特朗普的头发到底是怎么一回事儿？

《华盛顿邮报》记者罗伯特·科斯塔（Robert Costa），曾在保守派的National Review杂志任职。2013年7月26日，Robert Costa接到National Review上司的电话，安排他专访刚刚打算参加2016大选的特朗普。当时的科斯塔并不太情愿，最后还是勉强接受了任务。

有趣的是，在当时完全不被看好的特朗普十分享受媒体的曝光，对任何媒体来者不拒，和风趣健谈的科斯塔几乎无话不聊。三年半下来，科斯塔曾一度专访特朗普达到一周两次之多。在记者里面，他与特朗普的接触可谓相当频繁。据科斯塔透露，特朗普还带他乘专机去自己的弗罗里达庄园Mar-a-lago采访自己，让他体验到了一股奇怪的土豪风。

本期分两个部分，一个是我对科斯塔的专访；一个是科斯塔对特朗普的专题讨论。两个部分共同呈现了真实生活中的特朗普，讲述了这3年半以来，科斯塔和特朗普相处的诸多细节。

2017年，我也专访了科斯塔。他给我爆料了特朗普的头发，特朗普与华尔街，以及更多有意思的细节。

专访：《华盛顿邮报》记者罗伯特·科斯塔

日期：2017.2.15

时长：20min

专访文稿翻译

向杨：我仔细观察了这次大选——不经意间，我读了很多关于唐纳德·川普的资料。其中有些略微夸大，有些声称是“川普主义”的内视解读。[罗伯特：是的。] 我觉得你在这个问题上很有发言权。

罗伯特：谢谢你，你这么说我很开心。

向杨：我平常不怎么谈论他[川普]，因为，像托马斯·弗里德曼（注：《世界是平的》的作者）就说过，如果你读太多川普的推文的话，你的脑子会被它们吸干。[笑] 所以要看川普做了什么，而不是看他说了什么。

罗伯特：是，没错，我同意你说的这点。

向杨：嗯。

罗伯特：看看他做了什么。他说得太多，很容易被他所说的话分心。关键还是要看川普的作为。

向杨：是的。不过我还是准备几个和他有关的问题。

罗伯特：好的。

向杨：有些问题属于比较常见的，不过我想听听你的看法。我的第一个问题，川普的头发到底是怎么一回事儿？

罗伯特：[笑]嗯，这个问题很赞。他的头发就是他的头发，真的是他的头发。但实际上，他的头发很灰，几乎是白色的。所以他把头发染成了金色。每隔几周他就会在自己的套房或者家里染一次头发。所以有时候染上的颜色会掉。他的头发，如果不染的话，就是白色的。他的头发——他这里的头发掉了很多（头顶中间）[向杨：嗯。] 所以他就让留长发，一直留到这（后颈处），头发湿的时候，他的头发能耷拉到大概这儿（后肩处）。[向杨：嗯。] 然后他——我见他这样弄过很多次了——他自己弄的，他总有办法让头发拢在一起，这样就前面也有，后面也有，看起来像是满头都是头发，因为他头发很长。而且他用了很多发胶固定头发，就像这样。所以他的头发能保持一个造型。所以他那是真头发，如果你看到他的头发被吹起来了，那其实就是他的头发。[向杨：嗯。] 不过他在用发胶折腾头发方面是个天才。有时候真的用了太多发胶。

向杨：嗯，就像网上疯传的那样。（英文用的internet meme，直译为“网络迷因”）

罗伯特：对。

向杨：即便在中国——

罗伯特：中国人也在谈论他的头发？

向杨：是啊，这个话题常常让人们[笑]忽略了他传递的真正信息。所以他确实需要长头发的药。[笑]

罗伯特：没错。他需要长头发。就好比是，如果你想——假设你开始脱发了，[向杨：嗯。] 那你就得把其他没有掉发的位置长的头发留长，然后重新梳理，这样就会让头发盖住秃掉的部分。

向杨：嗯，明白了。我的第二个问题有关于川普对其支持者的态度。我记得有一次他在集会中说：“我喜欢教育程度低的庸俗大众！”[笑]我听这话的印象就是，他知道自己有时候故意在忽悠支持他的人。

罗伯特：是的。

向杨：那么川普对此作何感受？他怎么看这些经济困难、支持他的白人工薪阶层？

罗伯特：对他来说，这关系很复杂。你也知道，他的词汇量不大。给人感觉只有大概250左右的词汇量，所以他说起话来像个普通人。[向杨：嗯。] 说到“庸俗大众”的那句评论，其实川普很在意的一点是，他并非生来就很聪明。他总是爱说起自己是如何考上宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院的。[向杨：嗯。]他喜欢谈论自己的学历。他总是说：“我头脑特别聪明，我头脑最棒，我有最棒的头脑。” [向杨：嗯。] 因为我觉得，他其实有点对自己的智力不太自信。不过，仅仅因为他的智识不深，学识有限，并不意味着他就不聪明。他很懂街头智慧。[向杨：是的。]他的直觉比我见过的任何人都好，而且他非常善于解读他人的意思，并且搞清当下的状况。在某种程度上，他那种不太像聪明人的感觉让他得到了政治红利，因为那些庸俗大众会说：“他[川普]是我们中的一员。”所以当一些人对川普摆架子时，当他们在媒体上和民主党内笑话川普，说他听上去很蠢，没文化时，[向杨：嗯。] 川普就会利用这点为自己增加政治资本，[向杨：嗯。]他会说，“对我摆架子的人，和给你们臭脸的人一样。那些嘲笑我的人，就是你家里、你身边 [向杨：嗯。]那些觉得你们笨的人。”我觉得这在政治上是特别厉害的一招。

向杨：是的，我发现中国历史上也有一些类似的现象。

罗伯特：哦？

向杨：比如毛主席。他骨子里是个诗人。他写作时，文笔豪迈。但他跟人民讲话时，你也知道，那些收录到红宝书里语录，就非常通俗，走群众路线。每个人，就连贫农都能理解他的话。他用的那些比喻特别粗浅，你听完肯定会大声笑出来的。但那是从他口中说出的。所以我觉得这一点是相通的。

罗伯特：社会学中有哪些… [向杨：嗯。] 社会学会如何解读川普现象呢？

向杨：嗯，我常常谈到我觉得挺有趣的一条推特，我不记得推文的作者了，这条推文说的，“川普让人们感觉不寂寞 。虽然很部落化，但至少让人感觉不寂寞。”

罗伯特：是的。

向杨：我觉得这和传播学有很大关系，涉及到叙事。就在几周前，诺贝尔奖获得者罗伯特·施乐（Robert Shiller），讨论了一片他写的论文，“叙事的经济学解释”。他用到了一个流行病学中的模型，即某种疾病在某个时期有着某种趋势。他用这个启发来建立经济学模型，其中也谈到了川普现象——

罗伯特：有意思。

向杨：川普的副新闻秘书，拉杰·萨哈（Raj Shah）也在场，并且谈了他做的针对竞选对手的研究。什么资料是攻击对手的最好把柄呢？就是能恰好嵌入叙事环节中的资料。所以我认为，川普在把握叙事的洪流上是一位大师，就好像冲浪。

罗伯特：没错，他的确是。你知道罗伯特·普特南（Robert Putnam）的那本《独自打保龄球》吧？（注：普特南是政治经济学家，哈佛大学肯尼迪学院的教授。1995年他发表了文章《Bowling Alone： America‘s Declining Social Capital》，反响强烈。2000年时，他又将更多的论据加入到自己先前的文章中，出版了《Bowling Alone： The Collapse and Revival of American Community》一书）

向杨：知道。

罗伯特：我在报道川普时，总是有这样的感觉，就是所有这些机构，社区机构、政治机构、社会团体等，它们都有点没落的感觉。感觉他们不再像往日那样具有号召力、凝聚力了。而川普，喊着“让美国再次强大”，[向杨：嗯。] 他让人们在国家中有了一种凝聚感，甚至是在全球化世界和经济中，此时人们正体会着漂泊与孤独。[向杨：嗯。] 他就像是给了这些人一个能抓住的东西，不像其他的政客，即便这个东西并没有战略部署或者不直接。[向杨：嗯。] 川普似乎特别擅于点燃人们心中的不满或怒火，让他们觉得自己是某个团体的一份子。

向杨：对，没错。他让人有了某种集体认同感，营造了一个想象的共同体。

罗伯特：是的。

向杨：即便这种共同体很容易破裂。我的第三个问题和华尔街有关。我认为川普和华尔街有着千丝万缕的联系。他经营了一家赌场，从华尔街那儿借了很多钱。以前他深陷债务之中时，华尔街实际上解救了他。当时他对于华尔街，算是大而不倒。[笑] 还有他签署了行政命令，废除《多德-弗兰克法案》，我记得好像就是今天早晨，或是昨天的事。

罗伯特：是的，废除了大部分《多德-弗兰克法案》的条款。（注：2010年7月15日，美国国会参议院当天通过最终版本金融监管改革法案，为该法案最终成为法律清除了最后障碍。新法案的三大核心内容：一、扩大监管机构权力，破解金融机构“大而不能倒”的困局，允许分拆陷入困境的所谓“大到不能倒”（Too big to fall）的金融机构和禁止使用纳税人资金救市；可限制金融高管的薪酬。二、设立新的消费者金融保护局，赋予其超越监管机构的权力，全面保护消费者合法权益；三、采纳所谓的“沃克尔规则”，即限制大金融机构的投机性交易，尤其是加强对金融衍生品的监管，以防范金融风险）

向杨：他在竞选时还斥责希拉里，说希拉里和华尔街还有高盛集团都有勾结。结果他自己选择的内阁成员却显示，你也看到了——

罗伯特：史蒂夫·慕努奇（Steve Mnuchin），高盛前财长。盖里·科恩（Gary Cohn），史蒂夫·班农（Steve Bannon）。这些都是高盛帮的人。

向杨：是的，这是个实证的问题，川普和华尔街之间的纽带是怎样的？

罗伯特：这个很复杂。他在有些事上讨厌华尔街。他觉得自己从来都没有真正地被掌控华尔街金融圈子的势力所接纳。所以他认为那些银行并不怎么喜欢川普。他是由于债务问题才和那些银行有了交集，在八九十年代，那时他不太顺利。所以在华尔街的圈子里，他有点像个局外人。像詹弥·迪蒙（Jamie Dimon 摩根大通的CEO）以及其他的这种人，所有的银行大佬CEO，川普算不上是他们的真朋友。

不过他在纽约做房地产，而纽约的房地产业和很多华尔街的银行业都有交集，这些银行都在川普大厦里办公，是川普圈子里的一部分。所以川普认识他们中的很多人，尽管关系并不是非常近。我觉得他希望自己能被华尔街更多地接纳。并不是因为他——更多的是华尔街的文化，我想他希望自己能成为这种文化的一部分。[向杨：嗯。]他希望自己被真正地看作是亿万富翁阶级中的一员。然而有趣的是，他却并未试着在智识上向华尔街看齐。你也知道，一些华尔街CEO，他们更倾向于中间偏左的理念。他们中有许多人都支持希拉里。[向杨：嗯。]

再就是，我觉得川普非常看重财富。为他工作的人要是没什么钱或者财务不自由，似乎也和他处不好关系。他喜欢史蒂夫·班农（Steven Bannon） 那种财务自由的状态，并且班农是华尔街出身。他喜欢慕努奇（Mnuchin）那种财务自由的状态，威尔伯·罗斯（Wilbur Ross），川普的掌柜秘书（川普任命的商务部部长），也非常富有。他喜欢财富，看重财富。但他却从来没有被人当回事地看作是金融界的一份子。我是说，他知道——他在金融界被小瞧了。他懂商业。尽管他在商业词汇上还有其他事上有局限，但他的确懂商业。

向杨：那川普自己对迈克尔·布隆伯格、沃伦·巴菲特怎么看？这些人在竞选期间批评过他。

罗伯特：我觉得他并不——川普希望得到他们的尊重。他也知道自己并不会总是得到这种尊重，不过这很复杂，因为，比如，几周前，华盛顿有一场晚宴，布隆伯格举办的。就是紫苜蓿俱乐部（Alfalfa Clubs） （注：该俱乐部只在每年1月的最后一个周六举行年会。俱乐部目前约后200位会员，都是政商界的显赫人物，还有几位美国总统）。华尔街的精英都在场。但川普却刻意地拒绝了晚宴邀请。他没去，有点像是用他自己的方式表达对华尔街不屑一顾。因为他真地不想——他希望布隆伯格喜欢他，希望华尔街喜欢他。但他也认为这些人对他的敌意没有必要，而且有些过火。所以他希望这些大佬摆正自己的位置。所以我觉得，我们不会看到川普和华尔街走得特别近。不过，他喜欢——华尔街有点喜欢他。尽管华尔街抱怨川普在这个那个问题上表现得太疯狂，但股市却一直上涨，因为华尔街认为川普要取消一些金融管制，并且会减税。所以这是一段奇妙的关系。在个人层面上，它很复杂，但是在政策层面上，你可以说，他在人事任命上非常亲华尔街一派。他只是还没有被华尔街热情地欢迎而已。

向杨：是的，我认为，可能在华尔街的身份认同和身份次序之间，还有一道间隔。川普可能，从他的财富上来看，已经拥有了富豪的身份，但是他却并没有成为华尔街富豪文化的一份子。

罗伯特：正是如此。

向杨：所以我想，川普希望自己拥有那种升华了的身份认同。

罗伯特：是的。

向杨：但他就是得不到，[笑]就是没办法做到。

罗伯特：他做不到，他没有那种能力。

向杨：不过，我还有一个问题。

罗伯特：我们可以继续讨论。

向杨：问题和针对川普的一条评论有关。关于撒谎和单纯地扯淡之间的差别。

罗伯特：嗯。

向杨：范里德·扎卡利亚（Fareed Zakari）（注：印裔美籍记者，作家，CNN主持人）谈到川普，说他是“扯淡大师”，哲学家哈利·法兰克福（Harry Frankfurt）写过本书，叫《论扯淡》[笑] 他实际上定义和区分了什么是撒谎，什么是纯粹地扯淡。他说：“撒谎是一种有明确目的的行为，旨在于一个信念系统的某一点上嵌入一个虚假的命题。为了编造谎言，他必须认为自己知道什么是真相。反之，扯淡这种创作模式，它更有机会即兴表演、渲染和想象。扯淡比较像艺术，而不像技术，于是有了人们熟知的‘扯淡艺术家’一说。”（注：此处引号内译文选自译林出版社《论扯淡》（哈里·G·法兰克福著，南方朔译）一书，65-67页）我想听听你对这种说法的体会。

罗伯特：我认为，这是深刻的洞见。你刚才的解释非常非常高明，因为媒体——我作为一名记者，我们经常在报道中把川普说成是个撒谎者。不过这个词感情色彩太浓，风险很大。但还是被放到了纸媒的头版，“撒谎者”。但实际上川普是位“扯淡艺术家”。他撒谎吗？也撒。但是很多时候，他的谎言是防御性的，车轱辘话绕来绕去，那些表达愤怒、不安、以及攻击性的回应并不是他蓄意编织的虚假命题。比如，他谈到选民舞弊时，说过谎。并没有选民舞弊。他说“大量的证据表明选民在作弊”，“数百万的选民非法给希拉里投票。”这的确是谎话。[向杨：嗯。] 但是我们在媒体上就很纠结这一点——我们称它为谎言呢，虚假命题呢还是应该叫它什么？川普真正在做的是扯淡，因为他其实想说，“我对输掉普选很没有安全感，我有很多话要说，我要尽快地填补这一点，让人民相信我，相信我本该赢得普选”。[向杨：嗯。] 但他知道，他在说谎，因为他清楚他并没有赢得普选，而且可能也没有什么选民舞弊，但他就是想试着维护自己的名声。所以我不会说，他没有说谎，他说了。但他更多的是在扯淡。

向杨：是的。我认为，媒体发现很难让川普为自己的话负责，用事实核查他说的话，比如试着把他所有的谎言都放在一篇文章里，说他几乎每五分钟就撒一次谎。这样起不到作用，因为川普不是个典型的说谎者。

罗伯特：没错。

向杨：他是一名扯淡艺术家。有时候，他还很享受扯淡——

罗伯特：没错。

向杨：让人们觉得他非常的真诚，一个真诚的说谎者。

罗伯特：很多人一生都在扯淡。他们得扯淡才能过日子。正因如此，我们媒体才如此认真地报道川普，称他是个骗子。然后人们会说：嗯，他就是在扯淡。[向杨：嗯。]但那样并不对，扯淡也好、撒谎也好，都不对。不过人们却认为——你说得对，这么做也是川普的政治实力。人们就会自然而然地认为：“他就是扯扯淡。虽然不好，不过像——”尼克松，在水门事件时，就在很多严肃的问题上直接对民众撒谎。可能川普也是如此。不过目前来看，他撒的很多谎，都只是和他自己有关，只是他——他不自信。他用扯淡武装自己，来掩盖自己的不自信。我认为这就是为什么他喜欢斗来斗去、喜欢扯淡、喜欢撒谎。全是出于维护自己的形象。不过，并非全部的谎言都是恶意的，虽然他的确说谎了。这是川普身上另一件奇怪的事。他撒谎或是说些虚假之事的时候，却是一副煞有其事的样子。这就又回到那个“艺术家”的观点了，就是说他让自己相信他可能是对的，他试图说的东西里可能有一小部分是真的。“可能并不是数百万的人对我投了反对票，但是可能有一些人非法投票反对我，不是吗？可能真的有这样的人。”然后人们就觉得，“嗯，可能是。”

向杨：人们一般认为商人应该是那种侧重以数据为基础来分析的人。[笑] 但有时候，川普就是临时拼拼凑凑，即兴发挥。

罗伯特：中国那边怎么看待川普？

向杨：嗯，说来有趣——

罗伯特：中国人，当然还有中国政府怎么看。但普通的民众怎么看他？

向杨：普通人。嗯，那些平时民族情绪比较激烈的人，[罗伯特：嗯。]他们喜欢川普。支持民主党的人在他们眼中被视为“白左”，尽管在中国，“liberal”这个词的含义不太一样。但是中国的这些川普支持者喜欢借用这个翻译，并且认为“白左”就是他们鄙视的中国精英。认为这些精英去美国大学读书，然后回国后带着这种精英身份，但却不了解中国的国情。这在中国有很多争论。有趣的是，不少中国的商业精英，对川普赢得竞选欢呼叫好。他们认为川普在意识形态上不会和中国作对，川普是个以交易为导向的人。所以对他们而言，可能这种猜测是对的。不过普通大众被一小撮意见领袖牵着走。当然很多人只是觉得川普有趣，[罗伯特：嗯。] 特别是他那头发。[笑]

罗伯特：有意思的是，所有的这种在美国国内的民族主义抬头趋势，不用说你在中国看到的。真的是——过去几十年里，美国并不是常常见到这股民族主义。[向杨：嗯。]不过你去欧洲的话，那儿就有很多民族主义。当然，中国也有。感觉似乎，全世界范围，民族主义是一股崛起的思潮。在一个多少带有敌意的全球化世界里，当一个民族主义者可能好过一点，或者能过好。我也说不上。

向杨：谢谢你。

罗伯特：不客气。这是我的电子邮箱地址。

向杨：好嘞。

罗伯特：如果你有机会去华盛顿，告诉我一声。

向杨：好嘞。

罗伯特：如果有什么我能帮上忙的地方，告诉我一声。很高兴认识你。

英文专访原文

ROBERT： Good to see you yesterday。 Thanks for coming。

YANG： Yeah， I was in the first row。

ROBERT： I remember！

YANG： It was fascinating。

ROBERT： What was your name again？

YANG： Alan。

ROBERT： Alan。

YANG： Yep。 I‘m an international student。 I come from China。

ROBERT： Wait， where in China？

YANG： In the middle part of China， Changsha。 I spent eight years in the southwest part of China， Chengdu。 I observed the election very closely—somehow I read a lot of things about Donald Trump。 Some of them are a little bit exaggerated， some of them claim to be the “inside view” of Trumpism。 [ROBERT： Sure。] So I find you a perfect person to talk to。 

ROBERT： I appreciate it， very kind of you to say。

YANG： I don‘t usually talk a lot about him， because， you know， like Tom Friedman said， if you read Trump’s tweets too much， it will suck your brain out。 [LAUGHTER] I always look at what he does， not what he says。

ROBERT： Yes—good。 I agree with that。

YANG： Yeah。

ROBERT： Look at what he does。 He says so much， it‘s easy to get distracted。 Actions matter with Trump。

YANG： Yeah， but I still prepared some questions about him。

ROBERT： Sure。

YANG： Some of them are kind of common， but I wanna hear what you‘re gonna say about him。 My first question from top to bottom—what is his hair really like？

ROBERT： [LAUGHS] So， it‘s a great question。 His hair is his hair。 It’s actually his hair。 But what‘s happened with his hair is that it’s very gray， almost white—so he dyes it blonde， and he gets it dyed in his apartment or his home once every few weeks， so sometimes the color fades。 But his hair， if it was not dyed， it would be white。 His hair is also—he lost a lot of hair here。 [YANG： Uh-huh。] So what he‘s done is he’s grown his hair very long to the point where， when it‘s wet， his hair is like down here。 [YANG： Yeah。] And what he does is—and I’ve seen him do this multiple times—he does it himself， he has a way of putting his hair together so it comes over and comes back and it looks like a full head of hair， because it‘s so long。 And he hairsprays it very intently， like this， so it stays in place。 So it’s his hair—if you see it blow up， it‘s actually his hair。 [YANG： Yeah。] But he’s become kind of a genius in how he hairsprays it。 You know， it‘s a little much sometimes。

YANG： Yeah， so it‘s not just an internet meme。

ROBERT： No。

YANG： Even in China—

ROBERT： They‘re talking about his hair？

YANG： Yeah， yeah， yeah。 It‘s become a constant distraction for people to [LAUGHTER] look into his real message。 So he does need some hair growth！ [LAUGHS]

ROBERT： He does。 He has to grow it—it would almost be like if you wanted—let‘s say you started to lose your hair， right？ [YANG： Yeah。] And if you grew out your hair in other places and rearranged it so it covered the bald spots。

YANG： Yeah。 Okay。 So my second question has to do with Trump‘s feelings towards his supporters， and I think in one of his rallies， he said， “I love the poorly educated！” [LAUGHTER] So it sounds to me like he knows that he’s conning them， sometimes。

ROBERT： Yes。

YANG： So how does Trump feel about this？ How does Trump feel about those poor， white working class people supporting them？

ROBERT： It‘s a complicated relationship for him。 He has a limited vocabulary， as you know。 He only has about a 250 word vocabulary。 So he speaks like a common person。 [YANG： Yeah。] And in terms of the “poorly educated” comment， he’s very sensitive to the fact that he is not naturally intellectual。 And so he‘s always talking about how he went to the University of Pennsylvania， the Wharton School of Finance。 [YANG： Mhm。] He loves talking about his own degrees。 He always says， “My brain is so smart， the best brain， I have the best brain。” [YANG： Mhm。] Because I think he’s somewhat insecure in his intellectual abilities。 But just because he has limited depth on intellectual and academic matters doesn‘t mean he isn’t smart。 He‘s very street-smart。 [YANG： Yeah。] He has instincts that are as good as anyone I’ve ever met， and he‘s very good at reading people and understanding situations。 But his—in a way， it benefits him politically to not sound intellectual， because he gets these poorly educated voters to say， “He’s one of us。” And when people condescend to Trump， when they mock Trump in the media and the Democratic Party for sounding stupid [YANG： Mhm。] or sounding uneducated， he uses that to his political advantage [YANG： Mhm。]， and he says， “They‘re condescending to me， like they condescend to you。 The people who make fun of me are like the people in your family or your town [YANG： Mhm。] who don’t think you‘re smart。” And I think that’s a very powerful political move。

YANG： Yeah， I think I find some parallels in Chinese history。

ROBERT： Really？

YANG： Like Chairman Mao。 He‘s actually a poet。 He writes， he writes in a very grandiose way。 When he speaks to people， you know， his quotes， you know， the red little Bible—it’s very much common and mass line。 And everyone—even peasants—would understand what he meant。 He used some very crude metaphors that you would simply laugh out loud。 It‘s coming out from his mouth。 So I think it’s kind of common。

ROBERT： That‘s a great point about Chairman Mao。 ’Cause there is power in sounding common。

YANG： Even now， in China just recently， the party tried to indoctrinate， you know， mass line in lots of academia。 They put academics in a room， talking to them that you should not deviate from this mass line。 And I think part of it is rhetorical。 When you talk about something， don‘t be too academic， you know， you should talk about something that people understand。 But it’s kind of indoctrination。

ROBERT： Do you think you‘re going to go back to China and be in politics， or do you want to stay here？

YANG： I‘m having my PhD here。 It’s going to take a long time。

ROBERT： You in graduate school now？

YANG： Yeah， graduate school。 I study sociology。

ROBERT： Oh excellent。 You doing a master‘s or PhD， or？

YANG： Yeah， I had my master‘s here， for one and a half years。 And now it’s my first year as a PhD student。

ROBERT： How long does that take—four or five years？

YANG： It‘s going to take more than—five or six years。

ROBERT： And you‘ll get a PhD in sociology？

YANG： Yeah， I hope so！ [LAUGHS]

ROBERT： So what kind of sociology are you interested in？

YANG： Political sociology， organizational sociology。 A few years ago， I didn‘t even know what sociology was。 It’s something that very few institutions in China have， this branch of study。 Now it‘s getting more popular。

ROBERT： What things from sociology [YANG： Mhm。]， what can sociology tell us about Trump？

YANG： Well， I used to talk about one tweet I found interesting， it‘s from someone I don’t know the name。 It‘s about—you know， he said that， “Trump won’t make people feel lonely。 Even though it‘s tribal， but not lonely。”

ROBERT： Yes。

YANG： So I think it has a lot of things to do with communication。 Narrative。 Just a few weeks ago， Robert Shiller， Nobel Prize laureate discussed a paper he wrote， “Narrative Economics。” And he used a model from epidemiology—you know， a certain disease has certain trends， a certain time。 He modeled that， you know， into even—he talked a little bit about Trump and—

ROBERT： That‘s interesting。

YANG： —the deputy press secretary of Trump [ROBERT： Mhm。] Raj Shah came here and talked about how he does opposition research。 What is the best opposition research？ The best one is the one that fits into the narrative。 So I think Trump is a master of going with the flow of the narrative， it‘s kind of like surfing。

ROBERT： Yes， he is。 You know like that Robert Putnam book Bowling Alone？

YANG： Yeah。

ROBERT： I‘ve always gotten the sense reporting on Trump that there are all these institutions and community institutions， political institutions， communities—that they just kind of collapsed。 Like they don’t have the same potency that they once had， and the same membership。 And Trump， in the way that he talks about “America great again，” [YANG： Mhm。] and he talks about—he gives people kind of a sense of community in the nation， even in a globalized economy and a globalized world， like when people feel kind of adrift and lonely。 [YANG： Mhm。] He kind of gives them something to grab on to， more than other politicians， even if it‘s not strategic or direct [YANG： Mhm。] he seems to be very good at making people who feel aggrieved or angry feel like they’re part of something。

YANG： Yeah， yeah。 He provides certain collective identity， imagined community。

ROBERT： Yes。

YANG： Even though they are easily breakable。 So my third question has to do with Wall Street。 I think Trump has certain ties with Wall Street—he runs the casino， he borrowed lots of money from Wall Street。 When he was in debt， Wall Street actually bailed him out。 He was too big to fail at the time。 [LAUGHTER] So—and he also signed the executive order repealing Dodd-Frank act—I think it‘s either this morning or yesterday。

ROBERT： Much of Dodd Frank， yeah。

YANG： He also railed against Hillary for her ties to Wall Street and Goldman-Sachs， but his cabinet pick represented， you know—

ROBERT： Steve Mnuchin， former treasurer—former Goldman-Sachs。 Gary Cohn。 Steve Bannon。 All Goldman-Sachs。

YANG： Yeah， so—the question is very empirical。 What is Trump‘s tie with Wall Street like？

ROBERT： It‘s so complicated。 He hates Wall Street in some ways。 He thinks he’s never been fully accepted by the true financial powers in Wall Street。 So he thinks the banks don‘t really like Trump。 He had the relationships with them with the debt， in the ’90s and ‘80s where he didn’t really do well。 So he‘s kind of an outsider within Wall Street， he’s not really close friends with Jamie Dimon and all of these people and the big bank CEOs。 But he is New York， he is real estate。 And the real estate New York world intersects with a lot of the Wall Street world， ‘cause they’re living in Trump Tower， they‘re part of his clubs。 So he knows a lot of them， even if he’s not tight with them。 I think he wants to be more accepted by Wall Street。 It‘s not that he—it’s more of the culture of Wall Street， I think， he wants to be part of。 [YANG： Mhm。] He wants to be seen as truly one of the billionaire class。 But what‘s interesting is he doesn’t try to be intellectually connected to Wall Street。 You know， some of these Wall Street CEOs， they‘re part of different kind of more center-left ideas。 A lot of them are Hillary supporters。 [YANG： Mhm。] And I think he really respects wealth。 People who work for him who don’t have money or are not independently wealthy don‘t seem to get along with Trump as well。 He likes that Steven Bannon’s independently wealthy and comes out of Wall Street， he likes Mnuchin‘s independently wealthy。 Wilbur Ross， his counter secretary， is very wealthy。 He likes wealth。 He respects wealth。 But he’s never been part of the financial world in a serious way。 I mean， he knows—he‘s also underestimated on finance。 He understands business， I mean， for all of his limitations on vocabulary and all of this， he really does understand business。

YANG： So what are his personal feelings towards Michael Bloomberg， Warren Buffett—who actually criticized him during the campaign？

ROBERT： I think he doesn‘t—he wants their respect。 He knows he’s not gonna always get it， but it‘s complicated because there was the dinner， for example， in Washington a couple weeks ago， where Bloomberg was the host of the dinner。 It’s called the Alfalfa Club。 And it was all these Wall Street elites who were there。 And Trump deliberately said no to the invitation。 He did not go， and it was kind of him thumbing his nose at Wall Street。 Because he doesn‘t really want—he wants Bloomberg to like him and he wants Wall Street to like him， but he also thinks their antagonism towards him is unnecessary and over-the-top， so he wants top kind of put them in their place。 And so I don’t think we‘re ever going to see him become too cozy with Wall Street。 But you know， he loves—Wall Street kind of likes him。 As much as Wall Street complains about Trump being crazy or this or that， the stock market’s booming because they think he‘s gonna get rid of regulations and cut taxes。 So it’s a strange relationship。 On the personal level， it‘s complicated but on policy， you could argue he’s pretty pro-Wall Street， you know， on his personnel。 He just hasn‘t been warmly embraced by that community。

YANG： Yeah， I think there might be some gap between the identity of Wall Street and the status order。 Trump may fit into the status， I mean， in terms of his wealth， but he doesn‘t fit into the cultural identity part of that。

ROBERT： Exactly。

YANG： So I think Trump wants to be that sublimated identity。

ROBERT： Yes。

YANG： But he can‘t。 [LAUGHS] He just can’t。

ROBERT： He can‘t， he’s not capable of it。 

YANG： I still have one question， though。

ROBERT： We can keep going。

YANG： It‘s about a comment on Trump。 It’s about the difference between telling a lie or just simply bullshitting。

ROBERT： Yep。

YANG： Fareed Zakaria talks about Trump as a “bullshit artist。” Philosopher Harry Frankfurt has a book， On Bullshit。 [LAUGHTER] He actually defined what is telling a lie and what is about， you know， simply bullshitting。 He said that， “Telling a lie is an act with a sharp focus。 It is designed to insert a particular falsehood at a specific point。 So in order to invent a lie at all， the teller of a lie must think that he knows what is true。 However， for the bullshitting， you know， focus is panoramic rather than particular， with more spacious opportunities for improvisation， color， and imaginative play。 This is less a master of craft than of art。 Hence， the familiar notion of bullshit artist。“ So I just want to hear your experience of this comment。

ROBERT： I think that‘s a great insight。 I think that’s so， so smart how you explained that because the media—and as a reporter， we often cover Trump as a liar。 And that‘s a strong word， it has high stakes。 And you put it on the front page of the paper， “liar。” But Trump is actually a bullshit artist。 Does he lie？ Yeah， he lies。 But a lot of the time， his lies are defensive， circular responses of indignation and insecurity and aggression that are not deliberately crafted falsehoods。 Like， when he brings up voter fraud， there are lies。 There’s not voter fraud， that‘s—“huge evidence of voter fraud，” he says， “millions of voters illegally voted for Clinton。” That’s a lie， right。 [YANG： Mhm。] But we struggle with this in the media—do we call it a lie or a falsehood， or what do we call it？ But what he‘s really does is he’s bullshitting because he‘s saying， “I’m insecure about losing the popular vote， and I‘m gonna say a lot of stuff， I’m gonna fill this in frantically to get people to kind of believe me that I should have won the popular vote。” [YANG： Mhm。] But he knows—so he‘s lying， because he knows he didn’t really win the popular vote and there‘s probably not voter fraud， but he’s just trying to kind of cover his reputation。 So I‘m not saying it’s not a lie—it‘s a lie。 But he always is bullshitting。

YANG： Yeah， I think one of the reasons why the media finds it hard to hold Trump accountable， fact-checking him—you know， trying to put all his lies in one article， five minutes per lie or something like that—it doesn‘t work because he’s not a typical liar。

ROBERT： Right。

YANG： He‘s a bullshit artist， and sometimes， he enjoys bullshitting and—

ROBERT： Yes。

YANG： —makes people feel like he‘s very authentic。 An authentic liar。

ROBERT： A lot of people bullshit throughout their lives。 They gotta bullshit to get through the day。 That‘s why we cover him so seriously， saying he’s a liar。 And then people go， eh， he‘s just bullshitting。 [YANG： Mhm。] You know， and that doesn’t make it right， it‘s not right to bullshit and lie， but I think people—you’re right， that‘s his political power。 People just naturally go， “He’s just bullshitting around。 It‘s not good， but like—” Nixon， when he did Watergate， was directly lying to people about serious things。 And maybe Trump is too， but for now， it seems like a lot of the stuff that he does that’s a lie is really just him—he‘s insecure。 He covers himself with bullshit to kind of mask his insecurities。 And that’s why I think he loves to fight， he loves to bullshit， he loves to lie。 It‘s all about his image。 But there’s not always malice to lie， even when he lies。 That‘s the other strange thing about Trump。 When he even lies or says falsehoods， he does it authentically。 It comes back to that “artist” point， is that he’s convinced that he may be right， you know， there‘s maybe a kernel of truth to what he’s trying to say。 You know， “Maybe there‘s not millions of votes against me， but there’s probably some votes illegally against me， right？ There‘s probably some。” And people are like， “Eh， maybe。”

YANG： People think that [because] he‘s a business man， he must be a data-driven kind of person。 [LAUGHTER] But sometimes， he just wings it。 It’s just improvised。

ROBERT： What‘s the view in China of Trump？

YANG： I mean， it‘s interesting—

ROBERT： Among the people and of course， the government。 But what about like， just among regular people？

YANG： Regular people。 Well， for people who tend to be more patriotic， nationalist， [ROBERT： Yeah。] they like Trump， the Democratic Party is seen as “liberal white” in China， even though in China， “liberal” has a different meaning。 But they tend to borrow this translation from English and they think that people who are “liberal white” are people who are elite in China， who went to American universities and come back with all this sorts of elite stuff and don‘t know about Chinese national context。 There’s lots of debate in China。 It‘s interesting that lots of business elites in China， they cheer at the fact that Trump won the election and think that Trump is ideologically friendly， very transactional。 So for them， it may be right， but ordinary Chinese are led by a few people。 Most of them find Trump interesting。 [ROBERT： Yeah。] Especially his hair。 [LAUGHS]

ROBERT： What‘s interesting is all this rise of nationalism in the United States， you know， you see it in China， of course。 There’s real—the US hasn‘t always had this strain of nationalism the last few decades。 [YANG： Mhm。] But you go to Europe， there’s a lot of nationalism there。 China， of course。 It just seems like， around the world， nationalism is kind of a rising idea。 That in a global world that‘s somewhat hostile or， you know， people being a nationalist is some way to endure and do well。 I don’t know。

YANG： Thank you so much。

ROBERT： Thank you。 Here， I‘ll give you my email。

YANG： Cool。

ROBERT： If you ever get to DC， let me know。

YANG： That‘s great。

ROBERT： If I can help with anything， let me know。 Great to meet you。

科斯塔 | 亲历川普的四年

演讲文稿

Robert Costa on Trump and Congress

Transcribed 2/16/2017

Duration： 28：05

ROBERT： I got to know Donald Trump in—I remember the day， July 26th， 2013。 I get an email from my boss at National Review Magazine and he said， “Hey， you used to do the Sarah Palin coverage for us。” I said， “Yeah， I did。” It was a great lead， right？ I was the Sarah Palin beat writer for National Review Magazine—that‘s like being the Hyundai writer at Car and Driver。 [LAUGHTER] It’s not a big responsibility， not a great brand to be covering。 And so he said， “Trump keeps calling National Review asking someone to write about his plans or whatever he‘s doing， and no one else wanted to take the assignment。” And so I said， “All right， I’ll talk to Donald Trump。” He said， “Thank you very much。”

So I get a call and it‘s Donald Trump。 He says， “You’re very fair，” and all this， and so he said， “I‘m going to Iowa。 I’m thinking about running for president in 2016。” This is July of 2013。 I said， “All right， okay。” He said， “Are you gonna write a story about it？” I said， “Sure， I‘ll write a story。 Tell me about what you’re thinking about。” And he went on about China and trade and immigration， and about how the country was losing and it needed to win again。 And he really talked to me for about 25， 30 minutes and that story was published。 But I thought to myself， as crazy as this guy is—and he was crazy with the birther stuff and he was out there and no one thought he was ever gonna run—the article was immediately mocked。 How could National Review cover Donald Trump in 2013 about 2016？ I thought he sounded pretty coherent in a weird way in terms of his populism and understanding kind of a gut instinct of a lot of Republican-based voters。 So I said to myself， “I‘m gonna keep an eye on this guy。 No one else is。” And Trump was so welcome to that idea， as you might imagine。 [LAUGHTER]

So anytime I wanted anything from Donald Trump， I’d get him on the phone。 Now， for me， in 2013， it was hard to get a congressman on the phone sometimes， or a senator。 I did call Donald Trump， and he would tell me—he kept saying， “You wanna fly to Iowa with me？ Do you want to do this or that？” And so I ended up—throughout 2014 and 2015—talking to Trump once or twice a week。 He‘d tell me what he was up to， who he was talking to。 Sometimes on background， sometimes off the record， sometimes on the record。 By 2014， I had started to work for The Washington Post and for NBC News， and I just thought to myself， still then in 2014， late 2014—this guy was different。 Because I had covered him in 2011 with the birther stuff， and I knew it was covered him when he went to New Hampshire， thinking about a 2012 run， it was clearly a joke。 But there was something different about the way in 2013 and 2014 Trump was talking about politics。

A lot of times he was incoherent。 He was not doing the right preparation on policy。 He didn‘t have the right people around。 I mean， it was Roger Stone and Sam Nunberg and a lot of these consultants you would never hire for a major campaign， let alone a house campaign， a presidential campaign。 But Trump—if you get to know him—you may hate him and loathe him， but he is a political talent。 I mean， the only person I’ve ever met with that kind of street smart， that kind of charisma is former president Bill Clinton。 And so it was a very strange situation。 I was almost thinking about it like roulette， where if you put one chip on let‘s say， four in roulette and somehow that chip becomes president of the United States。 [LAUGHTER] I got to know one politician in my life very well。 Now he’s president。 So it‘s weird。

And so I talked to Trump constantly。 And so Trump called me in late 2014。 He says， “I‘m gonna run。” And I said， “Well， you have no staff。” He said， “You wait， you wait。” So he told me in January， he was gonna hire Chuck Laudner who ran Santorum’s campaign in 2012 in Iowa。 He had hired Corey Lewandowski—he‘s gonna come here to the IOP tomorrow。 I’m sure that‘ll get a small crowd， [LAUGHTER] calm send-in。 And so I was with Trump when he brought in Corey for his first meeting。 I was there at Trump Tower， saw Corey come in。 I saw Trump build his operation。 And The Washington Post， my article on Trump in February 2015 was the first time his campaign was ever on the front page of a national newspaper。 And that article was widely mocked， not only by The New York Times and The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal， it was widely mocked inside The Washington Post。 People said， “Costa’s nuts！ He‘s never going to run。 You look like fools for putting this on the front page in a non-cynical way。” 

But I still said—here‘s what I thought。 Think about this。 I write for a mainstream newspaper， and I’ve always been just a reporter。 I‘ve never written a com[mentary]， never written an editorial。 But I said to myself， “Post 2012， there’s a vacuum inside the Republican Party。 That you got the shutdown of what‘s happening just as Trump was talking in 2013。 You had a leaderless Republican Party in Congress。 The possibility for celebrity populism to take hold， I always thought was not guaranteed， but it was there。 So long story short， Trump runs， he wins， it was the wildest two years of my life。 Travelled around the country， saw everywhere。 I covered Bernie Sanders as well， Secretary Clinton。 But I was always Trump， Trump， Trump。

Trump was someone I could get on the cell phone in ten minutes。 And we had ups and downs。 I mean， Trump hated me and he loved me， hated me and he loved me。 He loved me when—‘cause I covered him fairly， which means I didn’t have snark， in his view—but also， I did interviews with him where he said he‘d never talk to me again。 Like in September 2016， I did the interview with him—some of you may remember—when he had this press conference， where he said—he whispered into a microphone， “The President was born in the United States。” And it was very awkward—he kind of admitted the president was finally born in the United States。 Because the previous day， I had been on his plane， I had pressed him repeatedly。 I said， “Look， Mr。 Trump， it’s September 2016。 You‘re the Republican nominee。 Can you at least admit the president was born in the United States？” And he wouldn’t answer the question： “I don‘t want to answer， I don’t want to answer。” I said， “What is this？” And so I put it on the front page of the next day‘s Post and he flipped out at that。 [LAUGHTER] And he said， “Never again will I talk to Costa。”

But a month later， David Fahrenthold， who sits next to me at The Washington Post， he breaks the story of the Access Hollywood tape。 It was crazy， crazy day。 Fahrenthold—I remember the call comes in， Fahrenthold： “What do you have？” And then he played me the tape—oh boy。 [LAUGHTER] And I was like， “That‘s definitely Trump。” So then I called Trump the next day， ’cause I knew Trump—all Trump does every day is he wakes up and he reads a huge pile of papers this big and he goes through them with a sharpie marker， usually eating McDonald‘s and KFC， and he eats fast food， drinks regular Coke—’cause he always tells me，  I used to always have Diet Coke with him—and he looked me straight in the eye and goes， “I‘ve never seen a thin person drink Diet Coke。” [LAUGHTER] I said， “That’s nice， Mr。 Trump。”

So I called him up， and he was up in his room in Trump Tower watching TV。 And I said， “You‘re gonna quite the race， everyone thinks you’re gonna quit the race。” He says， “I‘ll never withdraw。” He says， “You don’t know me。 I have lived life； I have lived life like you would never understand。 Three wives， all my deals。 They counted me out—I‘m never quitting。” So that was the front page of the next day’s Washington Post： “I‘ll never withdraw。” Some people liked that headline。 [LAUGHTER]

So it was a wild campaign。 He and I spoke a few weeks ago， 12 or 14 days ago。 I try not to call him too much。 It‘s weird， ’cause when you have—he‘s not supposed to use his cell phone。 But he kept his Android phone， he’s kept his Twitter account。 And the Secret Service says， “All right， you can keep you phone， but you can‘t bring it into the West Wing。 You can keep it in the residence upstairs in the White House。” So he keeps his Android in the residence， and he tweets at night from his regular old Android。 But he’s not allowed to take calls on the Android， because of security reasons。 It‘s not a secure phone。

So what he does is—this is how all of his friends still connect with him—and this is to the chagrin—we‘ll get to the topic eventually of how Congress and Trump are having some trouble—is that all these networks and friends of Trump， that can still get to Trump on his Android phone， what it does is it rings and he looks at it， and he looks at the number。 And then he calls it from the secure line。 So he has all these people calling him all the time and he doesn’t tell his staff who he‘s talking to。 So stuff—I’ll learn stuff that people were talking to Trump， and I‘ll run it by Spicer， someone at the White House， and they’ll go， “That‘s not true。” I’ll say， “Oh， it‘s true。 It’s true。 Do you know who the President spoke to last night at 11 o‘clock？” “No。” So this is what we’re dealing with。

I mean， the thing about Trump is—it‘s hard as a reporter， because so much of what he does is like in an alternate reality， and he creates—he lies constantly， lies like he breathes。 But you also kind of respect him in a way， weirdly， that he has this real talent to just be so shameless。 I’m not saying it‘s good， I’m just saying it‘s relentless and shameless and he’s changed American politics and he‘s smart enough to realize that he’s not smart。 And what I mean by that is he knew—like when I talked to him in 2014， 2015， he thought the rest of the field was weak， and by the strength of his personality， he could win。 But he didn‘t have an ideology。 He didn’t have a plan for governing， he didn‘t have a way of thinking about the world。 He doesn’t really think about things in a serious way。 He doesn‘t love policy。 He thinks about things as winning or losing and establishment， anti-establishment。

And that‘s why he really came to Jeff Sessions—the then Alabama senator， now Attorney General—and he used Sessions’ how legislative agenda to kind of frame his own way of thinking about the world。 And he brought in Steven Miller， Sessions‘ guy， to now be a senior advisor at the White House。 And Steve Bannon， who I’ve known for years， has really been at the core， shaping Trump on foreign policy， rethinking world order。 And Trump may not even think of him—Trump didn‘t know what Brexit was the week of Brexit。 Now he’s linked to Brexit， because of Bannon trying to say， “You can be part of this new populist movement in the world。”

I was with Bannon September of 2016 when Bannon saw his first Trump rally。 Strange to think that everyone thinks Bannon‘s this Trump guy。 Yes and no。 Bannon didn’t join the campaign ‘til late， after Paul Manafort was fired in August。 And Bannon comes in and he‘s working out of Trump Tower， and Trump works him like a dog， and Bannon， in essence， sleeps on tables in Trump Tower。 And Trump constantly says， “Bannon never sleeps， Bannon never sleeps。” And it’s almost a way of putting pressure on Bannon to never sleep。 And you see how Bannon looks。 [LAUGHTER] It‘s like he’s not sleeping。

So Bannon—I‘ll remember this moment for the rest of my life—we’re in this minor league hockey arena in Canton， Ohio。 And I‘m standing there backstage with Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon。 And Trump comes on and， you know， when Trump was going up the stairs to the podium to stage， he was kind of struggling up the stairs。 And I was like， “Are you all right？” He’s like， “I‘m Hillary Clinton！” I was like， “This guy is mean。” [LAUGHTER]

So he goes up to the stage and when he gets on the stage， he is like a rock star。 I used to cover rock music for a local paper—it‘s a long story—for a while。 And he is like a rock star， I mean， he’s manipulative。 He‘s amazing with an audience。 He’s addicted to it， too。 He loves the lights， he loves the crowds。 If it gets flats， he says， “Who‘s gonna build the wall？ Mexico！” and “Let’s make America great again！” He‘s a shaman。 And Bannon’s there， you know， and I‘m in my Bannon look now， with my vest。 [LAUGHTER]

So he‘s there going， “This is Andrew Jackson， William Jennings Bryan， Andrew Jackson for our time。” And I said， “Bannon sees it。” Bannon sees a horse。 A horse to ride， politically。 But what was so amazing was—I was always thought， when I worked at the National Review Magazine， that it was like the career-ender。 Like I was there for four and a half years covering Republican politics and conservative fringe stuff。 It was not exactly， you know， if you want to be in journalism， you kinda go local paper， regional paper， Chicago Tribune， Washington Post， New York Times。 Like to be at National Review was like， whew！ It’s like， yeah， that was the career， you know， we‘ll hear about Costa once on a blog post or something。 But I said to myself， “I’m not gonna get cornered into this bullshit about being a conservative writer。” So I never had my opinion in anything。 So I‘d just break news， break news， break news on all the Republican stuff。

And it‘s funny how life works out， right？ ’Cause you think you got kind of a bad hand—‘cause you couldn’t get a job at the mainstream， you took a job at a conservative magazine—well， who in 2009， 2010， and 2011 was the one person I was getting to know well？ Steve Bannon。 ‘Cause Steve Bannon was making all these fringe documentaries on Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin and no one in the mainstream would ever write about these documentaries。 I mean， they wouldn’t even try。 I mean， they‘re like—they were out-there documentaries。 But he thought maybe National Review would write about his documentaries， so I wrote feature stories on Bannon and his Palin documentaries。

In 2011， we had dinner together in Pella， Iowa， in New York City。 And I thought， “This guy is crazy and brilliant， also crazy—but brilliant！” You talk to Bannon—we can get into whether he‘s a white supremacist or not—I never heard that stuff from him。 Though if you peddle Breitbart stuff， you do have to be responsible for all the alt-right stuff， so he definitely has the responsibility。 But the thing about Bannon is， I mean， if you talk to Bannon， he is kind of brilliant in how he sees the world。 That doesn’t mean he’s good， he‘s just interesting。 So I got to know him， and now he’s running the White House。 So it‘s a strange situation， it’s a good example of how life takes turns。

To the topic at hand： Congress， Trump。 So I love Congress。 Congress is the best thing to cover in politics。 If you ever want to get into politics reporting， Congress is the best。 Because everything you cover now， it‘s so tightly wound。 Our generation of people in their 20s and 30s are the most tightly wound people in the world。 Everything’s gotta be segmented and arranged。 So like when I would go talk to Senator Rubio or Governor Walker during the primary campaign， every interview was five minutes or seven minutes only。 And if I went beyond that， it was like， “Costa， you‘re done。 You’re outta here， you‘re outta line。”

And the great thing about Trump is， you‘d talk to Trump and you had like 10 minutes with Trump， he’d spend the first 20 minutes talking about golf and Ivanka and Jared and then， you know， his father， and then you‘d get 15 minutes of him on the record。 I have these gold tapes—I’m gonna write a book about this someday—of Trump just like talking about life。 [LAUGHTER] It‘s the most random stuff。 But he has an amazing memory。 He’s like your grandpa who remembers too much from like the ‘30s and ’40s。 Like he has all this—Trump‘s a strange guy。 He does not use a computer。 He only uses his phone for calls and to scroll Twitter and do some tweets， but doesn’t do anything else on his phone。 And he really cares about his father， his father， Fred who‘s dead。 He has this big picture on his desk。 It’s the only old picture in his office， and it‘s just his father， Fred， who stares at him all day。 And Fred Trump—if you read about Fred Trump or ask Trump about Fred Trump—Fred Trump was all about， every day in the ’60s， telling his kids， “Japan‘s ripping us off， China’s ripping us off， America‘s going to hell。” 

And Trump was really always—he was ADD or whatever you want to call it， energetic kid。 He‘s the only kid from the Trump family who was sent to New York Military School。 They said， “He’s unmanageable。 Get him out of here。” So he went to New York Military Academy。 But he‘s always been trying， I think， to be part of his father’s legacy， even if he doesn‘t articulate it directly。 And Fred Trump was exactly what Trump， kind of this hard-charging， populist， “win at all costs，” “the country’s out of control，” “immigration‘s a threat”—even though， Fred Trump was of course from an immigrant—I mean， Fred Trump， they’re German descent， the Trumps， but I don‘t know if you know the story。 Fred Trump was trying to sell apartments to Jewish families and other families from Europe， so he used to—they used to call themselves Swedish。 They would say， “The Trumps are from Sweden，” because they didn’t want to have all the families in New York—there was a little bit of a bias against Germans after World War II。 So it‘s a complicated guy。

So all these—I want to talk about one more thing before we get to Congress。 To understand Congress： Congress has a tough time understanding Trump。 When Paul Ryan—the House Speaker， Mitch McConnell—the Senate Majority Leader， Chuck Schumer—Minority Leader， Nancy Pelosi in the House—Minority Leader there—because they go to meet with Trump like they did last week。 And all Trump wants to talk about is voter fraud。 And they‘re like， “There is no voter fraud。 No one’s talking about this。 You won the election。” And he starts going off about all these different things that just are kind of nonsensical。 So they‘re trying to kind of deal with Trump’s conspiratorial side and ignore it， on the Republican side， and just get their agenda through—the conservative agenda through。 But they‘re finding this difficult， because Trump—he doesn’t like to be rolled on anything。

So they want to move on tax reform。 The House GOP has a whole plan to bring down corporate and individual rates。 But it‘s gone from having a hundred day plan to a two-hundred day plan。 Infrastructure。 It’s really gonna not end up being much spending， which is the way to get Democrats on board。 It‘s probably gonna end up being a 137 billion dollars in tax credits， which is clogging up the tax code that Paul Ryan wanted to reform。 Immigration was supposed to be kind of a congressional project， but it’s become executive orders， and obviously， as you all know， had a lot of problems。 So Congress wants Trump to engage， wants Congress to work with him， with the White House， and they have a tight relationship with Vice President Pence and Reince Priebus， to an extent。 But Priebus， I would think， is a weak Chief of Staff in this respect。 He doesn‘t have any experience governing。 You have a Chief of Staff who is trying to kind of do the McConnell and Ryan line inside the White House， but he doesn’t really have the political capital or the knowledge to make sure he can get an agenda through。

There are all these power centers around Trump。 You got Sessions now Attorney General， Miller—Steven Miller—policy advisor。 Steve Bannon。 Until yesterday， Michael Flynn。 That‘s kind of the populist， hard-line wing of the White House。 Then you have what I call the “New York crowd，” the Democrats， Gary Cohn former head of—number two at Goldman Sachs， running tax reform。 He’s very close with Jared Kushner， the son in law， another senior advisor， Dina Powell， who came out of Goldman Sachs。 They kind of reflect the more liberal side of Trump。 They pushed against having the LGBT executive order。 Then you have the mainstream Republicans： Sean Spicer， the White House Press Secretary， Reince Priebus。 They‘ve kind of mingled with the Priebus-Spicer wing and all their acolytes： Pence and his group inside of the White House。 And Trump likes to have these competing centers of power。 He plays them against each other。

One thing people kind of underestimate about Trump is how mean and how merciless he can actually be。 You guys have never seen him off-record。 I mean， a lot of people call me， they say， “Costa， you‘ve covered Trump。 You know Trump。 Should I go work for him？” I go， “Well。。。” [LAUGHTER] I say， “Ask around about other people who’ve worked for him。” Tough guy to work for。 No one‘s—he’s never wrong。 Everything else is to blame。 He blames over people for when things go wrong。 So we‘re in the situation with Trump and Congress where， you know， one of the things I wanted to address when I was talking to Axelrod about this—he’s like， “What lies ahead？” Trump， White House， and congressional leaders。 There is this feeling right now inside of Congress—I love covering Congress， you can go right up to these members—that‘s what I forgot to say earlier—you can go right up to members and put a microphone in their face and ask them a question。 It’s so refreshing to be able to do that。 It reminds you that you‘re still in America， that you can still go ask questions of power， they can’t hide out， they actually have to go vote， you can confront them in the hallways。 It‘s just a healthy thing， that you can go up to these senators and congressmen。 So often you’re covering these candidates and you don‘t have any access， really。

And that‘s how Trump was kind of manipulative with the media， even perhaps myself。 He gave so much access。 He didn’t need to have television ads。 And he knew that everyone else was playing by a different model。 So I think Ryan is the most interesting person to take a look at， because Ryan is a movement conservative。 He grew up at Jack Kemp‘s knees。 He’s a supply-sider on economics。 And he has this whole agenda called “the better way” that he wants to get through。

A side note on that： this is one of the fun things you get to do as a reporter。 I get a call about two months ago—and I encourage you to look this up， I‘m shamelessly promoting it—Neil Patrick Harris， you know， the actor？ [LAUGHTER] He called me up with Ira Glass who hosted a show in Chicago。 And they said， “We hear you’re an expert on Paul Ryan。” And I said， “Well， I‘ve covered him for a long time。 I know him。” And they’re like， “Well， we wanna write a musical about Paul Ryan。” [LAUGHTER] So they said， “We have the people who wrote Frozen，” this movie for kids， I guess？ [LAUGHTER] I‘ve never seen it。 “And it’s supposedly a good movie， good music， and we‘re gonna write a song about Paul Ryan and Neil Patrick Harris is gonna play Paul Ryan， but we need help with the lyrics。” So I went through like three sessions with them on the phone， like， what Paul Ryan’s really like， and you know， I really wrote—‘cause Paul Ryan， at his core， he loves to be seen as this really self-assured， confident jockey policy wonk。 But he’s really kind of a dorky kid from Janesville who‘s very skittish about a lot of stuff。 

由于字数限制，续。。。 

特别鸣谢Leon的英翻中以及字幕制作

向杨的微博：向杨Alan

微信公众号：xy88chicago

本文作者系新浪国际旗下“地球日报”自媒体联盟成员，授权稿件，转载需获原作者许可。文章言论不代表新浪观点。