政府通过创造虚假工作来换取选票。印度的某些省份也体现了庇护主义，在选举前，现任官员向民众分发现金和商品并不少见。在美国的工业时代，纽约的坦慕尼协会和芝加哥的戴利政治机器等职位庇护体制，都体现了庇护主义的本质。
Peronism in Argentina is one example, where make-work jobs were created in exchange for votes. Some provinces in India also exemplify clientelism, where it is not uncommon for incumbents to distribute cash and goods prior to elections. In the U.S. industrial era, job-patronage regimes including Tammany Hall in New York and the Daley machine in Chicagoboth exemplify the essence of clientelism.
无论是特朗普、欧尔班还是范斯，为了安抚不满的民众而大开财政大门，都是历史上庇护主义者的经典手段。
Whether it’s Trump, Orban or Vance, opening the fiscal purse to appease a grumbling public is a classic move made by history’s practitioners of clientelism.
本次中期选举的候选人是谁？我们假装对手是欧尔班还是特朗普，或许并无区别。但如果我们拒绝庇护主义，继续在美国的宪政共和国中生活，那将产生巨大的不同。
Who is on the ballot this midterm election? It might not make a difference whether we pretend it’s Orbán or Trump. But it will make a big difference if we reject clientelism and move on with our lives in America’s constitutional republic.
我并不是一个喜欢预测选举结果的人。但和所有人一样，我也注意到民意调查和专家评论都显示，共和党不太可能保住多数席位。这将带来一个政策上的机遇窗口。美国民众已经厌倦了特朗普咄咄逼人的姿态，选民们渴望一些合乎逻辑的解决方案。至于民主党能否兑现承诺，谁也无法预料。
I am not one to predict election outcomes. But, like anyone else, I do see polls and expert commentary leaning against the Republicans keeping their majority. This will create a policy window of opportunity. America is weary of Trump’s glare, and voters are hungry for something that makes sense. Who knows whether the Democrats will deliver.
爱德华·洛佩兹是位于加利福尼亚州奥克兰的独立研究所的高级研究员兼创业与创新主任，同时也是西卡罗来纳大学的经济学教授。
Edward Lopez is a senior fellow and director of entrepreneurship and innovation at Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., and professor of Economics at Western Carolina University.