美國人信什么？
本文作者系《金融時(shí)報(bào)》專欄作家吉蓮·邰蒂（Gillian Tett）。
測試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識(shí)：
cater for 迎合，提供
tweak[twi?k] v.微微調(diào)整
anthropology[,ænθr?'p?l?d??] n.人類學(xué)，人類學(xué)家
amateur[?æm?t?(r)] n.業(yè)余愛好者，業(yè)余選手
woe[w??] n.困境，災(zāi)難，麻煩
rhetorical[r?'t?r?k(?)l] adj.修辭的，言辭的
humility[hj?'m?l?t?] n.謙卑，恭敬
Extreme conviction and other failings (816 words)
A couple of years ago, I wrote a book about the financial crisis for the American and British markets. Before publication, I was told I would need to make tweaks to cater for differing transatlantic tastes. So for the UK edition I included long passages about Northern Rock (the failed British bank). And in the American edition I replaced that with passages on Countrywide (the US mortgage giant). So far, so unsurprising. But the real fun erupted when I wrote the preface. Initially I planned to start the book by admitting that I was not a true expert on high finance: instead I crashed into this world in 2005, after a background spent in journalism-cum-social anthropology – making me a well-intentioned amateur, but without complete knowledge.
My friends in the British publishing world loved that honesty; in the UK, self-deprecation sells, particularly for “well-meaning amateurs” such as the writer Bill Bryson. But my American friends hated it. In New York, I was sternly told, absolutely nobody wants to listen to self-doubt. If you are going to write a book – let alone stand on a political platform or run a company – you must act as if you are an expert, filled with complete conviction. For the US version, the preface was removed entirely.
Happily for me, the book sold well in both markets. But in the past couple of weeks I have been pondering this issue of “conviction” again, since it is becoming newly relevant to America’s political economy.
Earlier this month George W. Bush published his memoirs, which have been causing a buzz in political circles partly because the tome includes passages where the former president admits that he made some mistakes. Bush also admits to uncertainty in relation to religion. “If you haven’t doubted, you probably haven’t thought very hard about what you believe,” he observes, describing how he became a Christian.
Now, in some senses this might appear to disprove the advice I was given by my American publishing friends a couple of years back. But in another way, it does not. The reason why Bush’s “confession” has caused so much interest is that he almost never admitted to any uncertainty or mistakes when he was in office. Instead, conviction ruled.
If you look at today’s political scene, it is even harder to imagine politicians, business leaders or pundits revealing doubt. On the contrary, in recent months the debate has become increasingly polarised in media and political circles – and imbued with extreme positions. The idea that a politician might stand up today in Washington and say “I am not sure” or “I need to learn” or “I might change my mind if someone else has a better idea” is almost laughable. Instead, politicians are increasingly expected to act like preachers – in possession of great, confident truths they wish to impart to everyone else.
This is not entirely an American phenomenon, of course: even in the more cynical, downbeat British world of politics, men such as David Cameron, George Osborne or Nick Clegg are loath to admit making any mistakes. Yet what has marked out the British coalition government in recent months is a sense of pragmatism, not extreme ideological conviction. That has fostered a mood of compromise hard to imagine in Washington today.
. . .
Earlier this month, for example, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the two chairmen of a bipartisan tax commission in Washington, delivered a surprisingly sensible set of proposals for tackling America’s fiscal woes, which had been produced in a rare flash of pragmatic collaboration between both men. But no sooner had those proposals emerged, there were shrieks of protest from both men’s parties. “Unacceptable,” declared Nancy Pelosi, Democrat luminary, echoing the convictions on the Republican side too.
All of this certainly makes US politics entertaining and dramatic: rather more exciting than UK politics, say. But it is profoundly unhelpful too. After all, when you look at the big challenges dogging America today – ranging from Afghanistan to the national debt – it is clear that the government is beset with problems of great moral complexity, which can only be solved with subtle trade-offs. What is needed now, in other words, is pragmatic collaboration – not passionate conviction. And that is difficult to foster in the current rhetorical pattern.
Perhaps President Obama will change this; he is now, after all, pledging to “listen” to Republicans. Maybe business and civic leaders will shift their rhetorical tone too. This month’s edition of the Harvard Business Review, for example, specifically tells corporate executives that they need to be “humble and open-minded” and “Ask: ‘What do I have wrong?’”
But I, for one, will be keeping a close eye on which books hit the best-seller list in the US this Christmas. Somehow I doubt whether there will be much uncertainty or humility on offer; or not, at least, from anyone close to power.
請根據(jù)你所讀到的文章內(nèi)容，完成以下自測題目：
1.According to the article, which kind of character would the Americans appreciate?
A. Honesty
B. Self-deprecation
C. Self-doubt
D. Extreme conviction
答案(1)
2.Which of the following statement, about US politics, is INCORRECT?
A. George W·Bush admits that he made some mistakes in his memoirs.
B. Bush almost never admitted to any uncertainty or mistakes when he was in office.
C. Politicians are increasingly expected to act like preachers.
D. Washington government in recent months is a sense of pragmatism and a mood of compromise.
答案(2)
3.What does the author suggest, according to the article?
A. Pragmatic collaboration
B. Extreme ideology
C. Passionate conviction
D. All of the above
答案(3)
4.Which of the following is TRUE, according to the author?
A. Because of the unappropriate preface, the author's book sold bad in the US.
B. It's even harder to imagine politicians, business leaders or pundits, at today's political scene, revealing doubt.
C. The debate certainly makes US politics entertaining and helpful.
D. The author believes that, those men in power will become humble in the future.
答案(4)
* * *
(1) 答案：D. Extreme conviction
解釋：前三個(gè)選項(xiàng)是作者觀察中英國人更尊崇的品質(zhì)。
(2) 答案：D.Washington government in recent months is a sense of pragmatism and a mood of compromise.
解釋：" Yet what has marked out the British coalition government in recent months is a sense of pragmatism, not extreme ideological conviction. That has fostered a mood of compromise hard to imagine in Washington today."，故D項(xiàng)有誤。
(3) 答案：A.Pragmatic collaboration
解釋："What is needed now, in other words, is pragmatic collaboration – not passionate conviction."，故A項(xiàng)正確。
(4) 答案：B.It's even harder to imagine politicians, business leaders or pundits, at today's political scene, revealing doubt.
解釋：作者聽從朋友的意見，刪除了美國版的序言，所以書在英美都賣的很好，故A項(xiàng)有誤；作者認(rèn)為這種論戰(zhàn)會(huì)讓美國政治變得富有娛樂性但這同時(shí)也是有害的，而非有益，故C項(xiàng)有誤；在文章的末尾，作者表示她很懷疑人們是否能表現(xiàn)出更多的謙遜，故D項(xiàng)不準(zhǔn)確。
