2. 考研
  3. Whatever their political party, American leaders have generally subscribed to one of two competing economic philosophies. One is

Whatever their political party, American leaders have generally subscribed to one of two competing economic philosophies. One is

admin2014-10-03  48
问题 Whatever their political party, American leaders have generally subscribed to one of two competing economic philosophies. One is a small-government Jeffersonian perspective that abhors bigness and holds that prosperity flows from competition among independent businessmen, farmers and other producers. The other is a Hamiltonian agenda that believes a large, powerful country needs large, powerful organizations. The most important of those organizations is the federal government, which serves as a crucial partner to private enterprise, building roads and schools, guaranteeing loans and financing scientific research in ways that individual businesses would not.
Today, of course, Republicans are the Jeffersonians and Democrats are the Hamiltonians. But it hasn’t always been so. The Jeffersonian line includes Andrew Jackson, the leaders of the Confederacy, William Jennings Bryan, Louis Brandeis, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The Harailtonian line includes George Washington, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, both Roosevelts and Dwight Eisenhower.
Michael Lind’s Land of Promise uses this divide to offer an ambitious economic history of the United States. The book is rich with details, more than a few of them surprising, and its subject is central to what is arguably the single most important question facing the country today: How can our economy grow more quickly, more sustainably and more equitably than it has been growing, both to maintain the United States’ position as the world’s pre-eminent power and to improve the lives of its citizens?
Lind, a founder of the New America Foundation in Washington and the author of several political histories, acknowledges from the beginning that his thesis will make some readers uncomfortable. " In the spirit of philosophical bipartisanship, it would be pleasant to conclude that each of these traditions of political economy has made its own valuable contribution to the success of the American economy and that the vector created by these opposing forces has been more beneficial than the complete victory of either would have been," he writes.
" But that would not be true," he continues. " What is good about the American economy is largely the result of the Hamiltonian developmental tradition, and what is bad about it is largely the result of the Jeffersonian producerist school.
选项
答案 美国领导人无论属于何种政治党派，一般只会追随两种相互对立的经济学派。一种是主张小政府的杰弗逊流派，该派痛恨大规模，认为繁荣来自独立的商人、农民与其他生产者之间的竞争。另一种是汉密尔顿流派，该派坚信一个强大的国家需要强大的组织机构。机构中最为重要的是联邦政府，是私营企业至关重要的合作伙伴，修建公路与学校、提供贷款，资助科研，所采取的方式个体企业难以企及。 当然，到了今天，共和党人就是杰弗逊派，民主党人则是汉密尔顿派。但也并非总是如此。属于杰弗逊流派的就有安德鲁.杰克逊、南部邦联各领导、威廉.詹宁斯.布赖恩、路易斯.布兰代斯、巴里.戈德华特与里根。属于汉密尔顿流派的也有乔治.华盛顿、亨利.克莱、亚伯拉罕.林肯、威廉.麦金利，老、小罗斯福(西奥多.罗斯福、富兰克林.罗斯福)与德怀特.艾森豪威尔。 迈克尔.林德的《希望的乐土》以此为分界线，写出了一部宏阔的美国经济史。该书史料丰富，其中不少令人感到惊喜，其主题则对美国今日面对的唯一至关重要的问题影响重大：我们的经济怎样才能更快、更持续、更公平地发展，从而保持美国作为世界强国的地位并改善本国国民的生活? 林德是华盛顿新美基金会的创始人，著有多部政治史书籍，在本书一开始他便坦承，自己的论点会让一些读者不太舒服。“本着哲学辩证的精神，这些政治经济学流派对美国经济所取得的成就都做出了有价值的贡献，相互对立的作用力所产生的动力比任何一方的完胜更为有利，做出如此结论自然皆大欢喜。”他在书中写道。 “但其实不是这样，”他接着写道。“美国经济的优点，主要缘于汉密尔顿一派的发展观,而其缺点则大多源自杰弗逊一派的生产观。”
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/ID8a777K
本试题收录于： 翻译硕士（英语翻译基础）题库专业硕士分类
0

翻译硕士（英语翻译基础）

专业硕士

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)