当我看到我们的professor Steen，一个地道的加州人，在被问及对阿诺当选的看法时，那尴尬的表情，我可以体会到美国的知识分子对这一滑稽的民主政治活剧的无奈。“终结者”以压倒性的优势当选，这或许是美式民主的直接体现，但当被要求就此发表些个人的看法时，我却没有多少的艳羡，因为我：
　　
　　（一）想起了勒庞、群体、《乌合之众》
　　
　　古斯塔夫·勒庞（Gustav Le Bon）是法国的社会心理学家。他的《乌合之众》是一部传世的不朽之作，尽管曾被认为是纳粹德国法西斯主义的理论基础。这部著作的主要研究对象是群体行为。在第一卷《群体的一般特征》中，勒庞指出群体是一个心理学的概念，大量的个人聚集在一起并不足以构成一个群体。群体的基本特征并不仅仅是一群人的聚集，而是“有意识人格的消失，无意识人格的得势，思想和感情因暗示和相互传染作用而转向一个共同的方向，以及立刻把暗示的观念转化为行动的倾向。”他所概括的群体特征包括冲动、易变、急躁、轻信、偏执、专横、保守及感情总是走极端。
　　
　　具体到加州竞选这一个案。戴维斯在财政赤字和电力缺乏两项危机中为长远民众利益和短期政治利益犹豫不决，经济日趋恶化，民众的忍耐到了极限，决定叫戴维斯下台（我想起了默多克的名言：“可以犯错误，但不能没有决定”），而大众传媒的参与加速了“有意识人格的消失，无意识人格的得势”这一过程，暗示和传染使得群体的观念迅速成为一致的行动——倒戴！而就在这时候，阿诺非常适时地跳了出来，利用自己的明星效应和同时推出的大片《终结者3》，给选民一个顶替戴维斯的绝佳选择。于是，尽管他除了喊了几句口号外，并没有一个竞选获胜方的霸气，他甚至不愿意参加美国政客竞选时的例行公事———公开辩论，但他当选了。ABC新闻网在竞选结束的当天对大选前进行的多次民意调查结果进行了研究，结果得出了一个意料之中的结论：阿诺并不是这次竞选的主角，戴维斯才是———人们对戴维斯的反感造就了阿诺的当选。选民在整个过程中的表现与勒庞对群体行为的研究结论丝丝入扣。
　　
　　（二）想起了托克维尔、民主、游戏
　　
　　托克维尔（Alexis de Tocque－ville），法国政治学家，从大一起就听专业课老师在讲他的《论美国的民主》。在这部著作里托克维尔认为，民主制度下出现了“多数的暴政”——“多数人一旦提出一项动议，可以说不会遇到任何阻碍。” “多数的暴政”是专制的新形式，而且是专制的“进步”。舆论的统治不仅仅依靠物质力量，也依靠精神力量，征服人们的意志。他说：“他们希望在自由之中享受平等，在不能如此的时候，也愿意在奴役中享有平等。”
　　
　　再看这次加州竞选。我们当然不好把选民推倒戴维斯政府说成是“多数人的暴政”，但多数人的愿望的确顺利地实现则是不争的事实。那么，少数人的利益谁来保护？换言之，那些坚定的民主党选民（支持巴斯塔曼特的）的利益谁来保护？显然，永远没有共赢，总是多数人（群体）获胜，而他们又具有那么多明显的被勒庞总结过的缺点。再看看英雄阿诺战胜的究竟是些什么人：除了因在前政府任职而不受选民青睐的民主党人巴斯塔曼特，还有23岁的艳星玛丽·凯里、《好色客》杂志老板弗林特、朋克乐队TSOL主唱杰克·格里沙姆，以及失业青年、女骗子、退休的杀猪佬，火车扳道工、镶牙店老板、救火员、职业拳击手、相扑运动员、地产掮客等等等等，几乎是三教九流无所不包。在这种不够严肃的平等中，政治褪色成为一场游戏，各色人等，全都可以粉墨登场。一个世界排行第六的经济体的行政首脑的选举，原来是这样进行的，这似乎验证了托克维尔的担心：美式的民主过于强调平等，政治一旦沦为群氓的游戏，怎么办？
　　
　　（三）想起了卢因、传媒、媒介事件
　　
　　在此次加州竞选中，因为阿诺的明星身份，大众传媒在整个过程中表现得非常积极。我们可以问问自己，为什么以前的州长竞选，无论是纽约州还是德州，都没有这般地引起我们的注意？在传播学领域，“媒介事件”是一个与媒介威力有关的名词，它有两层含义，其一就是：一次次要的事件或细节经媒介的选择和强化处理，在受众中产生影响，并被误以为是重要事件。显然，这次加州竞选正是一起媒介事件。
　　
　　托克维尔认为：身份越是平等，个人的力量就越是薄弱，人们就越容易随大流，越难坚持被多数人所反对的意见。报刊是以全体读者的名义向每一位读者发言，而且读者个人的能力越弱，报刊越容易吸引读者。我无法举出美国媒体的例子，但就在我们身边，10月9日的《青年报》以“硬汉阿诺顺利攻克加州”的大号标题配以阿诺的大幅图片对此进行了报道，还煞有介事地将他和里根进行了对比。在随后的几天里，平面媒体和网上都有一篇“美可能允许移民参选总统 施瓦辛格有望问鼎白宫”的报道流传。且不说稍有常识的人都知道在美国要修改宪法条文有多么困难，即使美国没有宪法第二条的严格规定：“除了出生在美国本土的人员之外，其他人均不得担任美国总统”，阿诺竞选总统毕竟还是件遥远地仿佛可以不管的事情，根本无须占据过多的版面。原因仅是，他是明星，是健美先生，是有肯尼迪家族血统的名主持的丈夫。
　　
　　1947年，学者卢因（Kurt Lewin）在他著名的论文《群体生活渠道》中最早提出了“把关人”理论，媒介被认为应该是舆论传播的把关人。但在这次事件中，我们看到，我们的视线在随着媒介的“探照灯”盲目移动，媒介将“媒介事件”“重装上阵”。这不得不使我们这些普通受众在今天的海量信息背景下更多地充当自己的“把关人”，冷静地筛选获取的已经经过选择的新闻。
　　
　　加州州长的选举早已尘埃落定，但这一事件本身和它的表现形式及外界的反应，仍然给我们很大的思考空间。以上仅是我个人的一些稚见，因为从任务布置下来到交稿仅有两天时间，只能完成这么一篇提纲似的东西，而这一事件所反应出的美国政治的每一侧面，都还可以给我们更深刻的启示。尽管我们做为局外人，是“站在城楼观山景”，但同样也应该保持思考和冷静，跟风或者无谓都不是应有的态度。
　　
　　有一种力量叫平静。让我们平静地思考，这个不平静的世界。
　　
　　(英语版)
　　Arnold’s success in my eye
　　——my viewpoint of American democracy
　　
　　 On October 8th this year, Arnold Schwarzenegger declared his victory in the election of the Californian governor. The popular “Terminator” finally wins; this is Maybe the best proof and reflection of American democracy. But through the whole process of the recall and election, some aspects of American democracy really
　　puzzled me. I always admit that though democracy is not the best way of organizing a society efficiently, it at least is the best way up to now. The very triumph of
　　democracy to American society is so obvious that I need not demonstrate here, just look back to the American history, there is no a coup, no an illegal federal
　　government and no a Stalin-like president, the society is always stable comparatively.
　　
　　 So it’s also my firm belief that democracy is the direction of any modern societies, but has American democracy been perfect? What I observed from the Californian recall this time told me: never! Because:
　　
　　Ⅰ)American democracy: “Tyranny of the majority”?
　　
　　 People whose major is politics definitely know Alexis de Tocqueville (1805--1859) and his immortal writings: “Democracy in America”. In this brilliant book, the author pointed out that “the very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute
　　sovereignty of the majority; for there is nothing in democratic states that is capable of resisting it. Most of the American constitutions have sought to increase this natural strength of the majority by artificial means.”【1】However, the majority doesn’t mean correctness all the time, as a matter of a fact, they’re more often wrong! History of science has proved the embarrassing fact that the minority people always master truths. The majority, on the contrary, is
　　impetuous, shortsighted, and simple-minded.
　　
　　 Let’s look at the Californian recall. The economical condition was deteriorating, people’s endurance reached its deadline, and the anger of the majority became their common action: shoos Davis off. The result was just as what Tocqueville had predicted that was no one could resist the majority’s decision, they’re winners forever. Then, my question is, who can ensure that the majority’s decision is right? Who protect the minority’s interest? Apparently, it’s impossible to make everybody satisfy. Moreover, since the majority has great power and simple mind, once some insane and crazy persons manipulate them, then, who can stop their decision? The senate? The president? The “majority” (actually those who are enthusiastic to politics, and they are not the absolute majority of the population at all) elects them all. So, in my opinion, the primary defect of American democracy is that it is too democratic!
　　
　　Ⅱ)The candidates: sheep without a shepherd?
　　
　　 I look down upon the majority so much because I read a famous book written by Gustav Le Bon, a French sociologist. I read the book in Chinese, and translated its name by myself as “rabbles”(I don’t know what its formal name in English). However, during the Californian recall, we saw a lot of absurd things. Many people have lost their basic respect and awe to politics. They just played it like an interesting game. Among rivals of Arnold, there were some people who were not qualified as the candidates at all. And their slogans and platforms were ridiculous or childish
　　somehow. A sexual star told people she would make California be in a pink atmosphere, and a boss of a sexual magazine alleged only casinos could save the
　　economy.
　　
　　 Maybe it’s because of conceptual difference about politics between American and Chinese people, I totally disagree with this kind of “equality”! A state whose GDP is the 6th in the world takes election of its executive leader as a game, no matter how humble a person is, he can jump onto the stage directly and participate in the competition of the important position which has relation with thousands of people’s
　　welfare. Maybe American people are just proud of this——the very equality they enjoy. But in common Chinese people’s mind, politics is a very very holly thing. If “immoral” people participate in it, it is considered as a great shame of the nation and the constituency. In China, politics only belong to those professional politicians, who are all moral models at least superficially. So the prospect of the leaders who has
　　“rumors” like Arnold is definitely dim, female high officials who took naked photos, once been found, like the Canadian mayor, can pick up her luggage. We just can’t accept anybody whose behaviors are against traditionally common rules! To common Chinese, most candidates of the Californian election were ridiculous.
　　
　　 So in my opinion, American democracy is too equal! This is its secondary defect.
　　
　　Ⅲ)American democracy: who controlled it?
　　
　　 In this third part, I’d like to talk about my viewpoint of the question that is “In what ways elections do not promote rule by the people?”
　　
　　 In the process of the Californian recall and election, I noticed that Arnold attracted more attention of the mass medium. The reason is simply because he is a super-star and he is the husband of a popular anchorwoman who has background of Kennedy
　　family. The profit of the mass medium proliferated by reporting Arnold constantly, but this pure commercial action could influence many persons’ decision. The mass medium just spoon-fed Arnold to the audience, the readers and the listeners, gradually people formed a misconception that Arnold is superior to other candidates, and this is unfair to other candidates. Nobody can deny TV dominates the world nowadays, but
　　TV also belongs to somebody or some blocs; it also has its interests and hatreds. The press liked Arnold, thus journalists didn’t ask him harsh questions, and they made Arnold actually the center of election. So it wasn't strange Arnold could win.
　　
　　 In a totally democratic society, every citizen is endowed with the right to veto to any candidates he likes theoretically, however, many “soft-power” like the mass medium actually controlled the order of importance of each candidate in people’s mind.
　　
　　 Tocqueville had noticed this kind of power of press long ago. He said “In America as in France it(the press) constitutes a singular power, so strangely composed of mingled good and evil that liberty could not live without it, and public order can hardly be maintained against it”【2】. In Tocqueville’s age, public opinion was dominated by newspapers. today, great technological developments have given the
　　mass medium stronger ability to grasp people’s mind. Election need be advertised and propagated, then the press plays an important role in the whole process, but the press is not just a robot, it has its own favor and disfavor, and it imposes its feelings to common people by invisible means——election does not promote rule by the people in this way .
　　
　　 Anyway, I strongly believe that the essence of American politics is “elitist politics”, just like Chinese politics. But American democracy is designed quite exquisitely which makes people have nothing to complain. Because the limits of population, tradition, and political customs, it’s irrational for Chinese to learn the American system totally, but Chinese should carefully study many good things in American politics. The long-time prosperousness of the US has proved that American system is a great creation!
　　
　　
　　Reference:
　　-------------------【1】Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America, Volume I, Chapter XV, paragraph I, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch15.htm
　　
　　【2】Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America, Volume I, Chapter Ⅺ, paragraph Ⅸ, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch11.htm