一場愛國主義與民族主義的對決

Discard the familiar labels. Emmanuel Macron has broken the mould of French politics. The En Marche! leader says his second-round presidential contest with the National Front’s Marine Le Pen presents instead a choice between patriotism and nationalism. He is right. This insight should resonate well beyond France. The dividing line that now matters in rich democracies lies between patriots and nationalists.

丟掉熟悉的標籤。埃馬紐埃爾?馬克龍(Emmanuel Macron)打破了法國政治的固有模式。這位“前進”運動(En Marche!)的領導人稱，他與國民陣線(National Front)領導人馬琳?勒龐(Marine Le Pen)之間的第二輪總統大選對決，等於讓民衆在愛國主義與民族主義之間做出一個選擇。他說得沒錯。這個見解應能在法國以外的廣大地區引起共鳴。如今，愛國主義者和民族主義者之間的分野已成爲富裕民主國家內部一條意義重大的分界線。

Populist insurgents across Europe have obscured the distinction. Citizens, they pretend, must choose between fealty to the nation and a wrecking globalism. The flag waving has destabilised mainstream parties of right and left. Some on the right have sought to ride the nationalist tiger. Hence British prime minister Theresa May’s unfortunate assertion that citizens of the world are citizens of nowhere. On the left, the common mistake has been to disavow any display of allegiance as xenophobia.

歐洲各地的民粹主義造反者使這一區別變得模糊。他們自稱，公民必須在忠於國家與破壞性的全球主義之間做出抉擇。這種有力的煽動使左翼和右翼的主流政黨都發生了動搖。一些右翼人士試圖騎上民族主義這隻“猛虎”。因此有了英國首相特里薩?梅(Theresa May)令人遺憾的斷言——世界公民是不屬於任何國家的公民。在左翼，常見的錯誤是把任何效忠表現都斥爲仇外。

Mr Macron, the insider-outsider of European politics, has met the populists head on. Defying Mrs May’s binary choice, he proclaims himself an internationalist and a proud citizen of France.

擁有歐洲政治局內人加局外人雙重身份的馬克龍與民粹主義者正面對上。無視梅非此即彼的選擇題，他宣佈自己既是一名國際主義者，又是一名自豪的法國公民。

We have been here before. Surveying the forces that plunged Europe into war during the 1930s, the writer George Orwell saw the same blurring of lines. Patriotism, he wrote, is a positive emotion celebrating national institutions, traditions and values. It is open and optimistic. Nationalism is an altogether darker force, rooted at once in superiority and paranoia.

我們曾遇到過這種情況。在研究導致上世紀30年代歐洲陷入戰爭的因素時，作家喬治?奧威爾(George Orwell)發現了同樣的模糊了的分界線。他寫道，愛國主義是一種稱頌國家制度、傳統和價值觀的積極情感，是開放的、樂觀的。民族主義絕對要陰暗得多，同時根植於優越感和偏執症。

Patriots have no quarrel with the choices made by others. Nationalists look for enemies, framing international relations as a zero-sum game. The thoughts of the nationalist, Orwell observed, “always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations”.

愛國主義者對他人做出的選擇並無怨言。民族主義者尋找敵人，將國際關係視爲零和博弈。奧威爾指出，民族主義者的思想“總是離不開勝利、失敗、成功和恥辱”。

He might have been talking about today’s Europe. Nationalists across the continent have destabilised the postwar liberal order by peddling the politics of exclusion and vilification. Petty tyrants such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban exult in their illiberalism. Poland is in the grip of a nationalist party that openly repudiates the values of the EU — though it of course insists on holding on to its access to generous Brussels funding. Beppe Grillo’s anti-European Five Star Movement in Italy threatens to overturn the ancien regime in collaboration with the far-right Northern League.

他描繪的簡直就是今天的歐洲。歐洲大陸各地的民族主義者通過兜售排外和中傷式的政治，擾亂了戰後的自由秩序。匈牙利的歐爾班?維克托(Viktor Orban)之流的小暴君們爲他們奉行的反自由主義而感到歡欣鼓舞。掌控波蘭的民族主義政黨公開否定歐盟的價值觀——儘管它當然繼續希望得到歐盟的慷慨資金援助。在意大利，貝佩?格里洛(Beppe Grillo)領導的反歐洲的五星運動(Five Star Movement)，威脅要與極右翼的北方聯盟(Northern League)合作推翻舊制度。

Ms Le Pen is as true as any to Orwell’s characterisation. Her brand of nationalism is pinched and tribal. Leading a party long soaked in anti-Semitism she has added Islam, Europe and globalisation to the roll of enemies. France, in this mindset, is a civilisation under siege. The appeal is to the angry and dispossessed. The supposed remedies — state control, vilification of immigrants, and protectionism — is the familiar snake oil of demagogues.

勒龐恰如奧威爾筆下刻畫的人物。她的民族主義思想幹癟且狹隘。她領導的是一個長期奉行反猶主義的政黨，她還把伊斯蘭教、歐洲及全球化加入了敵人之列。按照這種思維模式，法國文明被圍攻了。這對憤怒的羣衆、無產者很有吸引力。所謂的補救措施——國家控制、貶低移民和保護主義——是蠱惑民心的政客們熟練使用的萬靈藥。

Populism has had purchase because many of the grievances it has tapped are real. Unemployment is unacceptably high, median incomes have stagnated, welfare systems are under pressure and well-heeled bankers who laid low the world economy continue to fill their boots with cash. There should be no surprise that angry voters are receptive to angry slogans. But the populists have profited also from the complacency and timidity of the old elites. Some, like Mrs May, have tacked to the right. Others have stared at their feet. Parties of the centre-left have stood by idly as their traditional supporters have deserted them in droves.

民粹主義之所以有市場，是因爲被其利用的許多不滿情緒都是真實的。失業率高得令人無法接受，收入中位值停止增長，福利制度承受巨大壓力，而讓世界經濟陷入低迷的富有銀行家們還在繼續撈錢。憤怒的選民樂於接受憤怒的口號，這一點也不奇怪。但民粹主義者也得益於老派精英們的自滿和怯懦。有些人已經倒向右翼，比如英國首相。其他人成了縮頭烏龜。中左翼政黨只好袖手旁觀，因爲他們的傳統支持者已成批成批地將他們拋棄。

There are many reasons why the UK voted last year to leave the EU, but the failure over many years of British politicians of any persuasion ever to state the compelling case for close co-operation with the rest of the European continent laid the ground for Brexit. The “hard” Brexit and toughening of immigration controls now proposed by Mrs May speak to a fear of open, internationalist politics. Better, in the prime minister’s mind, to risk serious damage to Britain’s security and prosperity than to stand on the wrong side of the populists of the United Kingdom Independence party.

導致英國去年公投決定退出歐盟的原因很多，但多年來哪一派英國政治家都未能闡明與歐洲大陸密切合作的有力理由，這撒下了英國退歐的種子。“硬退歐”以及梅現在提議的更加嚴格的移民控制，表現出對開放的國際主義政治的恐懼。在首相梅看來，即便冒着嚴重損害英國安全與繁榮的風險，也好於在面對英國獨立黨(Independence party)的民粹主義者時站在了錯誤的一邊。

Mr Macron is the first serious leader to make the patriotic case — to argue that the interests of France and the security, economic and physical, of its citizens rest on recovering a strong voice on the global stage. He is unapologetic in identifying the French economic interest with that of Europe, and of explaining that some of the biggest challenges facing the nation — terrorism and climate change among them — demand international collaboration rather than French retreat. It will seem odd to some that a leader should attract praise for laying out the simple facts of interdependence but that in itself is a measure of how far politics has fallen in the face of the populists.

馬克龍是首位鄭重其事地以愛國主義爲理由提出以下主張的領導人——他認爲法國的利益、法國公民的經濟和人身安全要依靠法國在全球舞臺上重拾強大的話語權。他堅定地認爲法國的經濟利益與歐洲的經濟利益一致，法國面臨的最嚴峻挑戰——包括恐怖主義和氣候變化——都需要國際合作，法國自己不能退縮。一名領導人因闡明相互依賴的簡單事實而受稱讚在一些人看來似乎有些奇怪，但從中可以看出，政治在民粹主義者面前淪落到了怎樣的地步。

None of this is to say Mr Macron will ultimately be successful in his endeavour. If, as the polls indicate, he secures a comfortable victory over Ms Le Pen in the second-round runoff on May 7, he faces parliamentary elections in June. En Marche! is a movement rather than a party and will struggle to win large numbers of seats in the assembly.

這並不是說馬克龍的努力最終一定會取得成功。如果（按民調所示）他能在5月7日的決勝輪中輕鬆戰勝勒龐，他還將面對6月的議會選舉。“前進”運動還只是一場運動，而非真正意義上的政黨，很難在議會中贏得大量席位。

Nor is the would-be president’s prescription of domestic reform and international engagement assured of public support: nearly half of the voters in the first round of the presidential poll back candidates of the extreme right and left.

或將成爲總統的馬克龍就國內改革和國際參與開出的藥方也並不必然能得到公衆支持：近一半的選民在總統選舉首輪投票中支持極右翼和極左翼候選人。

That said, Mr Macron has illuminated the only path available to supporters of liberal, open societies. Nationalism, as Europe should have learnt, is always destructive. Patriotism is the antidote.

話雖如此，馬克龍爲自由、開放型社會的支持者們指明瞭唯一一條可行的道路。民族主義始終是有破壞性的——這是歐洲早該吸取的教訓。而愛國主義是一劑良藥。