特里薩?梅埋葬了撒切爾主義

Theresa May has buried Thatcherism. Under a Conservative government, the UK is now embracing the political ideas of fairness and government intervention. This might mark as big a shift in UK politics as those of the 1940s, towards socialism, and of the 1980s, away from it.

特里薩•梅(Theresa May)埋葬了撒切爾主義。在一個(gè)保守黨政府主政期間，英國(guó)正在擁抱公平和政府干預(yù)的政治理念。這可能標(biāo)志著英國(guó)政治的一次重大轉(zhuǎn)變，堪比1940年代的轉(zhuǎn)向社會(huì)主義以及1980年代的摒棄社會(huì)主義。

Remember that the Beveridge report, which laid the intellectual foundations of the postwar welfare state, was published in 1942, under the coalition government led by Winston Churchill. Similarly James Callaghan, then Labour prime minister, laid the ground for Thatcherism in 1976, when he stated: “We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession, and increase employ­ment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that option no longer exists.”

記住，溫斯頓•邱吉爾 (Winston Churchill)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的聯(lián)合政府于1942年發(fā)布了《貝弗里奇報(bào)告》(Beveridge report)，該報(bào)告奠定了戰(zhàn)后福利國(guó)家的理論基礎(chǔ)。類似的，工黨首相詹姆斯•卡拉漢(James Callaghan)于1976年表示“我們過去常常認(rèn)為，可以通過花錢擺脫衰退，以減稅和增加政府支出來促進(jìn)就業(yè)。我坦白地告訴你們，這個(gè)選項(xiàng)已不再存在。”此言為撒切爾主義奠定了基礎(chǔ)。

Now, in her speech to the Conservative party conference, Mrs May argues that “when one among us falters, our most basic human instinct is to put our own self-interest aside, to reach out our hand and help them over the line. That’s why the central tenet of my belief is that there is more to life than individualism and self-interest. We form families, communities, towns, cities, counties and nations. We have a responsibility to one another. And I firmly believe that government has a responsibility, too.”

現(xiàn)在，梅在保守黨大會(huì)上的發(fā)言中主張，“當(dāng)我們中的某個(gè)人陷入困境時(shí)，我們最基本的人類本能就是把自己的利益放在一邊，伸出援手，幫助他們度過難關(guān)。這就是為什么我的核心信念是人生的意義不僅是個(gè)人主義和自我利益。我們組成家庭、社區(qū)、城鎮(zhèn)、城市、郡和國(guó)家。我們對(duì)彼此負(fù)有責(zé)任。我堅(jiān)信，政府也負(fù)有責(zé)任。”

This is evidently a direct riposte to Thatcher’s notable remark: “I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it . . . They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.” Mrs May has gone much further in her rejection of Thatcher than her predecessor, David Cameron, who merely stated: “There is such a thing as society; it’s just not the same thing as the state.” Indeed, she has channelled Elizabeth Warren, the activist Democratic US senator, who asserted in 2011: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.” Mrs May’s version of this view is: “Nobody, no individual tycoon and no single business, however rich, has succeeded on their own.”

這顯然是對(duì)撒切爾夫人如下著名言論的直接回?fù)簦?ldquo;我認(rèn)為，我們經(jīng)歷了這樣一段時(shí)期，太多人想當(dāng)然地認(rèn)為，如果他們遇到一個(gè)問題，對(duì)付這個(gè)問題是政府的責(zé)任……他們把自己的問題扔給社會(huì)。而你知道，不存在社會(huì)這種事物。只有作為個(gè)人的男人和女人，還有就是家庭。”在拋棄撒切爾主義方面，梅比她的前任戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)走得遠(yuǎn)得多?？穫愔皇钦f：“社會(huì)是存在的;只是社會(huì)和政府不是一回事。”的確，梅呼應(yīng)了激進(jìn)的美國(guó)民主黨參議員伊麗莎白•沃倫(Elizabeth Warren)。后者在2011年斷言：“這個(gè)國(guó)家不存在只靠自己致富的人，一個(gè)也沒有。”梅把這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)表述為：“無論多么富有，沒有哪個(gè)人、沒有哪個(gè)大亨、也沒有哪一家企業(yè)是靠自己取得成功的。”

The financial crisis, and the stagnant living standards it bequeathed, has clearly undermined the legitimacy of the free-market approach. That is why Mrs May’s interventionism, not the libertarian Brexiters’ dreams of the UK as a “free-trading, deregulated, competitive” entrepôt, now dominates. For many, that is what “taking back control” meant. It may also presage a long-lasting shift in UK politics. If one looks at other political parties, the probability of this looks quite high. Labour, in particular, has shifted leftward. This leaves the ground Mrs May wants to occupy, with her bold claims that “we are the party of workers” and that workers’ rights will be “protected and enhanced by a Conservative government”.

金融危機(jī)及其遺留的生活水平停滯，明顯破壞了自由市場(chǎng)觀念的合法性。正因如此，如今占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位的是梅的干預(yù)主義，而并非自由意志主義的主張脫歐者(Brexiter)有關(guān)英國(guó)是一個(gè)“自由貿(mào)易、解除管制、有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的”貿(mào)易中心的夢(mèng)想。對(duì)許多人來說，這就是“收回控制權(quán)”的涵義。這或許還預(yù)示著英國(guó)政治的長(zhǎng)期轉(zhuǎn)變。如果考察一下其他政黨，這個(gè)概率看起來相當(dāng)高。特別是工黨(Labour)已經(jīng)向左轉(zhuǎn)了。這留下了梅想要占據(jù)的陣地。她大膽地聲稱，“我們是工人的政黨”，工人的權(quán)利將“受到保守黨政府的保護(hù)和提升”。

The commitment to putting workers on company boards suggests this is meaningful. But is it also workable? Here one must note the nuances in Mrs May’s position. She argues that the UK should be “the strongest and most passionate advocate for free trade right across the globe”, while insisting on the need for control over immigration.

讓工人加入公司董事會(huì)的承諾似乎表明，這是有意義的。但是，這是否也是可行的?在這里，人們必須注意梅的立場(chǎng)的細(xì)膩之處。她主張英國(guó)應(yīng)該是“世界上最強(qiáng)有力、最熱情地倡導(dǎo)全球自由貿(mào)易的國(guó)家”，她同時(shí)堅(jiān)稱，英國(guó)有必要控制移民。

The workability of the new interventionism depends on its detail. It is a matter of fact that UK prosperity depends heavily on the skills and knowledge of foreigners, as both workers and investors. Given that the UK is far from the economic powerhouse some imagine, this dependence will continue. It is vital, therefore, that the new approach does not lead to policies on immigration, tax, corporate governance and control over inward investment that curtail UK access to such valuable global resources.

新干涉主義的可行性取決于其細(xì)節(jié)。事實(shí)是，英國(guó)的繁榮在很大程度上取決于外國(guó)人(包括工人和投資者)的技能和知識(shí)。鑒于當(dāng)今英國(guó)遠(yuǎn)非有些人想象中的經(jīng)濟(jì)強(qiáng)國(guó)，這種依賴將延續(xù)下去。因此，至關(guān)重要的是，新的姿態(tài)不會(huì)導(dǎo)致英國(guó)在移民、稅收、公司治理和控制外來投資方面出臺(tái)阻礙獲取這些寶貴的全球資源的政策。

This is, moreover, not just a question of fact but also of rhetoric. Many foreigners now wonder whether the UK has turned its back on them. The government must demonstrate this is not the case. Perhaps the most important requirement, apart from retaining as much access to EU markets as possible, is to welcome any foreign skilled person with a job.

此外，這不僅是事實(shí)的問題，還是表態(tài)的問題。許多外國(guó)人現(xiàn)在想知道，英國(guó)是否已拋棄他們。英國(guó)政府必須證明，情況并非如此。除了保留盡可能完整的歐盟市場(chǎng)準(zhǔn)入，也許最重要的要求是，英國(guó)要?dú)g迎任何找得到工作的高技能外國(guó)人。

The new activist approach must, instead, focus on the UK’s weaknesses. The most important of these are the quality of infrastructure and education and the supply of housing. It is also vital to promote competition and enhance the scientific and technological base. If the government were to focus on these challenges, while stressing the UK’s openness to foreign skills, foreign investment and global trade, it might deliver the economic dynamism the UK needs. Mrs May’s rhetoric marks a huge shift. Its impact depends on just how those words become reality.

相反，新的積極姿態(tài)必須關(guān)注英國(guó)的薄弱環(huán)節(jié)。其中最重要的是基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和教育的質(zhì)量，以及住房供應(yīng)。促進(jìn)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)和夯實(shí)科技基礎(chǔ)也是至關(guān)重要的。如果政府關(guān)注這些挑戰(zhàn)，同時(shí)強(qiáng)調(diào)對(duì)外國(guó)技能、外國(guó)投資和全球貿(mào)易持開放態(tài)度，它或許會(huì)提供英國(guó)需要的經(jīng)濟(jì)活力。梅的表態(tài)標(biāo)志著一個(gè)巨大轉(zhuǎn)變。其影響取決于這些話如何變成現(xiàn)實(shí)。