It is a cliché that US presidential elections present momentous choices with long lasting consequences. In reality few live up to that billing. The difference between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson in 1952 or between Bob Dole and Bill Clinton in 1996 were about questions of emphasis rather than big paradigm shifts. Even the more ideological contests, notably Lyndon Baines Johnson versus Barry Goldwater in 1964, or Jimmy Carter versus Ronald Reagan in 1980, were within the realm of normal. They offered sharply diverging visions; but in neither of those contests did any candidate question the rules of the game.
美国总统选举带来具有长期后果的重大选择——这话已成老生常谈。在现实中，没几次选举达到这一水准。1952年德怀特•艾森豪威尔(Dwight Eisenhower)与阿德莱•史蒂文森(Adlai Stevenson)之间的差异，或者1996年鲍勃•多尔(Bob Dole)与比尔•克林顿(Bill Clinton)之间的差异，都在于侧重点，而不是重大范式转变。即使是更具意识形态色彩的选举，特别是1964年林登•贝恩斯•约翰逊(Lyndon Baines Johnson)与巴里•戈德华特(Barry Goldwater)之间，或者1980年吉米•卡特(Jimmy Carter 与罗纳德•里根(Ronald Reagan)之间的对决，也都在正常范围。那两次选举的候选人都提出非常不同的愿景，但没有任何候选人质疑游戏规则。