在欧洲，精英和民粹主义者都已经失败了 [美国媒体]

SOFIA, Bulgaria — It is a “force majeure”moment in Europe. In France, the “yellow vest” protesters are burning cars anddestroying shops, accusing President Emmanuel Macron, the darling of thepro-European progressives, of Marie Antoinette-style arrogance and disrespectfor the concerns of the ordinary people. In the United Kingdom, the utterfailure to broker a Brexit deal has turned into a national tragedy. Severaldays ago, in an open letter to his compatriots, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutteconcluded that Britain had “dropped the vase,” shattering the country’sdelicate unity. He compared politicians who stir up divisions to “screamingsideline football dads” shouting loudly without thinking about the consequencesof what they say.

写于保加利亚索菲亚——对欧洲来说这是一个“不可抗力”时刻。在法国，“黄背心”示威者正在焚烧汽车并砸毁商店，他们控诉亲欧进步人士心爱的总统马克龙的玛丽·安托瓦内特式傲慢以及不尊重普通百姓的关切。在英国，谈出一项英国脱欧协议的彻底失败已成为了国家悲剧。几天以前，荷兰首相马克·吕特在写给他同胞的一封公开信中，得出了英国已经“破罐子破摔”的结论，粉碎了这个国家脆弱的团结。他将煽动分裂的政客比作“观看孩子比赛时在边线上尖叫的爸爸”，只是大声喊叫，全然不考虑他们所说言语的后果。

（译注：玛丽·安托瓦内特，Marie Antoinette ，1755-1793，法王路易十六的王后）



“Force majeure” is a legal concept that allows you to get out of acontractual obligation under exceptional circumstances. It is also the name ofRuben Ostlund’s 2014 film, a black comedy about a professional couple who taketheir two beautiful young children to an upscale ski resort somewhere in theFrench Alps and face an unexpected “trauma” that permanently alters theirrelationship. Everything is going perfectly until the family, while enjoyingsome sunshine at an open-air mountain restaurant, sees an avalanche descendingtoward them. A tidal wave of snow envelopes the restaurant. And withoutthinking, the father flees, abandoning his family to save himself. When thesnow settles, everyone realizes that it was a false alarm — it was a“controlled avalanche” gone slightly awry. No one is hurt. The father returns,and behaves as if nothing significant had happened, but the mother is livid.The rest of their trip is soured by the father’s moment of instinctualselfishness and his refusal to admit fault.

“不可抗力”是一个法律概念，即允许你在特殊情况下摆脱契约责任。这也是鲁本·奥斯陆2014年电影的名字，这是一部黑色喜剧，说的是一对职业夫妇带着他们两个漂亮的孩子去了阿尔卑斯山法国一侧的一个高级滑雪胜地，然后遭遇了一次始料未及的“创伤”，永久地改变了他们间的关系。一切都顺风顺水，直到这一家子在山上的露天餐厅里享受阳光时，看见一场雪崩向他们扑去。一大波的雪封盖住了餐厅。然后，这位父亲不假思索就逃跑了，为了救自己的命抛下了他的家庭。解决了雪的问题后，所有人意识到这只是一次误报，是一次“人工引发的雪崩”，出了点小差错而已。没有人受伤。这位父亲回来了，表现出没什么大不了的样子，但母亲面如死灰。因为父亲一瞬间出自本能的自私行为以及拒绝认错，他们余下的旅程就变得很难堪了。

Ostlund’s film is a perfect analogy for whythe meritocratic elites have lost the trust of the people. The collapse ofLehman Brothers was the world’s “controlled avalanche,” and the best and thebrightest ran away — and quick — to save their money and banks, forgettingabout those who needed their help. They have never ceased to deny that theyhave done so. And thus, not surprisingly, the majority of the people have cometo regard the meritocratic elite as a mercenary elite, always ready to run fromthe table. They lack the word “sacrifice” in their vocabulary. They do notbelong to the community, but they want to be respected, admired and even loved.

奥斯陆导演的电影是关于精英管理体制中的精英们为什么已经失信于民的一个完美类比。莱曼兄弟的崩溃便是全世界的一次“人工引发的雪崩”，最优秀和最聪明的主儿为了挽救他们的金钱和银行逃之夭夭了，而且跑得极快，把那些需要他们帮助的人们抛诸脑后。他们也一直在否认如此这般的行径。因此，民众中的大多数慢慢把精英管理体制中的精英视为唯利是图的精英也就不足为怪了，他们时刻准备着从牌桌上跑路。他们的字典里没有“牺牲”这个词。他们并不属于社群，却想要得到尊敬、赞美甚至爱戴。

（译注：莱曼兄弟（Lehman Brothers）申请破产的时间为2008年，系有史以来最大的破产事件）



So who do the people trust, then, if theydisdain the meritocrats and disregard the populists? The answer, based onopinion polls, is a profoundly puzzling one: Today, the military turns out tobe the most trusted institution in most European countries. It is likely notbecause of any recent glorious victories nor because Europeans love war. Mostprobably, the public’s trust in the military elites could be explained by thefact that they are the only ones who do not have a “force majeure” clause intheir contracts. For the military to serve, it must sacrifice for others. Thisis exactly what people expect the elites to do.

那么如果民众贬损精英又无视民粹主义者，他们信任的又是谁呢？根据民意调查，这是一个极度让人摸不着头脑的答案：原来在如今的大部分欧洲国家，军方才是最受信任的机构。这可能不是因为最近有过什么辉煌的胜利，也不是因为欧洲人喜欢战争。最可能的解释是，公众对军队精英的信任，缘于他们是唯一在其合约中不存在“不可抗力”条款的人。因为军队服役时，必须为他人作出牺牲。而这恰恰是民众期望精英们做的事。

If leaders like Macron wish to counter thedivisive strain of nationalism that grips their nations with their own brand of“patriotism,” they must recapture the public’s trust. And to do so, they musttie their own hands to the table to prove that when the next avalanche hits,they will not flee.

如果像马克龙这样的领导人希望对那些造成分裂的、用他们自己品牌的“爱国主义”把持了国家的民族主义压力作出反击，他们就必须重拾公众的信任。而为了做到这一点，他们必须把自己的双手绑在牌桌上，以此证明下一次雪崩来袭时，他们不会溜走。

1、I remember well whensupporters of Hillary Clinton argued that it was okay for her to accept$250,000 for a one hour talk to Goldman Sachs and other elite banking andinvestment groups. Why, theyargued, it was perfectly legal for herto do so just like it's perfectly legal for any other big name political figureto solicit and get this type of payment. Sure it's legal and that's the problem. The wealthy and well connected (the two are virtually synonymous thesedays) wrote these perks into law for themselves and their wealthy friends. How do you tell a person making $40,000 ayear that these kinds of payments are okay because they are legal.
As for Macron, he blamed the working stiffsof France for their predicament. Macroncame from a privileged background. He'sclueless about how difficult it is for ordinary folks to make ends meet in thisnew economy. Brain dead andclueless.

我记得很清楚，希拉里的支持者们辩称：她给高盛、其他精英银行以及投资团体安排一个一小时会谈然后收取25万美元是没啥问题的。为什么呢，他们争辩说她这么干是完全合法的，就如同其他任何一位知名政治人物全然合法地做同样的事并收受这种额度的报酬一样。当然了这确实合法，但这也是问题所在。财富和通天的人脉（现如今这哥俩简直就是同义词）把这类外快写入了法律，为的是其自身乃至它们的有钱人朋友。由于这类报酬是合法的所以没啥问题，那么你要怎么去分辨一个人是否每年真的只赚了4万美元。
至于马克龙，他把这种窘境归罪于法国劳动阶层。马克龙出身于特权背景。他对于这个新经济体之中平民百姓实现收支平衡之困难毫无头绪。脑子坏死且毫无头绪。



（回复1）what i have noticed, especially from the elite economist,is thatthey always look at the macro economic statistics,and use that to justify theirpolicy.

我注意到的是，尤其是精英经济学家，他们总是关注宏观经济数据，并利用它们来正当化他们的政策。

what they ignore is that the policies whichthey love so much,are grossly unfair in how they distribute the cost of thebail out.

而他们忽视的是：他们酷爱的这些政策，在分配救市金的方面极度不公平。

so some people, the bankers, actuallyprofit from the bailout.while others, the little people, the savers, pay thecosts.this process plays out through elite manipulation of money itself.as anunintended consequence, it destroys the social compact.hence, raging, angry,populism.

所以有些人比如银行家，实际上是从救市中获益的。与此同时，另外一些人，比如小民们，节俭的蓄户们，是他们在为损失买单。这个过程是通过精英操控着金钱本身而完成的。作为计划外的后果，它毁掉了社会契约。因此，涌现出了怒火，愤恨和民粹主义。



and when the current bubble collapses, andthe increasing poverty of the many becomes more apparent, populism will gaineven more traction.

而到了当前泡沫破裂的时候，很多人日益贫困的现象就会变得愈加明显，届时民粹主义将获得更大的牵引力。

essentially, the foreign policy elites, theneocons, were utterly discredited by the iraq war disaster and the bankingelites are utterly discredited by the 2008 meltdown and bailout.

本质上，外交精英、新保守主义者在伊拉克战争灾难中信誉破产，而银行精英们在2008年的垮台和救市中信誉破产。

6、Insightful...simplistic, in a sense, but insightful.

很有洞见......某种意义上说过分简单化了，但仍然富有洞见。

True elites (not those merely labeled as elites, but those with actualwealth and power) are increasingly less moored in the culture, society, andfate of nations. They are, in many cases, a culture and world unto themselves.Borders mean little to them.

真正的精英（不是那些仅仅被标签为精英的人，而是那些拥有真正的财富和权势的人）正越来越不受国家的文化、社会和命运牵绊。在很多情况下，他们是一种只针对自身的文化和世界。界限对他们来说毫无意义。



It seems that the greatest beneficiary ofall this "populist unrest" isn't the people protesting, but someoneoutside that stands to gain from the growing weaknesses of nations andinstitutions that result.

看起来，所有这些“民粹主义动荡”的最大受益者并不是前去抗议的民众，而是某个站在局外的人，从造成的日益衰弱的国家和机构中获利。

8、I don't think thesolution is all within the elites. At some point, the people will need to seethat populism and nationalism are empty, leading to worse results, and somelevel of rule-by-so-called-elites is unsatisfying, slow, but effective. There'senough quotes out there by dead philosophers that dumb people don't make for agood democracy. We need to either get smarter, or we lose our democracies.

我不觉得解放方案尽数存在于精英群体中。在某个时刻，人们需要看到民粹主义和民族主义是空乏的，会导致更糟糕的结果，而某种程度上被所谓的精英统治是无法让人满意的，是迟缓的，但却是有效率的。已故的哲学家们留下过大量的名言，说的是蠢人无助于一个良好的民主制国家。我们要么就变聪明一点，不然我们会葬送我们的民主制。

9、Because you cannever make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time.
Populism is nothing more than pablum forthe masses.

因为你绝对没有办法在所有的时间点上让所有人满意。

民粹主义不过是投喂给民众的精神鸦片。

10、Macron cut taxes onthe wealthy and raised taxes on everyone else (gas). It doesn't take a deviousforeign leader to stir up discontent when Macron is all "let them eatcake"

马克龙给富人减税，然后给所有其他人加税。当马克龙搞出来的完全是“让他们吃蛋糕”这一出时，就并不需要一个什么阴险的外国领导人来煽动不满了。



14、Biggest problems inthe world today are a global population explosion, ever increasingenvironmental/capital destruction, and militarism. Scary fact (as the "have" nationscircle the wagons to keep out the "have nots"), is the onlyinstitution they seem to have faith in is the military. So now you have the external"enemy" - - the outsider teeming non-white masses, and the internal"solution" - - Fascism?

当今世界最大的问题是全球人口爆炸，不断增长的环境/资本毁灭，外加军国主义。可怕的事实是，看上去他们唯一信任的机构是军队。而这样一来，你就拥有了外部“敌人”，即作为外人的海量非白人民众，而内部的“解决方案”又是什么呢，莫非是法西斯主义？

15、A lot of this isspot-on. This is not my thought, but I would echo others' thoughts that, inFrance, Macron is a leader without a following, and the yellow vests are amovement without a leader. It's hard to negotiate in that circumstance.

说到的很多点都是准确无误的。以下不是我的想法，但我想以此激发些别人的想法，即在法国，马克龙是一个无人追随的领导人，而黄背心则是一场没有领导人的运动。在这种情况下，是很难发生谈判的。