如何抵禦右翼民粹主義的唐納德特朗普
The rise of Donald Trump is, as I argued last week, a symptom of the failings of elites, notably, but not exclusively, the Republican Party’s elite. Mr Trump is successfully channelling aggression and anger. That tactic is not new. Again and again, it has brought demagogues to power. But demagogues do not give answers. On the contrary, they makes things worse.
正如我上週所辯稱的那樣，唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)的崛起，是美國精英們失敗的一個跡象。這主要指共和黨精英的失敗，但也不全是。特朗普正成功地煽動攻擊心理和憤怒。這並不是新手法。古往今來，這種戰術一而再、再而三地讓煽動者獲得大權。但煽動者給不出問題的答案。相反，他們讓事情變得更糟糕。
Many seem to think that things could not get worse. Oh yes, they could. Things could get far worse, not just in the US, but across the world. This is why Mr Trump is so dangerous: he has no notion of the foundations of US success.
許多人似乎認爲，事情不可能變得更糟。這話不對，它們可能變得更糟，而且糟糕得多，不僅是在美國國內，而且在全世界範圍都是如此。這就是特朗普如此危險的原因：他不懂美國成功的根基是什麼。
Mr Trump is a rightwing populist. Populists despise institutions and reject expertise. They offer, instead, charisma and ignorance. Rightwing populists also blame foreigners. Mr Trump adds to all this a zero-sum view of “the deal”.
特朗普是一個右翼民粹主義者。民粹主義者鄙視制度，排斥專長。相反，他們提供個人魅力和無知。右翼民粹主義者還會譴責外國人。特朗普爲這一切增添了零和觀點的大格局概念。
In any country, embrace of the delusions of populism is disturbing. In Italy, for example, Silvio Berlusconi’s ability to play the pied piper to the misguided lost the country two decades of reform. Yet the US matters more: it has shaped the modern world by spreading enduring institutions built upon legally binding commitments.
在任何國家，民衆擁抱民粹主義的幻覺都是令人不安的。例如，在意大利，西爾維奧•貝盧斯科尼(Silvio Berlusconi)向被誤導者扮演“綵衣吹笛人”的能力，使本國失去了20年的改革機會。不過，美國更爲至關重要：美國通過傳播在具有法律約束力的承諾基礎上打造的持久性制度，塑造了現代世界。
Two results of what was a bipartisan achievement are noteworthy. The first is that the US has potent allies. Neither China nor Russia has such allies. They do not even trust each other. The US has allies only partly because it is so powerful; it is still more because it has been trustworthy. The second is that the US has accepted enduring commitments. The obvious example is in its promotion of trade. Without that, the progress of many emerging economies in recent decades could not have happened.
兩黨共同取得的成就帶來的兩個結果值得關注。首先是美國擁有強有力的盟友。中國或俄羅斯都沒有這樣的盟友。兩國甚至彼此都不信任。美國擁有盟友，僅僅在一定程度上是因爲美國如此強大；更重要的原因在於美國一直是值得信賴的。其次是美國接受了持久的承諾。美國對貿易的促進是一個明顯的例子。沒有這一點，近幾十年來許多新興經濟體的發展是不可能發生的。
With his transactional view of the world, Mr Trump could well discard both alliances and institutions. This would damage, perhaps destroy, today’s economic and political order. He and his supporters might believe that the US would escape unscathed if it tore up its commitments. They are wrong. If the word of the US proved worthless, everything would change, for the worse.
特朗普的“交易型世界觀”意味着，他很可能拋棄聯盟和制度。這將損害、甚至摧毀當今的經濟與政治秩序。他和他的支持者們可能認爲，如果撕毀承諾，美國不會受什麼損失。他們想錯了。如果美國的承諾被證明毫無價值，那麼一切都將變得更糟糕。
Mr Trump’s indifference to the credibility of the US goes deeper still. The country provides the world’s most important financial asset: US Treasuries. Since the fiscal position of the US has deteriorated, caution is necessary. So what does the presumptive nominee of the supposedly fiscally prudent party propose? According to the Tax Policy Centre, his (hugely regressive) tax proposals would raise federal debt by 39 per cent of gross domestic product, relative to the baseline. One response might be huge cuts to spending, which he has not explained to his gullible supporters. Another would be a default. He “loves playing with” debt, he says. He even contemplates buying US debt back at a discount. Such “playing” would destroy the credit built up since Alexander Hamilton, the first US Treasury Secretary, devastating global finance.
特朗普對於美國信譽的漠不關心可能走得更遠。美國提供了世界上最重要的金融資產：美國國債。由於美國的財政狀況有所惡化，謹慎一些是必要的。那麼，理應在財政上審慎的共和黨的假定總統候選人提議了什麼？根據稅收政策中心(Tax Policy Center)的說法，他拋出的（高度累退性質的）稅收提議將使聯邦債務與基線相比，增加相當於國內生產總值(GDP)的39%。對策或許是大幅削減開支，他並未向輕信的選民解釋這一點。另一條對策將是違約。他說，他“喜歡玩”債務遊戲。他甚至在考慮以折扣價回購美國債務。如此“玩債”將會摧毀自美國第一任財長亞歷山大•漢密爾頓(Alexander Hamilton)以來積累起來的信用，毀掉全球金融。
Some claim Mr Trump feigns commitment to policies he knows would destroy US credibility and devastate global stability. Yet if he were really so dishonest, what might his limits be? Folly or cynicism — which would be worse?
有些人聲稱，特朗普只是在假裝支持那些他知道將摧毀美國信譽和破壞全球穩定的政策承諾。不過，如果他真的如此不誠實，那麼他的極限可能是什麼？愚蠢或是玩世不恭，哪種情況更糟糕？
It is still quite likely, albeit far from certain, that Mr Trump will be defeated. That might depend on whether Bernie Sanders decides to run as an independent. But if he were defeated, would that be the end of the matter? Arguably, not. Yes, the populist moment might pass. But it might also not do so. The domestic legitimacy of the US role in the world economy has understandably eroded.
儘管遠非確定，但特朗普被擊敗的可能性仍然相當大。這或許要取決於伯尼•桑德斯(Bernie Sanders)是否決定以獨立候選人身份參選。但是，如果特朗普真被擊敗，事情就結束了嗎？可以說，不會。是的，民粹主義時刻或許會過去。但也可能不會過去。可以理解的是，國內對於美國在世界經濟中角色的合法性認識已被削弱。
This is partly because of the financial crisis, but also because many Americans have done poorly in recent decades. This is not just a US problem. Branko Milanovic has noted in his book Global Inequality that the upper-middle class — largely the middle and lower classes of high-income countries — has done relatively poorly in recent decades. Princeton professors Anne Case and Angus Deaton note, in addition, a sharp relative deterioration in mortality and morbidity among middle-aged white American men, due to suicide, and drug and alcohol abuse. This surely reflects the despair of these people. It is tough to fail in a culture that worships personal success. Support for Mr Trump among this group must express this despair. As their leader, he symbolises success. He also offers no coherent solutions. But he does provide scapegoats.
原因部分在於金融危機，也在於很多美國人近幾十年來境況不佳。這並非僅僅美國的問題。布蘭科•米拉諾維奇(Branko Milanovic)在他的《全球不平等》(Global Inequality)一書中指出，中上階層人士——主要是指高收入國家的中下階層人士——在近幾十年裏日子過得相對較差。此外，普林斯頓大學(Princeton)教授安妮•凱斯(Anne Case)和安格斯•迪頓(Angus Deaton)指出，由於自殺、吸毒和酗酒，美國中年白人的死亡率和患病率升高得很厲害。這當然反映出了這些人的失望情緒。在一個崇尚個人成功的文化裏，失敗是很難受的。這個羣體對特朗普的支持肯定是在表達這種絕望。作爲他們的領袖，他象徵着成功。他並未提供說得通的解決方案。但他的確提供了替罪羊。
If rightwing populism is to be defeated, one must offer alternatives. In a forthcoming article, Dartmouth College’s Douglas Irwin notes that protectionism is quack medicine. Productivity growth accounted for more than 85 per cent of the job losses in manufacturing between 2000 and 2010. Effective policies would include generous earned-income tax credits, combined with higher minimum wages. The evidence from the UK is that this mixture can be highly effective. Anger over illegal immigration is also understandable. Employers of undocumented workers should surely suffer heavy penalties.
若想擊敗右翼民粹主義，我們必須提供替代解決方案。在一篇即將發表的文章裏，達特茅斯學院(Dartmouth College)的道格拉斯•歐文(Douglas Irwin)指出，保護主義是一劑假藥。2000年至2010年，生產率提高造成了85%以上的製造業失業。有效的政策將包括慷慨的低收入補助工薪抵稅額和更高的最低工資。英國的證據表明，這兩個辦法的結合可能非常有效。對於非法移民的憤怒也是可以理解的。僱用無證工人的公司當然應受到重罰。
US banks have paid more than $200bn in fines. But almost nobody has gone to prison. Combined with the (necessary) rescue of the financial sector, this has generated a widespread belief that the system is being exploited by morally disreputable insiders.
美國的銀行支付了逾2000億美元的罰款。但幾乎沒有人入獄。再加上對金融部門（必要的）紓困，這讓人們普遍相信，整個體制被道德敗壞的內部人利用了。
More fundamentally, within the high-income countries, the gainers from globalisation and technology feel no apparent responsibility for losers. Lowering taxes should not be everything. Above all, the system’s legitimacy depends on elite performance, which has been poor.
更爲根本的是，在高收入國家內部，受益於全球化和技術的贏家顯然沒覺得自己對輸家有什麼責任。減稅不應該是一切。最重要的是，體制的合法性取決於精英的表現，而他們的表現非常糟糕。
The US commitment to both institutions and alliances was right. The creation of an open and dynamic world economy and broadly co-operative relations among the powers remains a great achievement. Yet the greed, incompetence and irresponsibility of elites has now brought forth great populist rage. Mr Trump’s rise is a symptom of a disease that he would undoubtedly exacerbate. If it is not too late, people must now find more effective ways to cure it.
美國對制度和聯盟的承諾是正確的。創造出一個開放且具有活力的全球經濟，並在大國之間建立起大體上合作的關係，仍是一項偉大的成就。然而，貪婪、無能且不負責任的精英們現在引燃了民粹主義怒火。特朗普的崛起是一種疾病的症狀，他無疑會加劇這種疾病。如果現在還不算太晚的話，人們必須找到更爲有效的“治病”方法。
