Comments 17

英美民粹主义分道扬镳

May 31, 2017 Anatole Kaletsky

伦敦—英国、法国、美国——谁才是政治异类？答案似乎显而易见。去年的英国脱欧公投和特朗普当选美国总统是民粹主义反抗全球精英的两起象征性事件。相反，法国选择的总统——马克龙是一位典型的“达沃斯人”——一位认同法国最精英主义的金融、政府和教育机构的以全球化而自豪的技术官僚。

但对于这些政治陈词滥调，我们必须三思，就像本月早些时候我离开英国竞选舞台，出席洛杉矶米尔肯研究所全球会议（Milken Institute Global Conference）时那样。米尔肯会议是美国版达沃斯论坛，但更加关注商业，并且美国政府有广泛参与，这些是达沃斯所不具备的。

在这里，我听了特朗普的重要经济官员的讲话——财政部长努钦和商务部长罗斯，也碰到了数不清的国会官员和商界领袖，我可以肯定，特朗普的当选只是暂时的反常。美国只是误入了民族主义怀旧主题公园，但它的注意力仍集中在未来和全球化的收益而非成本上。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Featured

The West Must Face Reality in Turkey

Aug 15, 2018 Richard N. Haass
Protectionism for Liberals

Aug 14, 2018 Robert Skidelsky
Poland’s Dictatorship of Myth

Aug 13, 2018 Sławomir Sierakowski
Erdoğan’s Authoritarian Quackery

Aug 15, 2018 Nina L. Khrushcheva
Colombia’s Peace Agreement Is Under Siege

Aug 20, 2018 Shlomo Ben-Ami

Anatole Kaletsky

Writing for PS since 1995
53 Commentaries

Anatole Kaletsky is Chief Economist and Co-Chairman of Gavekal Dragonomics. A former columnist at the Times of London, the International New York Times and the Financial Times, he is the author of Capitalism 4.0, The Birth of a New Economy, which anticipated many of the post-crisis transformations of the global economy. His 1985 book, Costs of Default, became an influential primer for Latin American and Asian governments negotiating debt defaults and restructurings with banks and the IMF.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 25 in all 25 Comments on this article

Andrew Cole Jun 4, 2017

A big difference is that for many in the UK it is a question of standing up to foreign domination in the form of German supremacism, with the outrageous bullying rhetoric from that source escalating beyond belief. From a UK perspective German populism is being mistaken for being European. Its not nice to be characterised as a thief stealing away in the night because we do not want to pay for Eurozone bailouts AKA dumped bad debts when we have never been a member and have no vote on the matter.
Pavlos Papageorgiou Jun 3, 2017

I'm not sure how "anyone who tries to persuade voters to change their minds is delegitimised". Persuading voters is indeed what people should do in a democracy. What is anti-democratic is arguing that parliament or the cabinet has to fix voter's choice for them. Even if people voted wrong, meaning against their own interests, this problem has to be fixed with more debate and democracy, not by overruling the vote.
- Lanre Rotimi Jun 3, 2017
  
  That precisely is the point. The ultimate consequences of looking helplessly on for UK Citizens, Europe Citizens and World Citizens could be catastrophic. The Big Questions is How? 24 hours is a long time in Politics. With few days to the election, much can still be done to salvage the situation in the enlightened self interest of UK Voters as well as inn the common interest and common future of UK, Europe and World. Some suggestions for tackling this challenge set out in this Blog article:
  http://developmentchangechampions.blogspot.com.ng/2017/06/global-push-to-achieve-sdgs-vision-and.html
  
  This is time for Action. Delay could be dangerous.
Andres Pola Jun 1, 2017

It seems to me that this article does not contribute at all to the public discussion and understanding of either the American or the British current situation. By repeating common place ambiguities and incurring in errors of reasoning, the piece only feeds the murky discussion that hinders political improvements. Two examples:
1. The use of the term “populism” is unjustified, vague and emotional.
a. There is no clear sense in which the use of a mechanism for direct democratic participation, such as a referendum, is populist. Nor is it clear why the outcome, i.e. leaving the UE, is populist. It just happened that most of the people preferred one option, and although the majority is slight, the “first past the post” voting system determined that that option prevailed. So are the rules of procedural democracy. Perhaps a qualified majority should have been requested, but that bears no connection with the instrument (the referendum) or its outcome (Brexit) being populist.
b. Likewise, in what sense are the policies in the Trump administration populist? So far, there is no expansionary monetary policy, inflation has not been neglected, no price controls, no huge increase in public deficit nor spending, no redistribution of income. These are the main policies specified in the classic The Macroeconomics of populism by Dornbusch and Edwards. There are indeed some elements in Trumps political rhetoric, such as nationalism, and general distrust towards the governing elites and globalization, pointed out by Guy Hermets classical description of neo-populism. But this is political marketing, and then again, the case doesn’t fit the definition just quiet. So, what are we talking about in this piece?
2. Comparing the reaction towards a form of government and a governments’ policies is a fallacy.
a. A referendum is a tool available to those countries having a democratic form of government: that in which citizens have a say in the formation of a government and its policies. Once the rules for the referendum are set (which funnily enough nobody questioned before Brexit), then the outcome of the procedure most be accepted lest the very essence of modern democracy (that majorities, however defined, rule) is rejected. That is why British civil society and politicians find difficult to question Brexit even if they are “remainers”. Although there have critics from both sides: take Tony Blair and Richard Dawkins.
b. A government’s policies such as tariffs, taxes or a reform to the healthcare system are always temporary, even if they only have to be adjusted, and reversible. In many cases they need the Congress to concur to be implemented. Moreover, the open nature of the US democracy allows for lobbyist, and those they represent, to react and influence. That is: one can oppose a given policy through democratic channels.
I agree with what other comments say: the author has selective memory, is very pessimistic, etc. But it seems to me that what we need the most is clarity in our discussions and a dispassionate use of concepts and comparisons. These forums are the most useful for public discussion if the authors leave aside the flashy and trendy vague pamphlets.
- Curtis Carpenter Jun 1, 2017
  
  You make a good point. Populist rhetoric can be deployed without any intention of pursuing populist objectives.
John Hoffman Jun 1, 2017

Your analysis misses one very important point. US populism is democracy in action, warts and all. In contrast, British populism is a fight to preserve democracy itself. I challenge every supporter of the EU that I come across to explain how an EU law is made. Few have even a basic understanding of the process. In fact, most haven't a clue at all. Those with a vague understanding of the process proceed to describe a frighteningly undemocratic process of closed doors decisions by unelected officials. Americans would never stand for being governed in such a manner, nor should the British. As an American living in London, I would assert that we are more alike than your article suggests.
Patrick Bashir Jun 1, 2017

I am a Remainer but I think Mr. Kaletsy has rather a short and / or selective memory when it comes to the referendum campaign.

Mr. Kaletsy states:

"None has even publicly pointed out that the referendum gave Prime Minister Theresa May no mandate to rule out membership of the European single market and customs union after Britain leaves the EU."

The referendum didn't give Theresa May a mandate to rule them in either.

The referendum was advisory, Parliament was given advice by the people that the UK should leave the EU, with no terms or conditions stipulated.

However, it is important to both remember and recognise that the position of both the Remain campaign AND the Prime Minister was that Brexit would mean leaving the Single Market. Likewise, the official Remain position was that there would be no second referendum either. Two positions which were not only unnecessary, but have subsequently backfired massively.

It was clear that not only was it a disaster to hold such a flimsy open-ended referendum, but even more disastrous to not make any preparations in the event of the Remain losing, which was hardly an unforseeable outcome.

David Cameron and Tony Blair will be viewed historically as the father and grandfather of Brexit respectively.

Blair for reneging on his 'promise' to hold a referendum in 2005, a referendum which in practical terms would have amounted to little more than a personal embarrassment for himself, but could have provided sufficient symbolism to lance the boil of euroscepticism for a generation.

That reneged promise also opened Pandora's Box with respect to the feasibility of holding such a referendum.

Then David Cameron, emboldened by misplaced self-confidence, saw a cheap and supposedly cheap way to buy off UKIP's support and of the Brexiteers in his own party.

The victory in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum only furthered this misplaced self-confidence, and reading the numerous excellent accounts about the referendum campaigns, it's abundantly clear that Cameron grossly overestimated his powers of persuasion in both Europe and with the electorate, while grossly underestimating effectiveness of the Leave campaign, culminating in almost unbelievably ridiculous claim he made to the French Ambassador that he would win the referendum 70-30.

I think Mr. Kaltesky also underestimates British pragmatism.

Many Brits are no more wedded to the Brexit cause now than before the campaign, but given that the LibDems who have little but talk about their pledge to hold a second referendum are hovering in single digit territory in the polls, perhaps people just don't care that much, and perhaps they never did.

I think the second referendum idea is terrible, even as a Remainer.

It is the worst possible option, for several reasons.

First, the legality of Article 50 revocation. The EU has stated its position, understandably, the Article 50 cannot be unilaterally revoked. Meaning a second referendum would most likely prompt parallel Brexit / Bremain negotiations.

Second, the EU would be simultaneously asked to provide guarantees on any Remain 'deal', ie. protecting the rebate and UK opt-outs, while also having to negotiate an exit deal that they wouldn't want to be used.

Third, if the EU or UK govt. did negotiate an exit deal in bad faith, ie. a deal designed to nudge them to voting Remain in a second referendum, then it could backfire spectacularly.

Fourth, a second referendum loss, would effectively close of the prospect of rejoining for a generation.

Fifth, this would all have to be done within 15 months or so, and with respect to Cameron's deal, a second Brexit referendum would be being held on worse conditions than in 2016, no emergency break, no opt-out of ever closer union, etc.

I believe the LibDems would have been more effective, plus I might have considered, if only briefly, voting for them had they simply offered a pledge to pursue the revocation of Article 50, with the General Election providing a sufficient democratic mandate.

Meanwhile businesses mostly seem content to wait and see.

Tellingly, and sadly, the most outspoken business voice on the Remain side has been Richard Branson, a 'Sir', a tax exile, and a man whose businesses receive massive state subsidies to provide a mediocre service.
- Steve Hurst Jun 1, 2017
  
  Patrick
  
  V good overview. I also voted remain but see no way back
Henry Rech Jun 1, 2017

Mr. Kaletsky's attendence at the Milken Institute Global Conference speaks volumes. This is globalization incorporated. And at the centre of it all is Michael Milken who gave us junk bonds and securities law violations in the 1980s. Perhaps this is just a metaphor for what America is - quintessentially the land of forgiveness and redemption and the second chance. Presumably, all up and down the wealth scale have available to them the same opportunity.
Andrew Goodwin Jun 1, 2017

I think the author might be overly pessimistic. The "Enemies of the People" headline castigating the high court judges was ghastly, but it elicited significant blowback from more reasonable quarters. Whatever one thinks of Gina Miller and her efforts (I am supportive), she did follow established legal processes to test the government on a number of key issues. Moreover, the government's lack of preparation for Brexit negotiations has become evident, even to Brexiters.
That said, I am shocked by the generally poor quality of the major figures in British politics. Theresa May is stiff-necked and narrow-minded. Her adherence to David Cameron's foolish commitment to immigration levels below 100,000 is bizarre. An anonymous flunky at CCHQ pulled it out of his arse with no foundation and it somehow became policy without the benefit of an actual policy development process. The same can be said for many Tory "policy" initiatives: Nicky Morgan's ill-fated attempt to force all secondary schools to become academies and Amber Rudd's lamentable vow to "name and shame" companies that employ immigrants were both spur-of-the moment sallies with no attempt to find out whether they were affordable or even doable (neither was), spring like gazelles to mind. And don't get me started on the deficiencies of the coolly dissembling Jeremy Hunt or the clueless Liz Truss.
As is frequently noted, Jeremy Corbyn is frozen in the amber of 1970s student radicalism. Emily Thornberry and Diane Abbott are remarkably ill-suited to handling the UK's defence and home affairs.
Still, if "90 percent of life is showing up", Corbyn deserves credit for doing so against a PM who is increasingly missing in action.
But are there no longer politicians of substance who can lead a public discussion of Brexit? It seems not. And that's a shock.
j. von Hettlingen May 31, 2017

Anatole Kaletsky is right about populist forces in the UK and the US being propelled to prominence in 2016, taking Britain out of the EU in a June referendum and electing Trump to president in November. Yet he laments about the passivity among British voters ahead of June's snap election, saying they should seize the opportunity to shape their future with Europe. On the other side of the Atlantic, many Americans have been steping up their resistance to Trump since his inauguration.
The author is astounded by the "starkly different responses in American and British civil society to the dangerous flirtation with nationalist populism. In America, the immediate response to policies that were logically incoherent, economically dishonest, and diplomatically impossible to implement was an upsurge of opposition and debate." In the UK, many Britons simply accept the outcome of David Cameron's reckless folly last year as a fait accompli.
The author also points out that Britain's "bumpy path of nostalgic nationalism" borders on self-sabotage at best and "self-harm" at worst, since Theresa May is willing to sacrifice Britain's access to Europe's single market for regaining sovereignty and border control. The Americans embrace pragmatism and move forward, aiming to leaveTrump's populist bandwagon behind, and rejoin "Europe on the modern highway of multicultural globalization."
The author attended the Milken Institute Global Conference - the US equivlent of Davos - in Los Angeles earlier in May and learned from members of the incumbent administration, "plus a galaxy of Congressional officials and business leaders.... that Trump’s election is only a temporary aberration." He had taken his supporters on a ride "into a theme park of nationalist nostalgia," and he wouldn't be able to deliver, but the country itself "remains focused on the future and the benefits of globalization, not the costs."
There is an overall sense of optimism in America, because the civil society, its institutions and the media are strong enough to resist Trump. So the author found it all the more depressing - after returning to the UK - to grapple with this fatalistic approach, because "nobody in Britain is even questioning the alternative reality of Brexit, despite the unexpected opportunity afforded by the June 8 election to avoid a self-destructive rupture from Europe."
The problem is that it has become "taboo" to question the validity of the Brexit vote, even though it only won "a small but decisive majority of 52% to 48%. While many mature democracies would require some kind of super-majority to confirm an enormous constitutional change like Brexit, the UK has never seen the need for such checks and balances." Both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have ruled out holding a second referendum, because they have no appetite to urge voters "to think again about the biggest political decision of their lifetimes," seeing it "as an affront to democracy."
The Brexit referendum didn't appeal to "reason, economics, or national interest," but invoke the “will of the people.” Critics are shamed in public. And the title - “enemies of the people” - has become "a rhetorical staple in the US as well as Britain. But there is a crucial difference: In the US, such proto-fascist language is heard on the extremist fringes; in Britain, even mainstream media and parliamentary debates routinely refer to opponents of Brexit as anti-democratic schemers and unpatriotic saboteurs."
Unfortunately many voters refuse to see the anti-EU business tycoons being the real "enemies of the people," because they use their media empire to brainwash the public and undermine democracy. But then, Britons are overwhelmed by voter fatigue. The upcoming election will be their fourth major vote in three years. They say they are fed up with too much politics. May’s ongoing bickering with the EU could be just the reminder Leavers need - for all intents and purposes - to vote in favour of Brexit once more.
jagjeet sinha May 31, 2017

JUNE TO END MAY ?
The Author seems almost disparaging when he trivialized British divergence.
The British Public is not stupid - Democracy gives the public the opportunity to probe their deepest sentiments.
The Brexit VOTE - was a defiant response - gave The Political Leadership the audacity to reject EU.
The Brexit VOTE did not provide The Political Leadership the license to wreck their Economics.
With Three Brexiteers inside The Cabinet for nearly 300 days - the Alternative Reality that they promised is now on Test.
The Parliament - part of the checks and balances - should not have permitted Theresa May the departure from Fixed Tenure.
Until The Cabinet was in a position to present The British Public with The Deal - or No Deal - on the Divorce details.
Should the 20 point lead descend into A Hung Parliament - despite an Unelectable Cornyn leading The Opposition - June will end May.
Perhaps the Author would then stop disparaginly dismissing the divergence of British Democracy.
Democracy works in mysterious ways.
JS
- jagjeet sinha Jun 1, 2017
  
  :) :) :)
  The latest polls in London has Labor in the lead by 9 points, Tory lead nationwide down to 3 points from 21 when May chose Elections.
  Imagine the predicament with an "Electable" Leader - Corbyn was unanimously classified "Unelectable".
  The Brexit VOTE was not a license to The Brexiteers to wreck Economics, only a Vote rejecting the EU Version 2016.
  However, Reformation in EU - Young Macron prevailing over St. Angela - May be too late for Brexit to be reversible.
- Curtis Carpenter Jun 1, 2017
  
  The Gods work in mysterious ways too jagjeet sinha -- and democracy, it seems, is no match for them.
Curtis Carpenter May 31, 2017

It's almost a Shakespearean tragedy. At the very moment the United States creates the greatest geopolitical vacuum in a century, giving a united Europe a huge opening to reassert herself on the world stage, Britain finds itself on the outside looking in and practically forced to align itself with the the fool in the White House.

I suspect the Gods are laughing for now -- but that their laughter will shortly turn to Olympian anger.
Kamil Bayye May 31, 2017

I am not sure if American democracy is more vigorous than the British one. The difference in this case has to do with the rules employed to make decisions. A referendum (Brexit) and a regular election (Trump) create different dynamics.
Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes May 31, 2017

“yet Brexit has become an immovable dogma, immune to challenge or questioning of any kind.”

This is untrue, the problem is the attempted challenges have been divisive and, like this article, based on an opposing theology, that imply the choices behind Brexit are just wrong and the alternative is better (often some kind of utopia). The result is the kind of stalemate we’re in, where each side entrenches the other’s position with every interaction.

I share the hatred of the horrid and intellectually lazy use of silly terms like ‘enemy of the people’ and the low information approach to campaigning by all parties in the UK general election. It represents the depressing continuation of a trend that brought Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to power. However, much like market economics, I keep the faith that hunger for more sensible politics will cause better organisations that develop substance over style to emerge; I just long for Labour to collapse and the Conservatives to split, maybe Brexit will precipitate it.

Our true “safeguard against permanent self-harm” is democracy and we are reaping the dis-benefits of its past dysfunctionality and manipulations. The realignment of our political systems is long overdue.
Emanuel Müller May 31, 2017

One gets the crypto-nazi nation one can afford. France has around 69% of its population thinking that there are too many immigrants, however both its masses and its elites are weak. In contrast, 50% of the brits think there are too many immigrants, however, both the british masses and its elites are strong. The US are somewhere in the middle, with weak masses and strong elites.
- Emanuel Müller May 31, 2017
  
  @Alisdair France: http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/immigration-on-ecoute-que-semblent-souhaiter-francais-autre-voie-que-que-font-australiens-ou-japonais-2203390.html
  USA: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/08/poll-61-think-immigration-jeopardizes-united-states/
  UK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755226/Worldwide-concern-grows-immigrants-British-worried-five-years-ago.html
- Emanuel Müller May 31, 2017
  
  @Alisdair For the "too many immigrants" there are easy to find surveys that have been made in 2015-2016 both in France and the UK. For the roughly brushed strong and/or weak characterizations of nations, I drew upon a mix of biased personal observations and on the exotic, out-of-fashion and hardly verifiable theories of Alice Bailey and Co about nations having a deep/elite level and a shallow/masses level both governed by "rays of energies" of which there are purportedly seven, with each nation having one of the seven for the deep and one of the seven for the shallow level of functioning. To my amusement, the description of the rays and their purported attribution to specific nations never failed to match my perception of various nations. For the crypto-nazi label, it's based on the idea that we are shifting from a model of world domination of the whites to a model of world domination of the smarts, as when one looks at a map of nations average IQ, the great western dominated world was probably generated by a combination of high iq nations with cultural and geopolitical circumstances allowing the various technological breakthroughs among other events. In other words, many people in the west still think that the white european race is superior e.g. for innovation in an intrinsic, genetically bound manner, while ultimately, economic strength will reach an equilibrium worldwide that will be more a reflection of average IQ rather than whiteness, and thus the economic center of gravity will stabilise somewhere in China or closeby.
- Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes May 31, 2017
  
  You seem to be touching on a much larger idea but you don't explain it. Sounds intriguing though...link?
george jonisch May 31, 2017

I seem to remember another election a few years ago: the one to join the euro. I could b e wrong but the social upheaval and unregulated immigration, not to mention security issues that open social borders (as opposed to open commercial borders) were not prominently on the table. Should we judge the validity of that election?
Michael Public May 31, 2017

You say "The Will of the People" is chilling but don't justify why. I can therefore only assume that it is because it contradicts "The Will of the Elites". It would be more reasonable to say the people exercised their will and made a bad choice but to imply that democracy has nothing to do with the will of the people is a weak argument at best.
Steve Hurst May 31, 2017

Allow me to edit your closing paragraph -

...If encouraging voters to think again about the biggest political decision of their lifetimes continues to be treated as an affront to democracy, the EU will lose its only safeguard against permanent self-harm. And the EU will take a wrong turn onto the bumpy path of nostalgic nationalism ...

There that's better

The thing is Anatole, the US debate is not about sovereignty and the UK one is. In fact the UK debate is closer in mood to one from a few centuries ago - no taxation without representation

I can't say I'm convinced of the Brexit benefit and equally I can't say I'm convinced of the EU benefit. The question therefore is - Would the UK vote to join the EU now if it was not a member. That answer would appear to be a No, and that is your real answer
David Sandiford May 31, 2017

This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on people who support Brexit. There will be winners and losers from Brexit; Anatole is one of the losers. The corrupt system that led to the Scottish independence vote, the Brexit vote, the Trump vote and the Le Pen vote will not be forgotten.