The agonizing death of American liberalism hasn’t been fun to live through, but it’s starting to make for good art. Take Netflix’s new series House of Cards, starring Kevin Spacey as Francis Underwood, a South Carolina politician scheming his way to the heights of power. It’s not only entertaining, but informative. Not for its accuracy—the series’ vision of American politics is skewed beyond recognition—but for what it gets wrong. House of Cards is a Freudian trip into the deep recesses of the liberal imagination.
美國自由主義的痛苦死亡對於親身經歷者來說一點兒也不好玩，但是這一事件卻有助於藝術創作。《House of Cards》信息量大，不是說它真實準確（該劇描寫美國政壇是面目全非的那種），而是因為該劇理解出錯的地方。帶領我們佛洛伊德式地進入自由主義想像力的深處。

Underwood is a Democratic majority whip on the warpath against his own party after losing out on an expected Secretary of State appointment. “Never again,” he tells his chief of staff, “will we allow ourselves to be put in such a position.” Outwardly Underwood takes his snubbing in stride—but he plans a political rise, destroying anyone standing in his way.
在劇中，Underwood 是眾議院多數黨「民主黨」的黨鞭。在失去他很想得到的國務卿之職後，他向自己的黨派開戰。表面上從容應對被冷落的處境，背地裡他策劃著向上爬，且摧毀任何阻擋他去路的人。

Like Tony Soprano or Breaking Bad’s Walter White, Underwood is a high-functioning sociopath who somehow keeps viewers rooting for him. The show makes clear, however, that its star isn’t tainting an otherwise pristine political environment, but rather playing by its perverse logic. Underwood meticulously plots, extorts and manipulates without any semblance of ideological motivation or political loyalty. It’s striking that a performance this cynical resonates so well just a few years after Obama’s hopey-changey revolution.
Underwood是一個很有手腕的反社會人格障礙患者。不過該劇說的很明白：Underwood並非在污染一個純樸的政壇，他只不過是依據政壇反常的邏輯出牌罷了。他精心地謀劃、敲詐和操控，不帶任何虛偽的思想動機，也沒有什麼政治上的忠誠。驚人的是：在Obama充滿希望的革命不過幾年之後，這樣一種玩世不恭的節目能夠在美國觀眾中引起如此強烈的共鳴。

The depiction of American politics as dominated by corporations and awash in corruption has a certain progressive appeal. It’s a healthy antidote to the West Wing, also now streaming on Netflix. That Aaron Sorkin-created series, dripping with respect for the American presidency, served as a therapeutic fantasy for liberals during the dark years of the Bush administration. Every few scenes, a double-door swings open and President Josiah Bartlet (Martin Sheen) limps in and says something idealistic. An inspired staff springs to action. Tough choices are made as to whether or not to bomb this-or-that Third World country. Compromises are happily reached on domestic issues. Liberal House members offering any sort of resistance are portrayed as charmingly naïve. The Republicans who control Congress are thorny, but loyal, opponents. At the end of each episode the viewer is reminded that we are, indeed, all Americans after all.
《紙牌屋》把美國政壇描寫成被企業操縱且充斥著腐敗，從而具有了某種迎合進步人士喜好的色彩。該劇是Netfix網站上也可以看到的《The West Wing》的一劑健康解毒劑。Aaron Sorkin搞出來的那個劇，充滿對美國總統淋漓盡致的崇拜，是美國自由黨人在Bush執政黑暗歲月裡心理治療的奇幻劇。每隔幾幕場景，一扇雙開門蕩開，總統Josiah Bartlet緩步進來，高談理想主義。隨後一個被鼓舞了的工作人員一躍而起開始行動。總統需要作出的艱難的抉擇無非是究竟要轟炸哪一個第三世界國家那類問題。在國內問題上政客們皆大歡喜地達成妥協。那些表達反對意見的自由主義國會議員被塑造成憨態可掬。那些控制國會的共和黨人雖然棘手，但卻是忠誠的政治對手。在每一集的結尾處，觀眾一遍又一遍被提醒：歸根到底，我們大家都是地地道道的美國人。

After Obama’s election, liberals tried to make over Washington in The West Wing’s image—post-political, free of legislative rancor, fixed to the will of a single charismatic president. But they’ve run into a roadblock, an obstructionist Congress unbound by Sorkin-style civility.
在Obama選舉之後，自由主義者竭力要依照《The West Wing》重新打造華盛頓形象：爭權奪利之後、立法院間沒有積怨、集中突出一個富有魅力總統的個人意志。但他們碰到了一個路障：一個非Sorkin形式、彬彬有禮的束縛、蓄意阻撓的國會。

No wonder so many liberals eat up the seediness in House of Cards. Underwood is a leading member of the House of Representatives, an institution beset for decades by low approval ratings and lurid scandals. It’s not just legislative policy that is called into question by House of Cards, but the motivations of those doing the legislating.
難怪在《House of Cards》中，有那麼多自由派人士下流齷齪無所不用其極。Underwood是眾議院的主要成員；眾議院幾十年來一直被民眾的低支持率和聳人聽聞的醜聞所困擾。《House of Cards》不只對立法的政策提出了質疑，而且對於那些議員立法的動機也提出了質疑。

But today’s Congress is no place for a corrupt lone wolf. The Republican-led House is cohesive and earnestly political. It’s no surprise liberals find this confusing: They’re generalizing based on trends within their own Democratic Party. After the lean years of conservative advance in the 1980s, Bill Clinton’s “New Democrats” offered a policy vision fit for the neoliberal age—post-ideological, market-friendly and less wedded to entitlement programs.
然而今天的美國國會不存在個別的腐敗。共和黨主導的眾議院是有凝聚力的，對政治是熱忱的。自由主義者覺得困惑是毫不奇怪的：他們推論根據的是自身所屬的民主黨內的潮流。保守黨攻城掠地的80年代之後，Bill Clinton提出了一個切合新自由主義時代的政策願景；這一願景是後意識形態的、促進市場繁榮的、和應得權益計畫關係不那麼緊密的。

This new brand of liberal politics relies not on consent through rigorous debate, but rather the charismatic leadership of centrists like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Supporters within and outside of Congress are mobilized to pursue and carry out the executive’s agenda, even when that agenda—like Clinton's welfare reform—runs counter to long-standing progressive values.
這種自由主義政治思潮的新品牌靠的不是通過嚴苛的辯論贏得一致意見，而是像Clinton and和Obama 的中派人士領導魅力。他們通過領袖魅力動員國會內外的支持者，讓他們去追求和執行行政機關的議程，即便該議程與長期以來進步的價值觀背道而馳（如 Clinton and的福利制度改革）。

In contrast, the Republican majority in the House is a disciplined operation. Grover Norquist told the Conservative Political Action Committee last year that the next GOP president’s job will be simply to sign bills prepared by a Republican Congress. The Gingrich revolution that began two decades ago has taken effect. Earnest and politically motivated activist Republicans have turned the House of Representatives into a legislative body more parliamentary than at any time since Reconstruction. In the wake of the Tea Party revolution, there is no place for Underwood-style mercenaries, only foot soldiers for God and country.
與此相反，國會中的共和黨多數派卻是一個紀律嚴明的陣營。去年 Grover Norquist 告訴全國保守主義政治行動委員會：下一任共和黨主席的工作就是在國會的議案上簽名。二十年前開始的Gingrich革命起作用了。熱忱的和有政治動機的共和黨活動家們把眾議院改變成一個比「Reconstruction」之前任何時候都更像國會的機構。在「Tea Party revolution」之後，這裡容不下Underwood式的雇傭兵，只存在上帝和國家的馬前卒。

House Republicans bind themselves to an ideological code, ironically enforcing a set of standards reminiscent of European parties—in which dues are paid, vows made and members occasionally expelled. Oaths like Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” unite Republicans in Congress while a network of think tanks, political action committees, and organizations at the state level (where Republicans control the majority of the governorships and assemblies) keep the conservative project setting the national discourse, even as demographics continue to skew in the Democratic Party’s favor. Votes simply can’t be bought by the highest bidder like they are in House of Cards.
國會裡的共和黨人遵從意識形態的律令，反諷地強化了一套（讓人想起歐洲政黨的）標準；在這套標準中，他們要交黨費、要向黨宣誓效忠，成員偶爾會被驅逐出去。像Norquist「保護納稅人承諾」那樣的誓言團結了國會中的共和黨人；而一個由智庫、政治行動委員會和國家級機構組成的網連（在那裡共和黨人控制著大部分的州長和議會）保證美國國家話語中保守主義項目的存在，儘管人口結構不斷向有利於民主黨的方向傾斜。像在《House of Cards》裡那樣，出價最高的人買到選票的情況根本就不現實。

Still, much can be excused in the name of compelling drama, even when it stretches the limits of believability.
儘管如此，扣人心弦的戲劇性能夠讓我們原諒該劇的許多不足，即便是其大打折扣的可信度。

But easy cynicism shouldn’t be mistaken for considered political critique. House of Cards’ message is simple: Bad men and women inhabit Capitol Hill. It’s superficially progressive. Like the series’ creators, liberals have a tendency to see the structures of American political life—our Constitution, for example—as being inherently sound instruments of the popular will, rather than systems meant to protect against mob rule. The shortcomings that do exist can then be attributed to the callous intentions of a few who are unwilling to put the national interest above their own personal whims. House of Cards plays into that narrative, promoting a vapid anti-establishmentism that poses no real threat to the status quo.
然而，簡單的冷言冷語不應該被 誤認為是思慮周密的政治批判。《House of Cards》的資訊很簡單：國會山上有壞人。這表面上看是進步的。正如《House of Cards》主創人一樣，美國自由主義者有一個傾向：把美國政治生活的主要結構，比如美國憲法，看作本質上合理的民意工具，而不是為防止暴民統治而建立的制度。因此他們把現存的問題歸罪於不願把國家利益放在個人利益之上的少數人。《House of Cards》演繹了這一看法，提倡了一種索然無味的、對於現存次序沒有真正威脅的反傳統主義。