民主党应该叫停吗？

再过几周，联邦政府就要没钱了。根据阻挠议事规则，除非有七名民主党人与共和党人一起投票，否则政府将停摆。现在许多民主党人不想做任何事来支持特朗普总统的议程，有些人甚至说也许民主党就应该让它停摆。不要提出要求。不要寻求让步。

In just a few weeks, the federal government is going to run out of money. And per the filibuster, unless seven Democrats vote with Republicans, the government will shut down. Now many Democrats don't wanna do anything to aid president Trump's agenda, and some have said maybe the Dems should just shut it down. Don't make demands. Don't ask for concessions.

干脆拒绝合作。但随后查理·柯克遇害，突然间，这个立场变得风险极高。因为如果民主党人迫使政府停摆，他们就给了共和党人决定废除阻挠议事规则的机会。而没有阻挠议事规则，共和党人就可以为所欲为。

Just refuse to play ball. But then Charlie Kirk was killed, and all of a sudden, this position became much higher stakes. Because if the Democrats force a shutdown, they open themselves up to Republicans deciding to end the filibuster. And without the filibuster, Republicans can do whatever they want.

此时此刻，民主党人挑起一场很可能以国会中制约特朗普权力的最后护栏之一被拆除而告终的对抗，似乎非常短视。

At this very moment, for Democrats to stoke a confrontation that could very well end with one of the last remaining guardrails on Trump's power in Congress being demolished seems very shortsighted.

接下来请听Vox的《今日解说》，探讨为何需要极其谨慎行事。

Coming up on Today explained from Vox, the case for treading very carefully.

本节目由梅西百货赞助。叠穿是一门艺术。只需一点用心、风格，当然还有完美的御寒必备单品。借助梅西百货秋季时尚指南，找到最适合你的造型，这是你一站式获取由专家精选的秋季最新潮流和必备单品的目的地。从皮革到牛仔布再到舒适针织品，找到拼凑你全新秋季造型所需的一切。

Support for this show comes from Macy's. Layering is an art form. All it takes is a bit of intention, style, and, of course, the perfect cold weather staples. So find the perfect look for you with the help of Macy's fall fashion guide, your one stop shop for fall's latest trends and must haves curated by their experts. From leather to denim to cozy knits, find everything you need to piece together your new fall look.

亲自探索梅西百货秋季指南，并在店内或网上macys.com购物。

Explore the Macy's fall guide for yourself and shop in store or online at macy's.com.

本集节目由嘉信理财原创播客《论投资》为您呈现。我是嘉信理财首席固定收益策略师凯西·琼斯。

This episode is brought to you by On Investing, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. I'm Kathy Jones, Schwab's chief fixed income strategist.

我是Liz Ann Saunders，嘉信理财的首席投资策略师。我们两人加起来拥有数十年研究经济驱动指标的经验，深知这些指标会如何直接影响您的投资。

And I'm Liz Ann Saunders, Schwab's chief investment strategist. Between us, we have decades of experience studying the indicators that drive the economy and how they can have a direct impact on your investments.

我们深知投资者对市场和经济存在诸多疑问，

We know that investors have a lot of questions about the markets and the economy, and

我们在此为您提供解答。请下载最新一期节目，并前往schwab.com/OnInvesting订阅，或通过您常用的播客平台收听。

we're here to help. So download the latest episode and subscribe at schwab.com/ On investing or wherever you get your podcasts.

这里是《今日解说》。

This is Today Explained.

我是Andrew Prokop，Vox高级记者。

I'm Andrew Prokop, senior correspondent, Vox.

你一直在撰文探讨民主党下一步的行动策略。早在查理·柯克在犹他州遇害之前，民主党人就考虑过让政府停摆。当时是出于什么原因？

So you've been writing about what the Democrats should do next. Democrats had been considering shutting the government down even before Charlie Kirk was killed in Utah. Why was that?

关于'政府必须获得资金否则将面临停摆'的议题，最初是在三月份提出的。当时参议院民主党领袖起初看似要就此展开激烈抗争，但最终选择了放行。此举令民主党基本盘愤怒不已。此后压力持续累积，包括我前同事Ezra Klein在内的评论员一直在论证特朗普正在巩固权力。

When this question first came up about the government has to be funded or else there's gonna be a government shutdown, this was back in March. And senate Democratic leaders at first looked like they were going to make a big fight over it, but in the end, they kind of let it go through. And the Democratic base was apoplectic about this. Since then, the pressure has been building. Commentators like my former colleague, Ezra Klein, has been making the case that, like, Trump is consolidating power.

他正在推行专制主义，在他这样做的时候继续为联邦政府提供资金就是共谋行为。

He is making an authoritarian push, and it would be complicity to continue to fund the federal government while he is doing this.

政府停摆是人为事件。这是试图将特朗普腐蚀政府的分散危机转化为媒体和公众会关注的尖锐危机。

A shutdown is an intentional event. It's an effort to turn the diffuse crisis of Trump's corrupting the government into an acute crisis that the media, that the public will pay attention to.

民主党既不控制众议院也不控制参议院。但由于政府拨款法案需要60票才能通过参议院阻挠议事程序，而共和党只有53个参议院席位，民主党可以利用阻挠议事来让政府停摆。

Democrats do not control either the house or the senate. But since a government funding bill requires 60 votes to get past a senate filibuster, and Republicans only have 53 senate seats, Democrats can use the filibuster to shut the government down.

如你所知，埃兹拉的论点涉及范围很广。你怎么看？

Ezra's argument went far and wide, as you know. What do you think about it?

这个论点让我有些不安，而在查理·柯克遇害后的这些天里，这种不安持续加剧。我认为有必要推演一下政府停摆可能会如何发展。目前的论点主要集中在：民主党必须抗争，他们必须采取行动，所以应该尝试这样做。但让我们暂时假设民主党真的通过阻挠议事成功让政府停摆——这是个很大的假设——并且他们坚持自己的要求。

Well, it made me a little uneasy, and that unease continued to mount in the days since Charlie Kirk's killing. I think it's important to try to game out how a government shutdown would likely play out. The arguments are overwhelmingly focused right now on, well, Democrats have to fight. They have to do something, and so they should try this. But let's assume for a moment that Democrats actually succeed in shutting the government down via filibuster, and big assumption, they hold true to their demands.

他们不会让步。他们会无限期地让政府停摆。他们会一直阻挠任何议案，直到他们对唐纳德·特朗普提出的要求得到满足。我认为我们必须思考在这种情况下接下来会发生什么。而在我看来，接下来发生的不会是唐纳德·特朗普投降， meekly 向民主党让步，然后说：好吧。

They don't cave. They keep the government shut down indefinitely. They are gonna keep filibustering anything until their demands they're making on Donald Trump are met. I think we have to think about what happens next in this situation. And what happens next, in my view, will not be Donald Trump surrenders, meekly caves to Democrats, and says, okay.

行吧。你们赢了。你们要什么我都给。请让政府重新开门吧。求求了。

Fine. You win. I'll give you whatever you want. Please just let the government reopen. Please.

相反，实际情况将是共和党参议员面临来自特朗普及其基本盘越来越大的压力，要求使用所谓的'核选项'来改变参议院规则，彻底废除阻挠议事程序。因此我认为，如果民主党真的坚持导致政府停摆，那么停摆的结束方式不会是民主党从特朗普那里赢得政策让步，而是共和党人废除阻挠议事规则，从而获得仅凭自身票数就能通过任何他们想要的立法的权力。

Instead, what will happen is that Republican senators will face increasing pressure from Trump and from their base to use what is known as the nuclear option to change senate rules to get rid of the filibuster entirely. So I think if there is a government shutdown that Democrats actually stick to, the way that shutdown ends is not going to be Democrats win policy concessions from Donald Trump. It's Republicans eliminate the filibuster and gain the power now to pass whatever they want with their votes alone.

为什么彻底废除阻挠议事程序会如此糟糕？

Why would getting rid of the filibuster entirely be so bad?

许多进步派人士会说不糟糕。进步派多年来一直憎恶阻挠议事程序。埃兹拉早在奥巴马时期就提出过这些论点。

So a lot of progressives would say it wouldn't be bad. Progressives have hated the filibuster for many years. Ezra made these arguments back during the Obama years.

大家好，欢迎收听Vox媒体播客网络的埃兹拉·克莱因秀。

Hello. Welcome to Ezra Klein Show on the Vox Media Podcast Network.

这些论点确实帮助普及了一个观点：阻挠议事程序是不民主的，对民主健康有害。这个论点有各种版本。当时的背景是，它阻碍了奥巴马通过更自由或更进步版本的他想推行的政策。这个背景在拜登时期重新出现，当时民主党人再次推动废除阻挠议事程序。

Really helped popularize them, which was that the filibuster was undemocratic, is bad for the health of democracy. There are various versions of this argument. The context at the time was that it was something that was preventing Obama from passing more liberal or more progressive versions of what he wanted to do. This is a context that, reappeared under Biden when there was a a renewed push from Democrats to get rid of the filibuster.

大家晚上好，欢迎参加今晚的'终结阻挠议事全国市政厅'活动。我是国会女议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔，我非常自豪能担任国会进步派党团

Good evening, everybody, and welcome to tonight's end the filibuster national town hall. My name is congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, and I'm so proud to be the chair of the congressional progressive

还有一种较为高尚的论点认为，总统和国会获得实施其议程的权力对民主健康很重要。因为需要发生的是他们应该能够做自己想做的事，然后由选民在下次选举中决定是否喜欢这些政策。最后还有第三种意识形态上自利的论点，即阻挠议事对保守派比进步派更有利，因为保守派只想阻止政府做事。他们不需要通过新法案，他们只想减税，而他们已经可以通过一种称为预算协调的特殊程序来绕过阻挠议事做到这一点。

There's also a kind of high minded argument that it's important for the health of democracy that the president and congress get the power to enact their agenda. Because what needs to happen is that they should get to do what they want, and then the voters get to decide in the next election whether they like it. And finally, there is a third kind of ideologically self interested argument, which is that the filibuster is better for conservatives than it is for progressives because conservatives, they just wanna stop government from doing things. They don't need to pass new things. They all they wanna do is cut taxes, and they can already do that with special procedure called budget reconciliation that that goes around the filibuster.

但正是进步派想要推行重大而大胆的举措，而阻挠议事规则却一直阻止他们这样做。我认为所有这些论点都需要重新审视，以应对这届政府带来的具体危险，以及我们在其执政头几个月里所目睹的情况。

But it's progressives who want to do big bold things, and the filibuster keeps stopping them from doing it. I think all of these arguments need to be revisited for the specific dangers that this administration poses and what we've seen transpire in the opening months of this administration so far.

请具体说明你所说的这届政府的那些具体危险是指什么。

Tell me what you mean by those specific dangers with this administration.

人们没有意识到的是，如果你发起政府停摆之争，最终导致共和党人被激怒而取消阻挠议事规则，那将是限制特朗普权力的又一道防线消失。突然间，他们和共和党将拥有真正的能力——这是他们目前所没有的——可以通过任何他们想要的法律。因为这一点不太明显，所以人们没有意识到，但阻挠议事规则确实限制了特朗普政府迄今为止的议程。他们绝大多数精力都集中在通过行政权力或现有法律权限能做的事情上，而且经常试图扩大这些权限，这使得他们容易受到法律挑战和威胁。他们现在甚至没有考虑制定新的法律。

The connection that people are not making is that if you start a government shutdown fight and it ends with Republicans being provoked into taking away the filibuster, that's just another guardrail on Donald Trump's power gone. And suddenly, he and Republicans now have the true ability, which they don't have right now, to pass whatever they want into law. People don't realize because it's kind of invisible, but the filibuster has really constrained what the Trump administration's agenda has been so far. They've been overwhelmingly focused on what they can do through executive power or existing legal authority, and they often try to stretch those authorities, which makes them vulnerable to legal challenge and threat. They're not even trying right now to think of new laws they would like to make.

但如果阻挠议事规则消失，你最好相信他们会开始利用这种新权力，如果他们能突然通过任何他们想要的法律。这之所以危险，是因为可以通过新法律来锁定新的威权政策，从而巩固特朗普和共和党的权力。他们可以打压政治对手。他们可以让民主党更难赢得下一次选举。而查理·柯克被杀事件，特别是右翼对该事件的反应，让我真正看清了这一点，因为我们立即开始看到保守派活动人士如克里斯托弗·鲁福和总统本人呼吁采取某种行动来追究左派的责任。

But if the filibuster went away, you better believe they would start taking advantage of that new power if they could suddenly pass whatever they want into law. The reason that this is dangerous is that new laws can be passed to lock in new authoritarian policies that could cement Trump and Republicans' power in place. They could crack down on the political opposition. They could make it more difficult for Democrats to win the next election. And the Charlie Kirk killing and specifically the reaction on the right to that killing is what really crystallized this in my mind because we started seeing immediately calls from conservative activists like Christopher Ruffo and the president himself for some sort of a an effort to hold the left accountable.

他们已经在接受调查了。你知道，他们已经在接受重大调查。很多你传统上认为是左派的人。

They're already under investigation. You know, they're already under major investigation. A lot of the people that you would traditionally say are on the left.

这是历史上在许多其他国家发生过的，在杀戮或国家悲剧之类的事件之后。政府以此为由通过威权法律，打压反对派等等。但由于阻挠议事规则的存在，目前这还无法发生。然后是下一次选举的问题。几个月前，特朗普基本上试图通过威胁撤回某些资金来胁迫各州取消邮寄投票。

This is something that has historically happened in many other countries after a killing or a national tragedy or something like this. The government uses it as kind of a pretext to pass authoritarian laws, crack down on the opposition, and so on. But that can't happen right now because of the filibuster. Then there is the question of the next elections. A few months ago, Trump basically tried to bully states into getting rid of mail voting by threatening to pull certain funding from those states.

邮寄选票是腐败的。

Mail in ballots are corrupt.

目前尚不清楚这最终会产生多大影响，各州是否有不同机会获得这笔资金，以及它们是否真的需要这笔资金。但再次强调，如果他和参议院共和党人能够通过一项法律，规定联邦选举中不再允许邮寄投票，那将产生更大影响。他们所做的任何事都会在某种程度上受到法庭挑战，但如果他们能以吸引保守派大法官的方式为其辩护，就有很大机会得以保留。

And it's not really clear how impactful that would will be in the end, whether states can have different opportunities to get that funding, whether they actually need that funding. But again, it would be much more impactful if he and senate Republicans could actually pass a law that says, hey. No more mail in voting in federal elections. We're not gonna allow that anymore. Anything they do would be challenged in court in some way, but if they justify it in a way that can appeal to the conservative justices, it has a good shot at surviving.

这触及了那种高尚论调的核心缺陷——认为即使阻挠议事规则被废除也没关系。这种观点依赖于一个想法，即总统和国会应该能够通过他们想要的任何法案，然后选民在下次选举中会对此作出裁决。但如果他们想要通过的包括干预下一次选举呢？如果包括使选举不公平的压制手段呢？这些可能性听起来可能还有些牵强，但我不认为它们完全超出界限。

And this gets to the core flaw in the high minded argument that it's okay if the filibuster gets away. It relies on the idea that the president and congress should be able to pass whatever they want, and then the voters in the next election will get to render their verdict on it. But what if passing whatever they want includes interference with the next election? What if it includes repression that makes that election unfair? These are the sorts of possibilities that, you know, they still sound a little farfetched, but I don't think they're totally out of the bounds.

好吧。民主党人现在真是进退维谷，但如果他们因政府停摆而放弃筹码，特朗普总统仍推动剥夺公民自由和公民权利的紧急法律，这不是存在风险吗？

Alright. The Democrats can't win for losing at this point, but isn't there a risk that if they forfeit their leverage with the shutdown, president Trump still pushes for emergency laws that strip civil liberties, civil rights?

嗯，他可能会做那样的事。而现在，这会直接撞上阻挠议事规则。也许他会争辩说，废除阻挠议事吧。但八年来，参议院共和党人一直保留着阻挠议事规则。

Well, he could do something like that. And right now, it would just run straight into the filibuster. And maybe he would argue, hey. Get rid of the filibuster. But for eight years, senate Republicans have kept the filibuster.

他们想保留它。阻挠议事规则对共和党人来说有点像方便的借口，可以把很多事情排除在外，并对特朗普说，抱歉，我们就是做不到这个。这不在我们掌控之中。这是一个说不的借口。

They want to keep it. The filibuster is kind of like a handy excuse for Republicans to take a lot of things off the table and just say to Trump, sorry. We just can't do this. It's out of our hands. It's a it's an excuse to say no.

如果这个借口消失了，那么他们面临的压力将会大得多。据报道，有一种看法认为上次让步的观感非常糟糕，查克·舒默和其他民主党领导人很难再推销另一次让步。但是，我的意思是，再次问，这里的退出策略是什么？如果你决定，好吧，我不能再让步了，然后你让政府停摆。

And if that excuse goes away, then the pressure on them will be far stronger. There's reportedly a belief that the optics of the last cave were very bad and that it's going to be hard for Chuck Schumer and other Democratic leaders to sell another cave. But, I mean, again, what is the exit strategy here? If you resolve, okay. I can't I can't cave again, and you shut down the government.

然后下一步是，好吧。共和党人面临越来越大的压力，要采取核选项并废除阻挠议事规则。而在故事的结尾，你向基本盘证明了自己很强硬，却给了唐纳德·特朗普比以往任何时候都更大的权力。

And then the next step is, okay. Republicans are facing increasing pressure to go nuclear and get rid of the filibuster. And then at the end of the story, you proved you were tough to the base, and you've given Donald Trump more power than he's ever had before.

Vox的安德鲁·普罗科普夫。接下来，马里兰州参议员克里斯·范·霍伦将谈论民主党的高风险处境以及他为何支持佐兰·马姆达尼。

Vox's Andrew Prokopf. Coming up, Maryland senator Chris Van Hollen on high stakes for the Democrats and why he's endorsing Zohran Mamdani.

本期节目由三日窗帘赞助播出。随着夏季渐行渐远，您与阳光的关系可能正在演变——更像阳光与我的关系正在演变。您可能开始厌倦阳光刺眼的感觉。所有关系都需要界限，而窗帘就是字面意义上的界限。您知道吗？

Support for the show today comes from three Day Blinds. With summer on the way out, your relationship with the sun is probably evolving, more like the sun's relationship with me is evolving. One thing you might be getting tired of is having the glare of the sun in your eyes. All relationships need boundaries and blinds are literal boundaries. You know what?

我无法反驳三日窗帘的这个观点。现在您可以通过三日窗帘获得符合预算的高品质窗饰产品。您可以访问3dayblinds.com/explained，享受定制窗帘、百叶窗、卷帘甚至帷幔的买一送150% off优惠。如需免费、无押金、无义务的咨询，请最后一次访问3dayblinds.com/explained。

I can't argue with that three day blinds. Right now you can get quality window treatments that fit your budget with three day blinds. You can head to 3dayblinds.com/ Explained for their buy one, get 150% off deal on custom blinds, shades, shutters, and even drapery. For a free, no charge, no obligation consultation. You can head to 3dayblinds.com/explained one last time.

只需访问数字3dayblinds.com/explained即可享受买一送150% off优惠。《每日解读》节目由Found赞助播出。经营企业本就足够艰难，您的财务状况不该像第二份全职工作般令人头疼。

That's buy one, get 150% off when you head to the number 3dayblinds.com/explained. Support for Day Explained comes from found. Running a business is hard enough. Your finances shouldn't feel like a second full time job. Gross.

每小時浪費在收據和稅務準備上的時間，本可以用在最重要的客戶身上。Found是一個商業銀行平台，聲稱能讓您輕鬆追蹤支出、管理發票和稅務籌備於一體。他們還表示能幫助您發現稅務抵扣項（有趣），解放寶貴時間（更有趣），讓您專注於追逐新機遇和熱愛的工作（最有趣）。據稱其他小型企業也對Found愛不釋手，有用戶表示'Found將為我省去無數煩惱'。

Every hour lost to receipts and tax prep is an hour you could be spending where it counts most with your customers. Found is a business banking platform that says they can let you effortlessly track expenses, manage invoices, and prepare for taxes all in one place. They say they can also help you uncover tax write offs, fun, and free up valuable time, funner, time that you can put towards chasing new opportunities and focusing on the work you love, the most fun. And they say other small businesses are loving found too. They say one user said found is gonna save me so much headache.

它讓一切變得如此簡單——支出、收入、利潤、稅務甚至發票管理。Found表示他們擁有30,005條五星好評。您可以在f0und.com免費開設Found賬戶。Found是一家金融科技公司，並非銀行。

It makes everything so much easier. Expenses, income, profits, taxes, invoices even. And Found says they have 30,005 star reviews just like that one. You can open a Found account for free at f0und.com. Found is a financial technology company, not a bank.

銀行服務由FDIC成員Puremont銀行提供。您無需再拖延，現在就可以加入數千名通過Found簡化財務的小企業主行列。本期節目由NPR播客《生活工具箱》贊助播出。您的生活工具箱裡有什麼？

Banking services are provided by Puremont Bank member FDIC. You don't have to put this one off. You can join thousands of small business owners who have streamlined their finances with found. Support for the show today comes from Life Kit, the podcast from NPR. What's in your life kit?

我在问。他们没问那个。每天，你都要做出可能影响人生方向的选择，但你无法翻到书的最后寻找答案。相反，你可以收听NPR的《生活工具箱》播客。《生活工具箱》提供关于常见问题的真实故事，比如人际关系、财务、育儿和职业发展。

I'm asking. They didn't ask that. Every day, you have to make choices that might shape the direction of your life, but you can't flip to the back of the book to find an answer key. Instead, you can listen to the Life Kit podcast from NPR. Life Kit offers real stories about common issues like relationships, finances, parenting, and your career.

如果你想更有意识地前行，或只是需要关于更好生活的深思熟虑的指导，《生活工具箱》提供策略，帮助你在从健身习惯到心理韧性、从规划个人目标到应对职业倦怠等方面做出有意义且可持续的改变。每一集都充满了相关见解和清晰的要点，涉及我们都需要一点帮助的事情。《生活工具箱》希望帮助你以信心和清晰度面对自己的生活，并带着可以立即实施的行动计划离开。我说得够多了。去收听这个节目吧，《生活工具箱》。

If you're looking to move with more intention or just need thoughtful guidance on living better, LifeKit delivers strategies to help you make meaningful, sustainable change from fitness routines to mental resilience, navigating personal goals to tackling burnout. Each episode is full of relevant insights and clear takeaways about things we all could use a little help with. LifeKit wants to help you approach your own life with confidence and clarity and walk away with a game plan you can implement right away. Enough from me. Go listen to the show, LifeKit.

这是NPR的播客。

It's a podcast from NPR.

这里是《今日解说》。我是诺埃尔·金。早在三月份，国会就处于和今天相同的境地，马里兰州参议员克里斯·范·霍伦投票支持让政府停摆。所以我们邀请他谈谈他现在的立场。参议员查克·舒默和少数党领袖哈基姆·杰弗里斯已经设定了避免政府停摆的条件。

This is today explained. I'm Noelle King. Back in March, congress was in the same position it's in today, and senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland voted to shut the government down. So we invited him on to talk about where he stands now. Senator Chuck Schumer and minority leader Hakim Jeffries have set their terms for avoiding a government shutdown.

他们希望共和党人撤销医疗补助计划的削减并延长奥巴马医改的补贴。你对政府停摆持什么立场？

They want Republicans to reverse Medicaid cuts and to extend the Obamacare subsidies. What's your position on a shutdown?

嗯，首先，我们不应该给特朗普总统一张空白支票，让他继续其无法无天的行为，包括非法扣留资金，例如，扣留国家卫生研究院（NIH）的资金，那里的人们正在进行癌症临床试验，而他扣留的资金可能对他们意味着死刑判决。政府问责局（GAO）已经发现他非法扣押、扣留这些资金。因此，我们不能在没有护栏和保障措施的情况下给他一张空白支票，以确保这种情况不会发生。

Well, first and foremost, we should not be giving, president Trump a blank check to continue his lawless activities, including his illegal withholding of funds from, for example, NIH, where people are undergoing clinical trials for cancer, and he's withholding funds that could literally mean a death sentence for them. And the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, has found that he is illegally impounding, withholding these funds. And so we can't give him a blank check without guardrails and safeguards to make sure that that won't happen.

护栏和保障措施具体是什么样的？你在这里具体追求什么？

What do guardrails and safeguards look like? What specifically are you after here?

例如，参众两院的共和党人投票支持了这项所谓的撤销拨款方案，这意味着他们投票推翻了之前自己投票通过的资源拨款。你可以通过要求例如60票的多数门槛来使这种做法变得更加困难。你还可以采取其他措施，诺埃尔。比如，如果总统进行非法撤销拨款，你可以立即全面削减白宫的拨款。所以，如果共和党人愿意与我们合作，是有办法应对的，但到目前为止，他们不愿意以任何方式对抗特朗普总统。

So for example, the Republicans in, in the Senate and the House voted for this so called rescission package, meaning that they voted to undo resources appropriations that they previously voted for. You can make that much harder to do by requiring, for example, a 60 vote margin to pass it. You can also do other things, Noelle. So for example, if the president were to engage in an illegal rescission, you could have an across the board immediate cut in White House appropriations. So there are things you can do if Republicans were willing to join us, but so far, they're not willing to take on president Trump in any way.

三月份时国家处于非常相似的境地，当时的担忧是如果民主党让政府停摆，他们最终会承担指责。他们最终会疏远选民。这次是否也有这样的担忧？

The country was in a very similar position back in March, and the concern back then was that if Democrats shut down the government, they would end up taking the blame. They would end up alienating voters. Is that a concern this time around?

嗯，这次将是特朗普政府和国会中的共和党人让政府停摆，因为他们决定单干。他们决定走单行道。他们决定给特朗普总统的违法行为开空白支票。我认为美国人民不希望看到特朗普总统获得完全空白支票，因为他们已经看到他从联邦紧急事务管理局等机构扣留资金，拒绝为受灾地区提供救灾资金。他还在扣留国家卫生研究院的资金。

Well, this would be the Trump administration and Republicans in the Congress shutting down the government because they decide to go it alone. They decide to have a one way street. They decide to give President Trump a blank check for his lawless activity. And I don't think the American people want to see President Trump get a total blank check, because they've seen that he's withholding monies from things like FEMA, in places that have been hit by disasters and refused to provide funding for disaster relief. He's withholding funds from the National Institutes of Health.

事实上，根据我们目前的计算，他们扣留了本财年（仅剩几周结束）重要优先事项的约4000亿美元资金。如果他们现在这样做，除非我们阻止，否则他还会再次这样做。

In fact, by our calculation right now, they're withholding about $400,000,000,000 of funds for important priorities for the current fiscal year we're in, which ends in just a few weeks. So if they're doing that now, he will do it again unless we stop it.

在节目上半场，我们的同事安德鲁·普罗科普提出这是一种可能的情景。长期停摆导致共和党人认为民主党在滥用阻挠议事，于是他们废除了阻挠议事。这意味着共和党不再需要任何民主党人的投票，可以为所欲为。他将停摆描绘成对民主党相当危险的可能性。您对此怎么看？

In the first half of the show, our colleague Andrew Prokop proposed this as as one possible scenario. An extended shutdown leads Republicans to believe that Democrats are abusing the filibuster, and so they end the filibuster. And so that means that Republicans no longer need any Democrats to vote with them, and they can do whatever they want. He's painting the shutdown as quite a dangerous possibility for Democrats. What do you think about that?

总是存在风险，但再次强调，是共和党人和特朗普白宫在冒这个风险，因为他们显然会被视为单干，试图实质上对国家实施一党统治。特朗普那种威权主义冲动将不受任何制衡。关于共和党废除阻挠议事，我认为他们认识到从长远来看，参众两院更多的民主并不利于他们。我一直主张结束所谓的超级多数要求来终止阻挠议事。你仍然可以有数周或数月的充分辩论，但最终你会以51票结束辩论。

There are always risks, but again, it's Republicans and the Trump White House, that will be taking this risk because they will clearly be seen to be going it alone, trying to essentially impose total one party rule on the country. Trump's sort of authoritarian impulses would have no checks and no no balances on them. With respect to Republicans getting rid of the filibuster, I think they recognize that more democracy in the Senate and the House does not favor them in the long run. I mean, I've been I've been an advocate for ending what's called the super majority requirement to end a filibuster. You would still have ample debate weeks or months, but at the end of the day, you would bring debate to a close with 51 votes.

‘又大又美的法案’中看到了这一点——如果你是个亿万富翁，这法案很美，但对其他所有人来说都很糟糕。所以共和党喜欢做的大事，比如减税，即使有阻挠议事的存在他们也能做到。我认为共和党不会走那条路，因为终止阻挠议事的超级多数要求有利于他们的议程，而不是人民的议程。

Republicans have been able to do what they want without doing that. So for example, they use the reconciliation process to pass big tax cuts for the very rich and cut programs for working Americans. We saw them do this in the so called big beautiful bill, which is beautiful if you're a billionaire, but stinks for everybody else. So the big things Republicans like to do, like tax cuts, they get to do even with the filibuster in place. I I don't think the Republicans will go down that road because the supermajority requirement to end a filibuster favors their agenda, not the people's agenda.

我们来谈谈你所说的总统的威权主义倾向及其当前可能意味着什么。好的。上周保守派网红查理·柯克被枪手杀害后，特朗普总统在椭圆形办公室的讲话中指责，引用原话，“激进左派”。他誓言要

Let's talk about what you describe as the president's authoritarian impulses and what they might mean now. Okay. So after the conservative influencer, Charlie Kirk, was killed by a shooter last week, president Trump, in a speech from the Oval Office, blamed, quote, the radical left. He vowed to, quote

找出每一个促成这起暴行及其他政治暴力的人，包括资助和支持它的组织。

Find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it.

这让人感觉是对言论自由和公民自由的潜在严重威胁。过去一周的事件是否改变了你对处理特朗普政府方式的看法？你认为总统在这里想表达什么？

This strikes people as a potentially very concerning threat to free speech, civil liberties. Have the events of the past week changed your mind at all, about how you approach the Trump administration? Like, what do you think the president is saying here?

嗯，我对总统的言论感到非常、非常震惊。在我们的讨论中不应有政治暴力的容身之地。我们可以进行激烈的辩论而不必诉诸暴力，也不应有报复。特朗普总统本有机会团结国家，声明政治暴力无论来自何方都是不可接受的。但他却选择了指责。

Well, I'm very, very alarmed by what the president's saying. There's no room for political violence in our discourse. We can have robust debates without it veering into violence, and there should be no vengeance. President Trump had a chance to bring the country together, to say that political violence is unacceptable regardless of its source. But instead, he's decided to engage in finger pointing.

相反，他正在利用这起可怕的悲剧，这起谋杀案，来推进他的政治目标，其中包括追查他所谓的左派人士——在特朗普的世界里，这意味着任何与唐纳德·特朗普意见相左的人。所以，是的，他威胁要动用联邦政府的全部权力和工具来追查与他意见不合的人，这非常令人担忧。

Instead, he is weaponizing this awful tragedy, this murder, to advance his political goals, which include going after what he calls folks on the left, which in Trump world means anybody who disagrees with Donald Trump. So yes, it's very concerning that he would threaten, to use the full power and instruments of the federal government to literally go after people who disagree with him.

对民主党人来说，这里利害攸关。正如你一直所说，民调显示美国人对该党非常不满，不仅仅是普通公众。民主党人自己对该党也不满意。八月份的一项美联社对民主党人的民调显示，人们用软弱、不温不火、无效和破碎这样的词来形容他们自己的政党。你认为这是怎么回事？

There is a lot at stake for Democrats here. As as you've been saying, polling shows that Americans are really displeased with the party and not just the general public. Democrats themselves are not happy with the party. So in August, an AP poll of Democrats, saw people using words like weak, tepid, ineffective, and broken to describe their own party. What do you think is going on here?

嗯，我认为民主党人在对抗唐纳德·特朗普的无法无天方面做得不够，我也不认为民主党人在提出我们自己积极的愿景方面做得足够，包括对抗非常强大的特殊利益集团，转而为了共同利益和公共利益而奋斗。就在上周末，我受邀在爱荷华州波尔克县民主党发表讲话，我详细阐述了那个论点，即在当前时刻需要做更多来对抗唐纳德·特朗普。但显然，在2024年，大多数美国人不信任我们能挑战现状和这些特殊利益集团。因此，我相信我们需要更加明确，不仅是我们反对什么，还有我们支持什么。

Well, I don't think the Democrats have done enough to stand up to Donald Trump's lawlessness, nor do I think Democrats have done enough to put forward our own positive vision of what we would do, including taking on very powerful special interests and fighting instead for the common good and the public interest. I was invited just over the weekend to speak to the Polk County Iowa Democratic Party, and I laid out exactly that argument, that more needs to be done to stand up to Donald Trump in this moment. But clearly in 2024, the American people, the majority of the American people, did not trust us to take on the status quo and take on these special interests. And so believe we need to be much more clear, not only about what we're fighting against, but what we are fighting for.

在周六的那场活动中，你还支持了佐兰·马姆达尼。你批评其他民主党领导人迟迟不表态支持他，并提到了你所谓的‘无骨气的政治’。这是怎么回事？马姆达尼做了什么让你欣赏？

At that event on Saturday, you also endorsed Zohran Mamdani. You criticized other Democratic leaders for delaying on endorsing him. You referred to something that you called spineless politics. What's going on? What's Mamdani doing that you like?

嗯，我当时说的是，在我们准备争取在02/1926年赢得众议院和参议院多数席位之前，我们需要先赢得2025年的选举。我们在弗吉尼亚州和新泽西州有重要的州长席位竞选，有优秀的候选人，同时我们也需要赢得纽约市的市长选举。我指出，唐纳德·特朗普投入了大量时间和资源试图击败马姆达尼。马姆达尼的竞选纲领是：在纽约工作的人应该负担得起在纽约生活，这对纽约市、爱荷华州得梅因、马里兰州乃至全国的人们都有好处。然而，你却看到这些非常强大的、资金雄厚的特殊利益集团和金融利益集团与唐纳德·特朗普联手，试图击败马姆达尼。

Well, what I said was, as we prepare to try to win majorities in the house and the senate in 02/1926, we need to first win the 2025 races. We have big races in Virginia and New Jersey for the governor's seats, great candidates, and we also, need to win the mayoral race in New York City. I pointed out that Donald Trump has spent a huge amount of time and resources trying to defeat Mamdani. Mamdani's platform was people who work in New York should be able to afford to live in New York, which would be good for people in New York City and Des Moines, Iowa, and in Maryland and throughout the country. And yet you have these very powerful, big money, special interests, financial interests combining with Donald Trump to try to defeat Mamdani.

因此，我确实认为此刻民主党人需要站出来支持这位为降低生活成本、确保人们能负担得起在工作地生活而奋斗的人。

And so I do think this is a moment where Democrats need to stand up for the person who is fighting to reduce costs and make sure that people can afford to live where they work.

马里兰州参议员克里斯·范·霍伦，非常感谢您抽空参加。

Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, thank you so much for taking the time.

谢谢。

Thank you.

今天的节目由迈尔斯·布莱恩特和丹妮尔·休伊特制作，阿蒙·埃尔·萨迪编辑，劳拉·布拉德是我们的事实核查员，阿德里安·利利和帕特里克·博伊德是我们的工程师，我是诺埃尔·金。这里是《今日解说》。

Miles Bryant and Danielle Hewitt produced today's show. Amon El Saadi edited. Laura Bullard is our fact checker. Adrian Lilley and Patrick Boyd are our engineers, and I'm Noelle King. It's today explained.

Adobe Acrobat Studio。全新登场。向我展示PDF的所有功能。轻松快捷地完成您的工作。PDF Spaces 是您所需的一切。

Adobe Acrobat Studio. So brand new. Show me all the things PDFs can do. Do your work with ease and speed. PDF Spaces is all you need.

借助AI助手的关键洞察，瞬间完成数小时的研究。一键选择模板，让你的演示文稿瞬间变得超级精致。搞定那笔交易？没问题。

Do hours of research in an instant with key insights from an AI assistant. Pick a template with a click. Now your prezo looks super slick. Close that deal? Yeah.

你赢了。去做吧。正在做。已经做了。完成了。

You won. Do that. Doing that. Did that. Done.

现在你可以做到了。用Acrobat来实现。现在你可以做到了。用全新的Acrobat来实现。是时候用全新的Adobe Acrobat Studio来完成你最出色的工作了。

Now you can do that. Do that with Acrobat. Now you can do that. Do that with the all new Acrobat. It's time to do your best work with the all new Adobe Acrobat Studio.