[(Title)] Opinion: Why Democrats aren’t winning easily in Trump era.

More than 60 percent of Americans don't think President Trump is honest and trustworthy and most agree with Democrats on most issues. So why can't they/we dominate U.S. politics running away?

超过60%的美国人认为特朗普总统并不诚实、可信，而且在多数问题上更认同民主党。所以，他们为什么不能控制美国的政治呢？

A key example: Many of us (most, around here) want Americans to support immigration, including from Latin America – not halving it, building walls or treating illegal migrants cruelly.

一个关键的例子是：我们中的许多人（甚至是大多数）想要美国支持移民，包括来自拉丁美洲的移民，而不是将移民人口减半、筑墙或残酷地对待非法移民。

But consider: Since the 1960s, the federal government, states and major private universities and Fortune 500 companies have implemented a structure of special efforts to admit, hire, contract with and promote minority groups, including people of Hispanic/Latino ancestry.

但想一想：自20世纪60年代以来，联邦政府、各州和主要的私立大学以及财富500强公司做出了特殊的努力，以接纳、聘用和晋升少数群体，包括西班牙裔/拉丁裔人。

If we keep defining this large, fast-growing share of our people as requiring special consideration, can this possibly help persuade most Americans to support admitting more such people?

如果我们继续将这个庞大、快速增长的群体定义为“需要特殊照顾”，这是否还有助于说服大多数美国人支持接纳更多这样的人？

Isn't this something of a political oxymoron?

这不是政治矛盾吗？

Can't we acknowledge openly that defending more open immigration is made politically harder by policies that suggest immigrants (and their descendants) may qualify for special consideration once they get here?

难道我们不能公开承认，捍卫更开放的移民会使政治更加困难，因为政策表明，移民（及其后代）一旦来到这里，就有资格得到特别优待？

This is especially relevant for the U.S. Latino/Hispanic population (as expansively defined, counting anyone with one Hispanic grandparent), which grew from 3 percent in 1960 to 18 percent today, making Latinos by far the largest covered population, largely due to immigration policies many of us support.

这对于美国拉丁/西班牙裔人口（按广义定义，只考虑任何一个有西班牙裔祖父母的人）来说尤其重要，他们从1960年的3%增长到了今天的18%，这很大程度上是由于美国许多人支持移民政策。

A few states like California have reversed such policies at the state level by referendum, barring consideration of national origin (or race/gender) by state government and colleges.

加利福尼亚等几个州已经通过公民投票在州一级扭转了这种政策，禁止州政府和大学考虑民族血统（或种族/性别）。

These colleges have developed alternative policies admitting top students from each high school and considering variables like student family income and  "first-generation"  college status instead.

这些大学制定了备选政策，招收每所高中的优秀学生，并考虑学生家庭收入和“第一代”大学地位等变量。

This points the way to a different approach to alleviating inequity.

这为采取不同的方法来减轻不平等指明了方向。

A  "Preference for the Poor"  applied more broadly could energize a much more successful Democratic Party that could better unify Americans across ethnic categories around a shared moral vision.

更广泛地实施“穷人优先”可以激励一个更加成功的民主党，从而围绕共同的道德观念更好地统一跨种族的美国人。

It addresses need and disadvantage measured primarily in wealth and income terms rather than using national origin as blunt proxy for such disadvantage.

它主要以财富和收入条件来衡量需求和不利情况，而不是用民族血统作为直截了当的理由。

Immigration remains Trump's strongest, signature issue. Opposition to immigration has snowballed in the last 50 years to the point where it elected a president unthinkable before.

移民仍然是特朗普最强烈的标志性问题。反对移民的观点在过去50年中遭到抨击，以至于它选举了一位以前无法想象的总统。

Politics is psychology.

政治是心理学。

While application and even definition of affirmative action enforcement varies over time under different governments and companies, these policies' application to immigrating groups inevitably erodes openness to their immigration.

虽然在不同的政府和公司下，平权运动的执行甚至定义会随着时间的推移而变化，但这些政策对移民群体的适用不可避免地会削弱对移民的开放性。

Might it not be time to re-examine them?

难道现在不是重新审视它们的时候吗？

Both affirmative action and immigration issues promote the sense in much of middle America that Democrats are a party of and for minorities, feminists and coastal elites, playing into Republican hands.

平权运动和移民问题都在美国中部的大部分地区促进了一种意识，即民主党是少数派、女权主义者和沿海精英，正中共和党下怀。

The perception Democrats support perpetual preferences for 'others' and insist on conflating category membership with disadvantage and poverty are the great political crosses they/we bear, making achievement of broader reform agendas Democrats advocate more distant.

民主党人永远支持偏爱“他人”，坚持把某一类人与弱势和贫困混为一谈，这是他们或我们忍受的巨大政治分歧，使民主党主张的更广泛的改革议程更加遥远。

Supporting struggling people regardless of ethnicity is both more politically sustainable and morally defensible.

支持挣扎的人，不论其种族如何，在政治上是更可持续的，而且在道德上更有道理。

As a nation, we could more readily come together around a preference for the poor and disadvantaged as the basis of a new majority governing coalition.

作为一个国家，我们可以更容易地团结起来，围绕着对穷人和弱势群体的偏好，作为新的多数执政联盟的基础。

Democrats should commit to such an approach, increasingly superseding the divisive politics of identity and winning for us all.

民主党人应该致力于这种方法，越来越多地取代分裂的政治，为我们所有人赢得胜利。

Steve Koppman has worked as a government analyst at federal, state and local levels. He holds a master's degree in public policy from UC Berkeley.