【原】稻读译介丨2.0版的梅姨

原载于《经济学人》2019年8月8日期

翻译、校译:Snow、一宁、Sandy     统稿:一宁

Historical parallels with Boris Johnson, Britain’s new prime minister, abound. Mr Johnson’s acolytes compare their leader to Winston Churchill, who also once helped Britain out of a pickle in its relations with Europe. Smart alecs opt for George Canning, a fellow Old Etonian with populist tendencies, who became prime minister in 1827—and died in office after just 119 days. David Lloyd George, a Liberal prime minister whose time in office combined huge constitutional changes, political chicanery and enthusiastic infidelity, also fits.

与英国新首相鲍里斯·约翰逊具有可比性的历史人物大有人在。约翰逊先生的追随者们把他们的领袖比作温斯顿·丘吉尔,后者也曾帮助英国摆脱与欧洲关系紧张的困境。一些自作聪明的人提出有民粹主义倾向的乔治·坎宁——伊顿公学的老校友,他于1827年上任首相,119天后病逝于任上。而执政生涯充满了大规模的宪法改革、政治欺诈以及风流韵事的自由党首相大卫·劳合·乔治也在此列 。

▲鲍里斯·约翰逊

Yet the better comparison is with a more recent and less likely prime minister: Theresa May. Mr Johnson and Mrs May are different species. She was determinedly dull, while he is unstoppably jolly. She ascended to the highest office by careful management of a cabinet job, whereas he almost torpedoed his career with a dodgy stint as foreign secretary. Mrs May embodies a strand of curtain-twitching suburban Conservatism. Mr Johnson represents the party’s wing of cavalier publicschool bons vivants. Yet these different political animals have strikingly similar strategies.

然而更具有可比性的当属时间上最近的一位原本不太可能成为首相的特雷莎·梅了。约翰逊先生和梅姨是两个截然不同的物种。她无比沉闷,而他有趣至极。她通过内阁的精心谋划而升至最高职位,而他却因担任外交部长时的一段不光彩经历差点毁了自己的职业生涯。梅代表了一股喜欢观望的中上层保守主义势力;约翰逊则代表了保守党中那些贵族集团的生力军。然而,这两位不同的政治动物却有着惊人的相似策略。

▲特雷莎·梅

Team Johnson has cornered itself on Brexit, painting negotiating red lines with the same enthusiasm as Mrs May. Mr Johnson has promised to take Britain out of the European Union by October 31st, just as Mrs May pledged to do so by March 29th—the missed deadline that, in effect, sealed her fate. Both prime ministers’ Brexit strategies have at their heart the threat that “no deal is better than a bad deal”. Injecting that phrase into the bloodstream of British politics was one of Mrs May’s few successes as a political communicator. Fatally for her, she turned out not really to believe it, chickening out when the possibility of leaving with no deal arrived in March. Mr Johnson’s team in Downing Street have adopted the same mantra, and insist that, unlike her, they will hold their nerve. They may secretly suspect that their promise will never be tested, as Parliament is plotting to force an election rather than allow the country to be dragged out of the eu without a deal.

约翰逊的团队在脱欧问题上把自己逼入了困境,他以和梅姨同样的热情给谈判划了红线。约翰逊先生承诺在10月31日之前带领英国退出欧盟,正如梅姨承诺在3月29日之前带领英国退出欧盟一样——实际上正是错过最后期限决定了她的最终命运。而两位首相的脱欧战略都在底子上留有祸根,即“没有协议总比糟糕的协议要好”。将这句话注入英国政治的血液,是梅姨作为一名政客所取得的为数不多的成就之一。但致命的是,后来事实证明她并不真正相信这一点,在3月份无协议脱欧的可能性来临时她退缩了。约翰逊在唐宁街的团队也秉承了同样的准则,并坚称,与梅不同,他们会保持镇定。他们可能暗地里猜测自己的承诺永远不会受到考验,因为议会正在策划强制举行大选,而不会让英国在无协议的情况下被拖出欧盟。

The possibility of an election gives rise to the next similarity between the May and Johnson regimes: their serene confidence that a vote will lead to a Conservative victory. The same thinking dominated in the spring of 2017, when Mrs May plotted her snap general election. Such a victory was to be built on Leave-voting constituencies in the Midlands and the north, with voters flocking to the Tories on a pledge of a pure Brexit. Mr Johnson’s electoral pitch is the same. In his first speech as prime minister he spoke of “answering at last the plea of the forgotten people and the left-behind towns”, just as Mrs May pledged to right the “burning injustices” that led to the Brexit vote. When it came to the election, Mrs May framed it as a battle between the people and an establishment determined to thwart their will. If mps do force an election, Mr Johnson would play a similar tune, with what aides describe as a “people versus the politicians” campaign.

大选的可能性引出了梅和约翰逊政权之间的又一个相似之处:他们对投票会带来保守党的胜利有着波澜不惊的自信。2017年春天,在上述同样想法的支配下,梅姨一手策划了她的提前大选。这一胜利的关键在于英格兰中部和北部的脱欧选区,那里的选民涌向保守党,要求彻底脱欧。而约翰逊先生的竞选口号也是一样。在首相就职演说中,他提到“终于在回应那些被遗忘的人民和落后村镇的诉求了”,正如梅姨承诺要纠正引发退欧公投的“极度不公”一样。当提及选举问题,梅姨将其表述为民众与决意瓦解他们意志的当权派之间的斗争。如果国会议员真的强制举行大选,约翰逊也会是同样的腔调,用追随者的话说,就是“人民反对政客”运动。

Even the coverage of their advisers hasbeen similar. Westminster is given to “Life of Brian” syndrome, in which asingle bag-carrier is designated as a political messiah. For Mrs May, it wasNick Timothy, a bald Machiavelli who fell out with David Cameron while ingovernment and spent a hiatus from politics composing forthright blogposts,before nding himself in Downing Street. For Mr Johnson, it is Dominic Cummings,a bald Machiavelli who fell out with David Cameron while in government andspent a hiatus from politics composing forthright blogposts, before nding himselfin Downing Street.

甚至关于他们顾问的报道也有相似之处。威斯敏斯特(即英国议会所在地)被“赋予”了“布莱恩的一生”(一部喜剧电影,讲述一个普通犹太人布莱恩被信徒们错当成救世主弥赛亚的故事——译者注)综合症,在那部剧中一个拎包人被指定为政治救世主。梅姨的首席顾问是尼克·提莫西,这位长得像秃顶的马基雅弗利(意大利新兴资产阶级思想政治家——译者注)的顾问曾在戴维·卡梅伦当政时和他闹翻,并一度离开政坛,期间发表了一些直言的博文,之后才入住唐宁街。而约翰逊先生的首席顾问是多米尼克·卡明斯,他长得也像秃顶的马基雅弗利,并在戴维·卡梅伦当政期间与他闹翻,离开政坛到入住唐宁街的那段时间里也同样发表了一些直言的博文。

Despite their different styles, the presentation of the two prime ministers is oddly familiar. Mr Johnson, who prides himself on his campaigning skills, shuffles between photo opportunities, agreeing only to carefully staged pool interviews, as was Mrs May’s wont. Although Mr Johnson looks comfortable chatting to farmers or petting their livestock in a way that Mrs May never could, the strategy is the same: keep the prime minister away from the press. This should be little surprise. Staffers from ctf Partners, a political consultancy that oversaw Mrs May’s bungled 2017 election, have taken roles in Mr Johnson’s operation.

尽管两位首相风格迥异,但他们的亮相方式却出奇地相似。约翰逊为自己的竞选技巧感到自豪,他在接受媒体拍照时不停地躲躲闪闪,只同意精心筹划的民意调查,而这也是梅的习惯。尽管约翰逊先生会看上去很自在地与农民聊天或抚摸他们的牲畜,而梅姨肯定做不到这样,但其策略却是一样的:让首相远离媒体。这应该并不令人惊讶。曾经负责梅姨2017年的失败大选的策略顾问公司CTF Partners的员工,如今也参与了约翰逊竞选的运作。

Once more, with feeling

带着感情,再来一次

That a strategy failed once does not mean it will always fail. Mrs May’s former aides moan that gures such as Philip Hammond, her chancellor, hamstrung the prime minister by refusing to play along with her pantomime preparations for a no-deal Brexit. Mr Johnson’s team has seen off this problem by selecting a cabinet of true Brexit believers and a few former Remainers who have kissed the ring.

一次策略失败并不意味着它会永远失败。梅姨的前助手们抱怨称财政大臣菲利普·哈蒙德等人拒绝配合她准备无协议脱欧的滑稽剧,这让梅陷入了困境。约翰逊的团队选择了一个由真正的脱欧支持者和一些亲过戒指的原成员组成的内阁,从而规避了这个问题。

Labour gained 20 points during the course of the 2017 election campaign, a feat it may struggle to repeat. In calling her snap election, Mrs May looked opportunistic—an ugly trait for a politician whose selling point was a sense of duty. Mr Johnson may be forced into one, or at least look as if he was. Grand political realignments also take time. The 2017 election was called only ten months after the Brexit referendum. Now, after three years of incessant argument, people identify more strongly with their vote in the referendum than with a political party. It may be that the authors of Mrs May’s strategy were merely ahead of their time.

工党在2017年的大选中获得了20%的支持率,这一成绩可能难以重现。梅姨举行提前大选给人感觉她是个“机会主义者”,对于一个以责任感为卖点的政客来说,这无疑是一种丑陋的行径。约翰逊先生可能会被迫进行提前选举,或者至少看上去会这样。大规模的政治调整也需要时间。2017年大选在英国退欧公投后仅10个月就举行了。如今,经过三年不停的争论,人们对公投中自己的选票该投给谁比对支持哪一个政党有了更清楚的认识。也许梅姨策略的起草者们只不过是想法超前而已。

Yet the May-Johnson approach still suffers from gaping flaws. An election cannot be won with the votes of Leavers alone. Nabbing seats from Labour in pro-Brexit areas is pointless if Remainer seats in London suburbs and university towns are lost. Mr Johnson may frame an election as a plebiscite on Brexit, but it will be voters who decide which topics matter. Mrs May, astonishing as it may now seem, was once wildly popular, entering once with an approval rating of 35. Mr Johnson’s is -7. And whereas Mrs May had options when she became prime minister—a majority, a malleable mandate from the referendum and a public less divided than today—Mr Johnson has none of these. The new prime minister has taken the path of May Mark 2. It is a treacherous one.

然而,梅-约翰逊的策略仍存在明显的缺陷。仅仅靠脱欧派的选票是无法赢得选举的。如果伦敦郊区和大学城的剩余席位丢失,那么从支持英国脱欧的工党手中夺取席位是毫无意义的。约翰逊可能将大选设想成了仅仅是公民为脱欧投票,但是哪些议题重要是由选民决定的。现在看来也许有些令人吃惊,但梅姨曾广受欢迎,以35%的支持率升任首相,而约翰逊要比她低7个百分点。梅姨成为首相时,她有选择的余地——议会多数席位, 公投赋予她的更大的授权, 以及比今天更为团结的民众——而约翰逊却没有这些选择。新首相选择了梅2.0版的道路。这是一条危险的道路。 

---